[Advaita-l] Refutation of Koenraad Elst's article and video on vedāpaurusheyatvam

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste
I may add that my intention in putting those propositions was that the idea
of ApauruSheyatva sits on top of an implicit underlying model/understanding
of jagat.

Without first discussing or debating these, and instead like Elst,
implicitly assume a physicalist/materialistic model of the universe, it is
impossible to understand ApauruSheyatva from purely a theological or
anthropological perspective, which is the mistake that Elst makes.

On a side note, other Astika schools like the pUrva mImAmsakas may have
held on to ApauruSheyatva without understanding or acceptance of Ishvara.
But, that such a model is logically untenable, was shown by the Advaita
tradition. It's not possible to defend ApauruSheyatva in a pUrva mImAmsaka
worldview (which was pithily critiques by Sri Ramana Maharshi saying, karma
Kim paraM? karna tajjaDam.)

1. In any model of jagaj-jaDa-kAraNatva, apauruSheyatva is logically
impossible.

2. In any model of jagaccetana-kAraNatva, apauruSheyatva is a logical
necessity.

So any interlocuter who challenges apauruSheyatva has to be sorted in to
either 1. or 2.

 In the case of 1., we need to show the logical incorrectness of
materialistic reductionism.

In the case of 2., Sri Shankara bhagavatpada and others have argued in the
brahmasutras for the logical necessity of ApauruSheyatva in the
shAstrayonitvAt sUtra and devatAdhikaraNam commentaries.

Om
.

On Sun, 27 Oct, 2024, 7:21 am Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Rajaram ji
>
> Thank you for your post.
>
>
> For completeness, I am sending one link on Koenraad Elst to give
> perspective.
>
>
> https://bharatabharati.in/2014/12/17/why-i-am-not-a-hindu-koenraad-elst/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGKdLlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHW6_DXE5H5whDGzb6axnuCTYkcr3vBdG0k82h6Xuui4XlOhqPZzxI10bbg_aem_xyb68XD-fIKJHzjg7rvP2g&sfnsn=wiwspwa
>
>
> ApauruSheyatva is a deep and valuable idea and there has been enough
> helpful discussion in the past. For me, the divergence between Astikas and
> others on this view with other modern thinkers (possibly open minded
> thinkers like Elst) is more fundamental such as over -
>
> Proposition 1 - "All that exists as the universe, including space and
> time, is 'intelligently put together' I e., Ishvara, the
> abhinna-nimittopAdAna-kAraNa is a logically tenable proposition' - at least
> a non-falsifiable proposition.
>
> Proposition 2 - All intelligent creation/manifestion of physical entities
> (sRShTi) has to be preceded by its knowledge.
>
> Proposition 3 - All 'knowledge' requires one or the other primordial
> language to encode/encapsulate it which has to exist even prior to sRShTi
> with its locus as the Intelligent Being.
>
>
> So whenever people argue against apauruSheyatva, they have to be asked
> their view of Proposition 1. Then the others follow.
>
> As things stand today, those who argue against the concept of
> apauruSheyatva of  have not thought through the implications for the
> understanding of Ishvara.
>
> If anyone accepts Ishvara, ipso facto they are accepting apauruSheyatva.
>
> If someone asserts a purely physicalist or reductionist materialist
> position, then the logical fallacies in such stupid physical reductionism
> have to be and can be shown.
>
> Once the weeds of materialism are removed, Ishvara and apauruSheyatva
> follow as a matter of logical necessity.
>
>
> Om
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct, 2024, 6:16 am Rajaram Venkataramani via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1bg1p13sgpMThmJP/
>>
>> In this speech Koenraad Elst, who l respect for his contribution, does
>> 'dahana kriya' of vedāpsurusheyatvs as one of the Hibdutva lieutenants put
>> it. Does he really? No. First of all, he does not need 60 minutes as he
>> makes only 3 arguments and should be able to do it in under 3 minutes.
>> Before we go into the 3 arguments and how they are illogical, let me call
>> out just one of the blatant errors in his speech, most of which is
>> unrelated to the topic of vedāpaurusheyatvam. He says that mūrti pūja is
>> non-vedic and at the 50th minute says that even the spoon used in yajnas
>> is
>> deified. So, he contradicts himself.
>>
>> Now, he says that apaurusheya means 'it is not of human origin' but
>> apaurusheyatva is not even of divine origin and he equates
>> vedāpaurusheyatvam with lslamic conception of Quran as eternal and
>> uncreated. It shows that he does not understand the concept of
>> apaurusheyatva. In lslam, the knowledge of Quran is eternal but not the
>> sound as it would contradict the principle of Tawhid (oneness of God) and
>> Allah's creatorship of everything. In the Vedic conception, the sabda
>> (sound) itself is eternal in its pure form not only artha (meaning) and is
>> manifested in every srshti by lshvara as before.
>>
>> So, what are his 3 arguments and why are they illogical?
>>
>> One, rishis live in a particular point in space and time as they refer to
>> past and contemporary events. Two, they use the pronouns "l", "We" etc.,
>> which are indicative of them being the authors. Three, they borrow mantras
>> from other rishis, which wouldn't be the case if the mantras were
>> apaurusheya.
>>
>> The first one is the logical fallacy of 'setting up a strawman'. It is not
>> the vaidika sampradaya position that the rishis didn't live in a
>> particular
>> point in space and time. In fact, they did and the vedas sometimes do an
>> anuvada (retelling) of what is known through pratyaksha and anumana. The
>> first argument is without understanding of the sampradaya position. The
>> addendum to he first argument is that the vedas can't be eternal because
>> they talk about spacio-temporal events. This is category fallacy where he
>> confuses the category of the text based on its content. For example, a
>> text
>> that talks about how to calculate pi is finite and is written at a point
>> in
>> space-time but the content, namely pi, is an eternal truth and infinite.
>> On
>> that basis, you can't say the text itself is eternal and infinite. The
>> inverse applies here. The argument that the vedas are finite and limited
>> in
>> space-time is not true because some of their content is about
>> spacio-temporal events. The second argument is a logical fallacy of
>> 'fundamental attribution error'. If characters in a narrative or novel use
>> subjective pronouns, it does not mean they are the authors. The third one
>> is the 'fallacy of unique discovery' where one thinks that multiple rishis
>> cannot discover the same mantras in different forms and 'composition
>> fallacy' where one thinks no mantra by a rishi can be considered
>> discovered
>> because some mantras were borrowed.
>>
>> Now, Plato and other logical philosophers think that information (ideals)
>> is fundamental the universe. This is also the view held by many Quantum
>> Physicists that information is fundamental to the universe. So, science is
>> moving towards what many philosophers knew about the ontology of
>> knowledge.
>> But within known and well established laws of science, is it possible for
>> vedas to be apaurusheya? Yes, in one sense. Many mathematical and
>> scientific discoveries have been discovered without a sense of agency as
>> reported by Srinivasa Ramanujan, Poincare, August Kekule etc. In deep
>> meditation and under the influence of certain herbs,, people lose a sense
>> of agency and this has been verified using MRI studies. While the sense of
>> agency is lost, truths or ideas appear in their mind.
>>
>> So, no 'dahana kriya' has been done. Perhaps a 'burial' but using logic,
>> we
>> will unearth the truth 😊
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>