[Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 9 17:13:20 CST 2013
It is a pity that most of the scholars are a confused lot. One easily fogets what is not to be forgotten. Lord Krishna says ; "vedanta-krid veda-vid eva caham". He does not make the Veda as inclusive of the Vedanta. Even Sayana had separated Veda and Vedanta. The former is apara-vidya and the later is para-vidya. Mundaka also reiterates that. Lord Buddha knew that very well when he was against the over-indulgence in the vedic rituals as these cannot lead one to beyond the cycle of birth and death. But most of the ignorant brahmins of his time and thereafter to this day call Lord Buddha as against the Vedas. One has to imbibe this is the mind and never to forget this before one should event attempt to understand the Aparusheyatva of the Vedas.
Secondly, One has not to forget that before Vedavyasa classified the Vedas the Vedas and the puranas and itihasa together constituted one single veda. This historical fact is never to be forgotten. Later when the Mahabharata was written it was told by Vaishampayana as equivalent to Veda. Valmiki told the same thiung about the Ramayana. All these texts reveal eternal truths and nobody can claim ownership of these truths, albeit different truths were revealed at different times in rsponse to the enquiries at diferent times.
Thirdly one should not forget that the five verses of the Purusha sukta are common in all the Vedas. There are changes only in the subsequent verses.
One who has these basics alright, can understand why Svetaketu had to be taught Vedanta after he learnt the Veda.
Regards, Sunil Kb
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: Kalavai Venkat <kalavai.venkat at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:25 AM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
KK and Kalavai have posted very good arguments to show that the Vedas are
not apauresheya according to the Vedas themselves.
http://apaureshyatva.blogspot.co.uk/ If their argumeent is correct.
a fundamental belief of vedanta school on which it is founded is incorrect.
I have reached out to a few traditional scholars privately. Traditional
scholars will not know about linguistic evolution, comparative mythology,
genetics, archaelogy etc. But they should not to struggle to a key tenet
common to all schools of vedanta and mimamsa from a sastra point of view.
If vedas were apaurusheya and eternal, then we would expect them to
constitute a single and unified whole. But internal evidence from the vedas
and upanishads suggests that Sruti is stratified and not a single unified
whole. Here are a few examples -
1. In purusha sUkta (Rig veda 10.90), the Rig veda, Yajur veda and Sama
veda are spoken of as being created from the sacrifice. Note that the
Atharva veda is missing because it is a later addition to the group of
vedas. Further note that this talk of creation of vedas also shows that
vedas do not consider themselves eternal.
2. In Chhandogya Upanishad (6.1.2), it is said that Svetaketu has
studied all the vedas (sarvAn vedAn adhItya) and yet Svetaketu does not
know anything about brahma-vidya. His father Uddalaka then goes on to give
him the teaching on brahman. This shows that there was a point of time when
Chhandogya upanishad was not considered as part of vedas (later it was
added to Sama veda).
3. In Mundaka upanishad, (1.1.5), the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva vedas
are considered as apara-vidya (lower knowledge) while the knowledge of
brahman (that is given by the upanishads) is considered as para vidya. This
shows that there was a point of time when the upanishads (or the Mundaka
upanishad at least) was not a part of the vedas. Sankara notes this as an
objection but tries to explain it away by saying that vidya implies
realization and not the assemblage of words in the upanishads. His
explanation looks forced and artificial.
4. In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) it is said that the Rig veda,
Yajur veda, Sama veda, Atharvangirasa, itihasa, purANam, vidya, Upanishads,
Slokas, Sutras and elucidations and explanations are the breath of Brahman.
This shows two things. First, since the Upanishads are mentioned separately
from the vedas, it shows that there was a point of time, when the
Upanishads were not considered to be part of the Vedas. Second, it also
shows that the Vedas, Upanishads, itihasa, puranam and Sutras were treated
similarly. So if Vedas are apaurusheya, then itihasa, and puranam should
also be apaurusheya. But no traditionalist thinks the itihasa and puranam
to be apaurusheya. Therefore, this shows that the Vedas also are not
apaurusheya. Note that puranam is in singular. So it also most likely
implies that there was only one puranam at some point of time.
5. In chhAndogya upanishad (beginning shlokas of chapter 7), nArada
approaches sanatkumAra for instruction. Here nArada says that he knows all
the four vedas and itihAsa and purANam (which he calls as the fifth veda)
etc. and yet he does not know the Self. This is another instance to show
that the chhAndogya upanishad was not considered as part of the Sama veda
at one point of time. For if the chhAndogya upanishad were always a part of
the Sama veda, then nArada would have already known what sanatkumAra would
have said and thereby, approaching sanatkumAra would have been redundant.
6. One can bring up the simple example of the Puruṣa Sūkta which is to
be found in multiple versions across various texts such as The Ṛgveda,
Vājasaneyi Saṁhita, etc. These have varying number of verses (16 to 24) as
well as the composition of the verses of the same sūkta in two different
meters: anuṣṭubh and triṣṭubh thereby internally proving that it is a
stratified product of composition by many hands that was subsequently
redacted and collated.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list