[Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Sat Jan 12 14:36:50 CST 2013
If only sharaddha is required, then Jaimini, Sabara, Kumarila and Prabhakara would not have defended apauresheyam using logic.
If every knowledge is apauresheya, then the tradition need not specifically call one set pauresheya while calling others (smrti) apauresheya.
As to show me the author, Kalavai has given sarvanukramani as the evidence where rishis are recorded as the authors.
The fact is we don't have proper defence for this ancient belief and I think we should work on it in the interest of dharma and satyam instead creating a cult.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Swami Sarvabhutananda <swami.sarvabhutananda at gmail.com>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:57:54
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
Any number of counter arguments can be imagined, quoted and
What is the basic requirement is SHRADDA and if this is not there then
ADVAITAM can never be understood!!!
wishes and love.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> him the teaching on brahman. This shows that there was a point of time
> 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.
> 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
> 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,
> Slokas, Sutras and elucidations and explanations are the breath of
> This shows two things. First, since the Upanishads are mentioned
> 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
> similarly. So if Vedas are apaurusheya, then itihasa, and puranam should
> also be apaurusheya. But no traditionalist thinks the itihasa and
> 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
> the four vedas and itihAsa and purANam (which he calls as the fifth
> 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
> 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
> have said and thereby, approaching sanatkumAra would have been
> 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)
> 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.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
WELCOME YOUR INTERACTION.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list