[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 19:45, Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> If the Mimamsakas did not think the earth had an origin, they could be
> silent, because they are extrapolating back in time the parampara that is
> seen in the present, and so there is no encounter with the supernatural in
> doing so. They are indefinitely extending it back.
>
> But the moment the earth's origin is accepted, silence is not an option,
> because the very first thing that an opponent will ask when the
> apauruSheyatva claim is made based on parampara is how it existed before the
> earth's origin. Even if the traditional Vedantin says he will be silent on
> that, the opponent will say that there is no other option for the Vedantin
> but to appeal to the supernatural "in some way" at that point.


Who said you that vedAntin-s not reply this question and prefer to be silent
?
It was repeated many times that veda-s existed in seed form in Ishvara.
We don't fear to accept Ishvara, etc. which are naturally supernatural.

Now, the question is why are you trying to accept veda-s devoid of any
relation to supernatural ?

Another question you may ask to us is what is proof for Ishvara, etc.
supernatural things ?
The answer is again shabda, i.e. veda, purANa, etc. and supporting
inference.
Q : How could veda-s, etc. prove Ishvara before being proved as apauruSheya
?
A : veda-s, etc. don't prove anything because they are apauruSheya. They do
it because they are independent pramANa having innate validity.
Q : I've doubts about Ishvara, etc. supernaturals. So, veda-s can't be said
pramANa regarding those.
A : You can remove your doubts with inference used by naiyAyika-s.
Q : I don't see any supernatural. So, they don't exist.
A : When you say that something can be supernatural, you have to accept that
it will not be seen by you naturally. And do you not accept motherhood of
you mother because you didn't see him giving birth to you ?
etc.


> The Vedantin can be silent about 'who'  does the revealing,


Ishvara revealed to brahmA.


> and 'who' had supernormal vision,


If experience = vision. Then no one had this.
Exact words of veda-s are accepted to be remembered by Ishvara and then
transferred to brahmA. And then they were transferred to R^iShis by brahmA.


> etc but an appeal to revelation of some kind is inevitable just to uphold
> the existence of the parampara in that time.

What other option is there in theory?


Shown above.


> And one does find that this is the internal answer in the tradition, since
> (in Bhagavata Purana for example) Rishis like Yajnavalkya are mentioned as
> being given the mantras by the god Surya, etc.


Oh god, thanks.


> Not identifying who does the revelation does not solve the problem, because
> "whoever" it is, the question of faith on that person will arise, since
> revelation of some kind is inevitable with the earth having an origin.
>

But, Revelation = transfer by teaching.
We have full faith in Ishvara.
We respect R^iShis too.
But this faith or respect is not a part of pramANa. pramANas generate
knowledge because they have innate capacity to do this.

I would keep the origin of life separate from evolutionary theory, because
> the former is still an open question in science, but common descent is
> accepted by not just evolutionists but also many proponents of ID
> (Intelligent Design), because there is good evidence for it, so it is a
> better explanation than the alternative ones which have no supporting
> evidence.


That common decent is GOD. If anything else, it will difficult to prove for
anyone.
Another common thing among us may be pR^ithvi, etc.