[Advaita-l] veda is eternal implies jnAnI returns as a seeker ?

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste ji

I had accidentally sent the previous mail - all the matter that occurs after
my name, "Raghav",  is from an old  quotation and is inaccurately presented
and i apologize for the same - but let me say it slowly in my own way
and you can please analyze it - .
1. The Veda mantras are infinite in number - I do indeed remember reading in
one of the granthas. I do not remember where. But there is this interesting
para from the website of the kAnchi-kAmakoti peetham,
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap12.htm

"If the cosmos of sound (sabda-prapanca) enfolds all creation and what is
beyond it, it must naturally be immensely vast. However voluminous the Vedas
are, one might wonder whether it would be right to claim that they embrace
all activities of the universe. "Anantah vai Vedah", the Vedas themselves
proclaim so (the Vedas are endless). We cannot claim that all the Vedas have
been revealed to the seers. Only about a thousand sakhas or recensions
belonging to the four Vedas have been revealed to them. "

Can you shrI lalitAlAlita ji or someone else kindly tell me  what sAyana
bhAShya says on this mantra - "ananto vai vedAH" and where if at all it
occurs in the Veda.I am curious if someone else too has seen a similar
quotation anywhere else. Maybe you or someone else can help me arrive at
some conclusion about whether Veda-mantras are a definite finite number or
they are infinite. Is there any way to show that they have to necessarily be
finite in number ? We cannot talk of the mantras existing today as the sum
total of all mantras hitherto available. Moreover, in brahmasutra bhAShya,
the name of pANiNi is brought in, in the following manner.

 2. Regarding the example of pANiNi, in shAstra-yonitvAt bhAShya, we see
yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha vyAkaraNadi
pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH
kimuvaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH

"whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara, this
kaimUtika-nyAya is presented.)

The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knwoledge
which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not freshly creating)
the Vedas as we know them.

The next line also explains the **effortlessness** with which Ishvara
manifested the Veda, (aprayatnenaiva - leela-nyAyena as the next line
makes  clear) ensuring it is apaurusheya (not created but effortlessly
breathed out , i.e., manifested and so  the word "nishvasitam" is used.)

In the above, **more** seen in conjunction with ananto vai vedAH may support
the idea that the Vedic mantras are infinite in number a small part of which
was manifested at the beginning of this kalpa of creation.
 However, sAyana bhAShya will have the last word on this.

3. The mImAmsakah did not have to deal with the quesiton of return of the
jnAni in the next kalpa since for them sRShti has no kalpAnta pralaya as in
Vedanta and the beginning of another fresh kalpa with the same characters
does not arise for them.

4. Mithila, Magadha etc mentioned in the Veda have no connection whatsoever
with places bearing their names in ancient or contemporary India ? Really ?
(You have said "No, there is no connection" )
We can say that the mantras mentioning Magadha, Mithila, Janaka etc
pre-dated , existed before, any people or places which might have existed
historically (coincidentally by kAkatAliya-nyAya).

5.  But then the following question arises - what if any is the role played
by the mantradRShTR ? Did the mantradRShTR exist historically or not?
If the mediation of mantradRShTR is not accepted there are some difficult
questions which arise regarding the first manifestation of these mantras on
Earth etc., which I will elaborate in a subsequent mail.

Thanking you in advance for your guidance

Raghav


011/8/24 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 19:46, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > i am just spinning of a new thread on this.
> > the discussion so far -
> > > since the  vedas are eternal, they cannot be different in another kalpa
> ,
> > but then
> > > Janaka, a mukta in one kalpa, having to be born as a seeker/samsari in
> > > another and seek jnana through the same Yajnavalkya and attain
> 'abhayam'
> > > only to be born again in another kalpa and so on.
> >
> > sri lalitAlAlitaH said - "therefore vedic should not be placed in
> history.
> > none of the mantra-dRShTR Rishis etc actually physically existed ever on
> > earth in mithila or magadha etc which about came later on."
> >
>
> Wrong interpretation. I just said that veda-s were not created after these
> events.
> Saying this doesn't mean that anything with same name,etc.never existed.
>
> we should note that the mImAmsakas did not have to deal with this question
> > of the jnAnI since for them sRiShTi is changeably eternal or perennial
> > (shAshvatam) and did not have a beginning either.
> >
>
> That's wrong.
> mImAMsakas accept GYAna and mokSha, though they are not alike those of
> vedanta-system.
> See vedAntakalpalatikA for it @ http://bit.ly/pF7cjz
>
>
> > so do we have to necessarily accept that every single rishi mentioned in
> > the
> > veda never physically existed ever on earth or elsewhere. Neither has
> > Mithila or Magadha any connection to geographical locales in
> bhAratavarsha
> > ?
> >
>
> No.
>
>
> > "Do you know "why" a cow has come to be? because it finds mention in the
> > veda.
>
>
> 'go'-shabda doesn't say a specific cow, but jAtI. So, if you say that
> Ishvara created cows by saying 'go'-shabda ; I'll have no problem.
>
>
> > similarly every single entity which forms part of the cosmos had its
> > template in the Veda.
>
>
> Saying 'template' you are making clear my views.
>
>
> > similarly the Veda mantras which are actually infinite in number, are
> > the master-plan or template for the universe in every kalpa past, present
> > and future.
>
>
> As far as I know, a pramANa is that which produces GYAnam of things which
> are not subject of any other mean of knowledge. That is why mImAMsakas say
> dharma is subject of veda-s. uttara-mImAMsakas add brahman as it's subject
> too. No one says that their purpose is to create world. It's a new view for
> me. I'll need some scriptural proof to generate faith in it.
>
> If you say that for Ishvara veda-s are tool of creation and for us tool of
> knowledge, then it will prove either veda-s of Ishvara and different.
> Different, because tattvamasi is definitely not useful for creation.
>
>
>
> > in that sense, the veda mantra itself unfolds and manifests
> > itself as a historical situation such as the vidvat-sadas of janaka and
> the
> > goings-on there in that situation.
>
>
> Just said that, it will make veda apramANam as it's main purpose will
> become
> to help Ishvara to remember and create things.
>
>
> > The Veda mantras mentioning "go" (cow)
> > had the power to make the creature called a cow emerge through some or
> the
> > other process of gradual manifestation.
>
>
> Not a specific cow- to be clear.
> Now, from where you received this knowledge of 'gradual manifestation' ?
> Supporting words from scriptures are needed.
>
>
> > In a particular kalpa, one small set of veda mantras is revealed from the
> > infinite knowledge-bank of Jagat-kAraNam brahma.
>
>
> Any proof ?
> I heard it just now.
> It will prove that veda-s which are revealed in different kalpas are
> different.
> Ishvara gave brahmA veda-s - is known to all, but he gives specific part in
> specific kalpa is a new idea.
> Moreover, if different veda-s(mantra-s for your clarity) are revealed in
> different kalpa-s, they must create non-identical kalpa-s and each kalpa
> must miss some entities, as some specific animals, etc., to be different.
>
>
>
> > In this manner even if the
> > situations are actually historical,
>
>
> Cow has a jAtI and the word 'go' denotes that. So, it created cow in a
> kalpa.
> Now, ' janakatvam', 'magadhatva' , etc. are jAtI and are revealed and
> created by word magadha and janaka, etc. :- this will be position according
> to your view. No one accepts such jAtI. You will say to imagine, but we
> will
> not. We have no genuine word from shastram for it.
>
>
> > there is no compromise and we can
> > continue to maitain that the vedas enjoy apaurusheyatvam etc., because
> > **the
> > mantras preceded the situation**.
>
>
> I already said that if janaka, etc. are seen after creation of veda-s, and
> same thing happens with them, even then it just happens by
> kAkatAlIya-nyAya.
>
> Because, if in any case it doesn't happen, veda-s will be proved false and
> useless for Ishvara.
>
>
> > But then is there not a problem whether
> > the same jnAnI will have to again enact the role of a seeker. No.
> Because,
> > another different set of mantras from the infinite, eternal bank of veda
> > mantras which sarvajna-Isvara has at his disposal, will unfold in the
> next
> > kalpa. the present set of actors do not represent the limit of the
> infinite
> > knowledge of Sarvajna-Ishvara."
> >
>
> Already asked source of knowledge.
>
>
> > (please also see shAstra-yonitvAt bhAshya of brahma-sUtra - where it says
> -
> > "when even sages like pANiNi can be seen to have much more knowledge than
> > what they actually demonstrated, what to speak of Ishvara who has
> ordained
> > this entire dispensation
> > of beings, classes etc to emerge.
>
>
> If Ishvara created veda-s, then they are not eternal and apauruSheya .
> He is not like pANini. So, don't compare him with pANini.
>
> this can be seen in conjunction with the
> > idea that all "objects"  in the cosmos are nothing more than the names
> > representing them as in vAcArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam.h.
>
>
> vAchArambhaNam doesn't say that name creates objects. Ask V. Subrahmanian,
> he has done more research on it.
> Even if I accept that anyhow to please you, it will create problems. Now
> every word, including laukika one, will become equal to veda as it helps
> creating objects.
>
>
> > there is no need
> > to look for any solid material to create this universe.
>
>
> Amazing.
> You are saying something which is unacceptable by all, even mImAMsakas.
>
>
> > the names are
> > enough. accordingly the veda is the eternal infinite repository of those
> > names, a small portion of which manifests in each kalpa.)
> >
>
> Already questioned this view.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>