[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[Gopi Sankaran]

Dear Sir,
The Dhoshas as well as Gunas are on the same pedastal. Dosha apanaya or Guna
adeya both are considered fallacies only. When we say and evade dosha guna
also stands evaded. The Intention of Sruthi is if anlaysed in totality is
condensed to Upanishads. The Truth revealed is Guna Dosha Varjitham. Soa
statement of fact has to be truth. It does not talk of Gunas as meant in
other statement. The Mahavakyas are guna dosha varjitham and emphasis the
fact. It has to be eternal Truth. Truth cannot be negated or explained
otherwise. If one has to do by wild imagination that there could be
pouresheya dosha or guna to get rid of that thought it is to be interpreted
that they eternal. The meaning conveyed is Eternal. The finite words cannot
reveal the infinite eternal thing. To get out of all these problems accept
vedas as apouresheya. Another problem is Vedas are eternal Brahman is also
eternal and advaita hani will be there. To get rid of this accept Vedas as
apouresheya to establish the Truth. The words will so melt away at that
stage of Gnani. "Yasya vedah avedah bavanthi".

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Omkar Deshpande
<omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:

> From: Gopi Sankaran <gkoct68 at gmail.com>
> <<<Apureshyatva of vedas I think was mainly intended to indicate that There
> isno Pouresheya Dosha. A book written by an individual may have his
> intention
> along with it. May be over emphasis or if an injunction is given it may be
> perceived as given out of greed or with ulterior motives. Such a dosha cant
> be there in Vedas.>>>
>
> Namaskara,
>
>  Since an apauruSheya text is lacking not only puruSha-doShas but also
> puruSha-guNas, it is not clear that apauruSheyatva helps in claiming the
> Vedas as flawless.
>
> Generally, it makes sense to look at only "absence of an author's doShas"
> to consider the text an authority because absence of doShas implies the
> presence of guNas in the author. If we say the cause of flaws (ignorance,
> ulterior motives, etc) is absent, it's always the case that the cause of
> validity is present (knowledge, benign motives, etc in the author). This
> principle is derived from authored texts and can't be extrapolated (by
> induction) to unauthored texts, because in an apauruSheya text, not only are
> doShas of an author missing, but guNas of an author are also missing. So
> logically speaking, there is no guarantee that apauruSheyatva of a text
> implies flawlessness of its sentences.
>
> Regards,
>
> Omkar
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>