[Advaita-l] The difference between Vedanta and Mimamsa on the Anaditva of the Vedas

[sidha at omkarananda-ashram.org]

The difference between Vedanta and Mimamsa on the Anaditva of the Vedas.

Respected Kartik Ji,

>>>>>>IMO, you need to read Shankara's Brahma sUtra bhAshhya with a
bit more diligence, for Shankara *accepts* the beginninglessness
of the Vedas that is propounded by the mImAmsakas:

I think one should make it very clear that there is a great difference
between the Nityatva and Anaditva of the Vedas accepted by the mImAmsakas
and the Vidantins, which becomes very clear after reading the Bhamati of
the 3rd Sutra. There is a very sublime difference. mImamsakas don't
believe in Srishti (creation) and Pralaya (distraction). But Vedantins do
believe in them. So the Nityatva of the Vedas according to Vedanta is
pravAha-nityatva, like that of the prakriti or the samsara. But clearly
Vedanta accepts that Vedas are created every time in the beginning of the
creation. Let me tell you that the creation of the Vedas is also clearly
mentioned in the Purusha Sukta, which is one of the most ancient Sukta and
a sukta from the Rig-veda and YajurVeda itself. But Vedanta accepts
Anaditva and Nityatva and Apaurusheyatva in the sense, that even the
creator has no freedom in introducing a change into the text, but he just
creates it as it was in the previous creation. And this chain is endless,
this is what is meant by Nityatva and Anaditva of the Vedas. It is very
different from that of the Mimamsakas. Please clearly read the Bhamati on
the Sutra 1-1-3. How else would you prove shastra-yonitva of the Supreme
Brahman mentioned in that Sutra? What I mean to say is that Vedas are not
"aja" like the Supreme Brahman. Please don't forget that nothing else than
the Supreme Brahman alone has got paaramaarthika sattaa (Supreme
Existence). Even the Vedas have only vyaavahaarika sattaa (existence from
daily dealings), like the rest of the creation. That is why the that
Supreme state of realization has been clearly mentioned in the Gita as
transcending even the Vedas. The Brihadaranyaka also says: "where even the
Vedas don't remain Veda". A possible meaning of Nirveda can also be
transcending the Vedas. Doesn't Shankara clearly state that a Jivanmukta
is free from the rules of the Vedas. He so many times clear states this.
Love and Pranams,
Siddhartha Krishna