[Advaita-l] apaurusheyatva of veda-s

[Venkata sriram P]

Namaste Bhaskarji,
 
I think the example of Newton's law was a poor comparision. 
 
//
do you mean to say only 'tattva' behind maNtra is anAdi & 
apaurusheya but the wordings which are explaining that tattva 
In short, what exactly we call as apaurusheya
 
//
 
The rishis are called draShTAs because the vyutpatti says "riShir darShanAt".
Now, what happens during the mantra darshana is that the rishis during
the antarmukha avastha are in "communion with parA nAda / vAk".  
It is this parA nAda avastha which EXISTS in chinmaya sthiti.  
So, when the seers are in communion with parA vAk, the
mantra chaitanya that is "revealed" comes out spontaneously 
from the Seers who are just the medium.  This parA vAk gets
converted to pashyanti, madhyama and comes out 
as vaikhari.  Thus we hear only the vaikhari nAda which are combinations
of matrika varnamala.  So, the inspiration of the Seer 
which is beyond the comprehension of purusha buddhi is "apaursheya". 
Since the parA vAk is nitya and eternal, the vaikhari is also eternal 
which is also called "tapOja".  
 
Where as rest of the works are not revealed in antarmukha avastha through
parA vAk and hence "paursheya".  
 
This is the case with veda mantra & brAhmaNa bhAga.  
 
Now, if we take the case of AraNyaka / upaniShad bhAga, there are the dialogues
between the Seer (Acharya) & Disciple and there are also the mention of human
relationships.   But Sampradya says that Upanishad is also "shruti" which is 
apaursheya.  In what way?  Because, the upanishad-pratipAdya tattva is 
apaursheya.  We have no other option than believing in "sabda nityatva vada"
because it is the only pramANa to know the unknown.
 
Here is the opinion of another learned friend of mine:
 
////////////////
 
Then they drift towards a debate I had last night. What does a modern Hindu 
know about the shruti. Many modern Hindus give the highest place to shruti in their 
epistemology. But are they aware what is actually in the shruti? They would 
normally tell you that the shruti is apauruSheya: that is it has no human origin, 
and was there from the begining of time. They also hold the shruti as something 
that is beyond question, but proof in itself. This same class of Hindus often also 
believe that the shruti advocates vegetarianism (I am not against vegetarianism at all) 
and never had anything to do with sacrificial offerings of meat. They also recognize 
a difference between the so called “karma kANDa” and the upaniShads 
within the shruti. But is this what the shruti itself tell us?

Certainly not. The human composers of the shruti were quite clear about their 
copyright and ensured that at least in part their compositions are not separated 
form their names. The shruti is also a collection text of a particular assemblage 
of individuals within a large ethnic group. What is apauruSheya then? One can 
say that the inspiration which drove the shruti poets to fashion their poems 
was the apauruSheya element, while the words themselves are not.
 
This brings us to the major question: why do modern Hindus, 
while according high respect to the shruti, fail to understand what is in it?
 
//////////////////
 
regs,
Sriram