[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Veda

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 14:30, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

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

No. You just need to take veda-s as pramANa for these things.


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

Yes. But, that's because we know that they are based on veda-s.
So, it means that pauruSheya texts have some problem while dealing with
alaukika things.
If you don't feel this, then you are full shraddhA in them and you must
check basis of your shraddhA so that it remains so.


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

Yes. Because it is impossible to believe words of man dealing with alaukika
things. Anyone can say anything. Anyone can declare himself a seer. etc.


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

Replied.
You say it's logically unjustifiable. OK.
Tell me your assumptions about pramANa, shabda, prAmANya, veda,
pauruSheyatva, etc.
How much of tradition you accept and why ? What are the problems which
indicate that apauruSheyatvam is unjustifiable ?


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

You can't be a sampradAyavAdin if you say apauruSheyatva unjustifiable.
Don't be confused and don't confuse us.
The answer to your question is :
Purpose of any pramANa is to generate valid knowledge. So, if veda-s, one of
pramANas, fail to do this without apauruSheyatvam, then it is clear that
answer to your question is YES. If not, then no.


> (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 ??
>

There is no proof for it.
You can not show any R^iShi perfect, as someone said.
There is no proof that they were 'documented haphazardly'. You should try to
get to decision on the basis of facts provided by veda-s, purANa-s and
paramparA. Don't try to invent facts.
There are no claims in those scriptures where you heard about vyAsa doing
arrangement that vedA-s were 'first revealed' to R^iShis. Instead they say
that veda-s were given to brahmA by Ishvara and he gave to manu,etc.

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

We accept. But that's because they depend on veda-s.


> (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??
>

If you have greater level of shraddhA in these, you don't need anything
else.
But, this discussion is not for pure-hearted people who have lot of
shraddhA.
We are here because we lack shraddhA in prAmANya of veda-s without
apauruSheyatva and in prAmANya of smR^itis without veda-s as their source.

(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.


You can not prove that vAmadeva, etc. were 'mahAGYAni-s'. It appears to
people other than you and alike that he was mad and uttering anything,
mostly opposed to pramANas.
This is the problem.
Anyone can explain it, so I leave it to them.