[Advaita-l] apauruSheyatva of the Veda

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please read "Aupanyava" as "Aupamanyava" in the following paragraphs -
google autocorrected Aupamanyava to Aupanyava for some reason.

"They are called Rshis, because they have seen. As the the teacher Aupanyava
 Aupamanyava has said "They have seen the stoma, mantra-s, through their
austerities and became RSis through the grace of the Brahman. This is the
RSi-ness of the RSis.".

Here Yaska is quoting the views of AupanyavaAupamanyava, a teacher that
preceded even him in this regard. Aupanyava Aupamanyava is quoting from the
svAdhyAya brAhmaNa of the taittirIya AraNyaka (2.9.1) -  अजान् ह वै
पृष्नीन् स्तपस्यमानान् ब्रह्म स्वयम्भू  अभ्यानर्षत् तदृषयोऽभवन्
तदृषीणामृषित्वम् - They became RSis through austerities by the grace of the
self evident SvayambhU, Brahma. "


On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 11:58 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> There is a prevalent view that the apauruSheyatva of the Veda is an
> invention of the pUrvamImAmsaka-s. However, even before the
> pUrvamImAmsaka-s, yAskAchArya, the author of the nirukta, was describing
> the Vedic RShi-s not as the composers of the vedic mantra-s but as the
> seers of vedic mantra-s. The pUrva mImAmsa sUtra-s are said to have been
> composed 300-200 BCE (Hiriyanna, The Essentials of Indian Philosophy).
> However, scholars hold that Yaska's time is 7th - 5th century BCE - he
> predates even pANini! This means that the contents of the nirukta predate
> the contents of the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra-s by a few centuries.
>
> This is what he says of the RSi-s.
>
> ऋषिर्दर्शनात् । स्तोमन्ददर्शेत्यौपमन्यवः । तद्यदेनांस्तपस्यमानान् ब्रह्म
> स्वयम्भू  अभ्यानर्षत् तदृषयोऽभवन् तदृषीणामृषित्वम्  - इति विज्ञायते   2.11
>
> They are called Rshis, because they have seen. As the the teacher
> Aupanyava has said "They have seen the stoma, mantra-s, through their
> austerities and became RSis through the grace of the Brahman. This is the
> RSi-ness of the RSis.".
>
> Here Yaska is quoting the views of Aupanyava, a teacher that preceded even
> him in this regard. Aupanyava is quoting from the svAdhyAya brAhmaNa of the
> taittirIya AraNyaka (2.9.1) -  अजान् ह वै पृष्नीन् स्तपस्यमानान् ब्रह्म
> स्वयम्भू  अभ्यानर्षत् तदृषयोऽभवन् तदृषीणामृषित्वम् - They became RSis
> through austerities by the grace of the self evident SvayambhU, Brahma.
>
> Elsewhere in the niruktam itself, Yaska says एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायैर्ऋषीणां
> मन्त्रदृष्टयो भवन्ति । 7.6 - RSi-s, with higher and lowers aims became the
> seers of mantra-s.
>
> Thus the view that apauruSheyatva of the Vedas was introduced by the
> pUrvamImAmsaka-s to protect the sanctity of the Vedas is a falsehood - it
> is a concept that Yaskacharya-s and teachers before him (Aupamanyava) have
> agreed. It is a concept that is found in the Vedas itself.
>
> If we point to the AraNyaka-s and the Upanishads for this, the likes of
> Koenraad Elst will say that even the Upanishads were composed after the Rig
> Veda. If we point to examples within the Rig Veda, say from the 10th
> maNDala, they will say even the 10th maNDala is a later creation and the
> central maNDalas, 2-7 are the most ancient.
>
> So let us look at maNDala 6 of the Rig Veda , 6.9.5 - 6.9.6 to be specific.
>
> ध्रु॒वं ज्योति॒र्निहि॑तं दृ॒शये॒ कं मनो॒ जवि॑ष्ठं प॒तय॑त्स्व॒न्तः ।
> विश्वे॑ दे॒वाः सम॑नस॒: सके॑ता॒ एकं॒ क्रतु॑म॒भि वि य॑न्ति सा॒धु ॥
> Wilson translates this as "A steady light, swifter than thought, stationed
> among moving beings to show (the way) to happiness all the gods being of
> one mind, and of like wisdom, proceed respectfully to the presence of the
> one (chief) agent"
>
> वि मे॒ कर्णा॑ पतयतो॒ वि चक्षु॒र्वी॒३॒॑दं ज्योति॒र्हृद॑य॒ आहि॑तं॒ यत् । वि
> मे॒ मन॑श्चरति दू॒रआ॑धी॒: किं स्वि॑द्व॒क्ष्यामि॒ किमु॒ नू म॑निष्ये ॥
> “My ears are turned (to hear him), my eyes (to behold him); this light
> that is in the heart (seeks to know him); my mind, the receptable of
> distant (objects) hastens (towards him); what shall I declare him? How
> shall I comprehend him?”
>
> The light that is hidden in the heart हृदये ज्योति: आहितं यत् - this
> mantra is describing the meditation of the Vedic RSi - he says my senses
> are turned towards him, I am trying to see him in the light of my heart,
> but I do not have words to describe or comprehend him. Again, this is not
> the actual meditation that a particular RSi has performed, but the Veda
> itself is saying that those who have known it have seen it in the hidden
> depths of their hearts.
>
> This idea reoccurs in the 10th maNDala of the Rig Veda (supposedly
> occuring later in time according to Dr Elst), 10.71.3
> य॒ज्ञेन॑ वा॒चः प॑द॒वीय॑माय॒न्तामन्व॑विन्द॒न्नृषि॑षु॒ प्रवि॑ष्टाम् ।
> तामा॒भृत्या॒ व्य॑दधुः पुरु॒त्रा तां स॒प्त रे॒भा अ॒भि सं न॑वन्ते ॥
> Wilson: (The wise) reached the path of Speech by sacrifice, they found it
> centred in the Rishis ; having acquired it they dispersed it in many places
> ; the seven noisy (birds) meet together.
>
> This is what sAyaNAchArya says in his commentary to this mantra - तं वाचः
> मार्गं यज्ञेन आयन् प्राप्तवन्तः । ऋषिपु अतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शिषु प्रविष्टां
> तां वाचम् अविन्दन् अलभन्त । अनन्तरं तां वाचम् आमृत्य आहृत्य पुरुत्रा बहुषु
> देशेषु व्यदधुः व्यकार्षुः । सर्वान् मनुष्यानध्यापयामासुरित्यर्थः ।
>
> They obtained the words through sacrifice. The rSi-s who have the capacity
> to see beyond the senses,"found" (avindan), obtained that speech -
> afterwards, having gathered those words, they spread it in various places -
> meaning, they taught the "words" to all humanity.
>
> Again - the concept of rSi-s seeing words, gathering them, and teaching
> humanity.
>
> If we connect this with mantra 6.9.6, the RSi-s "find" the words hidden in
> the light found in their hearts, through meditation, and having seen those
> words, teach the rest of humanity. This is the apauruSheyatva of Vedic
> words - they are not the composers of the words, they are their discoverers.
>
> The same idea occurs in
> 1)  supposedly the "oldest" fragments of the rigveda (maNDala 6),
> 2) the supposedly newer fragments of the rigveda (maNDala 10),
> 3) the comparatively recent nirukta of yAskAchArya,
> 4) the even more recent pUrva mImAmsa sUtra-s of Jaimini,
> 5) the  bhAShya of Shabara svAmi and the vArttikA of kumArila bhaTTa,
> 6) the brahmasUtra bhAShya of ShankarachArya,
> 7) and the veda bhAShya-s of bhaTTabhAskara and sAyaNAchArya.
>
> Yet all of this is wrong, and the words of Dr Elst, who was born perhaps
> 60 years ago, who happens to claim that the rigveda was written by a bunch
> of intoxicated soma drinkers, are correct? It is hypocritical for Dr Elst
> to argue on the one hand that the relative recency of pUrvamImAmsa
> invalidates it, while at at the same time claim that his arguments are
> valid - when they have appeared 1500 years after pUrvamImAmsa!
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 12:06 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> For example, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra - AkhyA pravachanAt (1.1.30) - holds
>> that the names of the RShis associated with a rescension are not because
>> they composed it, it is because those RShis expounded on the vedic
>> rescensions.
>>
>> The sUtra - parantu shrutisAmAnyamAtram (1.1.31) - holds that proper
>> names in the Vedas are not names of people, there are common nouns and any
>> similarity is only a similarity of sounds (some examples will be shown
>> below).
>>
>> Thus the writer of the FB article is mistaken when he says that Kumarila
>> Bhatta invented the apauruSheyatva of the Veda to support his intellectual
>> battle with the Buddhists - this idea is mentioned in the sUtra-s by
>> Jaimini itself.
>>
>>>