[Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?

[Swami Sarvabhutananda]

OM
tHERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DEFENDING OR AIRING A POINT OF VIEW1
BUT ONE SHOULD BE OPEN!
THE TOPIC IS ADVAITA!.
WISHES AND LOVE.
SWAMI SARVABHUTANANDA

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:45 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I meant one set (smrti) pauresheya while calling others (shruti)
> apauresheya.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:36:50
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Reply-To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 ?
>
> OM
> Any number of counter arguments can be imagined, quoted and
> argued!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> What is the basic requirement is SHRADDA and if this is not there then
> ADVAITAM can never be understood!!!
> wishes and love.
> Swami Sarvabhutananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> VISIT http://inteligentliving.blogspot.com/
> WELCOME YOUR INTERACTION.
> WISHES.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 
VISIT http://inteligentliving.blogspot.com/
WELCOME YOUR INTERACTION.
WISHES.