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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Sivasenani Nori ji,

Completely in tune with what you said. However, just a couple of
clarifications:-

//Vedapraamaanya does not necessarily require Apaurusheyatva//.

1. I understand that there are other systems which accept the pramanya of
Vedas without considering them apaurusheya. Do you find their acceptance
logical?

2. Statements such "By jyotishtoma one gets swarg" and the logic used by
Bhashyakara in Brahma Sutra 3.1.25 do not appear to place Vedic statements
as certain kind of axioms required for presentations of a formal system.
They rather appear to be statements having their own validity. They neither
intend to prove anything nor do they require any other thing for their own
proof.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.



On Fri 7 Jun, 2019, 19:16 Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Apaurusheyatva of Veda (or Ishvara whose nishvasa is Veda) is a matter of
> belief.
> There are arguments to counter those who say Veda is paurusheya, and it is
> only indirectly that this refutation establishes Apaurusheyatva.
> Other observations:
> Vedapraamaanya does not necessarily require Apaurusheyatva. Naiyaayikas
> maintain that Veda is paurusheya and treat Veda as a Pramana. For them the
> authority of Veda derives from that of Ishvara whose existence is
> established by anumaana.
> Followers of Sankhya do not believe in Ishvara but believe in the
> praamaanya of Veda, though Veda is not the reason for their main entity,
> Purusha (it is anumaana which proves the existence of Purusha).
> Further, axioms - ie belief that certain statements are true without there
> being proof - are fundamentally necessary for any system of thought,
> science etc. and for theorems or theses therein to be 'proved'.
> Please see Godel's Incompleteness theorems to understand the limitations,
> or incompleteness as he puts it, of formal systems, which our darshanas are
> once we remove the 'anubhava' part. At any rate many seem to think that
> Advaita is rigorously logical - it does have a lot of rigorous logic, but
> that occupies a secondary place: Brahman is, because the Veda says so (It
> can be experienced but not proven), but It cannot be even described fully,
> let alone be proven.
>
> Regards,
> Senani
>
>   On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 1:46 PM, Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l<
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:   Hari Om,
>
> we all agree that the basis of Dharma and Brahma-jnana is Vedas alone.
> Vedas are the tool to both abhyudaya and nihshreyas. Further, we hold them
> to be a pramana. That is the Veda-vakyas are pramana just by virtue of
> being a Veda-vakya. The reasons adduced are mainly the apurusheyatva and
> eternity of Vedas.
>
> We all have gone through the arguments adduced in support of eternity and
> apurusheyatva of Vedas.
>
> My question is -- do these arguments really establish the eternity and
> apaurusheyatva of Vedas OR are these our beliefs. That is, whether our
> Sanatan Dharma and our sadhana-for-Moksha are essentially belief-driven or
> are they based on sound logic.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>