[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 16:41, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> PraNAms
>
> pratyaksha is direct and immediate while the rest are indirect and mediate.
> anumaana depends on pratyaksha, since it requires a dRiShTanta to establish
> vyaapti or concomitant relation between hetu and saadhya.
>
> shabda pramaaNa does not depend on pratyakhsa for validation.


What about the words of a person who is saying something after seeing it ?


> It depends on the faith


Saying that a pramANa needs faith shows that you are not accepting it as
pramANa.
Don't say shabda as pramANa, instead use some other word for not confusing
others.
Moreover, every other pramANa needs faith in this way. What if you have no
faith in your eyes ?

that the aapta vaakyam is dependable and true - just as we have a faith in
> the statements of reporters about what is happening in Iraq. The knowledge
> is neither pratyaksha nor anumaana based.


Everyone knows that knowledge of conditions of Iraq is born of words. But,
words are based on pratyaxa of reporter.


> Faith is essential ingredient in all shabda pramANas


Say 'in all pramANa-s' instead. I'm following your foot-prints, sir.


> that includes apourusheya vedas and their apourusheyatvam too.


This shows that you have no idea of meaning of word pramANa according to any
tradition.


> Any other argument is just purely correlative and justification involving
> why my faith is better than others.


People who are not biased should not follow any faith without testing. And
faith on 'mere words' telling something alaukika is impossible for anyone
with a sound mind.


> By the very faith, there is no further justification is required nor even
> justified to support faith.
>

By saying 'not required', I think, you mean for you and people like you. If
so, then true. Believers don't need any test of anything, just like Muslims
and Christians.

Knowledge is eternal - relative or absolute. Relative knowledge is
> transcended not negated as mithyaa by the knowledge of absolute.
>
> Hence, in principle, all knowledge is apourusheyam only. Discovery is only
> removing the cover of ignorance using an appropriate pramANa.
>

GYAnam is called vastu-tantram. Saying it 'not puruSha-tantram' doesn't make
it apauruSheya.
apauruSheyatvam is a term used for denoting a special quality of pramANa-s
and it doesn't say anything about knowledge. This is what we use in
scriptural-talks. If you are using it for GYAnam, either you don't know what
it means or you have some free thoughts. I was expecting talk according to
scriptures.


>
> In principle, Yaduji is right - with faith we proceed to discover even the
> absolute knowledge using Vedanta as pramANa.
>
> The truth of the absolute is aprameyam, since 1. It is about Brahman which
> being infinite cannot be a prameyam and 2. It is about the subject I, which
> also cannot be a prameyam and 3. It is about the identity of these two,
> which cannot be established by another means other than aprameya vaakyam
> such as tat tvam asi, etc. 4. It is not about the world which is neither
> real nor unreal and therefore not absolute. 5. Finally Vedanta provides the
> knowledge, not directly since the truth being the self-I or Brahman, the
> infinite, is self-revealing only when the wrong notions about I or Brahman
> are dropped. Hence Vedanta is pramANa by 'as though' revealing the aprameya
> satyam of the identity of the self I with the totality Brahman, only by
> eliminating the misconceptions about Brahman and about myself. It is not a
> direct pramANa since the truth is aprameyam but it is a pramANa in the
> removal of misconceptions about myself and the world. For that faith is the
> basis
>  since it is shabda pramANa. Any further discussion is entertainment, at
> best.
>

These all were replied directly or indirectly in previous posts.