[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> So, without scratching our head to arrive at a logical conclusion with
> regard to apaurusheyatva of veda-s, as Sri Vidya prabhuji suggested, it is
> better to take it 'as it is given' since it is  an axiomatic statement
> which has the base in saMpradAya and Apta vAkya.


RV: Sri Vidyasankar did not say that taking it as a given is the only way
to do it. He has been actively reviewing and guiding my efforts  to write a
paper on Logical Basis of Apaureshyatva. If Sri Vidyasankar did say that we
should not scratch our heads, it is his personal opinion. The mimamsa and
vedanta tradition did not take that approach. They did not say accept it on
faith or as a given. They defended it logically. When I met Sri Mani Dravid
Sastrigal, he extended the time from one to three hours as he thought the
topic is important though he has access to qualified scholars to discuss or
teach to pass time. As Sri Subrahmanian said he did not believe in
evolution of life or languages. But he did not refrain from a logical
discussion on the topic of apaureshyatva. I told him how yajnas could have
evolved and he countered it. (Briefly, I argued that the PIE linguistic
root of water is dr. Someone in the past facing draught and wanting atleast
a drop of water would have assumed that isn (god) will provide dr (water).
He would have called out to Indra (isn + dr). If it worked, either because
there is a real Indra or not, others will learn it from them. When it does
not work, they will try to get their method by exactly replicating the
dress, hair style, incantation, sitting direction etc. He explained that
the sanskrit root for Indra cannot be broken down to PIE roots. Also, the
use of the stress on letters in words follow a specific pattern related to
other words in the mantra. He exaplined that with the help of the word
prajapati.)


> And, I donot know how pUrva
> meemAmsaka-s justified this claim.
>
I have posted my understanding briefly and also highlighted what I see as
defect in their logic. If we dont take the effort to establish why Vedas
are a pramana (leave alone apaureshya), we are doing injustice to the
intellect given to us. All things in the realm of pratyaksha are objects
denoted by words. The words and objects have a connection as we are able to
recognize the connection between a pot and the word pot. Before the
creation of a particular instance of a pot and after its destruction, we
still recognize the word pot as referring to the pot. We dont recognize it
as referring to a particular instance but to a class of pots. Thus the
connection between the word and pot is inseparable. Now, the pot and the
word are both present in the source as the source. So, even when the word
or pot is in an unmanifested state, the connection between them does not
cease to be. This is the case for all words and objects. The uniqueness of
the Vedas is not in their containing unique words or referring to unique
objects. If that is the case, then they cannot be understood as we can
understand only laukika words and objects of perception. The uniqueness of
the Vedas is that the sequence in which these words are connected (jnana
pravagam) is also indestuctible. It is where the logic breaks, as I see it,
and goes in to faith.