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

[rajaramvenk at gmail.com]

No one said smrti is not a pramana. There are two classes of verbal testimony - shruti and smrti, one apauresheya and the other pauresheya. pauresheya is valid as long as it does not contradict apauresheya. It can of course expand on it to elucidate. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:28:38 
To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"

For a Vedantin  Lord Krishna's discourse on the Bhagavad Gita  had validated all the shruits. Now please prove that Lord Krishna's discourse is not acceptable.



________________________________
 From: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
 
Shruti based logic can be used only after the validity of shruti as pramana is established. Non-apprehension of author is one counter to the presumption of an author. It is challenged by showing a) listing of authors in sarvanukramani and b) vedas are full of real poets. 

So, anumana is required to establish apauresheya, which is what sabara, for e.g., did. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:16:33 
To: <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya
according to the Vedas ?"

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course, yes. I'm not arguing that the logic used for establishing
> apauresheyatva cannot be countered. It will be and should be an ongoing
> business for the true vedantins  to re-establish it.
>

I look at the issue this way:  If it is 'mere' logic then there is no doubt
about the danger of its being unsettled by stronger logic.  But the case we
have is tarka that is shruti anugRhIta.  Such a tarka that has been coming
down to us has not been uprooted or unsettled.  And the sampradaya will not
see such a happening in the future too as the sampradaya is strong enough
on this ground.  Only if someone brings up arguments against the  prevalent
view by shruti-based logic there will arise a real debate.  In the absence
of it I see no need for any effort to re-establish it since there is no
de-establishment that has occurred.

regards
subrahmanian.v

_______________________________________________
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