[Advaita-l] apauruSheyatva of the Veda

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

There is a prevalent view that the apauruSheyatva of the Veda is an
invention of the pUrvamImAmsaka-s. However, even before the
pUrvamImAmsaka-s, yAskAchArya, the author of the nirukta, was describing
the Vedic RShi-s not as the composers of the vedic mantra-s but as the
seers of vedic mantra-s. The pUrva mImAmsa sUtra-s are said to have been
composed 300-200 BCE (Hiriyanna, The Essentials of Indian Philosophy).
However, scholars hold that Yaska's time is 7th - 5th century BCE - he
predates even pANini! This means that the contents of the nirukta predate
the contents of the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra-s by a few centuries.

This is what he says of the RSi-s.

ऋषिर्दर्शनात् । स्तोमन्ददर्शेत्यौपमन्यवः । तद्यदेनांस्तपस्यमानान् ब्रह्म
स्वयम्भू  अभ्यानर्षत् तदृषयोऽभवन् तदृषीणामृषित्वम्  - इति विज्ञायते   2.11

They are called Rshis, because they have seen. As the the teacher Aupanyava
has said "They have seen the stoma, mantra-s, through their austerities and
became RSis through the grace of the Brahman. This is the RSi-ness of the
RSis.".

Here Yaska is quoting the views of Aupanyava, a teacher that preceded even
him in this regard. Aupanyava is quoting from the svAdhyAya brAhmaNa of the
taittirIya AraNyaka (2.9.1) -  अजान् ह वै पृष्नीन् स्तपस्यमानान् ब्रह्म
स्वयम्भू  अभ्यानर्षत् तदृषयोऽभवन् तदृषीणामृषित्वम् - They became RSis
through austerities by the grace of the self evident SvayambhU, Brahma.

Elsewhere in the niruktam itself, Yaska says एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायैर्ऋषीणां
मन्त्रदृष्टयो भवन्ति । 7.6 - RSi-s, with higher and lowers aims became the
seers of mantra-s.

Thus the view that apauruSheyatva of the Vedas was introduced by the
pUrvamImAmsaka-s to protect the sanctity of the Vedas is a falsehood - it
is a concept that Yaskacharya-s and teachers before him (Aupamanyava) have
agreed. It is a concept that is found in the Vedas itself.

If we point to the AraNyaka-s and the Upanishads for this, the likes of
Koenraad Elst will say that even the Upanishads were composed after the Rig
Veda. If we point to examples within the Rig Veda, say from the 10th
maNDala, they will say even the 10th maNDala is a later creation and the
central maNDalas, 2-7 are the most ancient.

So let us look at maNDala 6 of the Rig Veda , 6.9.5 - 6.9.6 to be specific.

ध्रु॒वं ज्योति॒र्निहि॑तं दृ॒शये॒ कं मनो॒ जवि॑ष्ठं प॒तय॑त्स्व॒न्तः । विश्वे॑
दे॒वाः सम॑नस॒: सके॑ता॒ एकं॒ क्रतु॑म॒भि वि य॑न्ति सा॒धु ॥
Wilson translates this as "A steady light, swifter than thought, stationed
among moving beings to show (the way) to happiness all the gods being of
one mind, and of like wisdom, proceed respectfully to the presence of the
one (chief) agent"

वि मे॒ कर्णा॑ पतयतो॒ वि चक्षु॒र्वी॒३॒॑दं ज्योति॒र्हृद॑य॒ आहि॑तं॒ यत् । वि
मे॒ मन॑श्चरति दू॒रआ॑धी॒: किं स्वि॑द्व॒क्ष्यामि॒ किमु॒ नू म॑निष्ये ॥
“My ears are turned (to hear him), my eyes (to behold him); this light that
is in the heart (seeks to know him); my mind, the receptable of distant
(objects) hastens (towards him); what shall I declare him? How shall I
comprehend him?”

The light that is hidden in the heart हृदये ज्योति: आहितं यत् - this mantra
is describing the meditation of the Vedic RSi - he says my senses are
turned towards him, I am trying to see him in the light of my heart, but I
do not have words to describe or comprehend him. Again, this is not the
actual meditation that a particular RSi has performed, but the Veda itself
is saying that those who have known it have seen it in the hidden depths of
their hearts.

This idea reoccurs in the 10th maNDala of the Rig Veda (supposedly occuring
later in time according to Dr Elst), 10.71.3
य॒ज्ञेन॑ वा॒चः प॑द॒वीय॑माय॒न्तामन्व॑विन्द॒न्नृषि॑षु॒ प्रवि॑ष्टाम् ।
तामा॒भृत्या॒ व्य॑दधुः पुरु॒त्रा तां स॒प्त रे॒भा अ॒भि सं न॑वन्ते ॥
Wilson: (The wise) reached the path of Speech by sacrifice, they found it
centred in the Rishis ; having acquired it they dispersed it in many places
; the seven noisy (birds) meet together.

This is what sAyaNAchArya says in his commentary to this mantra - तं वाचः
मार्गं यज्ञेन आयन् प्राप्तवन्तः । ऋषिपु अतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शिषु प्रविष्टां
तां वाचम् अविन्दन् अलभन्त । अनन्तरं तां वाचम् आमृत्य आहृत्य पुरुत्रा बहुषु
देशेषु व्यदधुः व्यकार्षुः । सर्वान् मनुष्यानध्यापयामासुरित्यर्थः ।

They obtained the words through sacrifice. The rSi-s who have the capacity
to see beyond the senses,"found" (avindan), obtained that speech -
afterwards, having gathered those words, they spread it in various places -
meaning, they taught the "words" to all humanity.

Again - the concept of rSi-s seeing words, gathering them, and teaching
humanity.

If we connect this with mantra 6.9.6, the RSi-s "find" the words hidden in
the light found in their hearts, through meditation, and having seen those
words, teach the rest of humanity. This is the apauruSheyatva of Vedic
words - they are not the composers of the words, they are their discoverers.

The same idea occurs in
1)  supposedly the "oldest" fragments of the rigveda (maNDala 6),
2) the supposedly newer fragments of the rigveda (maNDala 10),
3) the comparatively recent nirukta of yAskAchArya,
4) the even more recent pUrva mImAmsa sUtra-s of Jaimini,
5) the  bhAShya of Shabara svAmi and the vArttikA of kumArila bhaTTa,
6) the brahmasUtra bhAShya of ShankarachArya,
7) and the veda bhAShya-s of bhaTTabhAskara and sAyaNAchArya.

Yet all of this is wrong, and the words of Dr Elst, who was born perhaps 60
years ago, who happens to claim that the rigveda was written by a bunch of
intoxicated soma drinkers, are correct? It is hypocritical for Dr Elst to
argue on the one hand that the relative recency of pUrvamImAmsa invalidates
it, while at at the same time claim that his arguments are valid - when
they have appeared 1500 years after pUrvamImAmsa!

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 12:06 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>>