[Advaita-l] apaurusheyatva

[elisabeth-sylvain at sympatico.ca]

1.	Regarding apaurusheyatva, if we refer to other saint books, Veda, Bible, 
Coran, etc., each fondamentalist will declare that his saint Book was 
revealed directly by Brahmâ, God, Allah, etc.

2.	Can we think that each of these saint books was received and necessarily 
filtered by the ahamkara of a human pen-handler ?

3.	Can we think that each of these saint books is part of liilaa ?

4.	Can we say that the recent saints RAmakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, MA 
AnandamayI all say that we can find God from different religions.

5.	Therefore, the question of  apaurusheyatva could be, - Does Veda the ONLY 
saint book with no human author or is it one amongst others ? –

Sylvan


>From: Amuthan <aparyap at yahoo.co.in>
>Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta 
><advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta 
><advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>Subject: Re: Goodness (was Re: [Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means')
>Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 04:35:51 +0100 (BST)
>
>Aditya,
>
>i really don't have the time to type big mails right
>now. all this thesis writing and project completion
>stuff is taking hell a lot of time. hows urs going on?
>
>i'll just state some discrete set of statements which
>hopefully answer in a nutshell all ur questions. but i
>definitely want to talk with u tete-a-tete either
>during lunch or dinner sometime this week (if possible
>today) to get things straight. let me know ur
>convenience (off the list).
>
>1. a 'vedAntin' is necessarily an Astika.
>2. an Astika is one believes in the apauruSheyatva of
>the vedAs and hence in their infallibility on issues
>related to dharma and brahman.
>
>3. individual speculation, whether or not it agrees
>with what the vedAs say, is NOT a pramANa for a
>vedAntin.
>
>4. the essence of all existence, the ultimate 'being'
>is what is called the AtmA, not brahman.
>5. brahman is defined as that in which the world
>originates, that in which it exists and that into
>which it dissolves.
>6. Atmabrahmaikya, which is fundamental to advaita,
>means that the above mentioned source is the self
>itself.
>7. according to advaita vedAnta, this cannot be
>established by means other than the vedAs.
>
>8. karma khANDa is different from j~nAna khANDa.
>9. science has nothing to do either with karma khANDa
>or j~nAna khANDa.
>10. if at all there is any necessity to club science
>and vedAnta, it is only j~nAna khANDa which can be
>talked of as being more fundamental than science.
>
>11. a free philosopher and/or one who is not an Astika
>ought not call himself a 'vedAntin'.
>
>12. vedAntin-s don't speculate.
>
>-- amudan.