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

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
To: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
 

Do you mean to say that Ishvara is not Brahman?




________________________________
 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
 

Ishwara is a purusha not only the avatara. Please read bhashya for BG 15.17, for e.g.
 
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

The Lord is partly and temporarlily a Purusha as he appeared as a human birth and lived 125 years as a human being in his own creation, which is again only a fraction of him.  So he is not a purusha in the sense that you want to challenge the Apauyrusheyatva of the Shruiti.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
>To: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> 
>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:40 AM 
>
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
>
>
>
>He is both.
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:01 AM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
>
>
>Is Lord Purusha or not? 
>Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>________________________________
> 
>From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
>Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:59:17 -0800 (PST)
>To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>ReplyTo: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
>
>
>Oh, so sorry to see that you have missed the whole thing. When Apaurusheya is defined as unauthored it means the work is not by a human author. Now a Brahmavid is like  Brahman and the Brahmavid is Jeevanmukta. He would no longer be considered to be the same as a regular human being, though he would have the mortal frame till his Videhamukti. One may have doubt about other jeevanmuktas without being able to recognize them individually but not about the Avataras like Lord Krishna. So whatever Lord Krishna said after being yogayukta has to be  apaurusheya. Lord Krishna gave the Bhagavad Gita discourse to Arjuna when he was in the Yoga-yukta state. So what is given in the Bhagavad Gita cannot be called Smriti. Brahman does not reveal Smriti. Bhagavad Gita is an Upanishad (in keeping with the definition of the term upanishad) and the teaching given there is apauresheya. You will have to accept this if you are interested in objectivity and not just bent
 on  winning an argument by any means.
>
>Sincerely,
>Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <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: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
>
>
>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
>________________________________
> 
>From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> 
>Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:28:38 -0800 (PST)
>To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>ReplyTo: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>