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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 3:46 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:25 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This will not be the case since the 'anityatva/mithyatva/non-existence of
>> Veda' in any other state of moksha, for instance will not contradict the
>> nityatva statement in the Veda as the two are different. Nityatva is
>> vyavaharika, pravaha nityatva and the other is from the paramarthika
>> standpoint. So there is no contradiction even if two statements as
>> intended
>> above are present in the Veda itself.
>
>
> Both nityatva and anittyatava statements in the same vEda cannot be valid
> on its face value, because its very nityatava is required for its validity
> to begin with and hence pivotal. If you argue they are applicable in
> different standpoints, then the question is how do you know there is such
> thing as "paramarthika" ? Is this idea come from Veda itself or outside of
> Veda?
>

The idea of paramarthika is taught by the Veda itself. For example:

Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.5.15:

यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं रसयते
तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर इतरं शृणोति तदितर इतरं मनुते तदितर इतरं स्पृशति
तदितर इतरं विजानाति ..

यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्तत्केन कं
रसयेत्तत्केन कमभिवदेत्तत्केन कं शृणुयात्तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं
स्पृशेत्तत्केन कं विजानीयाद्येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्स एष
नेति नेत्यात्मागृह्यो न गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो
न व्यथते न रिष्यति विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादित्युक्तानुशासनासि
मैत्रेय्येतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यो विजहार ॥ १५ ॥

Here, both the vyavaharika (in the first part) and paramarthika (in the
next part) have been clearly differentiated by the Upanishad itself.

>
> Obviously you say it is vedic idea. If that idea has to be true, the vEda
> has to be valid for its pramEya-s. If you accepts and admits its anityatva
> albeit in a different state, then such anityatva negates its very validity
> to begin with and its saying about paramarthika idea has no basis.
>

Anityatva does not negate the validity.  For instance the pratyaksha
pramana is had from the eye, etc. jnanendriyas. The Veda admits that all
these are anitya and Atman alone is nitya. By that much the validity of the
pratyaksha is not invalidated in its domain.

>
> Paramarthiaka state could be something different (sic), but the very
> pramEya that such state exist is very much vyavahArika and at the same
> level of vEda. Hence we reject dual state idea  Statements atra vEda avEda
> has to be interpreted differently and no bhAdaka in such interpretation. If
> you do not, you end up with this kind of epistemological problem.
>

This is answered in the earlier paragraph. For Advaitins Veda, Avidya,
etc.are sva-para-nirvaahaka. Like a medicine that enters the body, cures
the disease and itself gets extinguished.

If Dvaitins view the above shruti, etc. differently, that is not anything
to Advaitins.

vs

>
> /sv
>
>
>
>
>
>