[Advaita-l] apaurusheyatva of veda-s

[Siva Senani Nori]

Raghav Kumar garu
 
Namaste.
 
Your ideal of science has its place; similarly, the Judaic religions. However, our views on the Vedas need not be informed or influenced by either of these - for the simple reason that the same attitude has been obtaining from much before either of these two forces of humanity started taking shape.
 
Not that your line of thinking is not correct - only, it is neither sanatana dharma nor vedanta. Any new thinking can be inspired by these; it will be better for clarity if they take a new lable. For instance: neo-vedanta. 
 
In terms of end-positions, I don't think we differ much. I have a great respect for science and a great liking for its history. I am similarly concerned about what some fringe elements of Islam think and the way they interpret their religion - and the way they had interpreted their religion, for instance, in the conquest of Persia. Still, all this can co-exist with a traditional - fundamentalist, if you insist - view of the Veda. We need not give Science the high seat that is reserved for Veda - we can respect it and admire it otherwise as well; similarly we need not always have views opposed to what Muslims have. For instance, Muslims believe that keeping Roja cleanses them; it burns impurities, they say. It sounds like tapas for me. Given the long history of interaction between the Middle East and India, it is not a wonder that we share many things like stars, weekdays, numbers, upavaasa and so on.
 
What you say about tarka is indeed true. That is why tradition says a study of tarka needs a Santi by study of Vedanta. Similarly only Srutyanugraheeta tarka is acceptable, not all tarka.
 
Regarding freezing Vedic frames, or thinking one has understood the complete meaning of an utterance, I want to be careful. There have been numerous instances where a simple phrase keeps suggesting deeper levels of meaning every time I revisit it. If only we are really knowledgeable, it seems to me that a single sentence of a krAntadarSi can be analysed and shown to have captured everything said before and to have anticipated / contained the analysis that occured for centuries later. For instance, NageSabhaTTa commenting on the VyaakaraNamahaabhaashya and the Pradeepa commentary on that, specifically on the Rik "catvaari padajaataani..." in the paspaSAhnikam. yaavat j~naanam taavat arthabodha; or indeed, Sankaraachaarya at numerous places in his three bhaashyas.
 
Regards
Senani

From: Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
>To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] apaurusheyatva of veda-s
>
>
>Namaste Sri Siva Senani ji
>Thank you for the link to the earlier discussion on veda-prAmANyam. but the discussion there in the older links was more to do with vedanta alone, which is ofcourse appropriate in keeping with this forum. i shall see them and other past posts too again.
>