[Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Quote
Time and again in these issues, we have to remind ourselves that any stance 
one takes about the veda has to be comprehensive for all of it. While in vedAnta
we concentrate on the upanishad portions, we should not lose sight of the fact
that there is a lot of material in the veda that lies outside of the upanishads. Any
stance we take on what apaurusheyatva means should be consistent for all of it.

AtmajnAna, as conveyed by the Sruti, is unique, in that an approach to jnAna is
also a matter of anubhava. However, there are other kinds of jnAna conveyed by
the Sruti, all vyAvahArika no doubt, all aparA vidyA no doubt, but which are not
a matter of direct anubhava. If accepting apaurusheyatva of the veda is not to
one's liking or if accepting it as ISvara-authored is not to one's liking, then one
has to have a consistent view of what one likes, as regards the entire veda. It
is not right to talk about the issue as if affects only the vedAnta jnAna portion
and that we have a workaround anyway, because of our anubhava.
Unquote

The concern of the Vedas is confined within the creation including the different beings (including even the deities) within it at different spiritual levels.The apaurusheyatva from the Vedic angle would mean that there has not been any author of the Veda (i.e., there has not been any source of the Veda) from within the creation, which however is difficult to prove logically. From the Vedic angle one has to accept the apaurusheyatva only as a hypothesis and this hypothesis cannot be challenged.  However from the Vedantic angle the situation is different. While explaining the Purusha sukta the Vedanta takes a stand like Lord Krishna did, when He talked about the creation that he created only with a fraction of Him. The Lord is within the creation as well as outside it. He can be the source even being outside the creation. Thus the Veda can be apaurusheya, ie.,  there need not have been any author exclusively within the creation.
 

Regards,
Sunil KB



________________________________
 From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
 

> Humble sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Vidya prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> 
> But, IMHO, that shruti need not be necessarily should carry the tag of 
> apaurusheyatva always when this status is still open and has different 
> interpretations among different schools of thought. For that matter today 
> majority of people donot have the adhikAra to pursue their sAdhana in veda 
> mArga due to restrictions based on varNa. So, those who donot have 
> vedAdhikAra but eager to get mOksha (ofcourse, every one will have 
> mOkshAdhikAra irrespective of their caste and creed) can still get that 

That different schools of thought have different interpretations is what we have
been discussing. However, in the pUrva and uttara mImAMsA schools, the Sruty
apaurusheyatva is an issue that is taken seriously. Part of the reason for the 
existence of this forum is to enable a discussion that will help us understand
the traditional positions correctly. However, veda apaurusheyatva is not a
function of adhikAra of human beings. I should think that goes without saying.

Time and again in these issues, we have to remind ourselves that any stance 
one takes about the veda has to be comprehensive for all of it. While in vedAnta
we concentrate on the upanishad portions, we should not lose sight of the fact
that there is a lot of material in the veda that lies outside of the upanishads. Any
stance we take on what apaurusheyatva means should be consistent for all of it.

AtmajnAna, as conveyed by the Sruti, is unique, in that an approach to jnAna is
also a matter of anubhava. However, there are other kinds of jnAna conveyed by
the Sruti, all vyAvahArika no doubt, all aparA vidyA no doubt, but which are not
a matter of direct anubhava. If accepting apaurusheyatva of the veda is not to
one's liking or if accepting it as ISvara-authored is not to one's liking, then one
has to have a consistent view of what one likes, as regards the entire veda. It
is not right to talk about the issue as if affects only the vedAnta jnAna portion
and that we have a workaround anyway, because of our anubhava.

Regards,
Vidyasankar
                                            
_______________________________________________
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