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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian,

I am cutting and pasting below the response to your arguments on  my blog
http://apaureshyatva.blogspot.co.uk/

If it is not comfortable for the forum members to investigate the topic, we
can move the discussion outside.

Best Regards


Below is the response on my blog to the arguments :

Rajaram,

I will address some of the points mentioned in response to me in the
advaita-L list -


"It is good to know that such a 'creation' is only symbolic."

The question is not whether it is symbolic. The talk of creation of vedas
itself shows that vedas do not consider themselves eternal.

"Atharva Veda is not a later addition; it is only that it is not
specifically mentioned."

This is not a valid answer. Even mahabharata is not specifically mentioned
here.

Also, Atharva veda consists of many upanishads too and is definitely not
composed of riks alone.

"What is meant by 'adhItya' here is only that one has completed a course.
That he has become proficient in all the subjects taught is not inferable."

The question is not whether Shwetaketu has become proficient or not. If he
had already studied the chhAndogya upanishad as part of the vedas, then
there is no need to approach his father, for he already knew the contents.

"Pl. read the bhashya agian, especially the last paragraph: Even if one has
mastered the literature (the vedAdhyayana) unless there is vairAgya,
approaching an Acharya, etc. are in place there will be no Brahman
realization possible. For this reason alone the Rg.veda, etc. were
'excluded' from parA vidyA."

The upanishad does not say that vedadhyayana is apara vidya. The upanishad
says that the four vedas are apara vidya.

"The above thinking is due to not looking at the bhashyam."

Sankara bhashyam came at least a 1000 years after the age of upanishads.
One needs to look at the upanishads themselves rather than the bhashyams to
understand them.

"Sri Shankaracharya, while commenting on this mantra, writes for the word
इतिहासः itihAsa of the Upanishad: ‘such as the dialogue, etc. between
UrvashI and PurUravas"

While the word itihAsa may or may not mean the mahabharata, it is pure
speculation to take it to mean only the dialogue between Uravashi and
Pururavas or other vedic statements. Same goes for the rest. Further, the
reason as to why the upanishads are mentioned separately from the vedas
also needs explanation (which a traditionalist cannot give).

"However, the texts of the MahAbhArata, etc.
cannot be regarded to be included by these Vedic terms as it would be
unreasonable to hold that they have their source in the Vedas."

The character of Krishna is mentioned in the chhandogya upanishad (which,
the traditionalists consider to be part of vedas). There is also a
Rig-vedic ramayana which is derived from the 10th mandala of Rig veda. So a
traditionalist cannot make the above argument.

"The person/aspiramt 'nArada' is different from the 'charater' nArada in
the Upanishat."

Please read the upanishad where it is clearly mentioned that the character
narada is also the aspirant.