[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

There are many examples of prophecies in vaidhika matham (e.g. Krishna's
appearance). BTW, your theory of evolution of dharma leads to many
inconsistencies. Before Gayatri mantra is revealed, people didn't chant
that during sandhyavandanam? Even if you say so, before "ma himsyat sarva
bhutani" or "satyam vada" was revealed, did no one incur the sin due to
violence or lie? How do we know that someone will not give a new vidhi in
the future? Without being revealed full knowledge, how did sanatkumaras
follow nivrtti marga? If it is not through incorrect inference, how do we
know rishis lived at a point in time and the Vedas were non-existent before
he first rishi appeared? Brahma, by your logic, must have been quite
ignorant to start with.

Vedas are eternal and passed though oral tradition cycle after cycle. In
that we say yajnavalkya marries twice, teaches atma vidya, renounces etc.
In every cycle, someone lives that script and a place is called so. This
question is specifically dealt with by Jaimini in the first chapter.



On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>
> > > RV: In my understanding, your position is that the rishis were
> historical
> > > persons and revealed the mantras at t = t1, t = t2 etc. Before that the
> > > Vedas were in manifest / unmanifest form co-existent with Ishwara. In
> your
> > > position, some injunctions will be unknown to mankind at the time
> between
> > > t1 and t2. So, such injunctions cannot operate in that time (as per the
> > > razor sharp argument put forward by sringeri acharya). As per my
> > > understanding, the sabda is eternal. It manifested in Brahma's heart
> at t =
> > > t0 (like he got pratyaksha etc.) exactly as it was done in the previous
> > > cycle. This contained the names of all the rishis and the mantras
> > > attributed to them. This was passed on to the followers of pravrtti and
> > > nivrtti margas. We think that the rishis appeared in history based
> > > on incorrect anumana as we cannot tell the time period of the rishis
> who
> > > revealed veda mantras. The actual persons fulfilled the prophecy of the
> > > Vedas by appearing and revealing what was already known.
>
> There is no anumAna involved in saying that Rshi-s lived in time. That
> aside,
> pray share how you understand your last sentence above. What do you mean
> by prophecy? vaidika religion has no use for prophets and prophecies.


> If everything was already given by brahmA at t=0, to all followers of
> pravRtti
> and nivRtti mArga-s, then why is it necessary for a Rshi to come along
> later
> and reveal the veda again. To whom would a Rshi reveal anything?
>
> If something was existent but not known at some time (for whatever reason),
> only then does it make sense for a Rshi to appear in time and reveal it to
> others.
>
> Seen thus, there is no problem whatsoever in accepting that different
> Rshi-s
> lived over different periods of time. In fact, this is the traditional
> position too.
> viSvAmitra was a king before he became a Rshi and he had to prove himself
> to vasishTha, who needed a lot of convincing too. The legend makes sense
> only *in time*. vasishTha is already a Rshi at time t1, whereas viSvAmitra
> becomes a rAjaRshi at time t2, a mahaRshi at time t3 and is acknowledged
>  as a brahmaRshi from vasishTha at a much later time t4.
>
> All of this happens exactly as in a previous cycle of creation, but then,
> within
> each cycle, the local time still involves a past when only vasiShTha is a
> Rshi
> (and viSvAmitra is not), in contrast to a future when both are
> brahmaRshi-s.
> Obviously, within that cycle, viSvAmitra does not reveal any veda mantra
> prior to becoming a Rshi, and during that time, vasiShTha is already busy
> revealing mantra-s to his sons and disciples. He does not reveal any mantra
> that is meant for viSvAmitra to reveal (including the all-important
> sAvitrI,
> commonly known as the gAyatrI mantra). The exact times for these events
> in each creation cyle are not needed. The necessary relative order in time
> is enough to support my position. Which implies you have not understood
> the Sringeri Jagadguru's razor sharp argument about veda, dharma and
> creation correctly.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <javascript:;>
>