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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Do you mean to say that you are not brahman?

 The advaita tradition does not consider BhG as a shruti but as smrti.
shruti is apauresheya and smrti is pauresheya. His words are pauresheya but
valid pramana.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>