[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Monday, July 2, 2012, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>
> > > RV: There are people who repose faith in charlatans considering them
> to be
> > gurus. There is no shortage of babas and anandas. This phenomenon is
>
> Bhaskar's question had to do with sAdhana at a personal level and my answer
> addressed just that portion of it.
>
> I fail to see how the logical establishment of veda apaurusheyatva will
> benefit
> the average man in the street who gets taken in by charlatans masquerading
> as guru-s. Not only is the phenomenon global, it has always been there
> through
> all time, and in all religions. To begin with, if someone reposes SraddhA
> in a
> fake guru, then that is their call. The subtleties of logic will be anyway
> lost on
> such minds and they are not going to give up fake guru-s through an
> argument
> that tells them why the veda is apaurusheya. In the contemporary world,
> they
> will probably place greater faith in paurusheya words and texts.
>
> On the other hand, I see that even pundits who can make fine arguments
> about
> apaurusheyatva and other subtle issues are often in the company of some of
> the
> babas and anandas that you mention. So, I fail to see how logically
> proving veda
> apaurusheyatva will protect even such pundits from fake gurus, let alone
> the
> mango-man (aam aadmi).


RV: Contrariwise, history has ample evidence to show that right knowledge
destroys ignorance. It is a slow process but surely works. The
re-establishment of Veda apaureshyatva will reduce the reliance on
individuals who in turn don't rely on the Vedas.

>
> > Jaimini says that dharma must be of the nature of an instruction (sabda)
> > because only an instruction can tell us what we should and should not do
> > (including exceptions). As it is an instruction, it has to come from
> > others. Otherwise, it will not be an instruction but a product of our
> > pratyaksha and anumana. Others also cannot also invent it because it will
> > then be a product of their pratyaksha and anumana. But we have already
> seen
> > that dharma must be of the nature of an instruction. So, whoever
> instructs
> > us has to hear it from someone else and so on. Thus an instruction has to
> > be without an origin. If in the present or the future we act contrary to
> > such an originless instruction, as per our own or someone else's anumana,
> > we can not claim to act as per this originless instruction (apaureshya
> veda
> > sabda).
>
> The above is a crucial point of difference between mImAMsA and vedAnta.
> For jaiminI, the veda is all about injunctions to do, how to do and what
> not
> to do. On the other hand, knowing brahman is a question of being, not of
> doing. Unlike dharma, moksha is not a result of action, so vedAnta has a
> different take on the veda as compared to pUrva mImAMsA. Yes, because
> of the density of our avidyA, we do need instruction from another person
> (AcAryavAn purusho veda), but ultimately, brahman is one's own AtmA and
> one has to realize this and BE this oneself.
>
> RV: I agree but even the words "tat tvam asi" etc., come from the Vedas.
 Purva Mimamsa stresses the importance of injunctions but as you know it
does  not negate the truth of non-injunctions. In 1.2.1, the opponent
starts the argument that any sentence which is not an instruction is not
eternal, not useful etc. Jaimini goes on to establish that they are valid.

>
>
> For more detail, please read the book by Prof. Satchidananda Murthy that
> I mentioned in an earlier post today.
>
> RV: Sure.