[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Veda

[Bhaskar YR]

When it is understood this way, it is not very difficult to see that the
content of the mahAvAkya necessarily has to be "transcendental knowledge" 
in
the sense that it cannot be a first time discovery by somebody. It is only
in this sense that advaita-vedAnta accepts the concept of veda
apauruSheyatva. 

praNAms 
Hare Krishna

If we understand that 'transcedental knowledge' cannot be worded, then it 
is easy for us to think twice before sticking the tag of aparusheyatva to 
veda-s.  My questions are :

(a)  Do we really need the label 'aparusheya' to veda-s to do our sAdhana 
& reap the benefit based on vedic teachings & injunctions ?? 

(b)  Are we not happily & comfortably treating the paurusheya texts like 
geeta & sUtra as valid pramANa as veda-s?? 

(c)  Do we have any reservations with regard to smruti texts just because 
it is authored by some one!!?? 

(d)  If not, then why this logically unjustifiable claim of apaurusheyatva 
especially to veda-s?? 

(e)  Are we, the saMpradAyavAdi-s,  under the impression that veda-s do 
not serve their purpose unless & until it carries 'aparusheyatva' tag?? 

(f)  What exactly is the problem if we accept that veda-s are the 
revelation of eternal & ever existing truth through words by  some pure & 
perfect rishi-s at different point of time, the same has been documented 
haphazardly  & later on vyAsa arranged it systematically for the benefit 
of future sAdhaka-s in veda mArga ?? 

(g) Are we not wholeheartedly accepting the smruti texts like geeta vAni 
as deva/Ishwara vAni ?? 

(h)  Without finding any human errors in these texts are we not even 
recommending it as pramANa grantha for mOksha sAdhana for the 
non-vedAdhikAri-s?? 

(i)  Finally,  I am not able to understand what is going to fall on our 
head if we say tattvamasi, ahaM brahmAsmi ityAdi mAhAvAkya-s are the 
'worded' revelation of some mahAjnAni-s just like vAmadeva's findings ahaM 
manu, ahaM sUrya etc. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar