[Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 9 21:01:38 CST 2009
It is possible to stretch the discussion of apaurusheyatva to absurd extremes.
I will try to present a brief summary of my thoughts here.Firstly, we have to distinguish between what a pUrva mImAMsaka denotes by
the term apaurusheya and what the advaita vedAntin does. I am not an expert
on pUrva mImAMsA, but there is a difference in emphasis between the two
schools upon this issue. See the bhAshya on SAstra yonitvAt. The upanishat
reference to brahman having breathed out all the veda-s would be treated as
only arthavAda by pUrva mImAMsaka-s, in order to not compromise their very
strict position on apaurusheyatva. The vedAntin, on the other hand, can treat
this upanishat sentence in a straightforward way. However, this is precisely
because the advaitin is not committed to a literal and strict position about
the apaurusheyatva of Sruti. This more flexible view does not mean that the
advaitin admits an author for Sruti. > I have a small doubt here about apaurusheyatva of 'text' of> shruti-s...whether text ( here if it means manuscript of the shruti) itself
When you say manuscript, I hope you only mean the actual words of the veda.
A manuscript is a text that is written down and if anything, the veda is not
a text that is written.
> has the *apaurusheya* status or the jnAna that is embedded in these texts> has the apaurusheya status?? If the wordings (text) of the scriptures
Both, because the jnAna has to necessarily be conveyed through the words. It wouldn't make any sense to say that only the specific words are apaurusheyaor that only the jnAna conveyed by the words is apaurusheya. However, jnAna
is different from karma, is it not? Any action presumes an agent. That is all I
meant when I said you cannot extend the quality of apaurusheyatva to action.
> here to say only text is apaurusheya but practicals of these contents are> not apaurusheya...Does it not mean to say texts/sentences that denote the> brahma jnAna is apaurusheya but brahma jnAna itself NOT apaurusheya??
This does not follow, because of the same reason as above. Moreover, brahma
jnAna is not action.
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list