[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:

>   1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
>   till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question:  Are there no
>   human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a
> Rishi
>   to receive the Veda?
>

This will need study of purANa-s.
Although, I think that the texts about sR^iShTi do not go in this much
detail.
They just say brahmA came and gave it to manu, etc.
Moreover, R^iShi-s are accepted in deva-loka, etc. also.


>     3. If the vedas can get revealed to a Rishi, an evolved person, and
> only
>   then get propagated and available for other humans, what is the fate of
> the
>   humans who evolved and remained before the Rishi-human evolved and
> received
>   the Veda?
>

If this happened then those people got birth for bhoga only. Although
practice of satya, etc. is also dharma, is to be remembered.


>   6. If the veda has to wait till a rishi is evolved, the humans, the less
>   efficient ones than the rishi, who evolved logically before the more
>   efficient one evolved (progressive), will be deprived of the means to
>   purushartha.  This is unfair.
>

Talk of unfairness doesn't apply to facts. If the above said happened, then
it was result of their karma, is to be accepted. There is nothing without
cause.


>   7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
>   SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
>   asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution into
>   the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that
> along
>   with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
>   other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
>   Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by Sri
>   Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
>

'Along with' means to say that in the same time. But, was this time a
second, is the wuestion.


>   10. There is the Br.Up. mantra: tad yo yo devaanAm pratyabudhyata,
>   tathaRShINAm tathaa manuShyANAm ...which says that whoever from the
> human,
>   rishi or devata classes comes to realize this Brahman, becomes Brahman,
>   with sarvAtmabhAva.  This mantra recognizes the categories of manushyas
>   distinct from rishis and devatas.
>

Because they are common to both or distinct from both. They have some
qualities which are uncommon to manuShya and devatA-s.


>   The Vedic sRShTi is always of  the type where all the beings, with their
> classes and  sub classes, are   created, rather manifest, at the time of
> sRShTi, after pralayam ends.  The Veda is also available at the very
> beginning for the humans to apply it in their lives.  For, as soon as  a
> child is born, or rather even before the birth of a child, the Veda-based
> rituals  are to be performed for samskara.
>

Again the same question arises about the time called sR^iShTi. Is it a
specific second or vast flow of time ?
In first case, there could be no solution other than illusion for such
thing(sR^iShTi-kriyA) to take place.
In second case, which is accepted by mImAMsaka-s as well as scientists,
words quoted above don't fit.
mImAMsaka-s generally don't accept sR^iShTi and pralaya. They take this
world as pravAha-nitya.


> Is it
> a flaw if for some reason the Veda apaurusheyatva/prAmANya is not
> understood/explained logically within  the context of the modern evolution
> theory?


apauruSheyatva and prAmANya, both are different things - is to be
understood first.
If apauruSheyatva is not established and prAmANya is established anyhow,
then there is not problem for vaidika-s.
But, if prAmANya can not be established, either by establishing
apauruSheyatva or pauruSheyatva, then everything said by veda-s loses it's
validity. If words are not pramANa, then they must be generators of bhrama
or saMshaya. So, this option is not acceptable.

 My answer is: In the past there have been a number of jnanis who
> have followed the Veda as the traditional pUrvAchAryas followed and
> obtained freedom from samsara.  The so-called illogicality behind veda
> apaurusheyatva/pramANya did not come in their way of becoming
> self-realized.  The modern theory of evolution was completely unknown to
> them.
>

Your question and answers are not in harmony.
You question is related to people who feel that evolution theory is opposed
to prAmANya, etc. of veda-s and you answer talks about people unaware of
this problem.