[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Rajaram,

You have not noticed (or have you ignored that intentionally?) the fact that according to the chronology, you depend on, the sages  Badarayana and Jaimini  lived more than five centuries years after Lord Mahavira.

Further you may not know that Jaimini was one of the four disciples of Vedavyasa and when Vedavyasa divided the Veda into parts Jaimini became the expert in the Sama Veda. I don't think any scholar will accept that the Vedas were divided into four parts some five centuries after Lord Mahavira"s time.

Sincerely,
Sunil KB



________________________________
 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
 

Dear Sri Sunil, 

If you had just stated this reason instead sarcastically calling my opinion ( based on researchers ) an astounding imagination, I would have answered it. It will help the quality of discussions on the list, which is a wonderful and practical way for us to learn an share. 

Best Regards
Rajarm Venkataramani 




On Sunday, July 1, 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya  wrote:

Dear Shri rajaram,
>
>
>I do not get pleasure by just criticizing for nothing. You cannot take somebody else's dating without at least prima facie being convinced about the dates. Of course if you are not proficient at all  on the dating business then better do not mention the dates and do not try to bring credibility by giving dates, of which, you are not sure of yourself. If you think that a PhD dissertation has given the correct date then you should be able to give the salient points on which that dissertation gives the dates. Jaimini is mentioned in the Brahmasutra and if you are accepting the date of Jaimini to be  around 2 to 5 BCE then that will also mean that the date of composition of the Brahmasutra will be still later than that and that will also mean that the Brahmasutra was composed several centuries after Lord Mahavira. This is so preposterous a situation that such ideas, in my opinion, are to be scrapped without any discussion.

RV: Jaimini and Badaryana refer to each other. According to Sri Pasupathinath, this shows that they were contemporaries who knew each other's work. The need for purva mimamsa comes from an attack on Veda Dharma by Jainas and Buddhists. It is also made necessary by vaidhikas such as Vaiseshikas who did not quite agree with traditional vedanta interpretation. So prima-facie, the dates are okay.

>
>As regards the efforts for finding a suitable word in English for Apaurusheayatva one must admit that whatever one understands or comes out of the deliberation has also to be put down in writing. So one cannot say that understanding is only important and choosing the right word is unimportant. If that was so the word "unauthored" would not have been chosen at all. The word "unauthored" is useful no doubt but does that convey the full meaning of the word "Apaurusheyatva"?

RV: I don't see any big problem with unauthored though no translation in to English is perfect. There is another meaning of apaureshya by Sabhara that shabdaryha connection is made without human or divine intervention. This meaning is not conveyed by unauthored. We have bigger problems with translation of sabda. In Hermenutics of Sabhara, the author binge out 10 different meanings in which sabda is used - word, phoneme, sound etc. but we normally say verbal testimony.

>
>Sincerely,
>Sunil KB
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
> 
>
>Dear Sri Sunil,
>
>
>As I said, the dates I quoted are what researchers have published. They have given a span of few hundred years and here is no imagination on my part here. Only God knows why you charge me with astounding imagination in this case. Irrespective of the error margin, the conclusion that Jaimini was refuting Vaiseshikas and Buddhists stands established from their own views and the commentators of Jaimini. So, there is no need to take the accuracy dates very seriously in this case. 
>
>
>Jaimini, Sabhara, Bhatta, Prabhakara etc. have worked hard to do explain apaureshyatvam from the attack by Buddhists, Jainas, Vaiseshikas and Naiyayikas. I find their logic and depth of thinking impressive and find it is valid after 2000 - 2500 years. They don't ask us to accept apaureshyatvam on faith. They give positive arguments in favour of apaureshyatvam and systematically destroy opposite views albeit in terse verses hard to understand.
>
>
>Your question on the English translation for apaureshyatva is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. The famous translation unauthored used for deades serves the purpose well to indicate that Vedas are not authored. It would be more important to understand what Sabhara etc. mean by  apaureshyatvam. And more importantly what indeed is meant by sabda as it is ( and also not ) word, sound, phoneme, noise etc.
>
>
>If you want you can perhaps try to get a thesis submitted to Calcutta University by one Sri Vacaspati in 1967 on "Self Validating knowledge in Mimamsa". Or explain why apaureshyatvam is valid in the face of advances in linguistics and evolution instead pointlessly attacking people like me who are working hard to do that.
>
>
>Best Regards
>Rajaram Venkataramani
>
>On Saturday, June 30, 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya  wrote:
>
>For discussing matters like Apaurusheyatva of Veda etc.and who said what on this topic since the ancient times, one has take dates (even if not the exact dates) seriously. These subjects cannot be discussed in a serious forum by just throwing some absurd historicities and expecting others to disprove  those absurd ideas wrong. If you thought the dates are not important and you are not sure about the dates then you should not have given the date, in the first place. Having given the dates now you cannot run away by saying that the dates are not to be seriously taken. The onus is on you to first prove the dates given by you and if anyone contests your proofs then that person will have to come out with his proofs.
>>
>>
>>Secondly regarding the equivalent word in English I was doing loud thinking as to whether there is any better word than the word "uninvented' and sought the opinions of other scholars if they have any better idea. Luckily one suggestion came that "Unauthored" may be a better word. May be the scholars who look at it constructively will try to suggest more ideas on it and it may also so happen that someone may suggest that instead of a single word, a combination of two or three words may be a better equivalent of the term "Apaurusheyatva". One is clear that you have no suggestion to give from your side and you have only your efforts to destroy other's efforts.
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Sunil KB
>>
>>