[Advaita-l] [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatji,

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 9:36 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste,
> Someone recently had shared with me for my comments, a facebook article
> that referred to Koenraad Elst's rebuttal of apauruShyetva of the veda.
>
> The facebook article is here:
> (
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02hyqN6immK6tc3NpiLFCsQkHp372H3zmDuUHwcCvxaBRMQLUUqpn5iBmqQBghrGo3l&id=100008111554860&mibextid=Nif5oz
> )
>
> I had initially sent a version of the below email in a personal
> correspondence. Thought it would be useful to share it with the group as it
> may be of interest.
>
> *******
> The facebook article does not appear to have any arguments, rather there
> are only assertions. What is the proof given for pauruSheyatva?
>

What proof can be given for pauruSheyatva other than proof of someone
having composed Vedas or claiming to have composed Vedas in the past? That
is an impossibility. There is really no argument possible against
arthApatti pramANa used by the Purvamimamsaka to establish apauruSheyatva
of Vedas, showing no authorship claim in an unbroken shrauta sampradAya.
Just like Advaita siddhAnta is established using pramANavyApAra, so too
apauruSheyatva. To call it shraddhA or to compare it to well-established
and claimed pauruSheya works is either missing the point completely or
purposefully ignoring it, just like new era opponents of Advaita Vedanta.
The reasoning assumed for apauruSheyatva is also putting the cart before
the horse! It is laughable at best. I really admire your patience to
analyse and reply logically to ones who keep logic aside! I am sure it is a
good exercise in titikShA. :-)

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */