[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Veda

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 18:29, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> SrI lalitaalaalitaH ji
>
> Pranams. You made an interesting statement that you did not want to disturb
> the notion of those who innocently believe that shraddhA is the
> reason/basis
> for the Veda-prAmANyam.  Could you please  clarify what exactly you meant?
>

It is already clarified in another thread.


> In the case of eyes etc., I don’t need shraddhA to say “I see with my
> eyes”.
>

Same way you don't need faith to say that you know svarga with veda-s.


> It is self-evident (svataH-siddhaH), but in the case of the Vedas revealing
> svarga (“heaven”) etc.?
>

It is self-evident there too.
Think again.


> Let me ask you a hypothetical question.   We know that many shAkha-s are
> lost. Suppose, in some distant village, it is claimed that there is found a
> hitherto unknown shakha of the Rg-veda .  Is there any way of verifying the
> authenticity and validity of these newly-available mantra-s by looking at
> the mantra-s themselves?


No.


> Do they have any internal mandate vouching for
> their validity ?


No. Anything as such can be refuted easily by anyone.


> Does svataH-pramANyam imply such an internal mandate?
>

You know the answer now.


> Or does it only imply that the veda-mantra-s do not depend on the other
> pramANas?


Any pramANa, including veda, do no depend upon other.

(and they do not also conflict with any of the other pramANa-s,
> ie., the veda mantra-s only have pramANAntara-anadhigatatvaM and
> abAdhitatvaM ;  they are **non-falsifiable**)
>

They may conflict.
As dvaita perceived with eyes is opposed to veda-s.


> But, the question here is that suppose we have a given statement from some
> tradition which claims to be anAdi and says (lets say) “there was never any
> previous janma-s;  the present janma is the first ever birth” – such a
> statement too is non-falsifiable and cannot be arrived at, by perception
> etc
> and cannot be disproved by logic etc., so how do we distinguish such
> statements and the Vedic statements without invoking shraddhA as the
> deciding factor in favor of the Vedic statements ?
>

As it has been cleared in other posts that faith in pramANa-s is innate and
it is basis of svataH-prAmANya-vAda, you have to accept same force in both
sentences, of that tradition and of veda-s.
Again, shraddhA is not weakenss of any pramANa and it is innate.
Now, how to prove that veda-s have more force and can refute other tradition
-
1. We will check claims of that tradition of being anAdi.
a. if it is truly anAdi,
then we will check it's origin and find faults.
If it is faultless, we will check faults in paramparA.
if it is faultless, then it has same force as veda-s and we will have to
search for such meanings that they don't get conflicted.
b. if it is not anAdi, then other tradition will loose points.
There is no need to be biased. Just follow as a logician does.

But, as no such tradition exists, any further claim of being anAdi will make
it subject of doubt of following lines of veda-s to show it's words
flawless. This is enough to show that it is tainted with ill will. And it
will prove it apramANa.

Would you say that any statement like “svarga does not exist” can
> in-principle be shown fallacious purely by pratyakSha and anumAna?


No.


> If all
> such statements dealing with alaukika topics which conflict with the
> Vedas-s
> can be shown (in-principle) to be false, then the word svataH-pramAnyam is
> more meaningful since it can be shown to apply to only the Vedas. But if
> someone (a nAstika) claims that the above statements are also for him
> svataH-pramANa, can we show them to be fallacious?


Every pramANa is svataH-pramANam. We are not specific about veda-s. Do you
expect people like us to be biased ? We are definitely not.


> It does not appear
> possible without bringing in the idea of shraddhA.
>

Replied already.


> Another thing is that – you seem to feel that, if anything like the recent
> evidence from science are so much as touched by a bargepole (even partially
> accepted),  we have to give up all ideas of ISvara, shAstra-pramANyam
> etc.  That
> is not really the case. I believe that most Astika-s today accept the fact
> of gradual manifestation of complex life on earth.
>

They have no knowledge of veda-s, pramANa-s, prAmANyam, etc. according to
tradition. So, they are not Astika-s, but followers of Astika. Don't equate
both.
They accept because they have no way to test it or no ability to find errors
in it or they don't feel that this theory is in conflict with veda-pramANa.


> (In a lighter vein) That is, we do not have to hold that ISvara, one fine
> morning, after breakfast,  plomped SrI svayambhuvA-manu and his wife on
> planet earth after creating the planets etc, all in one go.
>

Read purANa-s to know it.


> For example – muNdaka upaniShad bhAShya (1.1.8 introduction) says – “yad
> brahmaNa utpadyamAnam vishvam tad anena krameNa utpadyate na yugapad.h
> badaramuShTi-prakShepavad-iti krama-niyama-vivakShArtho’yam mantra
> Arabhyate” – God did not simultaneously create everything like plomping a
> fistful of berries all at one go; there was a gradual sequence and
> “ordering
> in time” in the manifestation of various entities.
>

I've no problems.


> Once we accept the “time” factor in sRShTi, it is shruti-sammata to
> maintain
> that the guru-paramparA commenced on Earth at some time after life arose.
>

OK.


> (Even though the Vedas were present even before in a “seed” form with
> brahmA
> ji, as you said.)
>
> There is no conflict with shAstra in accepting this process of gradual
> manifestation (like a seed gradually becomes manifest as a tree; it is not
> necessary to say that the fruits have to come up on day one; similarly we
> do
> not have to insist that man was always walking around on Earth since the
> beginning of creation.)
>

OK.


>  Certain elements of neo-darwinism may well be involved in such gradual
> manifestation.


Yea. That may be.


>  You may be aware that “gradual
> manifestation” upheld by many if not most Astikas, is not a mainstream
> “scientific theory” like neo-darwinism. (In many ways it is the
> “opposite”.)
> The gItA (avyaktAd vyaktayaH sarvaM) and ideas like “bIjasyAtarivAnkuro
> jagadidaM” are all related to “gradual manifestation”.


Yes.


>  This  can well
> accommodate most scientific evidence like those from fossil discoveries etc
> even while retaining an intelligent first cause for the jagat, and a
> teleological aspect (purposeful direction) in the rise of life on earth.
>  On
> the other hand Neo-darwinism currently cannot or does not seem to favor an
> intelligent first cause for life and also claims that randomness ,
> survival,
> etc are the driving forces. So if we turn the clock back, we may not get
> similar species. On the other hand, according to an Astika type of gradual
> manifestation system (the minority view today), the same jAti-s repeat in
> every cycle of creation. Even if the details are different, the basic plan
> for sRShTi given in the eternal-Veda remains unchanged in every kalpa.
>  This
> topic is too vast to really talk about in brief. I only mentioned this in
> this post to help you better place/understand those of us who hold that
> “ISvara is jagat-kAraNam.


OK.


> The point is not that we have any particular insistence on the above model,
> but that, even accepting it to be true is fine because, it does not
> necessarily imply that “ISvara does not exist or the vedas are not a
> pramANa”
>

OK.
I'm happy to see your post and your clarifications.


> Regarding mantra darshana –I don’t think there is any difference between
> what you or I are saying –
>

Then I'm skipping rest of it without thinking.


>
> You said brahmAji “taught” the Vedas to the Rishis. I am only elaborating
> the word “taught” as mantra-darSana. I do not ever remember reading a word
> like “mantra-adhyayana” by the Rishis in a gurukulam run by brahmA ji;


Not essentially in gurukulam of brahmA, but in of others R^ishis too.
So, they didn't study ???
Not everything can be expected to be told in scriptures.