[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> 
> Dear Sri Vidyasankar,
> 
> My response inset. I dont think your position is the traditional
> position. Please recheck with Sringeri Acharya or traditional scholars as
> your words will mislead the list members. If I say something wrong, though
> I am Rajaram Venkataramani and not Roger Manny, will not mislead others
> because I dont claim to be a traditional scholar.

Just a clarification. I have never assumed the mantle of a traditional scholar
myself. I have always been careful to bracket off my opinions, with phrases
like "personally speaking" and "in my opinion".
 
> 
> I dont see further point in continuing this thread unless one posts from
> traditional commentaries or at least present scientific arguments.
> 

Yes, indeed. I would like to close by just pointing out one thing that is not quite
related to apaurusheyatva of the veda, but to its availability in general.
 
> RV: If the rules were not known to mankind, their presence in the source,
> whoever or whatever that is, cannot be the ground to judge if a person's
> act is dharma or not.

If you cast your mind to the question of the Peruvian man raised by Ramesh
a couple of weeks ago, on what grounds can anyone judge whether his acts
are dharma or not? The said person is not personally aware of the veda and
would be considered outside the pale of vedAdhikAra by dhArmika people. So,
by default, he and all others like him have no access to the rules. That the
veda already exists and is known to other more privileged people makes not
an iota of difference to the life and actions of this man and others like him.

Yet, these are people living on the same planet as us and by and large, the 
vast majority of them already know much of what we call sAmAnya dharma.
It behoves us to take into account their presence and their actions, when we
attempt to put some sort of universal applicability in a systematic manner for
dharma and the veda in relation to the origin of the universe itself, which
includes not only "us" but also "them". 
 
Please note I am not arguing that this means we should borrow a leaf from
the books of the proselytizing religions and go around trying to convert people
of any and all backgrounds. Rather, I am asking that we remain open to the
possibility that some, if not all, pUrva mImAMsA positions about the nature
and the status of the veda are not tenable, no matter how much they may
define what is indeed the traditional view. In particular, advaita vedAntins do
not need to be bound to a pUrva mImAMsA view on these matters irrevocably.

With apologies for adding one more post after saying otherwise,
Vidyasankar
 
ps. I know perfectly well that the criticisms you raise are not meant personally
and that they are issue-based. That is as it should be. I am just making a light
-hearted observation that seeing this in action gives me an opportunity to gain
better equanimity myself!