[Advaita-l] apauruSheyatva of the Veda

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Venkat ji
Thank you for patiently articulating the fb ideas against apauruSheyatva
and countering them.

One challenge for apauruSheyatva is that, it asserts the existence of
intelligent humans or other higher beings since the beginning of time.
Today, as you know, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth was once
not having any life forms. That gives us two alternatives -
1. Assert that the earth always had human or other intelligent life and all
the scientific theories are incorrect such as the age of the earth being a
few billion years ago etc.
Or
2. Assert that we (Astikas) have no conflict with the assertion, "there was
once no life on planet earth" - ie apauruSheyatva remains preserved even if
this were indeed to be the case.

The assertion 2. is what I would find more reasonable. Because, for us the
physical universe has an intelligent abhinna-nimittopAdAna kAraNam.
Therefore, we have to assert that the Vedas were present in other lokas and
in other beings before being revealed to historical Rishis who were human
beings. Otherwise, the question would remain -"where were the Vedas before
they were revealed to some special human beings called Rishis?".

The sequence of our sRShTi is that first the Devas were manifested and
later the  humans, pitR etc. This is a matter of total divergence of
worldviews between the Astika and scientific worldviews, the latter
asserting jaDakAraNatvaM of jagat.

एते इत्‍येव प्रजापतिर्देवानसृजत । असृग्रमिति मनुष्‍यान् । इन्‍दवः इति
पितृन् । तिरःपवित्रमिति ग्रहान् । आशवः इति स्‍तोमान् । विश्‍वानीति
शास्‍त्रम् । अभिसौभगेत्‍यन्‍याः प्रजाः ।
– जैमिनीय ब्राह्मण, कांड १, कंडिका ९४

 Some sort of evolution of life forms on planet earth is not opposed to
apauruSheyatva because evolution can well be merely a tool or process to
express the intelligent will of Ishvara.

Therefore even if we accept that there was once a time when no life existed
on earth, that does not militate against apauruSheyatva.

Om
Raghav






On Sat, 2 Mar, 2024, 9:36 am Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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?
>
> The term apauruSheya means that the words of the veda were not composed by
> a human being by understanding the meaning through other sources of
> knowledge - ie it is not a case of artham buddhvA shabda rachanA. The words
> were received in a never ending line of guru shiShya-s and even the RShis
> associated with each mantra are not held to have composed it, they are
> simply mantra draShTa-s , not mantra kartA-s.
>
> In fact, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtras of Jaimini itself claim that Vedic words
> are eternal - unlike the claim made in the FB article, it is not Kumarila
> Bhatta who came up with apauruSheyatva to support him in his argument with
> the Buddhists, it was stated by the sUtrakAra himself.
>
> For example, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra - AkhyA pravachanAt (1.1.30) - holds
> that the names of the RShis associated with a rescension are not because
> they composed it, it is because those RShis expounded on the vedic
> rescensions.
>
> The sUtra - parantu shrutisAmAnyamAtram (1.1.31) - holds that proper names
> in the Vedas are not names of people, there are common nouns and any
> similarity is only a similarity of sounds (some examples will be shown
> below).
>
> Thus the writer of the FB article is mistaken when he says that Kumarila
> Bhatta invented the apauruSheyatva of the Veda to support his intellectual
> battle with the Buddhists - this idea is mentioned in the sUtra-s by
> Jaimini itself.
>
> The writer of the FB article says that words of battle in the veda can be
> interpreted as a report of a battle witnessed. And cites the consonance of
> the words of the Zend Avesta with Vedic arthavAda passages to make the
> claim that both the Vedas and the Avesta are reporting an event. Because
> they are reporting an event, the Vedas cannot be eternal and apauruSheya as
> alleged by the Hindus. However that is merely an interpretation, not proof.
>
> 1) According to us, the arthavAda occurring in the Vedas is not a news
> report. That is, the rishi is not recording an event that he heard of and /
> or saw, rather, he is recording the words themselves. The reference to the
> ten kings battling is also dubious - The mantras related to this supposed
> battle occur in the seventh maNDala of the rigveda, attributed to vasiShTha
> RShi. Scholars allege that the plausible tribes that battled were the
> Purus, Yadu / Yaksu , Matsyas, Druhyus, Pakthas, Bhalanas, Alinas,
> Vishanins, Sivas, Vaikarna, and Anu.
>
> However, a read of mantra 7.18.7 and its commentary by SAyaNAchArya
> indicates that the words Paktha, Bhalana, Alina, Vishani and Shivas (five
> of the supposedly 10 kings) are not tribes at all but various participants
> in a vedic sacrifice.
>
> This is the mantra.
> आ प॒क्थासो॑ भला॒नसो॑ भन॒न्तालि॑नासो विषा॒णिन॑: शि॒वास॑: । आ योऽन॑यत्सध॒मा
> आर्य॑स्य ग॒व्या तृत्सु॑भ्यो अजगन्यु॒धा नॄन् ॥
> The commentary by SAyaNa is as follows:
> पक्थासः पथा हविषां पाचकाः भलानस भद्रमुखा । भलेति भद्रवाची अलिनास अलिनाः ।
> तपोभिरप्रवृद्धा इत्यर्थः । विषाणिनः कण्डूयनार्थं कृष्णविषाणहस्ता । दीक्षिता
> इत्यर्थ. । शिवास शिवाः यागादिना सर्वस्य लोकस्य शिवकरा: यागेन हि शिवं भवति
> लोकस्य ।
>
> पक्थासः - those who cook the offerings in the sacrifice
> भलानसः - those who speak the auspicious words
> अलिनाः - those who have not practiced austerities
> विषाणिनः - those bearing the horns of the black deer, for scratching, ie
> the dIkshita-s, ie those who have undergone the ritualistic purification
> for the sacrifice called the dIkshA (The dIkshita-s are not permitted to
> scratch themselves during the time of the sacrifice, unless with the horns
> of a black deer)
> शिवासः - those who do good for the world through the performance of
> sacrifices
>
> The previous mantra 7.18.6 refers to one further supposed tribe, the
> Yakshus - पु॒रो॒ळा इत्तु॒र्वशो॒ यक्षु॑रासीद्रा॒ये मत्स्या॑सो॒ निशि॑ता॒
> अपी॑व । श्रु॒ष्टिं च॑क्रु॒र्भृग॑वो द्रु॒ह्यव॑श्च॒ सखा॒ सखा॑यमतर॒द्विषू॑चोः
> ॥ but again if we look at the commentary of the word Yakshu by SAyaNa, he
> translates this to be यक्षुः यज्ञकुशलः - he who is skilled in the sacrifice
> - and not a tribe at all.
>
> This is in fact referring to a king called Turvasha, skilled in the
> sacrifice, who destroyed the city of the Matsya-s. The Brigus and Druhyus
> were his allies, but he was defeated by Indra.
>
> As can be seen, the view that this maNDala is reporting some historical
> battle between ten kings is itself flawed - the words that supposedly refer
> to the ten tribes in fact refer to various participants in the sacrifice.
> There is a reference to a battle - but it is not a battle between ten
> kings.
>
> 2) However, irrespective of the number of kings in the battle, that in
> itself is no evidence that such a battle actually took place. In fact, in
> Hinduism, the validity of arthavAda in the karmakANDa is in having
> ekavAkyatA with a vidhi / niShedha. That is, the story is mentioned not as
> a news report, but to impel someone into performing a particular action /
> or if occurring in a mantra, used in the actual performance of a sacrifice.
> That being the case, it is not the Hindus who claim that this is reporting
> a true event, rather it is someone outside the tradition who is doing so.
> The Hindus do not hold the story itself needs to have intrinsic validity.
> That being the case, why should the story of a battle between however many
> kings deny the apauruSheyatva of the Veda?
>
> If it is said that is so because someone outside the tradition holds this
> to be representative of an event that took place - Why should the words of
> someone outside the tradition have greater value than those inside it? The
> same faith that one is denying to tradition is being asked to be reposed in
> the words of those outside tradition, without there being a basis for why
> the latter is more valid than the former.
>
> The words of those within tradition explain the purpose of these types of
> arthavAda - it is in their acting as subsidiaries to some vedic injunction
> / prohibition.
>
> 3)The FB writer says that the Vedas being apauruSheya is as fanciful as the
> Avesta being apauruSheya. That is not comparing like for like. The Vedas
> are apauruSheya because there is no recorded memory of there being an
> author of the Vedas. The Avesta is pauruSheya because the followers of
> Zoroastrianism themselves say that it is the teaching of Zarathustra.
>
> No one is making the claim that the Zend Avesta is apauruSheya - not even
> the followers of Zoroastrianism themselves. So if the story occurs in the
> Avesta also why should that deny the apauruSheyatva of the Veda? If I write
> a version of the Ramayana based on Valmiki Ramayana, can we say that
> Valmiki wrote the same story that I wrote?
>
> Clearly not. Rather, the obvious explanation of there being a consonance is
> that the authors of the Zend Avesta translated into Avestan the
> pre-existing Vedic hymns in Sanskrit.
>
> Thus a consonance of the story in the Avesta is no basis to deny the
> validity of the apauruSheyatva of the Veda, unless there is a sound basis
> to either say that the Avesta predated the Veda, or that there is no
> possibility whatsoever of the Avesta translating the Veda.
>
> In fact, we know that the Avesta as is extant now was assembled from
> remnants of more voluminous manuscripts that were destroyed by Alexander's
> invasion of Persia and was then standardized under the Sasanian kings
> (3rd–7th century CE) into the Avesta known today.
>
> Thus there is zero chance of the Avesta being apauruSheya, but that in
> itself does not negate Veda's apauruSheyatva.
>
> The opponent may argue that our claim that the Avesta translated parts of
> the Veda is also an interpretation - that is true. However, while the
> opponent makes no basis for his interpretation - that the Vedas and Avesta
> both report a battle that really occurred, we have a basis for why our
> position that the Vedas are apauruSheya and this is not an actual
> historical battle.
>
> Our rationale is that at no point in the history of the entire Hindu corpus
> is there the memory of any composer of the Veda. We hold on to
> apauruSheyatva of the Veda, but say that Bhagavat Gita, the Ramayana,
> Mahabharata, the 18 Puranas, the texts representing the 64 arts, the
> Vedangas etc are all  pauruSheya. The reason is that we have a recorded
> memory of an author of the latter, but there is no recorded memory of an
> author for the former.
>
> When the tradition is willing to concede the validity of pauruSheya
> pramANa, there would have been no harm to the validity of the veda had it
> been pauruSheya. In fact, as Elst and the writer say, they are willing to
> concede the validity of the Vedas even if it is pauruSheya. The Buddhist
> was not swayed by the apauruSheyatva of the veda into conceding its
> validity either.
>
> Thus, the argument for apauruSheyatva is not to convince either outsiders
> or insiders of the validity of the Vedas. Outsiders and insiders who agree
> to the validity of the Vedas agree to its validity irrespective of its
> apauruSheyatva or pauruSheyatva.
>
> Outsiders who disagree with the validity of the Vedas do not agree to its
> validity even if it is apauruSheyatva.
>
> Thus, for us to say that the Vedas are apauruSheya is not because we wish
> to prove their validity on the basis of its apauruSheyatva, rather we hold
> that they are apauruSheya because we have no memory of an author, and we
> would have remembered its author if there had been one - like in the case
> of the itihAsa-s and purANa-s. It is too important a shabda pramANa - hence
> the very meticulous preservation of the sound through various modes of
> chanting such as krama, jaTa, ghanam etc - for us to simply forget an
> author.
>
> Elst makes the error in supposing that our view of apauruSheyatva - that
> the Vedas do not have a human source - implies that they have a divine
> source. He then argues on the basis of this that as many of the mantra-s in
> the Vedas have God as the object of the mantras and the human beings as the
> subject (tatsavitur vareNyam....dhiyo yonah pracodayAt / tryambakam
> yajAmahe etc), they cannot have a divine source - if the Vedas had such a
> divine source, God would not have made Himself the object of the mantras -
> He would have worded divine statements like the Ten Commandments - "Thou
> shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" - i.e. have the divine as the subject
> and the human as the object. As the Vedic mantras are worded the other way
> around, i.e. have a human subject and divine object, they must have a human
> source who has simply addressed the divine through religious poetry.
>
> However, our view of apauruSheyatva does not imply that the Vedas have a
> divine composer - rather, apauruSheyatva means there is *no* composer of
> the Vedas. The Veda itself says - अस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो
> यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः, etc ie the Vedas were the breath of
> paramAtma. *Even the Lord is not the composer of the Vedas*. They are a
> naturally pre-existent phenomenon - Ishvara does not create them, they
> emerge from Him. Even Ishvara does not have the freedom to change the
> content of the Vedas in the slightest - that being the case, there is no
> necessity for the mantra-s to be worded as commandments from Ishvara down
> to humanity.
>
> In every instance of creation after pralaya, Ishvara hands over the Veda in
> the exact same form of words, down to the very sound, to Brahma, to use as
> the basis for the new creation यो ब्रह्माणम् विदधाति पूर्वम् यो वै वेदांश्च
> प्रहिणोति तस्मै. The Veda itself says that Ishvara hands over the Vedas to
> Brahma - i.e. the human beings did not compose such a Veda. That Brahma
> creates the creation in the exact form as the previous creation - धाता
> यथापूर्वं अकल्पयत् . The vedas, specifically their sounds, thus are the
> blueprint of every creation, and there can be no change to a single svara,
> a single vowel. The Vedas, the life breath of Ishvara, offers the means to
> reach Him, and in doing so positions itself from the standpoint of the
> worshipper, addressing Ishvara - thus enabling the worshipper to reach
> Ishvara. This in itself does not imply that humans created the Veda, thus
> precluding its apauruSheyatva, as Elst alleges.
>
> No other culture in the world makes such an astounding claim of their
> foundational text. No wonder people are unable to accept it - but their
> disagreement does not dismiss such a view.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>