Namaste.
I have no issues with copying my post to Advaitin list.
Reg // if this nityatva is like brahman / satya / Atman etc. then shruti itself would have not been said 'atra veda aveada', that too in sushupti (not even in paramArtha jnAna (source vide br.up.) //,
Is the Bhashya itself being questioned or my understanding of the same. Since I have just presented Bhashya as is, it should be possible for members to understand what it conveys.
Reference should be made to Bhashya itself as to what is meant by 'atra veda aveada' in BU 4-3-22. It means ,as per Bhashya, in Sushupti, the jIva is dissociated with the results of actions. It has no bearing on nityatva of vedAs which is the issue here.
// तथा वेदाः — साध्यसाधनसम्बन्धाभिधायकाः, मन्त्रलक्षणाश्च अभिधायकत्वेन कर्माङ्गभूताः, अधीताः अध्येतव्याश्च — कर्मनिमित्तमेव सम्बध्यन्ते पुरुषेण ; तत्कर्मातिक्रमणात् एतस्मिन्काले वेदा अपि अवेदाः सम्पद्यन्ते । //
// tathA vedAH — sAdhyasAdhanasambandhAbhidhAyakAH, mantralakShaNAshcha abhidhAyakatvena karmA~NgabhUtAH, adhItAH adhyetavyAshcha — karmanimittameva sambadhyante puruSheNa ; tatkarmAtikramaNAt etasminkAle vedA api avedAH sampadyante | //
Translation by Swami Madhavananda // The Vedas also, consisting of the BrAhmaNAs, which describe the means, the goal and their relation, as well as the Mantras, and forming part of the rites, since they deal with them, whether already read or yet to be read, are connected with a man through those rites. Since he transcends those rites, the Vedas too then are no Vedas //.
Regards
with the eternal Self, can be reconciled only if the mantras are eternal
praNAms
Hare Krishna
One would always think what is meant by eternal here !! if this nityatva is like brahman / satya / Atman etc. then shruti itself would have not been said 'atra veda aveada', that too in sushupti (not even in paramArtha jnAna (source vide br.up.) so is it better to think maNtrOkta jnana is eternal like brahma tattva instead of mantra Shabda in itself!!?? Anyway, atra veda aveda shruti declaration definitely ring a bell that veda-s are not eternal in literal sense unlike brahma / tattva / satya. If I remember right this topic of cessation of shruti (veda) comes for discussion in sUtra bhAshya (4th chapter?? Geeta bhAshya ?? Not sure) Here bhAshyakAra is comfortable and OK with the cessation of shruti after the dawn of jnana, bhAshyakAra quotes here atra veda aveda and clarifies shruti itself endorses this termination of the validity of the shruti. Just thinking aloud.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Namaste.
Reg // One would always think what is meant by eternal here !! //.
Instead , what one should think of is what is meant by **mantras** here. That is what the Bhashya answers.
RegardsReg // One would always think what is meant by eternal here !! //.
Instead , what one should think of is what is meant by **mantras** here. That is what the Bhashya answers.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
mantra-s conveying the meaning which is beyond the reach of human intellect hence veda mantra-s can be labelled as not man-made that would make sense because these mantra-s talking about nitya brahma and its svarUpa, but veda as a whole not only talking about paramArtha jnana it also comprehensively talks about karma, upAsana, vidhi, nishedha karma phala, upAsana phala, ritual part, tools to be used, lOkAntara phala by performing certain ritual etc. so these things also to be considered as eternal (nitya) like Atma nityatva we cannot keep some mantra and its phala as eternal and some other mantra explaining anitya / anAtma vastu. I think the eternality should be attributed to not only vedAnta jnana / Atma svarUpa but also karma janita loka, lOkAntara phala, karma, upAsana etc. In that sense whatever is there everything is nitya only in its svarUpa. Sri SSS somewhere says in Kannada : kevala chinmAtra Atmane nijavAda arthadalli ‘vedavu’ ( the real meaning of veda (yajus) is kevala chinmAtra Chaitanya tattva which is enternal).
Namaste Sri Bhaskarji>If I remember right this topic of cessation of shruti (veda) comes for discussion in sUtra bhAshya (4th chapter?? Geeta bhAshya ??This is stated in Brahmasutra Bhashya 4.1.3प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावे श्रुतेरप्यभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् न इष्टत्वात् अत्र पितापिता भवति इत्युपक्रम्य वेदा अवेदाः इति वचनात् इष्यत एव अस्माभिः श्रुतेरप्यभावः प्रबोधे।Opponent: In the absence of perception etc. the Vedas also will cease to exist.Vedantin: That is no defect, since that position is admitted by us. For according to the texts starting with, "In this state the father is no father" and ending with "The Vedas are no Vedas" (Br. IV. iii. 22), we do admit the absence of the Vedas themselves in the state of enlightenment.
Best RegardsOn Tuesday 5 March, 2024 at 3:45:30 pm UTC+5:30 Bhaskar YR wrote:with the eternal Self, can be reconciled only if the mantras are eternal
praNAms
Hare Krishna
One would always think what is meant by eternal here !! if this nityatva is like brahman / satya / Atman etc. then shruti itself would have not been said 'atra veda aveada', that too in sushupti (not even in paramArtha jnAna (source vide br.up.) so is it better to think maNtrOkta jnana is eternal like brahma tattva instead of mantra Shabda in itself!!?? Anyway, atra veda aveda shruti declaration definitely ring a bell that veda-s are not eternal in literal sense unlike brahma / tattva / satya. If I remember right this topic of cessation of shruti (veda) comes for discussion in sUtra bhAshya (4th chapter?? Geeta bhAshya ?? Not sure) Here bhAshyakAra is comfortable and OK with the cessation of shruti after the dawn of jnana, bhAshyakAra quotes here atra veda aveda and clarifies shruti itself endorses this termination of the validity of the shruti. Just thinking aloud.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/8eb12b01-4794-48f7-9936-1e2f72d0f41fn%40googlegroups.com.
praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Thanks for providing this exact reference from sUtra bhAshya. mUlAvidyAvAdins say there is mUlAvidyA ( not jnAnAbhAva of brahmaikyata) but admit that there is not knower as such hence atra veda aveda..so as per them where there is not even deva, veda etc. but there exists mUlAvidyA which is shakti, bhAvarUpa, beeja shakti, upAdAna for adhyAsa etc. 😊
Coming back to nityatva of veda, here it is quite evident that in sushupti veda is aveda because veda as pramANa works ONLY in duality (in other words avidyA kshetra) where pramAtru, pramANa and prameya holds sway individually. So in a sense it is anAtma vastu which helps us to get the jnana and when pramAtru does not exist (in sushupti) and when pramAtrutva sublated in paramArtha jnana this veda will not be there. That means either we have to say in brahma svarUpa everything exists eternally or nothing exists independently apart from brahman. In either case veda is not on par with nityatva of brahman. Hence shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya says : all the usage of pramANa-s and vishya jnana where it is loukika or vaidika would hold water only on the pre-supposition of the anyOnyAdhyAsa of the Atman and anatman. Shankara quotes this atra veda aveda in connection with self-realized state though in shruti it is said in sushupti why?? Because there is unity of Atman in both the states. You chAndOgya quote and below quote from sUtra bhAshya proves that.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Kalyan
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:13 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: FW: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [Advaita-l] Re: RE: Re: [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
Namaste Sri Bhaskarji
--
TUBV 288-308, English, Balasubrahmanian, PDF 212 - 223.
Kannada, SSS, PDF 102 - 106.
TUBV Tika, Anandagiri Acharya , PDF 115 - 120.
Tai Up with commentaries of Shankaracharya,
Sureswaracharya and Sayana (Vidyaranya) translated into english
by Sri Mahadeva Shastri, PDF 433 – 444To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45162A7F6767824C1E32D7C2A9272%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
praNAms Sri Suresh Prabhuji
Hare Krishna
>That means either we have to say in brahma svarUpa everything exists eternally or nothing exists independently apart from brahman. In either case veda is not on par with nityatva of brahman.
>
** I should have added to this, veda along with other socalled anitya vastu IS ON PAR with brahman since there exists nothing apart from brahman. And that is what you also said below.
Could it be said that Brahman itself is Veda?
I would say so because Atma-anAtma bheda also cannot exist in Brahman as ultimately everything is Brahman only based on the pramAna vAkyas like "sarvam khalvidam brahma" - "AtmaivAbhUt vijAnatah" - so on. This also helps to doubtlessly establish apourusheyatva of Veda.
Ø Yes, the same tai.up. says styanchAnrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha. So whatever is there / exists is brahman or brahma tattva only. Can we think anything aloof from this!!??
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45162A7F6767824C1E32D7C2A9272%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Veda nityatva is vyAvahArika, Brahman's nityatva is pAramArthika.
Veda is brahmajnAnabAdhya, like the world, Brahman is not.
- Yes, like jagat srushti is also pravAha nityatva veda-s too goes back to its origin at the pralaya and comes back to fore at the time of next creation cycle.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45165ED9ED6EAF771AA26432A9242%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I was seeking to show a difference between Brahman and the Veda because Suresh ji seemed to be saying that they are the same.
Even so, there has to be a difference between the world and the Veda that makes the Veda apauruSheya and the world pauruSheya.
Ø First prabhuji kindly clarify what exactly the nature of this difference. It is well accepted fact in tradition that brahman is the ONLY one at the beginning (sadeva Soumya edamagra asit ekamevAdviteeyaM) so for the sake of transaction we have accepted that from brahman jagat is originated and it (jagat) is there in its mUlarUpa (avyAkruta rUpa) in brahman before creation. Jagat is kArya and brahman is kAraNa in this scenario. But it is not clear whether this veda is kArya of brahman (not that might be the case as it is not like jagat) or kAraNa itself (veda=brahman is denied here). So veda is neither brahman nor jagat, so what exactly is the nature of this veda. Getting the clear explanation to this would help us to decide its apaurusheya status I reckon.
In my view, the difference is because Ishvara has freedom in how the world is created following a sankalpa to create it and the structure of the world need not be exactly the same as before, whereas the Veda's emerge from Ishvara like a breath and He does not have freedom in how the Veda is created - in every kalpa, the Veda has exactly the same form.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
This is equating omkAra with avyAkRta/mAyA - Shankaracharya comments on this line in the mantra as यच्च अन्यत् त्रिकालातीतं कार्याधिगम्यं कालापरिच्छेद्यमव्याकृतादि, तदपि ओङ्कार एव - that which is beyond the three periods of time, whose existence is inferred by its effects, which is not limited by time, i.e. avyAkRta, that too is omkAra only.
Shruti is not Brahman. It cannot objectify Brahman.
At best, it can point to It (Brahman) indirectly, and hope the listener "gets" what it is referring to.
Ø The existence of jagat too serving the same purpose I believe. And shruti is the source of this knowledge and for the shruti the source is sarvajna Ishwara/brahman.
praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Yes, what you explained makes sense. But the mAndUkya first mantra explicitly states "yacchAnyath trikAlAtItam tadapyOkAra eva".
Is this not equating Veda/OmkAra with paramArtha?
Ø This reminds me of prashna shruti : yetadvai satyakAma paraMchAparaM cha brahma yad OmkAraH. Here it is said this praNava (OmkAra) is both the higher and the lower brahman. And this is the source to to either of these. Would like to know more about shankara bhAshya on this. Any ready reference please.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65812C94F9E7A807A0116485842B2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
As always you are the one would get the exact sources. Nearing 60 my memory really fading 😊 It is good that bhAshyakAra too telling us Alambana like Omkara to be considered as both parApara brahma. And omkAra represents Ishwara himself (OmkAra vAchya, Om ityekAksharaM brahma)and the purpose of this type of Alambana upAsana is to attain identity with him. Thanks again for your immediate quote.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Com.—This Brahman—the higher Brahman, true, undecaying, known as Purusha, and the lower Brahman known as Prana, the first-born—is, indeed, the syllable ‘Om’; for, the syllable ‘Om’ is its Pratika, substitute. The higher Brahman, not capable of being indicated by words, etc., and devoid of all distinguishing attributes, is, therefore, being beyond the reach of the senses, incapable of being comprehended by the mere mind. But to those worshippers who contemplate on the syllable ‘Om’ as upon the image of Vishnu, etc., and regard it as a substitute for Brahman, the Para Brahman is understood to reveal itself, from the authority of the sastras; so too the lower Brahman. Therefore, it is by courtesy, that Brahman, the higher and the lower, is said to be the syllable ‘Om.’ Therefore, he who knows thus, attains either the higher or the lower Brahman, by this very means to the attainment of the atman, i.e., by the meditation on ‘Om.’ For the syllable ‘Om’ is the nearest stay of Brahman.
What is the intention behind your questions?
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The intention behind my doubts ( not questioning as an outsider) is very simple is there any effective and logical way within tradition to justify some of the axioms like statements which is there and accepted in tradition ‘as it is’ !!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581EB91E7A9A1E0CC5687F6842B2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I see - ok, but I am not sure how your questions are relevant to Veda's apauruSheyatva.
Ø As I said I have yet to come to the topic veda’s apaurushetatva. But before that you said veda-s are neither brahma nor jagat hence I asked those doubts 😊 And again how even if it is proved beyond doubt that veda-s are something different from brahma and jagat proves the dictum that veda-s are apaurusheya and eternal when parallelly mAyA / avyAkruta too proved eternal in certain sense. For that matter if veda-s are exhalation of brahman for the jagat HE himself is the nimittOpadAna kAraNa.
With respect to the specific question of the connection between Vedas and the world, I would direct you to read the bhAShya for sUtra 1.3.28 (शब्द इति चेन्नातः प्रभवात्प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्) and 1.3.29 (अत एव च नित्यत्वम्).
Ø I myself quoted devatAdhikaraNa yesterday these are sUtra-s in that adhikaraNa. And I am not able to get anything substantial with relate to difference between veda and world. devatAdhikAra, Shabda-artha, srushti samAnata etc. discussed here. Kindly guide me where exactly the difference between veda and world discussed in these sUtra bhAshya. Anyway I shall go through it once again tonight but in the meantime if you have anything onhand kindly share it with me.
of the connection between Vedas and the world
praNAms
Hare Krishna
My doubts not related to ‘connection’ (both jagat and veda are in the sphere of vyavahAra / avidya we agreed) so, it is something related to ‘difference’ between them within vyavahAra.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581B70F20C6859750378A90842B2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but even if you are, I am answering assuming the questions are genuine.
Ø I am sorry I am not able to understand where I am sarcastic in my observation. I just asked simple question whether veda comes under the category of kAraNa or kArya in other words in which compartment one should put veda whether it is jeeva, jagat or brahma in the sphere of vyAvahArika as we both agreed veda nityatva is kevala vyAvahArika. In relation to this only, to the best of my ability, I have expressed my views prabhuji. If it sounds you sarcastic observation/remarks it is only due to my language limitations as I don’t know how to do flowery polish to my thoughts.
Ø Anyway thanks for taking trouble to quote bhAshya vAkya-s from 1-3-28 & 29 from sUtra devatAdhikaraNa. But may I bring to your kind notice that, like veda-s below, the jagat too has been explained from this universal (sAmAnya) and particulars ( vishesha) perspective in the bhAshya. When jagat as particular does not exist apart from pure consciousness. In the bhAshya on br.up. bhAshyakAra takes the example of kettle-drum sound and explains one would not be able to grasp the external sounds by ‘themselves’ but the sound is grasped only through conceiving it as of the drum. And concludes that as species they cannot be grasped as distinct from that of genus. For as species they have no independent existence. In like manner no particular thing can be perceived as an entity in dream or waking apart from prajnAna ( i.e. Shuddha sattva). And concludes that it is quite appropriate to say that any particular in this jagat does not exist apart from pure consciousness.
Ø And subsequently this has been explained in more clear terms and clarity by bhAshyakAra by bringing more than one illustration to bring to the notice that there are various species, There are numerous jeeva-jantu, various chara-sthira, animate and inanimate which are entirely distinct from one another. They have all to be somehow brought under the one highest tattva sAmAnya i.e. pure consciousness. Just like various sounds like that of kettle-drum sound, the conch sound, flute sound etc. are included in one common genus i.e. sound, so it can be concluded that during the time of sthiti kAla of the jagat to begin with, that things being non-different from the lower ranking species are all one with brahman.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
So the mantra dhAtAyathApUrvam akalpayat cannot mean that every element in the world is exactly the same as the previous kalpa. Rather, it means that in the creation of the objects of the world, the individuals belonging to the same class of universals as the prior universe are created.
Ø Yes that is what I meant too hence I talked about paNcha tanmAtra, pancha mahAbhUta etc. For example gold as sAmAnya is one and the same in all kalpa-s but vishesha (particulars) like ring, bangle, bracelet, necklace may vary in different kalpa as per the jeeva-s karma phala. If that is not the case Ishwara with sva-iccha creates something on his own and as per wish he cannot escape vaishmya nairghRNya 😊
There is a great deal of variety and discretion for Ishvara to create differences in individuals, in accordance with jIva karma. By individuals, I don't just mean jIva sharIra, but the individual objects (vyakti-s) created by Ishvara that constitute this world.
Ø guNaguNeshu vartante na katrutvaM na karmANi lOkashya srujati prabhuH says geetaachaarya, though he is karmAdhyaksha, karmaphala dAta he just give us mango if we only planted mango seeds he wont think on his own I have to give him something else unless anything specific demanded by karmi with special upAsana / sAdhana 😊 In that sense Ishwara does not put his hand in jeeva’s karma-karma phala.
Once created, He has a lot of svAtantrya, discretion, in which individuals survive, for how long, how those individuals transform and how they die. Even where those changes are in accordance with jIvakarma, it does not mean Ishvara's svAtantrya in the world is lost - depending on His choice of which karma-s to fructify, how to fructify, which vAsana-s are triggered, when, how etc, the differences in individuals can be present.
Thus, Ishvara has svAtantrya in creating differences in individuals (depending on His choice of when / how to give results), but at the same time, is not subject to vaiShamya nairghRNya (charge of partiality / hatred) because ultimately those differences will be because of jIva's karma-s. No karma will extinguish without producing an effect (or being "destroyed" by knowledge), byt when they are extinguished is up to Him.
Ø Yes, the creation of differtences in individuals should be understood by keeping the fact in our mind that Ishwara is impartial. If that is not the case he would become the big trader 😊
Moreover, it is a matter of common experience that if we wish to accomplish something, we first recall the words denoting that thing and then go about accomplishing it. In the same way, the creator Prajapati also, prior to creation manifests the Vedic words in his intellect and then goes about creating the universe.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I always fail to understand statements like this. Without an iota of disrespect to these bhAshya vAkya-s I always wonder how these statements are to be understood practically!! See veda-s are not just about the creation but as I said earlier it meticulously gives somany other details about vidhi-nishedha etc. with regard to shrauta (garuda Chayana, putra kAmeshti, ashwamedha, nakshatra Chayana etc.) and smArta yagna for the kAmya phala, the procedure to be followed, the tools to be used, the routine of adhvaryu, eligibility and lakshaNa of brahmA (who supervises the yajna proceedings) and not only that it also gives some instructions with regard to our daily routine also, for example in taittireeya AraNyaka (aruNa prashna) we have mantra-s like na nishteevet, na vivasanasnAyAt, nAtra mUtra pureeshaM kuryAt, there is lot of dharma, adharma, karma, karma phala, lOkAntara janmAntara vichAra, upAsana, vichAra what exactly the sAmAnya that needs to be observed and understood in these daily routine vidhi-pratishedha vAkya-s!!?? what is aloukika/daiveeka which is not mundane or loukika in these words?? Those who have written commentaries on these also taken it in lokArUdhi artha and explained it without giving any effort to see something aloukika / daivika in these nitya-naimittika injunctions and prohibitions. So, all big big statements with regard to veda-s speciality, its aloukika nature of words, its paavitrata and its exclusivity etc. from other paUrusheya texts stand as mere statements only and aloukikatva of the veda words just believed because it is said so in tradition.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but even if you are, I am answering assuming the questions are genuine.
Ø I am sorry I am not able to understand where I am sarcastic in my observation.
I just asked simple question whether veda comes under the category of kAraNa or kArya in other words in which compartment one should put veda whether it is jeeva, jagat or brahma in the sphere of vyAvahArika as we both agreed veda nityatva is kevala vyAvahArika.
In relation to this only, to the best of my ability, I have expressed my views prabhuji. If it sounds you sarcastic observation/remarks it is only due to my language limitations as I don’t know how to do flowery polish to my thoughts.
Ø Anyway thanks for taking trouble to quote bhAshya vAkya-s from 1-3-28 & 29 from sUtra devatAdhikaraNa. But may I bring to your kind notice that, like veda-s below, the jagat too has been explained from this universal (sAmAnya) and particulars ( vishesha) perspective in the bhAshya.
When jagat as particular does not exist apart from pure consciousness. In the bhAshya on br.up. bhAshyakAra takes the example of kettle-drum sound and explains one would not be able to grasp the external sounds by ‘themselves’ but the sound is grasped only through conceiving it as of the drum. And concludes that as species they cannot be grasped as distinct from that of genus. For as species they have no independent existence.
In like manner no particular thing can be perceived as an entity in dream or waking apart from prajnAna ( i.e. Shuddha sattva). And concludes that it is quite appropriate to say that any particular in this jagat does not exist apart from pure consciousness.
Ø And subsequently this has been explained in more clear terms and clarity by bhAshyakAra by bringing more than one illustration to bring to the notice that there are various species, There are numerous jeeva-jantu, various chara-sthira, animate and inanimate which are entirely distinct from one another. They have all to be somehow brought under the one highest tattva sAmAnya i.e. pure consciousness. Just like various sounds like that of kettle-drum sound, the conch sound, flute sound etc. are included in one common genus i.e. sound, so it can be concluded that during the time of sthiti kAla of the jagat to begin with, that things being non-different from the lower ranking species are all one with brahman.
- So, contextually like veda Shabda and artha which primarily follows the sAmaanya (universal) not vishesha with the same tone jagat to explained holding sAmAnya as the primary perspective. Hence I failed to understand why we should not take veda and jagat nothing but pure consciousness from this sAmAnya perspective.
- Kindly note that I am not raising any doubt with regard to bhAshya you quoted I am just sharing the parallels with same perspective. Even if we go by this bhAshya vAkya that before creation he took the veda Shabda for creation then also it is good to argue that even before the triad (pramANa, prameya, pramAtru) vyavahAra it is there with brahman like avyAkruta / mAya as brahma svarUpa only.
- But we are reluctant to give any status to this veda, it is neither kAraNa nor kArya.
- So question still remains after reading all these bhAshya vAkhya what exactly the status of veda. Being vyavahArika not pAramArthika but it is neither vyAvahArika as it is not like jagat!!.
- And again from the pAramArthika drushti we already agreed brahman being nirvishesha the sAmAnyata of particular also not seriously emphasized, veda being not brahman comes under the category of anAtma vastu and this not self is unreal!! So from the ultimate point of view jagat and veda as particular not existent at all but ever existed from the point of sAmAnya.
- There is a bhAshya vAkya with regard to this in geeta : the essential nature of both being and not-being, the Atma and anAtma, has been arrived by the knowers of truth and they have concluded that the existent always is and the non-existent (or unreal) never is!! From the consciousness sAmAnya point of view both jagat and veda exist as brahman is the source of these two but when the same is said to be non-existent when it is treated as anAtma vastu.
- Yesterday I have once again read Sri SSS’s commentary on these devatAdhikaraNa bhAshya at one place in the foot note he observes that bhAshyakAra ‘vyavahArically’ accepted these status to veda following the stand of Jaimini meemAmsa sUtra and shankara’s final stand on this (i.e. veda’s aparusheyatva) is explained in taittireeya bhAshya (2-3).
Sri Chandramouli prabhuji said it is in taittireeya bhAshya vArtika of Sri SSS but I could not find it in that but in his taittireeya up. bhAshya which I myself quoted ( tasya yajureva shiraH, rigdakshiNaH pakshaH, sAmOttara pakshaH Adesha Atma, atharvaangirasaH puccha pratishTa) shankara clearly says veda-s nityatva can be proved only if we accept the ikyata with brahman. And to this effect he quotes some parallel shruti vAkyas also.
- Please see bhAshya vAkya-s like :
- (a)tasmAt manOvruttyupAdhi parichinnam manOvrutti nishTam AtmachaitanyaM anAdhinidhanaM yajuHshabda vAchyaM Atma vijnAnaM mantrA~h iti,
- mantra : sarve vedA yatraikaM bhavanti, sa mAnaseena Atma, ruchO akshare parame vyOman Yasmin deva adhi vishwe nishedhuH
- If we don’t accept all these there is no nityatva siddhi to veda and it will become Vishaya clarifies bhAshyakAra : evaM cha nityatvOpapattirvedAnAM, anyathA vishayatve rUpAdhivat anityatvaM cha syAt.
- Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658107D8F3F224FCBB124B7E842A2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810FAD68586E7C04B5A1CB842A2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,
“Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.”
This point was discussed in the Advaitin Yagoogroup during the discussion that followed the presentation of the Series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas. The question was then raised in the context of the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya:
“Since it is Existence itself that is perceived otherwise through the duality of different forms, therefore, there is no non-existence of anything anywhere. That is what we say...... As the Nyaya school, after assuming that a thing is different from existence, says again that it has no existence before its birth and after its destruction – it is not assumed by us in that way, at anytime or anywhere, that any word or anything denoted by the word can be there differently from Existence.” (Ch.VI.ii.3).
Now if all names and forms are non-different from Brahman and are not subject to birth and destruction, they may also be considered eternal just as Vedic words are. This being so, what is the special significance of Vedic words by virtue of which Vedic words alone obtain the status of being apaurusheya?
The answer to this question is that the universe arises from Vedic words. Vedic words must therefore be logically prior to creation; for otherwise it would lead to mutual interdependence between Vedic words and creation. For if Vedic words are considered to be part of the created world, it would lead to a situation where (i) creation would be dependent on Vedic words for it to arise, and (ii) Vedic words would be dependent on creation for the Vedic words to be available for effecting creation. This mutual interdependency between Vedic words and creation would be avoided only by considering that Vedic words are not part of creation, that is, of them being held to be uncreated and unauthored even when considered from the vyavaharika standpoint (as pointed out by Sri Venkatraghavan-ji in his recent post). So, while ordinary words may be considered as created and destroyed from the laukika perspective of vyavaharika sathya, Vedic words cannot be considered as subject to creation and destruction even from the standpoint of vyavaharika sathya. This is the distinguishing characteristic of Vedic words as compared to ordinary words.
Now, in another post you say:
“So, all big big statements with regard to veda-s speciality, its aloukika nature of words, its paavitrata and its exclusivity etc. from other paUrusheya texts stand as mere statements only and aloukikatva of the veda words just believed because it is said so in tradition.”
It
is not so. While it is true that the aloukikatva of Vedic words is made known
from the tradition, it is at the same time a proposition that is justifiable by
reason. It is not a mere belief without a reasonable foundation, as you state.
If you have the conviction that the universe arises from Brahman, then what is the difficulty is seeing that there needs to be words, existing prior to creation, by which Brahman expresses the universe? For, as pointed out by Sri Venkatraghavan-ji, any creation from a sentient being must be preceded by a contemplation of that which is going to be created and such contemplation requires the availability of words by which it may be contemplated. What is it that is not reasonable in this proposition? Why should it be considered as a mere belief?
If however, you do not have the conviction that the universe arises from Brahman or a Conscious Being, then please present your argument to support an alternate view and we shall then examine which of the two views – that the universe arises from Brahman or that it arises from a non-conscious source – is the more reasonable proposition and which of them amounts to a mere belief.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I am really proud of myself because ‘paamara pralaapa’ from a purely ‘loukika’ getting the attention of full time vedAntins and anushtAnavanta stalwarts in Advaita like your goodself and Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji. But I must confess here despite having clarifications from your good-selves I am yet to be convinced myself that some statements are not mere statements but can be proved with traditional logic!! That might be due to my lack of exposure to Indian classical nyAya and my inability to understand and contemplate on what has been said here by both of you. With the risk of I myself being fussy would like to continue this discussion. However to avoid reader fatigue and confusion I would keep my reply very ‘brief’
“Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.”
This point was discussed in the Advaitin Yagoogroup during the discussion that followed the presentation of the Series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas. The question was then raised in the context of the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya:
“Since it is Existence itself that is perceived otherwise through the duality of different forms, therefore, there is no non-existence of anything anywhere. That is what we say...... As the Nyaya school, after assuming that a thing is different from existence, says again that it has no existence before its birth and after its destruction – it is not assumed by us in that way, at anytime or anywhere, that any word or anything denoted by the word can be there differently from Existence.” (Ch.VI.ii.3).
Now if all names and forms are non-different from Brahman and are not subject to birth and destruction, they may also be considered eternal just as Vedic words are.
Ø The nAma and rUpa has the pariNAmi nityatva on the basis of kUtastha nityatva. nAma rUpa before creation in avyAkruta (unmanifested form) and during sustenance vyAkruta rUpa and at the pralaya goes back to its origin. Hence it has the parinAmi nityatva (then only mAyA satkAryavAda operates) or pravAha nityatva as Sri Venkatraghavan explained. And that is the reason why kArya as jagat like kAraNa brahman ‘trikAla’ abhAdhita. The cows (nAma rUpa / kArya/ particulars) may be different but cowness (gOtva – kAraNa/ sAmAnya) remains the same. As we know, the cows are described as vAchAraMbhaNa supporting the speech necessary to know the cowness. (vAchAraMbhaNam, vAgAraMbhaNam vAgAlambanaM ityetat (ch.6.1.4) they are only particulars / nAmadheya there is no purport in themselves if considered as particulars or independently. The crux is in its sAmAnya tattva i.e. ‘cowness’. Jagat as an independent existing entity does not serve any purpose here but jagat viewed from its sAmAnya tattva is nothing but brahman. It is because of this reason only I have taken both veda and jagat in the same compartment and said jagat and veda in sAmAnya tattva brahman only and jagat and veda when viewed as Vishaya / anAtma have the restricted existence hence said in sushupti veda is aveda. Have I erred here anywhere??
This being so, what is the special significance of Vedic words by virtue of which Vedic words alone obtain the status of being apaurusheya?
The answer to this question is that the universe arises from Vedic words.
Ø Arising of the universe is NOT like brahman thinking about srushti doing srushti becoming nimittOpadAna kAraNa of the srushti. bhAshya clears ‘what type of srushti’ it is from veda Shabda. Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji already given the explanation of veda Shabda which brahman thought before srushti and subsequent srushti which is not like upAdAna of the jagat. And I am just comparing veda Shabda before veda srusht AND avyAkruta / mAya before jagat srushti and seeing on the ‘same’ platform. Am I going wrong here??
Vedic words must therefore be logically prior to creation; for otherwise it would lead to mutual interdependence between Vedic words and creation.
Ø Prabhuji this creation with the help of veda mantra (Shabda) is not consistently emphasized in srushti prakriya in all through the shruti. As you know srushti order is NOT the main purport of shruti. All this was/is/will be indeed Atman alone in the beginning/end/sustenance and nothing else. That is ultimate siddhAnta. Yes, as discussed Ishwara with the help of already existing veda Shabda did the srushti kriya that means he just followed the ‘order’ of srushti ‘as is’ in veda Shabda which is nitya. So if veda mantra with regard to srushti is in order and not subject to any change the resultant srushti and its order also not subject to any change and it is also nitya. It is because of this I said dhAta yathA pUrvamakalpayatu. And coming back to srushti and the ‘material’ the Ishwara took to create is varies. Take for example prashna shruti (6th prashna and 4th mantra) sa prANamasrujata prANAchandaH khaM vAyurjyotirApaH pruthiveendriyaM manaH. annamannaadirvayaM tapO ‘maNtrAH’, karma lOkA lOkeshu chaM nAma cha. Please see what bhAshyakAra explains what is the meaning of the word ‘maNtra’ in this mantra. bhAshya vAkya : mantrAH tapOvishuddyAntaHbahirkaraNebhyaH karma sAdhana bhUtAH ‘rigyajuhsAmAtharvAngirasaH tataH karma agnihOtrAdi lakshaNam. (here A good English translation is required from any available authentic source). Here it is quite evident that ‘maNtra-s like rig yajur sAma and atharva created by hiraNyagarbha/prANa inbetween other srushti-s. This indeed would help to get the more clarity with regard to taittireeya mantra (2-3) on manOmaya kOsha and bhAshya. And in Itareya sa Ekshata bhAshyakAra and veda mantra too does not speak anything about the help of veda Shabda. And in spider example too in mundaka the helping nature of veda Shabda not there. Ok one may argue that these are all about physical srushti not about veda Shabda srushti but those who argue this should give the convincing explanation with regard to prashana maNtra srushti krama.
Now, in another post you say:
“So, all big big statements with regard to veda-s speciality, its aloukika nature of words, its paavitrata and its exclusivity etc. from other paUrusheya texts stand as mere statements only and aloukikatva of the veda words just believed because it is said so in tradition.”
It is not so. While it is true that the aloukikatva of Vedic words is made known from the tradition, it is at the same time a proposition that is justifiable by reason. It is not a mere belief without a reasonable foundation, as you state.
If you have the conviction that the universe arises from Brahman, then what is the difficulty is seeing that there needs to be words, existing prior to creation, by which Brahman expresses the universe?
Ø Yes, at one place veda says this the words in which brahman think is veda Shabda and another place it is (veda like rig, yajur saama etc. placed among other creation) and yet in other place shruti (veda) exclaims in wonderment : kO addha veda ka eha pravOchat eyaM visrutiryatha AvabhUva!!?? So as I said when srushti order itself not the main purport why this undue elevated status to veda Shabda. This doubt can arise both from vyAvahArika ( as veda aveda in sushupti since avasthAtraya in kevala vyAvahArika) and from pAramArthika ( as there exists nothing apart from brahman).
For, as pointed out by Sri Venkatraghavan-ji, any creation from a sentient being must be preceded by a contemplation of that which is going to be created and such contemplation requires the availability of words by which it may be contemplated. What is it that is not reasonable in this proposition? Why should it be considered as a mere belief?
If however, you do not have the conviction that the universe arises from Brahman or a Conscious Being, then please present your argument to support an alternate view and we shall then examine which of the two views – that the universe arises from Brahman or that it arises from a non-conscious source – is the more reasonable proposition and which of them amounts to a mere belief.
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I just asked simple question whether veda comes under the category of kAraNa or kArya in other words in which compartment one should put veda whether it is jeeva, jagat or brahma in the sphere of vyAvahArika as we both agreed veda nityatva is kevala vyAvahArika.
Ok. The answer to the question is Vedas are also brahma-kArya only –
that is why in the first varNaka of the shAstrayonitva adhikaraNa, the bhAShyakAra uses this fact to argue for Brahman's omniscience.
Ø Yes that is right prabhuji na hi Edrushasya shAstrasya RigvedAdi lakshaNasya sarvajnaguNAnvitasya sarvajnAt anyataH saMbhavOsti. None other than the omniscient be the source of the complex shAstra of Rigveda, etc. So it is agreed that the source of RigvedAdi shAstra is none other than sarvajna paramAtma.
However, the same sUtrakAra who wrote shAstrayonitvAt also said ata eva ca nityatvam. Thus, even though Vedas are brahma kArya, as Ishvara doesnt have svAtantrya in their creation, the Vedas are nitya.
Ø This pravAha nityatvasiddhi can happen if it agreed Ikyata with the kUtastha nitya, like pariNAmi nityatva agreed for kArya jagat to say kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM that is what bhAshyakAra clarifies in T.bh. otherwise it would become mere kArya / Vishaya/anAtma and suffers from anityatvam.
Ø Anyway thanks for taking trouble to quote bhAshya vAkya-s from 1-3-28 & 29 from sUtra devatAdhikaraNa. But may I bring to your kind notice that, like veda-s below, the jagat too has been explained from this universal (sAmAnya) and particulars ( vishesha) perspective in the bhAshya.
- But we are reluctant to give any status to this veda, it is neither kAraNa nor kArya.
There is no reluctance to say Veda is BrahmakArya - however, just because Vedas are a product, we cannot say that its nityatva (unchanging nature) in vyavahAra is lost. The purpose of differentiating between Vedas and world is only to say that the Vedas are nitya (unchanging) even in vyavahAra, whereas the world is not nitya (unchanging) in vyavahAra also.
Ø Prabhuji I have bit problem in understanding this. You are implying here veda’s nityatva is proven beyond any doubt even in vyavahAra but if that is the case why there is veda is aveda in sushupti?? And why jagat is not getting the status of nityatva in vyavahAra?? After all it is vyAvahArika ‘satya’ and borrowed this satyatva from pAramArthika satya?? Don’t we agree and argue that jeeva’s association with buddhi exists in the unmanifest form during the deep sleep later it become manifest during the jAgrat and Svapna?? Because of the simple fact that nothing come into existence on its own accidentally. Similarly when it comes to samashti we have to accept that the unmanifest prakruti does exist during sushupti / pralaya and before creation just on the basis of its manifestation during the creation. If we see these two things i.e. veda and jagat (in its mUla prakruti rUpa and vyAkruta rUpa) from this vyAvahArika perspective is there any problem in accepting both are nitya in vyavahAra??
The reason given for that was no one has svAtantrya to change the Vedas, not even Ishvara.
However, according to you, is Shankaracharya saying that the nityatva of Vedas is a vyAvahArika nityatva, or is it pAramArthika nityatva?
Is Shankaracharya saying "seeing the vedas having aikya with brahman is the only reason why they are nitya"?
- Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.
The only purpose of drawing a distinction is to explain why there is a vyAvahArika nityatva of the Vedas (when the world does not have vyAvahArika nityatva) and explain apauruSheyatva of the Vedas in vyavahAra. By nityatva, I am referring to the unchanging nature of the Vedas in vyavahAra. The world does not have an unchanging nature in vyavahAra.
By that much, I am not denying that the Vedas have pAramArthika nityatva in their aikya with Brahman. However, that is not the topic of the discussion here.
In my understanding of Shankaracharya's bhAShya to the taittirIya upaniShad, he is explaining the reason for why the yajuh, rig, sAma and atharveda-s are considered to be various parts of the manomaya sharIra - that is, Shankaracharya is not referring to the external Vedas, but the mental modes of the various rig, yajuh, sAma, atharva mantra-s, because it is in that sense that the Upanishad is referring to the four vedas as parts of the manomaya sharIra.
Thus, it would be helpful if you can present your understanding of the following:
> As per Sri SSS nityatva and apaurusheyatva here in devatAdhikaraNa accepted as per the Jaimini (meemAmsaka sUtra he gives sUtra reference as well) and shankara nirNaya on veda nityatva well established based on taittireeya bhAshya 2.3. If you need exactly his words I can quote his observation in Kannada but unfortunately you cannot read it.
Ø Prabhuji I have bit problem in understanding this. You are implying here veda’s nityatva is proven beyond any doubt even in vyavahAra but if that is the case why there is veda is aveda in sushupti?? And why jagat is not getting the status of nityatva in vyavahAra?? After all it is vyAvahArika ‘satya’ and borrowed this satyatva from pAramArthika satya?? Don’t we agree and argue that jeeva’s association with buddhi exists in the unmanifest form during the deep sleep later it become manifest during the jAgrat and Svapna?? Because of the simple fact that nothing come into existence on its own accidentally. Similarly when it comes to samashti we have to accept that the unmanifest prakruti does exist during sushupti / pralaya and before creation just on the basis of its manifestation during the creation. If we see these two things i.e. veda and jagat (in its mUla prakruti rUpa and vyAkruta rUpa) from this vyAvahArika perspective is there any problem in accepting both are nitya in vyavahAra??
The reason given for that was no one has svAtantrya to change the Vedas, not even Ishvara.
- That is true prabhuji, as pravAha nitya veda-s so is pariNAmi nitya jagat. Both are vyAvahArically nitya in its own sphere but pAramArthically one with brahman. Is there any problem in this stand!!??
Is Shankaracharya saying "seeing the vedas having aikya with brahman is the only reason why they are nitya"?
Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.
By that much, I am not denying that the Vedas have pAramArthika nityatva in their aikya with Brahman. However, that is not the topic of the discussion here.
In my understanding of Shankaracharya's bhAShya to the taittirIya upaniShad, he is explaining the reason for why the yajuh, rig, sAma and atharveda-s are considered to be various parts of the manomaya sharIra - that is, Shankaracharya is not referring to the external Vedas, but the mental modes of the various rig, yajuh, sAma, atharva mantra-s, because it is in that sense that the Upanishad is referring to the four vedas as parts of the manomaya sharIra.
- Just wondering if that is the case why bhAshyakAra brings the topic of ikyata to prove the veda nityatva!! See prashna mantra 4 from 6th prashna where it is said mAntra-s of four veda-s come within the certain order of creation of hiraNyagarbha I think this would help us to do samanvaya with t.bhashya where ikyata insisted for nityatva.
Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,
I am really proud of myself because ‘paamara pralaapa’ from a purely ‘loukika’ getting the attention of full time vedAntins and anushtAnavanta stalwarts in Advaita like your goodself and Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji.
I am a bit worried after reading this statement of yours because I have no intention of getting involved in a long discussion, and to make matters worse my worry has increased manifold after reading your long reply because I do not know whether your objections are genuine objections or whether you are merely playing the devil’s advocate here.
And please don’t call me an Advaita stalwart or a Vedantin. You are aware that I do not even know Sanskrit, so it would be an insult to real Vedantins to include my name in the list of Vedantins.
But I must confess here despite having clarifications from your good-selves I am yet to be convinced myself that some statements are not mere statements but can be proved with traditional logic!!
Perhaps it might help to remember that in traditional logic (tarka) the proof of a thing derives from a pramana and that (a certain category of) verbal testimony is included in the list of pramanas.
However to avoid reader fatigue and confusion I would keep my reply very ‘brief’
While I do not doubt your good intentions Prabhu-ji, I am afraid your replies are neither brief nor do they exercise the caution necessary to prevent the discussion from straying into paths and alleys that are liable to cause reader fatigue and confusion. 😊
But I shall make one more attempt before I retire from the discussion and hope that it may contribute to bring some clarity to the discussion. If not, well it would just go to show that I am no good and certainly no stalwart. 😊
(vAchAraMbhaNam, vAgAraMbhaNam vAgAlambanaM ityetat (ch.6.1.4) they are only particulars / nAmadheya there is no purport in themselves if considered as particulars or independently. The crux is in its sAmAnya tattva i.e. ‘cowness’. Jagat as an independent existing entity does not serve any purpose here but jagat viewed from its sAmAnya tattva is nothing but brahman.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that treating jagat as an independent entity does not serve any purpose here. Jagat and the various objects when view viewed from the standpoint of samanya tattva may be Brahman and nothing but Brahman but in order to discuss the topic of Veda apaurusheyatva in a meaningful way we would need to flesh out the distinctive characteristic of Veda by which it differentiates itself from other words and other objects; merely harping on the point that jagat and all things viewed from samanya tattva are all nothing but Brahman will not get us anywhere.
Arising of the universe is NOT like brahman thinking about srushti doing srushti becoming nimittOpadAna kAraNa of the srushti. bhAshya clears ‘what type of srushti’ it is from veda Shabda. Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji already given the explanation of veda Shabda which brahman thought before srushti and subsequent srushti which is not like upAdAna of the jagat. And I am just comparing veda Shabda before veda srusht AND avyAkruta / mAya before jagat srushti and seeing on the ‘same’ platform. Am I going wrong here??
In my post I had mentioned the special characteristic of the Veda, namely that it comprises the very words from which this universe arises, to highlight that it is this characteristic which gives to the Veda the status of being apaurusheya. This is a characteristic that the Veda alone possesses and which other words do not possess. And neither does the Veda lose this special characteristic irrespective of how it may fit in within the scheme of material and efficient causality of the world. So what is the point of launching off on a separate project to ascertain how Veda Shabda may be considered in the scheme of material and efficient causality? See Prabhu-ji, this is how reader fatigue begins to arise. 😊
But since you have already brought in the topic of causality and considering that it is liable to obfuscate the discussion, I would like to provide some words of clarification.
From the standpoint of the Supreme Brahman, which is One without a second, there is neither creation nor destruction nor the presence of any world anytime nor any difference whatsoever. The topic of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas arises only in the context of creation, and in this context the creator of the universe is Ishwara or Saguna Brahman. This Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the universe and the statement that Brahman creates the universe through Vedic words does not in any way obviate Brahman from being the material and efficient cause of the universe.
The omnipotence from which Brahman creates the universe springs from his knowledge alone, says the bhashyakara in BSB I.v.5; it springs from his knowledge which has neither covering nor obstruction and because of which He is able to create spontaneously without requiring the aid of body or organs. This knowledge without covering or obstruction, which constitutes His omniscience or all-knowingness, includes His eternal knowledge of the Vedas; and it is this Brahman’s eternal knowledge of the Vedas which itself constitutes the eternal existence of the Vedas because in Brahman there is no difference between knower and object known, that is, the Vedas as something known by Brahman is, in the absence of subject-object difference, Brahman itself. The Vedas are thus coterminous with Saguna Brahman and when the statement is made that Brahman creates with the help of Vedic words, the Vedic words do not stand as something separate from the omniscience of Brahman by virtue of which Brahman creates the universe effortlessly and spontaneously.
Prabhuji this creation with the help of veda mantra (Shabda) is not consistently emphasized in srushti prakriya in all through the shruti. As you know srushti order is NOT the main purport of shruti. All this was/is/will be indeed Atman alone in the beginning/end/sustenance and nothing else. That is ultimate siddhAnta.
I think you are mixing up different topics here. By saying that Brahman creates the universe through Vedic words, we are not referring to an order of creation but to a logical imperative of creation. In other words, we are talking of words being necessary to bring about creation irrespective of the order in which creation may proceed because creation can occur only through the differentiating power of words. This principle, that creation proceeds through the differentiating power of words, is held by all Vedantins; they may differ in respect of espousing either vivartavada or parinamavada, etc., but the necessity of words to bring about the manifestation of difference is central to all schools of Vedanta. So, without words, there would be no manifestation of difference and without manifestation of difference there would be no creation. So, it does not matter what order of creation there may be; the very fact that there is (the appearance of) creation implies that difference is seen and this difference can be brought about only by words.
So, the point that I had made in my last post and which I would like to emphasize here again is that those words from which the universe arises are Vedic words and it is this characteristic that lends to the Vedas the status of being eternal and apaurusheya since the words from which creations proceeds would need to be prior to creation. The order in which creation occurs has no bearing on the topic at hand (and merely contributes to causing reader fatigue 😊)
Please see what bhAshyakAra explains what is the meaning of the word ‘maNtra’ in this mantra. bhAshya vAkya : mantrAH tapOvishuddyAntaHbahirkaraNebhyaH karma sAdhana bhUtAH ‘rigyajuhsAmAtharvAngirasaH tataH karma agnihOtrAdi lakshaNam. (here A good English translation is required from any available authentic source). Here it is quite evident that ‘maNtra-s like rig yajur sAma and atharva created by hiraNyagarbha/prANa in between other srushti-s.
Are you really suggesting that Hiranyagarbha created the Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas in between some specific srishtis? If so, was it the first time Hiranyagarbha created them? Were these Vedas not existent before that time?
I shall not wait for your answer because I do not believe you are actually suggesting that Hiranyagarbha created the Vedas for the first time on that occasion. And if Hiranyagarbha on this occasion did not create these Vedas for the first time, it amounts to him manifesting the same order of Vedic words as they had manifested many times in the past. Such manifestation is not to be understood as creation in a literal sense. Rather, the words ‘created by Hiranyagarbha / Prana’ in this instance should be understood as Hiranyagarbha / Prana bringing forth or manifesting the eternal Vedas and not literally as creating or authoring them. The scriptures are to be interpreted in a manner that brings about samanvaya and not discord between their various parts.
Prabhuji, kindly allow me to ask you a simple question without mentioning any source if I give you a word / statement can you decide whether it is a apaurusheya veda or smruti or purANa or itihAsa just looking at that word / statement??
Ah Prabhu-ji, you have thrown me a real gem here!
Now I know why all the arguments that have been presented to you have failed to convince you that the Vedas are apaurusheya!
The Vedic words do not have a special appearance by which they show themselves to our senses to be apaurusheya! And according to you, without us being able to discern by our senses the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, it would be unreasonable to resort to any other method to conclude that the Vedas are apaurusheya! Now I got it Prabhu-ji.
By the same token, when someone introduces you to a person saying that he is the son of Ramu, it would be unreasonable on your part to accept that he is the son of Ramu unless you can see through your senses that he is indeed the son of Sri Ramu. And if somebody points you to the two shining objects in the night sky known as Mangala and Shukra and tells you that they are planets and not stars it would be unreasonable on your part to accept that they are planets and not stars unless you can actually see through your senses that they are planets and not stars.
I am afraid Prabhuji that with this kind of expectation from your side with regard to what it is that constitutes reason, there is not much hope that you will ever be convinced that the Vedas are apaurusheya!
If that is not possible and if we dependent on some traditional background to decide which is shruti and which is smruti or man made, how can it be justifiable by reason without the taking help of tradition which has some axioms with regard to this ??
I am aghast to read your words here! So, according to you, the view of the tradition that the Vedas are apaurusheya is just an axiom!
I suppose repeating once again (after having discussed this topic at length in the past on this very list) that the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas derives from a pramana called anupalabdi would make no sense to you! See Prabhu-ji, it is these kinds of statements from your side that are responsible for bringing on reader fatigue in me and make me want to exit the discussion. But having come on board let me make one more attempt before I quit.
The Vedas are held to be apaurusheya because authorship is something that would be perceived if it were to exist (that is, it constitutes a pratiyogin) and the fact that in the case of the Vedas no authorship has ever been perceived or known is sufficient ground to conclude that it is apaurusheya and unauthored. The apaurusheyatva of the Vedas is NOT an axiom; it stands on the base provided by a pramana.
Yes, at one place veda says this the words in which brahman think is veda Shabda and another place it is (veda like rig, yajur saama etc. placed among other creation) and yet in other place shruti (veda) exclaims in wonderment : kO addha veda ka eha pravOchat eyaM visrutiryatha AvabhUva!!?? So as I said when srushti order itself not the main purport why this undue elevated status to veda Shabda.
As already clarified, the order of creation has no bearing on this topic. And as regards the elevated status of the Vedas, I would have expected that after discussing on this list for almost 20 years, you would not be asking this question at this stage. I am not sure if you are feigning ignorance or you really do not know the significance of the Vedas being apaurusheya. In any case, here is the clarification. It is the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas that makes it into a pramana, a faultless source for obtaining knowledge of Brahman and of the means for obtaining the highest good of man.
I am not talking about reasoning behind the sequence i.e. sentient-his mind-language in which he thought of creation– doing creation according to his thought process etc. I am just wondering how can these words exist at all as separate words in his mind??
See the clarification already provided earlier above, the Vedic words do not exist as something separate in Brahman; they are coterminous and one with Saguna Brahman, the Creator Being, and they do not come in the way of Brahman being the material and efficient cause of the universe.
we rely completely on supremacy of the shruti that has originated from paramAtma hence it is the most authentic pramANa, shruti is the source to believe the existence of Ishwara and Ishwara is the source of shruti, here anyOnyAshraya dOsha is quite unavoidable as per the outsider but for us it is not pramANa siddha and shruti is having the status of svataH siddha without depending on any other pramANa.
Wait a minute. How indeed do you know that Sruti is svatah-siddha? Merely saying that “for us.., shruti is having the status of svatah siddha” does not confer on us the knowledge that it is svatah-siddha. So, we need a pramana by which we, as mortal beings who cannot see into the visceral nature of reality, can establish that the Shruti is pramana. And showing that the Veda is apaurusheya is the means to establish that it is a faultless source of knowledge and hence a pramana, one that, being unauthored, stands on its own feet, that is, a pramana which is svatah-siddha.
Perhaps you might now see the problem that we saMpradAyavAdins facing when presenting these theories to the outsiders.
Let us forget about the outsiders and get clarity ourselves first before worrying about them Prabhuji. 😊
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I am a bit worried after reading this statement of yours because I have no intention of getting involved in a long discussion, and to make matters worse my worry has increased manifold after reading your long reply because I do not know whether your objections are genuine objections or whether you are merely playing the devil’s advocate here.
Perhaps it might help to remember that in traditional logic (tarka) the proof of a thing derives from a pramana and that (a certain category of) verbal testimony is included in the list of pramanas.
(vAchAraMbhaNam, vAgAraMbhaNam vAgAlambanaM ityetat (ch.6.1.4) they are only particulars / nAmadheya there is no purport in themselves if considered as particulars or independently. The crux is in its sAmAnya tattva i.e. ‘cowness’. Jagat as an independent existing entity does not serve any purpose here but jagat viewed from its sAmAnya tattva is nothing but brahman.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that treating jagat as an independent entity does not serve any purpose here. Jagat and the various objects when view viewed from the standpoint of samanya tattva may be Brahman and nothing but Brahman but in order to discuss the topic of Veda apaurusheyatva in a meaningful way we would need to flesh out the distinctive characteristic of Veda by which it differentiates itself from other words and other objects; merely harping on the point that jagat and all things viewed from samanya tattva are all nothing but Brahman will not get us anywhere.
In my post I had mentioned the special characteristic of the Veda, namely that it comprises the very words from which this universe arises, to highlight that it is this characteristic which gives to the Veda the status of being apaurusheya.
Ø ‘this universe’ from that veda but this universe and its eternality has nothing to do with that veda’s apaurusheya. This universe nityatva cannot be compared with that veda’s nityatva!! Do you mean to say veda Shabda (words) are apaurusheya but vAchya (artha) jagat in its sAmAnya characteristic is not worthy of any discussion along with veda shabda apaurusheyatva!! I failed to understand this logic.
This is a characteristic that the Veda alone possesses and which other words do not possess.
Ø Please explain in simple terms what is the real nature of other words other than vedic words when it is seen from its universal meaning. When the bangle, ring etc. named ONLY through its sAmAnya i.e. gold. For that matter in veda-s too showing the particulars (nAma rUpa) it is guiding us to sAmAnya. The examples given in veda Shabda is local examples only. If you don’t agree to this please explain me how.
And neither does the Veda lose this special characteristic irrespective of how it may fit in within the scheme of material and efficient causality of the world. So what is the point of launching off on a separate project to ascertain how Veda Shabda may be considered in the scheme of material and efficient causality? See Prabhu-ji, this is how reader fatigue begins to arise. 😊
But since you have already brought in the topic of causality and considering that it is liable to obfuscate the discussion, I would like to provide some words of clarification.
From the standpoint of the Supreme Brahman, which is One without a second, there is neither creation nor destruction nor the presence of any world anytime nor any difference whatsoever. The topic of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas arises only in the context of creation, and in this context the creator of the universe is Ishwara or Saguna Brahman. This Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the universe and the statement that Brahman creates the universe through Vedic words does not in any way obviate Brahman from being the material and efficient cause of the universe.
The omnipotence from which Brahman creates the universe springs from his knowledge alone, says the bhashyakara in BSB I.v.5; it springs from his knowledge which has neither covering nor obstruction and because of which He is able to create spontaneously without requiring the aid of body or organs. This knowledge without covering or obstruction, which constitutes His omniscience or all-knowingness, includes His eternal knowledge of the Vedas; and it is this Brahman’s eternal knowledge of the Vedas which itself constitutes the eternal existence of the Vedas because in Brahman there is no difference between knower and object known, that is, the Vedas as something known by Brahman is, in the absence of subject-object difference, Brahman itself. The Vedas are thus coterminous with Saguna Brahman and when the statement is made that Brahman creates with the help of Vedic words, the Vedic words do not stand as something separate from the omniscience of Brahman by virtue of which Brahman creates the universe effortlessly and spontaneously.
So, the point that I had made in my last post and which I would like to emphasize here again is that those words from which the universe arises are Vedic words and it is this characteristic that lends to the Vedas the status of being eternal and apaurusheya since the words from which creations proceeds would need to be prior to creation. The order in which creation occurs has no bearing on the topic at hand (and merely contributes to causing reader fatigue 😊)
Are you really suggesting that Hiranyagarbha created the Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas in between some specific srishtis? If so, was it the first time Hiranyagarbha created them? Were these Vedas not existent before that time?
I shall not wait for your answer because I do not believe you are actually suggesting that Hiranyagarbha created the Vedas for the first time on that occasion. And if Hiranyagarbha on this occasion did not create these Vedas for the first time, it amounts to him manifesting the same order of Vedic words as they had manifested many times in the past. Such manifestation is not to be understood as creation in a literal sense. Rather, the words ‘created by Hiranyagarbha / Prana’ in this instance should be understood as Hiranyagarbha / Prana bringing forth or manifesting the eternal Vedas and not literally as creating or authoring them. The scriptures are to be interpreted in a manner that brings about samanvaya and not discord between their various parts.
Prabhuji, kindly allow me to ask you a simple question without mentioning any source if I give you a word / statement can you decide whether it is a apaurusheya veda or smruti or purANa or itihAsa just looking at that word / statement??
Ah Prabhu-ji, you have thrown me a real gem here!
Now I know why all the arguments that have been presented to you have failed to convince you that the Vedas are apaurusheya!
The Vedic words do not have a special appearance by which they show themselves to our senses to be apaurusheya! And according to you, without us being able to discern by our senses the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, it would be unreasonable to resort to any other method to conclude that the Vedas are apaurusheya! Now I got it Prabhu-ji.
By the same token, when someone introduces you to a person saying that he is the son of Ramu, it would be unreasonable on your part to accept that he is the son of Ramu unless you can see through your senses that he is indeed the son of Sri Ramu.
And if somebody points you to the two shining objects in the night sky known as Mangala and Shukra and tells you that they are planets and not stars it would be unreasonable on your part to accept that they are planets and not stars unless you can actually see through your senses that they are planets and not stars.
I am afraid Prabhuji that with this kind of expectation from your side with regard to what it is that constitutes reason, there is not much hope that you will ever be convinced that the Vedas are apaurusheya!
If that is not possible and if we dependent on some traditional background to decide which is shruti and which is smruti or man made, how can it be justifiable by reason without the taking help of tradition which has some axioms with regard to this ??
I am aghast to read your words here! So, according to you, the view of the tradition that the Vedas are apaurusheya is just an axiom!
I suppose repeating once again (after having discussed this topic at length in the past on this very list) that the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas derives from a pramana called anupalabdi would make no sense to you!
See Prabhu-ji, it is these kinds of statements from your side that are responsible for bringing on reader fatigue in me and make me want to exit the discussion. But having come on board let me make one more attempt before I quit.
Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,
I am selecting just two statements here from your post to make a point:
“Do you mean to say veda Shabda (words) are apaurusheya but vAchya (artha) jagat in its sAmAnya characteristic is not worthy of any discussion along with veda shabda apaurusheyatva!! I failed to understand this logic.”
“When both veda and jagat considered as ‘kArya’ when both have the status of enternality in the flow of it, and when both jagat and veda originates from the same source and at the same time both are expressed as not like kUtashTha nityatva of brahman, what exactly brings the fatigue in neutral reader’s mind here I am not able to understand unless we have some prejudiced conclusions on only one set of kArya of brahma”
Please note that what you call a prejudiced conclusion is something that is stated by the bhashyakara himself in BSB I.iii.28:
"'Since from this it arises' - because the universe, consisting of gods and others, originates verily from the Vedic words….
“How again is it known that the universe originates from words? From direct revelation and inference. By 'direct revelation' is meant the Vedas, since they do not depend on any other means of knowledge for their validity. By 'inference' is meant the Smrti, for it depends on other sources for its validity. Both of them show that creation was preceded by words, as is declared in the Veda: 'Brahma created the gods by thinking of the word ete; He created men and others by the word asgram; by the word indavah the manes; by the word tirahpavitram the planets; by the word asavah the hymns; by the word visvani the shastras; and by the word abhisuabhagah the other beings'(Rg.V.IX.62)........ The Smriti also speaks similarly: “In the beginning was projected by Prajapati, the eternal speech in the form of the Vedas which have no beginning and no end.......”
When a statement occurs in any of the prasthana traya texts, I expect you, as a Vedantin, to uphold that statement. It is okay if you disagree with me in the way I explain that statement but then you must strive to provide a better explanation of it from your side. But what you are doing amounts to a denial of the statement altogether instead of providing an explanation from a Vedatntin’s standpoint. Well, that is also within your rights, of course, but it is not the kind of discussion I am inclined to get involved in at this moment.
“I am afraid your example is erred here. I don’t claiming that I have to see through the senses to determine he is son of rAmu. But if some one says some person is not having any parents then that should beg some phenomenal logic / proof to prove that some person is indeed ‘svayaMbhu’”
No, that is not correct. No phenomenal logic is required to prove that the Vedas are apaurusheya.
Please note that in the case of a person, he belongs to the class known as ‘person’ and this class consists of individuals who are subject to birth and death and whose births are invariably occasioned through their parents; so it would be quite fantastic and outlandish if someone were to claim that the person has no parents.
But in the case of words, note that there are two distinct classes of words known as Vedic words and laukika words. Please also note that we learn the meanings of words from the convention that operates within the linguistic community we belong to, and that it is such a convention which a has brought to us meanings of words such as ‘person’, ‘word, ‘Veda’, ‘Vedic word’ and ‘laukika word’. That is the way we get acquainted with the meanings of words - through conventions. Now, in the convention that operates within the linguistic community of the Vedic society we live in, the word ‘Veda’ has the connotation that the sentences of which it is constituted do not have authors. They are mantras that have been seen by rishis. So, by accepting that ordinary laukika textual compositions invariable have authors and that the Vedic mantras do not have authors, you are merely going by the meanings of the words ‘Vedic sabda’ and ‘laukika sabda’ as they have been brought down to us by the convention set by the linguistic community we belong to. By saying that you will not accept that the Veda has no author, you are not abiding by the convention by which the meanings of words are brought to us but are seeking to provide your own meaning to the word ‘Veda’. Just as it would not be reasonable on your part to give your own meaning to the word ‘hare’ and insist that hares have horns since it is an animal just like the animal cow is, ignoring the fact that there are different categories of animals and that some of those categories are characterised by not having horns, likewise it is not reasonable on your part to claim that all sets of linguistic sentences must have authors ignoring the fact that there are two categories of words known as Vedic sabda and laukika sabda. In short, there is no phenomenal logic involved here except that it appears phenomenal to you due to your own rebelliousness in seeking to go by your own meaning of the words ‘Vedic sabda’ and ‘laukika sabda’ ignoring the meanings of words as they have been brought down to us by convention and by which they operate in Vedic society.
"😊 IMO veda’s apaurusheyatva is something of this order which calls for some out of world logic to prove it because of the simple fact that it is on the face of it does not have any special characteristics to prove it otherwise."
There is no need for any out-of-the-world logic to establish that the Vedas are apaurusheya. The pramana anupalabdi is adequate.
Now you are in this discussion I would like to ask what exactly is this anupalabdi pramANa?? AS far as I know the knowledge of an existing thing is called ‘upalabdhi’ knowledge (prama). The knowledge of non existence of a non existing thing is anupalabdhi pramANa. Do you mean to say the non-existence (non-availability) of the source of veda’s prove its apaurusheyatva?? I am sorry as I confessed I am not familiar with nyAya (pramANa tarka based on anupalabdhi pramANa).
I am surprised that you are making this statement, Prabhuji. Anupalabdi is not a pramana listed in Nyaya. It is one of the six pramanas that are accepted in Advaita Vedanta. So, you need to be familiar with Advaita Vedanta and not with Nyaya to know about anupalabdi. 😊
And please forgive me for not attempting to explain what anupalabdi is. We have discussed it extensively on this forum when the topic of Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas was being discussed (and you were present here at that time). Even prior to that discussion, we had discussed anupalabdi at great length when Sri Subbuji had introduced the topic of the hare’s horn and had initiated a discussion to ascertain the pramana by which the absence of the hare’s horn may be known. It is beyond me at this point to embark on that kind of a discussion again; it really brings on mental fatigue in me to even think of it. 😊 But you may refer to the Vedanta Paribhasa where this pramana has been explained quite lucidly. And maybe you can also try reading Part III of my series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas in which I have made an attempt to use this pramana to demonstrate the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas. I am not claiming that it would satisfy you, but there is no harm in giving it a try. And if you are not satisfied with it, that is quite alright with me but I am hoping that it will at least clear your doubts as to what this pramana called anupalabdi is.
This is quite strange from your side picking this more than one time in this same thread 😊 Normally you don’t do that, anyway if you think if my (stupid) observations are making you fatigue and thinking of leaving discussion who am I to stop you prabhuji?? You are welcome to take your decision and thanks for spending your time with this dull witted fatigue causing, boring & amateur vedAntin sofar.
Thank you for releasing me from this discussion Prabhuji. I don’t think you are stupid or dull-witted at all; on the contrary I think it is my shortcoming and my great inability that I am unable to provide you with satisfactory arguments to demonstrate that the Vedas are apaurusheya.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,
In my previous mail, I wrote: "But what you are doing amounts to a denial of the statement altogether instead of providing an explanation from a Vedatntin’s standpoint. Well, that is also within your rights, of course, but it is not the kind of discussion I am inclined to get involved in at this moment."
At the beginning of this discussion, you may recall that I was ready to discuss with you even if you were to take the stand that you had no conviction that the universe arose from Brahman because then I would have liked to know what ground you had to raise your objections to the tenets of Vedanta, but here the situation is a bit different because you are saying that you are a Vedantin while your objections seemed to be launched from the purva-paksha’s country. It is this that causes mental fatigue in me. 😊
"And also this time I am taking some leniency in replying you freely since as you know you are more than just my E-mail friend 😊"
Yes Prabhuji, we are more than just email friends, there is no doubt about it. As you know, our friendship is based on the camaraderie we feel from being fellow travellers of the path of Vedanta but sometimes when one or the other of us hitches a ride on the purva-paksha’s boat, the friendship may seem to get a bit frayed. But I am sure it is a temporary phenomenon and the bond of Vedanta that ties us together in friendship will soon overcome whatever little adverse effects the purva-pakshas may have on us.
Cheers and all the best....
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/c2f1b2e7-55e9-4adc-a330-7abb48f45aa1n%40googlegroups.com.
Two conditions would need to be met for it to be treated as apaurusheya: (i) the tradition of handing down that ballad will have to be beginningless, and (ii) the ballad will have to be known as a ballad for which no author has been perceived even when the expectation of perceiving an author (if there were to be one) has always been present.
Warm regards,Chittaranjan--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/8cab3138-defd-47f4-b63f-685200151eb5n%40googlegroups.com.
Dear Sri Putran-ji,
Basic Question is how to know if the tradition of handing down is beginningless, or whether it had a human origin which knowledge was simply lost and the community started imagining that the tradition is beginningless?
It is conceivable that both i and ii are beliefs with regard to a ballad (or proverb) in a non-Vedic community of people. If we do not have a positive method of contradicting that claim, does it automatically mean their belief is truth?
Or is our essential premise that there is in fact no other human community where this notion of apaurusheya was ever present in the same manner that it is so in the Vedic civilization (if such is the case). Therefore the speculative "thought experiments" about "what if some community had such beliefs" do not apply as per the rules of our tarka. That only the vedic society had such a knowledge of i and ii specifically with regard to the Vedas.
The thesis that the Vedic tradition is beginningless does not stand on an isolated strand of belief which holds the tradition to be beginningless. It is interleaved with so many other features of the tradition which have percolated into the tradition in the form of ideas found in the Sruti, the Smriti or dharma shastras, the Puranas, the science of Grammar and in the idea of language being two-fold (Vaidika and lauika), in the science of Nirukta or Etymology, and in the six schools of Vedic philosophies. Even in the field of action, the institution of the science of phonetics and metrical rendering and the actual institution of the practice of reciting the Vedas with phonetic and metrical purity are all based on the idea of preserving a beginningless tradition. All these strands form such a tight coherence that it would be unreasonable to deny the beginningless of the tradition or to compare it with a tradition in which some ballads whose authors are not known might have been handed down. In Part III of the Series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, I had detailed these strands of the tradition and then concluded as follows:
QUOTE:
COHERENCY AND THE ONUS OF PROOF
It has been shown that there exists an unbroken tradition consisting of a long line of teachers and students who have handed down the Vedas from a beginningless past. It has been shown furthermore that this beginningless tradition is coherent with the conception of the Vedas as having been seen and not authored, which again is coherent with the fact that there exists a distinct name for the seers of the Vedic mantras to distinguish it from the name that denotes an author. And the fact that there are multiple rishis for the same mantras and for the same suktas forms a tightly-coupled system establishing the beginninglessness of the tradition. It has been shown moreover that the idea of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas exists in all the branches of traditional learning starting from the primary seats of learning and extending over all the philosophical schools and other diverse branches of learning, that its ideas were instituted also in the traditional field of human action, and that all these elements of the tradition stretched across a vast geographical stretch of land and possessed a continuity of existence for which no beginning is assignable. The entire tradition forms a tightly-coupled, vast and complex, coherent system. Therefore, on the ground of this coherence of the beginningless tradition, it stands established that the Vedas are eternal and beginningless.
Objection: The coherency of a system can be ruptured by a single element that is dissonant with the coherency. So, how do you say that coherency establishes the beginninglessness of the tradition?
Reply: Not so, for when the element is of the nature of a claim, it is the veracity of the claim that needs to be first ascertained. What is the nature of this single element that you speak of? Is it a claim of there being a historical event of a person claiming to be the author of the Vedas? If so, it is the veracity of the claim of a single claimant and not the veracity of the many that needs to be questioned. Moreover, this is not a matter of conjecture since there has been no such claimant that we know of. If you say that the disrupting element is something other than an historical event, then we say that your objection is groundless. When a thing, i.e., beginningless, has been already established by the existence of the tradition and by the coherency of the various elements of the tradition, if you should claim on any other ground than a historical fact that an element of the tradition is false, then the onus is on you to prove how all the remaining elements fall into place as a coherent system. For these elements are cognized. The existence of the word 'rishi', the existence of mention of multiple rishis for the same mantras and suktas, the existence of mention of the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas in grammer, in etymology, in all the traditional philosophies, in the dharma shastras, in the purnanas are cognized facts. So the onus is clearly on you to prove how these cognized elements have manifested. It is for this same reason that Kumarila Bhatta says in the Slokavartika:
"Nothing more than what is directly visible is said by him (Jaimini), with regard to the authenticity (of the Veda). Whereas, the other theorists have to make various assumptions with regard to the imperceptible, even in proving the inauthenticity of the Veda (to say nothing of those that they have recourse to in seeking to establish the authority of their own scriptures). The atheist, in denying the authority of the Veda, lands himself on the (absurdity of) setting aside the authenticity of a directly perceptible fact. Because when a conception has once arisen (and the self-evident authority of such conceptions has already been proved), any assumption towards its denial could only be needless and far-fetched." (Slokavartika, 11-43.153, 154)
Objection: There have been many people even in the past, such as the Charavakas, the Bauddhas and Jainas who have disagreed with the tradition, so the coherency is broken.
Reply: Mere disagreement is not a condition that breaks the coherency; there must be perceptible facts that contradict the coherency. Disagreements always exist in the world and it cannot be the ground on which a thesis based on perceptible facts is said to stand disproved. For if mere disagreement should be held to be the ground of falsification of a thesis, every thesis in the world will stand disproved by the fact that there would always be found people in this world who disagree with the thesis. In this case, those who disagree will need to provide perceptible facts to counter the coherency that exists in the tradition by showing the beginning of the tradition, or showing that the word 'rishi' has a different origin, or showing that there is no existence of those statements holding the Vedas to be apaurusheya in the various texts that we have quoted from. Moreover, the tradition has always stood on multiple persons dependent on an independent scripture (Veda) unlike in the case of other scriptures that have had human origins and were dependent on the authors. Whereas in the case of the Vedas, there has been no point in time when the scripture has been dependent on a single person. This is what Sri Kumarila Bhatta points out in the Slokavartika:
"(Whereas according to us) even in a single life the Veda is found to reside in (to be known by) many persons; and as such, either its remembrance or comprehension does not go against its independence. For, if any one person were to make any changes in the Veda, of his own accord, he would be opposed by many persons. And again, if the Veda were the outcome of the mind of a single person then it would in no way differ from modern compositions. For the same reason we do not acknowledge the agency of a single person even in the case of the traditional course of instructions (in the Veda). (In view of there being multiple rishis for the mantras), the very first persons (who commenced this traditional course) must have been, many, dependent upon one another, just as we find to be the case at the present day." (Slokavartika, 11-43, 149-151)
So, for those who may have disagreed with the tradition, the same condition that is now applicable to you has been applicable to them in the past as well: the onus of proof of a contrary thesis to explain the perceptible and coherent facts has always been with the one who disagrees with the tradition. And no one so far has provided such a contrary proof. So, the beginningless of the tradition stands established as it has stood for all time.
THE LAW OF PARSIMONY
Now, it having been shown that the onus of proof is on the one who opposes the tradition, the purva-paksha comes with a new objection:
Objection: The entire phenomenon of the existence of the beginningless tradition might have had a historical origin during the development of human thought.
Reply: Then the law of parsimony (which was first mentioned by the sage Gautama and not by Okham) would demand that we go by the tradition than by any such historical explanation. For any such historical explanation would necessarily have to falsify the various elements that we have presented here and any attempt to falsify these elements on such a large scale would amount to stating that the tradition is a grand conspiracy concocted by some people who had somehow managed to get these elements into the various texts that we have mentioned in a conspiratorial manner, and moreover managed it on such a large scale as to implant these elements across a large geographical stretch of land over a period of time spanning into many eras or eons. And it would also amount to stating that the conspirators somehow instituted, as part of the conspiracy, the universal practice of learning the chanting of the Vedas under the belief that it is unauthored and faultless. So, the onus is again on you to explain, in a credible manner, how such a large conspiracy on such a scale was conceived, on who conceived it and what were their motivations in conceiving it, and their stratagies in accomplishing so inhuman a task as incorporating the notion in so many diverse texts and in instituting practices that no one under ordinary circumstances would be willing to adhere to. The entire proposition is enormously cumbersome and far-fetched and has no ground to stand on. Hence, on the ground of parsimony, it is concluded that the tradition stands established.
UNQUOTE
Perhaps (in line with the discussion on jagat) a corresponding question is whether the "Earth" (or objects like Mt. Everest) can be considered apaurusheya by a non-Vedic society because its knowledge satisfies i and ii. It is seen generation after generation, hence its existence is beginningless in their knowledge. And secondly, the people differentiate such objects of jagat (like the sun, earth ocean mountain) from the paurusheya objects like a car or a nest; hence can claim no author is perceived for such objects even though there is generally expectation of authorship (?) unless not perceived ever, and therefore sun, moon, jagat in general are uncreated. In this case is our argument to such a society that the Veda pramana shows otherwise that even sun, moon, jagat are not apaurusheya but Ishvara's creation out of the Vedic words??
Yes, our argument would be that even things like the sun, moon, jagat, etc., are Ishwara’s creation which He brings forth through Vedic words.
It may be noted that this not some doctrine that exists only in the Vedic tradition; it exists even in Christianity, in Judaism, in the religion of ancient Egypt, in the religion of Babylonia and in some of the philosophies of ancient Greece. All of them speak either of God creating through words, or of creation springing from Logos. The only difference between those religions and philosophies and the philosophies of the Vedic tradition is that in those religions and philosophies the Word or Logos through which creation occurs has not been identified whereas in the Vedic tradition it has not only been identified as the Vedas but an entire culture and civilization centered around this Word or Logos has been instituted and has existed from immemorial times.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Basic Question is how to know if the tradition of handing down is beginningless,
or whether it had a human origin which knowledge was simply lost and the community started imagining that the tradition is beginningless?
Ø This is exactly the argument by outsider which cannot be pushed aside as it seems quite legitimate when looked at it from outside the traditional barriers. If some outsider comes at us and argues using our own explanation of jnAni, see authors of veda are brahma jnAni-s, paramArtha jnAni they did not have dehAtma buddhi, they did not want to identify themselves with any nAma rUpa, so when composing the veda-s which conveys the highest truth they did not want to take any copyrights. Hence you may not have any authors name in it. Since the brahma jnAni-s are numerous ( inface in the shruti itself there is a list of brahma jnAni-s) all were with the same non-dual knowledge might have penned their realization without claiming any authorship as they are beyond the BMI.
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
in those religions and philosophies the Word or Logos through which creation occurs has not been identified
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
BHASKAR YR |
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 4:41 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: FW: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [Advaita-l] Re: RE: Re: [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/c4bed39f-ab6b-495a-8ead-1c743139c96dn%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/74cf1fd0-334b-4f42-a7b6-e8bbd55d1a15n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516F1CECF4AAD152BF9DBF6A92C2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Nirguna Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda (SCA). No nama-rupa duality. Vyavaharika begins with the affirmation of nama-rupa (or seer-seeing-seen) duality, and in this standpoint, Brahman is associated with the intrinsic power of Maya: SCA+Maya = Ishvara.
Ø NB is absolutely nirguNa😊 Even to say or call IT is satchidaananda, prajnAna ghana, Atma, brahma etc. we have to hugely come down from that highest truth. Hence neti neti or absolute silence is the best way of expressing it. So if shruti says when this ekamevAdviteeya ‘thinks’ (sOkAmayata) etc. it is only upAsya brahma already endowed with all ornaments like satyam ( always existent) jnAnam ( not achetana and consciousness) Ananda/ananta (blissfull & eternal in svarUpa) etc. This ornament, when we are particularly talking about the module of creation (srushti prakriya) is nothing but mAya/avyAkruta/beeja shakti. With this shakti only absolute nirguNa brahma become Ishwara, with this shakti only he can think anything about srushti or vedic words otherwise without this shakti he is ‘powerless’ or nirlipta / nirvishesha. And this shakti is ‘achalam’ and nityam in Ishwara ( achalaM, yasmAdachalaM tasmAdhruvaM nityamityarthaH says bhAshyakAra. So this immovable shakti in Ishwara makes him to think in ‘words’ about the forthcoming creation which he does keeping in mind about the jeeva-s in the previous kalpa. Hence kalpa also ananta not sAnta in this sense.
Maya is essentially the jnana-iccha-kriya shakti of Ishvara by which He projects/manifests/appears as the creation. The present discussion is related to the essence of this jnana dimension in maya. Since nama-rupa is projected by recourse to maya, the knowledge for that projection must also be there in maya, now and "in the beginning" as well. In particular, this knowledge is apaurusheya - it is not authored by Ishvara but is coeval with Him. The knowledge will be in the rudimentary form in Ishvara (maya) even "before" creation but its primal expression in our manifest world is in the shabda-form of the Veda.
Now when Ishvara uses this Vedic knowledge that is one with Him and brings about creation by applying the iccha-kriya dimensions of HIs shakti, the effect that is a temporal changeful product/appearance we may say is not apaurusheya but created by some purusha-manifestation of Him. But not so for the Veda itself that is the basis for all such manifestation.
in Vishishtadvaita even the snake seen in an illusion has existence. :-)
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Even as per some advaitins snake is existing during bhrAnti samaya otherwise how can we explain our fear of snake!!?? 😊
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658125D9D5AF26EBD75B700384332%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Even as per some advaitins snake is existing during bhrAnti samaya otherwise how can we explain our fear of snake!!?? 😊
I think you are writing this in a humorous vein but seriously the bhashyakara explains somewhere that the fear is not caused by the object (snake) seen in the illusion but it is due to the
knowledge of the snake since the knowledge, irrespective of being wrong or right knowledge, is still knowledge which can't be denied even if the object seen in the instance of wrong knowledge can be denied.
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Though I said it with smile I was seriously representing the stand taken by some vyAkhyAnakAra-s who are advocating the existence of anirvachaneeya sarpa in the form of arthAdhyAsa at the time of ‘apratibOdha samaya’ or bhrAnti abhAdhita kAla. Making it two different adhyAsa one is jnAnAdhyAsa and another one is arthAdhyAsa. I am really surprised that you are seeing this only in vishishtAdvaita but not in Advaita. Anyway, afraid, going away from current topic on hand i.e. aparusheyatva 😊
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/92lT_8754KU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581DE5E519A254324E87AEC84332%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Words or phrases like Sat-chit-ananda and satyam-jnanam-ananta can be used to point to or denote nirguna Brahman instead of necessarily being descriptions of attributes or as positing internal duality. It is like "shuddha" Chaitanya vs sakshi chaitanya. The word shuddha (equivalent to neti, neti) is presumed when we refer to Brahman as Chaitanya, and "sakshi" is natural when the reference is to Ishvara.
Ø Yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha because it is simply devoid of any parts, absolutely free from any activity (nishkriya) and free from all distinctions as well that is the description given about nirvishesha brahma. Calling it as Atman / brahman/prajnAnaM etc. is also naïve explains bhAshyakAra. Taittireeya bhAshya on 2-1 is quite relevant here.
In fact, to me, phrases like "with this Shakti nirguna Brahma become Ishvara" or "only with this Shakti he (nb?) can think" are more confusing.
Ø Yes strictly speaking brahman neither needs any veda Shabda nor any other sahakAri kAraNa in doing this creation. When devata-s and Rishi’s (rishi like vishvaamitra) yOgis are known to make creation with their tapOshakti without and accessories it is not correct to over emphasize that brahman needs sahakAra of veda shabda to create jagat 😊 (sutra bhAshya 2 1 adhikaraNa 8) However, just for the teaching purpose this shakti attributed to brahman ‘before’ creation and projecting him as ‘Ishwara’ (srushti karta / creator) and saying that without this shakti Ishwara fails to create this jagat!! Na hi tayA vinA parameshwarasya srushtatvam siddhyati ; ‘shakti’ rahitasya tasya pravruttyanupapatteH clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya 1.4.3.
Ø Yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha because it is simply devoid of any parts, absolutely free from any activity (nishkriya) and free from all distinctions as well that is the description given about nirvishesha brahma. Calling it as Atman / brahman/prajnAnaM etc. is also naïve explains bhAshyakAra. Taittireeya bhAshya on 2-1 is quite relevant here.
Ø Yes strictly speaking brahman neither needs any veda Shabda nor any other sahakAri kAraNa in doing this creation. When devata-s and Rishi’s (rishi like vishvaamitra) yOgis are known to make creation with their tapOshakti without and accessories it is not correct to over emphasize that brahman needs sahakAra of veda shabda to create jagat 😊 (sutra bhAshya 2 1 adhikaraNa 8) However, just for the teaching purpose this shakti attributed to brahman ‘before’ creation and projecting him as ‘Ishwara’ (srushti karta / creator) and saying that without this shakti Ishwara fails to create this jagat!! Na hi tayA vinA parameshwarasya srushtatvam siddhyati ; ‘shakti’ rahitasya tasya pravruttyanupapatteH clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya 1.4.3.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65811959F6794DDD5347C70784332%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1f5932c4-0ad6-4440-bd8d-49ae7d4514b8n%40googlegroups.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I have the RKM text of Taittiriya. The verses are numbered like I.ii.2 and not 2-1. What would be the numbering for your verse in their book?
Ø I have Kannada book of Sri SSS and I am just sharing that from memory. I will check the exact reference tonight.
I don't think calling Brahman "Sat" or chaitanya is naive if they are understood as denoting the nondual substratum (aka atman) that is non-negatable even as we negate the superimposed nama-rupa visesha-kriya duality.
But because such terms also obtain duality-based meaning from within our vyavaharika standpoint, there can be a certain naivete in casually using them to refer to NB. For instance, it is easy to get caught up in a duality between sat and chit and superimpose that into Brahman, thereby confuse NB with Ishvara.
Ø Yes you are right that is the reason why shruti emphasizes that ‘neti neti’ is the ultimate teaching about brahman. Brahman cannot be denoted by any epithet i.e. including satyam / jnAnam / Anantam etc. Yes it is just indicated by using these terms but it is not expressed exquisitely in these terms. These are all superimposed on atyanta nirvishesha brahman which will be negated (apavAda) subsequently. That is the reason why bhAshyakAra says brahman is inexpressible / undefinable defined and expressed as : brahman is jnAnam Anandam, pragjnAnaM, Atman, brahman etc. And as you rightly observed there is every chance that we may get caught in duality as satyaM (being kAraNa) refers to genus as ‘being’ in external objects and when brahman is denoted as ‘satyaM’ it is ONLY indicated by that term. But it is not actually expressed by the term ‘satyam’.
Ø Yes strictly speaking brahman neither needs any veda Shabda nor any other sahakAri kAraNa in doing this creation. When devata-s and Rishi’s (rishi like vishvaamitra) yOgis are known to make creation with their tapOshakti without and accessories it is not correct to over emphasize that brahman needs sahakAra of veda shabda to create jagat 😊 (sutra bhAshya 2 1 adhikaraNa 8) However, just for the teaching purpose this shakti attributed to brahman ‘before’ creation and projecting him as ‘Ishwara’ (srushti karta / creator) and saying that without this shakti Ishwara fails to create this jagat!! Na hi tayA vinA parameshwarasya srushtatvam siddhyati ; ‘shakti’ rahitasya tasya pravruttyanupapatteH clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya 1.4.3.
Not sure I agree with above but it may be your use of language. If we talk of creation, Ishvara (the association of creative power in Brahman) is a necessary corollary and not merely for teaching purpose.
Of course, you can argue whether that creation process has to be linked to Veda shabda and if such "creation theory" is more for teaching purpose than confirmed vyavaharika satya. I understand Chitta-ji is firm that is satya for astikas.
Ø GK says na nirOdhO nachOtpattiH etc. talk creation bring brahman he is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa who can without any aids, without any external force ‘just like that’ can accomplish his task. But ultimately what we have to understand from this creation theory is that he is ONE without second. Bhashyakaara elsewhere clarifies that : the creation which is taught in various ways by means of examples like clay (mrut), metal (loha) etc. is ONLY a device for the purpose of leading the mind to the truth. There is no diversity whatsoever on any account. And coming back to the context of nityatva of veda, veda Shabda as sahakAri to Ishwara before creation etc. also to be considered as just device when brahman (nirvishesha) treated as Ishwara (savishesha sOpAdhika) who can ‘think’ in words in his ‘mind’.
- First and foremost is THAT is beyond any nAma & rUpa, so call it by any specific name is in the sense ‘naïve only’. Because shruti itself as I said saying na tatra chakshurgacchati na vAgacchati nO manaH etc. So calling it with any specific name is just an injustice as it is something beyond vidita and avidita.
- Creation is just upAya to teach the ultimate truth of brahman. kArikAkAra confirms this. Yes, as it has been said somany times creation talks are there not to uphold the creation itself but to drive home the point : brahmaikatvaM. In the creation module brahman is Ishwara with the co-existence of mAya shakti. And there is no difference between shakti and shaktimaan when it comes to creative power of Ishwara.
Ø GK says na nirOdhO nachOtpattiH etc. talk creation bring brahman he is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa who can without any aids, without any external force ‘just like that’ can accomplish his task. But ultimately what we have to understand from this creation theory is that he is ONE without second. Bhashyakaara elsewhere clarifies that : the creation which is taught in various ways by means of examples like clay (mrut), metal (loha) etc. is ONLY a device for the purpose of leading the mind to the truth. There is no diversity whatsoever on any account. And coming back to the context of nityatva of veda, veda Shabda as sahakAri to Ishwara before creation etc. also to be considered as just device when brahman (nirvishesha) treated as Ishwara (savishesha sOpAdhika) who can ‘think’ in words in his ‘mind’.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65817E617BFB6F79FE12639784332%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
All I wanted to say is whatever attributed to absolute nirvishesha brahman is kevala adhyArOpita, the teaching of vyAvahArika and pAramArthika too one of the adhyAropa teachings it is meant for what it is not. If you want to see only satya aspect of brahma, jnana aspect of brahma and bliss aspect of brahma and say that these are svarUpa lakshaNa of that brahman I don’t have any objection as we know these are all said and done to realize that truth. In one of the upanishats there is a story (I have forgotten up. Name) student comtinuously asking about brahma and teacher kept his silence without uttering a word. And after seeing student confusion with regard to the ‘silence’ teacher compassionately said : I am teaching you the brahma tattva but you are not able to understand it. gurOstu mouna vyAkhyAnaM shishyAstu chinna saMshayaH.
In chAndOgya there is a dialogue :
Objection : can we not say / name Atman by the word ‘Atman’ ?? Answer : No, since scripture says : from which words fall back and in which one see nothing else. Objection : if that is the case how come shruti itself some places say : AtmAva are drashtavyaH, atman is right, left, top, bottom, uddhare AtmanAtmAnam etc. for this vedAnti replies : no problem (naisha dOshaH) for that matter the word Atman primarily used in the world of duality to denote the jeevatman who is distinct from the body he possesses, and the same term extended to indicate the entity which remains after dropping the dehAtma buddhi and other anAtma vastu-s as not deserving that title and used to just reveal what is really inexpressible by words.
To this effect only there are other shruti statements : now the teaching starts about brahman as ‘not such, not such’, brahman is something other than the known and higher than the un-known, this Atman is perfect silence, neither being nor non-being etc. Geeta bhAshya on the verse : anAdimatparaM brahma, na sattannaasaduchyate would throw more light on what I am trying to convey here.
And I have already said those words are indicative to express the inexpressible and meant for exclusive expression of IT. In the vyavahAra if we want to name it specifically to differentiate it from asatyaM, ajnAnaM, sAntam etc. we can definitely name parabrahman as satyaM, jnAnaM and anantaM. And paramArtha not only popular names even each and every name can be denoted by brahman as he is the very svarUpa of those words and artha.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581DE5E519A254324E87AEC84332%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658160B2D8F16C72EB43975A84322%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Now if we go further and call it Sat-chit-ananda, then of course the understanding has to be that That is the nondual substratum reality (beyond words) that appears in these three essential dimensions. Neti, neti is not about negating sat or chaitanya but about negating the implied duality consequent their appearance in vyavaharika.