[Advaita-l] Is the eternity and apaurusheyatva of Vedas a mere belief

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 2 23:08:54 EDT 2019

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:01 AM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:52 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Namaste Bhaskar ji,
> > One way to link the concepts of svatah prAmANaya and apauruSheyatva is as
> > follows:
> >
> > If we accept Vedas have svatah prAmANya, then what they reveal is
> > intrinsically valid, unless there is some other pramANa that overrules
> > them.
>  For that matter, this svataH pramANya is not restricted only to
> Veda/shabda.  svatah prAmANya is generic position which argues that a
> given cognition (either pratyaksha or shabda) is valid mUlataH unless it is
> overridden by a bhAdaka jnyAna. A snake cognition is indeed a real snake
> and hence valid unless if you have a bhAdhaka cognition of a rope. In this
> case validity for snake perception is just confirmed, and not created
> afresh.
This is not correct. Allah Upanishad is found in Veda. If Svatah Pramanya
is accepted this Upanishad is also valid Veda only. But we know it cannot
be valid. Why? Because there is no Guru Sishya Parampara of teaching this
Upanishad from ancient time. There are no ancient Bhashyas for it and so
on. Therefore we conclude it is added recently by some person. It is
Pourusheya and not valid.

> > There is shruti which says vAca vIrUpa nityayA and asya mahato bhUtasya
> > nisshvasitam rigvedo..etc establishing their nityatva, apauruSheyatva
> etc.
> > Thus if we agree with svatah prAmANya vAda, vedas talking of their
> anAditva
> > etc is itself the pramANa for it, unless there is another pramANa to
> > disprove it.
> >
> Veda's such talks about its own anaaditva and nityatva should not be
> considered as pramANa to accept Veda itself.
> Fundamental validity for Veda is asserted because its bAdhaka
> (pourushEyatva) stands un-established by opponent. When no bhAdaka,
> pramANyaM siddham savataH eva cha!
> Thus, role of apourusheyatva vaada is to refute any bhAdkatvam only and not
> to assert validity afresh. It is not the case as you think that because a
> text says about itself that it is nitya make it nitya.  All vedic mention
> of its nityatva about itself has no bearing on its validity. If vEdas have
> it other way (that anityatva of itself is mentioned), then it is the case
> of self defeating.
> Regards,
> sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://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