[Advaita-l] (Advaita-1)-Are NOTVedas Apaurusheya?

[Srikanta Narayanaswami]

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
Sri Rajaram Venkataramani wrote on Jan 5th to raise his point that the Vedas are not apurusheya.For this he shows certain points that the vedas contains different sections from different Upanishads.He says that the Chandogya Upanishad was not considered as a part of the vedas,later it was added to samaveda.
But,this argument is not correct.Though the vedas are one mass,it contains many sections like mantra,Brahmanas,Aranyakas.They have different contexts.The Mantra and the Brahmanas sections are not included and mixedup with the Aranyakas.The Mantra,Brahmanas portions have different "Adhikaris".The Aranyaka adhikaris are Saints and Sanyasis.They are not adhikaris for performing Yagas and Yagnas which come under the Mantra,Brahmana section.For example in the Mudaka Upanishad,Karmas are criticised.The Upanishad gradually goeson to explain the 'Brahma Jnanam".By this we cannot conclude that the section on "Brahma vidya"was added later.When it is so clear that the performance of karmas are futile as the Upanishad explains,one cannot argue that the section on "Brahma vidya"was added later.This explanation holds good for other Upanishads also.
N.Srikanta.