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

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 12:55:18 CST 2013

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> >  surprising!!  In this thread, I think, you only quoted shruti, smruti
> texts to substantiate your claim on veda-s apaurusheyatva, that is what
> (a) I was talking.  And Secondly (b) is H.H. commentary on V.C. to show us
> that a paurusheya work can be held to  prove apaurusheyatva.  Now you are
> telling, you said neither (a) nor (b), surprising indeed.

Not at all surprising.  I cited several cases from the shruti/smRti as
supporting evidence, vyatirekamukhena, for the anupalabdhi pramANa that is
a given in Advaita.  Since you said that I was 'basing' my argument for
apaursheyatva on these shruti/smrti instances or the HH's bhashyam quotes,
I said I was not 'basing' the argument on these but the fundamental basis
is the anupalabdhi pramANam.

> >  I think this is the first time in this thread you are telling me that
> advaita uses anupalabdhi pramANam,

I did not have occasion to explicitly say this since I thought it is well

> anyway, without going into the details of it.  I request you to clarify in
> detail, how the anupalabdhi pramANam is fool-proof to establish the
> apaurusheyatva of veda-s

For Vedantins it is fool-proof and they do not need any other pramANa other
than supporting sentences from shruti/smRti, some instances that I pointed

> and also clarify the 'vyApti' of this pramANa whether it is restricted
> ONLY to veda-s or the scope of it can be extended to all other anonymous
> literature.

Vedantins do not 'add' anything to the stock of what has been accepted as
Veda by the(ir) pUrvaachAryas.  They will verify if there is or was in
vogue the (veda) adhyayana  of that literature.

> >  As a side note, when I was talking about the topic 'praMANa-s' with
> some scholar (not definitely from Sri SSS's camp, you can be rest assured
> :-)) he clarified that 'anupalabdhi' has been treated as valid pramANa ONLY
> in purvamImAmsaka's works, but shankara counted the pramANa-s as ONLY 5
> i.e. pratyaksha, anumAna, upamAna, arthApatii and Agama.  And nowhere he
> talked about this anupalabdhi as the sixth valid pramANa to establish
> 'anything'.  Anyway, if you have any reference to this pramANa in shankara
> bhAshya, I'd like to be corrected.

I think you have been misinformed.  There are innumerable instances in the
prasthAnatraya bhashyam itself for the use of anupalabdhi.  I give below
just three instances:

   1. Br.Sutram 'ata eva cha nityatvam' 1.3.29.  The very opening words in
   the bhashyam are: 'svatantrasya kartuH *asmaraNAd*ibhiH vedasya
   nityatve....'  The word 'asmaraNa' is the anupalabdhi pramANam.
   Sw.Gambhirananda's translation: //The beginninglessness of the Vedas stands
   established (in the pUrva mImAmsA) from the fact that no independent author
   of the Vedas is remembered (i.e.known).  That having been taken for
   granted, .....// This (also) shows that just as in pUrva mImAmsA in Advaita
   Vedanta too the anupalabdhi pramANam for the apauruSheyatva of the Veda is
   2. Br.sUtram 'prANagateshcha' 3.1.3.  Here in the last sentence Shankara
   says: na hi nirAshrayAH prANAH kvachid gacchanti tiShThanti vA jIvato-*
   adarshanAt*.'  Here the word 'adharshanAt' is anupalabdhi.  Sw.G's
   translation: //For the organs cannot either go or stay anywhere unless they
   have a material support, since this is *not noticed* in any living
   creature.// ('not noticed in any ...' is anupalabdhi.
   3. Br.sutra 2.1.14 'tadananyatvam ArambhaNashabdAdibhyaH'. Here a little
   after the famous sentence 'api cha antyamidam pramANam...' Shankara says:
   'na cheyamavagaitiH anarthikA bhrAntirvA iti shakyam vaktum. avidyAnivRtti-
   *phaladarshanAt*, bAdhakajnAnAntara-*abhAvAccha*.' Here ..'darshanAt' is
   pratyakSha pramANam and 'abhAvAt' is anupalabdhi pramNAnam.  Sw.G's
   translation: //It cannot be said that this realization is useless or
   erroneous, since it is *seen *to lead to the eradication of ignorance,
   and since* there is no other *knowledge to override it.// Here 'seen' is
   pratyaksha pramanam and 'there is no other knowledge...' is anupalabdhi

>  Yes, we can always  say veda-s are the source  material for the
> smruti-s, but it does not mean veda-s has to be aparusheya to become the
> source material!!

This is wrong.  If an author is admitted to the 'Veda' it is only smRti and
no longer Veda : )

> An apex court case study & verdict could be the reference material for the
> lower courts while clearing the pending cases
> and giving the judgement.

viShama dRShTAntaH (because it is indisputably known that apex court
verdict was given out by a puruSha, it is not an asharIri vAk that gave the

My above reply is also applicable to your other objection on 'shruti
anugRheeta tarka'.  Anupalabdhi is the pramANam.  To support this there is
nothing wrong in citing shruti/smRti passages.  And since apauruSheyatvam
is 'shrautam', that which is acceptable in the shruti alone can be included
in the tarka and not anything else.  I had already pointed to instances
like the Prashnopanishat AchArya declaring: 'iti shushruma pUrveShAm yena
tad vyachachakShire'  ['Thus we have heard from our Acharyas .....they
explained..] . Yajnavalkya says while teaching about Brahman/Atman: 'iti
brAhmaNA vadanti'  saying that it is not a teaching of his but that which
Elders have been giving out.  These instances of the Shruti are not to be
contradicted/rejected by a tarka that is used for apauruSheyatA.  For these
instances never talk about the name of any author of the Veda excepting
using worlds like 'veda', elders, etc.  Again, anupalabdhi.


> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list