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

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

I think you understood why I referred to the theory of rebirth. Because it has a logic, though not a pratyaksha pramana. Whatever one does in one life will have the consequent effect and that part of the consequent effect which did not manifest in the same life would be manifested  in the next life. This cycle will go on till the desireless work is started and the effect of all the past work of desire exhausted.  This shows that without Pratyaksha pramana also there can be logical conclusion and Apaurusheyatva of Veda is one like that. You can call that a hypothesis. This reminds me of Avogadro's hypothesis in science.




________________________________
 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
 




On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Rajaram,
>
>Quest for truth is admirable. Now if that is your concern why do you go so far to the "Apaurusheyatva of the Veda" (which is bugging you so much and you are not satisfied with all that has been said so far by different writers in this forum)? First decide yourself whether you accept the theory of rebirth (one of the basis of the Vedic religion), as no one to my knowledge has been able to give any tangible proof of that and that is why the scholars of the semitic religions do not accept that . If however you believe in rebirth please logically explain why you think the correctness in accepting the theory of rebirth (with proof to support your statement). I earnestly request you not to evade this like you have evaded some of  my earlier questions, which could have been inconvenient to you.
>
 
RV:  Ian Stevenson has documented cases of reincarnation. Now Jim Tucker is doing research in to that. From a completely different angle, Robert Lanza is talking about biocentrism. I have a paper (WIP) on why the arguments by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Thagard. on astrology is a pseudoscience is flawed. If we study the evidence for astrology and accept it, then we karma theory will have a basis. It is the same if we study the mind and show it is different from body. There is nothing that is inconvenient to me. My buddhi may not understand the relevance of your post and ignore it. For example, this advise from you on why I should focus on reincarnation rather than apauresheyatva. 
 

Secondly may I request you not to  bring in the texts of other scriptures into this discussions as you may not even be aware that there are verses in  the Qurana which are contradicted by verses in the same text and the Qurana, not being chronologically arranged, does not allow the reader to find out which verse superseded which verse. Secondly why at all any verse in a text should contradict another verse in the same text if it is claimed that God himself was the source of those verses ?

RV: You are right. You can show that these texts are flawed. However, billions of people can be downright dogmatic once you tell them God told you so. Establishing apauresheyatva of shruti logically may help people to focus on truth.