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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

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.

> Since you are talking about this praMANa just in your last couple of 
mails, I thought you are depending on some paurusheya assertion and the 
statements in the text that which itself in the question.  Anyway, thanks 
for clarifying that you are using the fundamental pramANa anupalabdhi to 
prove aparusheyatva.  But this does not anyway answers the question how a 
paurusheya testimonials would prove the aparusheyatva of veda, since one 
of your arguments is 'all' paurusheya' grantha-s are not always free from 
defect !! 


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
to.

>  that means it_is_fool-proof, ONLY for those who have unconditional 
faith in the tradition and traditional Acharya-s and shruti/smruti 
vAkya-s...not for others anyway,  who, by standing outside the traditional 
circle, wants to question the rationality behind apaurusheyatva of veda-s 
. 

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.

> That means this aparusheyatva 'stuff' cannot be sold outside the vedic 
market.  If anybody want to buy this theory apaurusheyatva first they have 
come to the fold of veda saMpradAya and should have an unconditional faith 
that ONLY veda-s are 'authorless' magic revelation and this 
'authorlessness' cannot be attributed to any other text in the world 
though it is anonymous!!  And now clarify what would be the determining 
factor here to decide whether a particular text has author or otherwise?? 
For example, how dvaitins hold a paurusheya (according to advaitins) text 
like kArika as apaurusheya shruti?? 


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:

>  Thanks for the references prabhuji, I shall look into it in detail 
to-night.. But if memory serves me right, he said bhagavat pAda 
exclusively mentioned only 5 praMANa-s in his commentaries on br.up. and 
mundaka and anupalabdhi as a valid pramANa is concpicuous by its absence 
in his bhAshya vAkya. 


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

>  But no harm because smruti also an independent valid pramANa for the 
non-vedAdhikAri-s and a means to get mOksha.  For that matter historians 
claim that shruti is an ancient text and smruti is relatively a recent 
work :-))


> 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
verdict)

>  but you are forgetting the fact that apaurusheyatva of veda-s is not an 
undisputable fact for the 'outsiders' of veda, they have every reason / 
rationality behind arguing and questioning the credentials of this 
'super-natural' claims :-)) And they can always come up with the examples 
like above just because, in their opinion,  an authorless text, which 
talks about certain geographical places, life style of particular set of 
people and naming things then existing, is an unreasonable & irrational 
claim. 

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. 

>  by saying this you are forcing the people to first accept the shruti as 
the unquestionable pramANa!!  For me and you it is fine, but we cannot 
float this theory outside...for outsiders it always remains as a 
theological dogma without much rationality!!

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.

>  To say all these dont you relying upon some paurusheya texts in which 
you have untainted faith??  Anyway, I have said this enough times. 
Anupalabdhi, as a pramANa has been introduced by some authors, whose work, 
we, anyway doubt since it is paurusheya.  Moreover, shruti itself, nowhere 
asserts that for its aparusheyatva, anupalabdhi of katru-s is the pramANa. 
 So, for proving veda-s apaurusheyatva we are using the theory called 
'anupalabdhi' pramANa introduced by some people in their works.  And 
finally, by saying you can use shruti vAkya-s to prove shruti 
aparusheyatva you are forcing us to conclude that the theory of 
apaurusheyatva has the anyOnyAshraya dOsha. 

>  In short, the conclusion that we can arrive from all these discussion 
is this :  Shruti is apaurusheya based on anupalabdhi of authors and 
shruti is the ONLY aparusheya scripture and this aktrutva prasiddhi cannot 
be extended to any other text which is anonymous.  Shruti is apaurusheya 
because, apart from fundamental pramANa i.e. anupalabdhi, shruti's 
statement itself a sahakAri pramANa which has been endorsed by vaidika 
saMpradAya Acharya-s.  And most importantly, this theory of aparusheyatva 
can hold its currency ONLY within the vaidika circle, and it is not meant 
for sale outside this circle.  And if anybody wants to buy this theory, he 
has to accept the axiomatic declaration of veda-s and should have faith in 
the words of knowers of tradition.  From this it is clear that we cannot 
take the apaurusheyatva theory outside the traditional circle for an open 
deliberation among different schools of thought. 


Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar