[Advaita-l] Anantaa vai vedaah

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 14:36, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1. The word vedAH quite clearly refers to the "veda mantra-s" and not to
> the
> shAkha-s (recensions) which are generally agreed to be a definite number.
>

Definite number of shAkhA-s doesn't comprise of unlimited mantras. This is
also generally believed.


> 2 The question is, does anantA mean "the Veda mantras are numerically
> infinite (and accordingly encapsulate limitless knowledge)"


Nope.


> or whether "a
> fixed and finite number of Veda mantra-s alone exist which are faithfully
> reproduced but still can enfold limitless knowledge"
>

They are finite and reveal finite knowledge. Cause ? Revelation of things
known by other pramANas by veda-s will make them apramANa. Either accept
them apramANa or finite. Both are not possible.


> To elaborate :let us take it that the mantra-s are finite in number,  the
> word anantA can possibly accounted for by taking it to mean that "analysis,
> elucidation and cogitation (mImAmsA, vistAra, tapas ) based upon the
> original veda mantras leads to an infinite multi-layered depth and also
> breadth of knowledge (vij~nAna) enfolded in the Vedas which can thus be
> gradually unfolded" ,.
>

anantA is used for veda-s and not anything else.
Word don't say anything which they don't say.


> (the unfoldment which takes place due to Ishvara - (IshvaraH .. kArayAmAsa)
>

mImAMsaka-s and vedAntins, both accept that veda-s are learned by
guru-shiShya-paramparA. There is no such revelation in samAdhi for both.
mImAMsaka-s even not accept any sarvaGYa puruSha.
Moreover,
meditation or samAdhi are just repetition of same vR^itti. They are not any
mean of knowledge. So, they can't produce any new knowledge.
Even if I accept that some knowledge is produced, I'll like to know the
cause to label them as veda. Is vedatvam of that knowledge is also revealed
in samAdhi ?
I've already said that knowledge is not veda. Specific words are veda.
I already asked you about R^shi-s. Can you tell me about the source where it
is said that veda-s were first revealed to R^iShis in samAdhi ? The meaning
gained by vyutpatti, i.e. "R^iShayo mantradraShTAraH", is not enough to
prove this.
Accepting sarvaGYa puruSha and revelation in samAdhI will make scriptures of
bauddha, jaina, muslims, etc. veda and everyone of them a R^iShi.

महत:  ऋग्वेदादे: .... प्रदीपावत् सर्वार्थावद्योतिन: सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनि:
> ब्रह्म
>

I don't think a lamp illumines all things of this world and so veda-s.


>  वेदे  हि सर्वार्थप्रकाशनशक्तिरुपलभ्यते (bhAshya ratnaprabhA) (In the Vedas
> lies the power to illuminate all (objects) that exists.),


No commentary can prove this.
Writing in Sanskrit is not enough to negate pramANas.
manu knew all veda-s. He taught others. See a sentence from parimala
indicating this :
सर्गादौ सर्वान्वेदानध्यापितेष्वीश्वरवत्सार्वज्ञ्यरहितेषु मन्वादिषु ....
Do you want to say that through veda he also knew about dna, computers,
internet, etc. ? I've no cause to believe you even if you say 'yes'.
The above sentence also proves that veda-s are not ananta. If they were
ananta, it would be impossible to study and teach them for anyone, including
Ishvara.




> and after asking
> whether Brahman's सर्वज्ञत्वं (omniscience) can be established purely on
> the
> ground that He breathed out the Vedas or is there anything called
> "knowledge not derivable from the Veda', in which case, just because He
> breathed out the Vedas, we cannot rush to the conclusion that He is
> omniscient, after asking this question, shrI govindAnanda indiates that
> "वेद
> हेतुत्वेन ब्रह्मण: सर्वज्ञत्वं साधायति"
>

Impossible for the given reason.
The problem is that words of AchArya are proved baseless. To prove them true
some follower of AchArya should come and show the correct meaning.
I'm not interested in a branching discussion dealing with 'sarvaGYatvam of
Ishvara derived from kAraNatvam of veda-s'.

 The mere fact of the existence of any
> non-vedic knowledge which can be derived independent of any elucidation by
> tapas/cogitation/upadesa etc of the Veda would negate the possibility of
> Ishvara's sarvaj~natvaM being premised on the all-knowledge that is the
> Veda. But since, the hetu (reason)  is not flawed


Your reasoning actually proves it flawed.