On Apaurusheyatva
putran M
I got these links from two friends.
The first by Koenraad Elst https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2021/12/divinizing-veda-problem-of.html argues against the traditional viewpoint on the Veda being apaurusheya, i.e. without human author.
The second is by Chittaranjan Naik https://pingaligopi.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/apaurusheyatva-of-the-vedas-by-chittaranjan-naik/ who gives an engrossing detailed account of the traditional position that the Veda is apaurusheya. (A lot of what I say below benefited from emails with him upon reading his work. He glanced quickly through what I have written below and thinks it "Seems fine and should make for interesting conversations". I have copied some of our conversations at the end since it gives further insight into certain specifics.)
Needless to say, Elst's logic and inference seem obvious almost in our present eyes. How can we argue and claim some sort of divine or authorless status to our scripture? Doing so seems outlandish!
Well, that's the modern mindset and we can't blame it for what it is. If I wasn't already pro-tradition, I would probably consider it natural and like so many Hindus today seek to reconcile the higher flights of Vedanta within a modern 'scientific rational' framework of existence, wanting to be consistent with the physical and evolutionary theories from science and perhaps some of the inferential assertions made by the historians and others.
When we see a human being, there are two dimensions that we recognize and they are at the opposite ends. One is the material, physical, the body, the reacting and ever-changing. The other is the Knower, the Consciousness principle, that is associated with an unchanging status, of being the Same always. It is the same I that "is" young now and old later, though both young and old pertain to differences in body. In the middle of the extremes is the Mind-level where is linked the one to the other, and through the Mind this Consciousness-I seems to know, desire, will and act upon and in body-mind-world.
The approach of Tradition, which is the approach taught in its 'eternal' scripture, is rooted in Consciousness. Everything, all considerations begin and end there. It is the Heart of Existence. There itself is a leap of faith to a different knowledge. For we can claim to know through perception, ourselves the jivas as having the Consciousness dimension; but outside of 'living-beings', we only see the material dimension playing on its own, apparently in accordance with certain laws of Nature that Science is seeking to identify completely. What is to say that our consciousness is not but a small lamp-like output sparked inside certain bodies in this material flow of existence? In fact the scientific outlook seems to take this perspective as a starting point, that the physical is the reality that can explain it all and Consciousness is a by-product that should be explained in physical terms.
Religion goes the other route. Religion looks upon Consciousness as the Heart, the I, of Existence, that projects and governs the material play - and this universal Consciousness reflected in, as and through a certain body-mind appears as our individual consciousness. It is the material that is the appearance; Consciousness the reality.
Now we have to understand something very peculiar here. It is not that the material, the manifest name-form universe, is absolutely unreal or non-existent. It is the notion of 'material', as something apart or different from Consciousness, that is unreal. The so-called 'world' when known as Brahman is eternal, similar to how in normal transactional life, the reference to a changing body-mind remains the constant reference to the same person throughout his life. Because the name-form manifestations denote the non-dual Consciousness that supports them. The meaning of "world" is Brahman; when understood differently, it is ignorance.
In the traditional perspective (known as satkaryavada), this eternality is not merely for Vedic sentences. It is for the computer and the aeroplane as well. It is for all name-form manifestations of Brahman. Consciousness does not produce something anew. In Consciousness (here Ishvara or Brahman associated with maya-shakti) is revealed what was already present in potential form as its eternal Knowledge. The effect is already in the cause before it appears manifest; and even when manifest it is non-different from the cause. It is not that the computer was not known before a human invented it. The computer was always in the Knowledge of Ishvara and it becomes revealed in Consciousness when the obstruction to that knowledge is removed. The human being plays the role of an instrument through which Consciousness removes that obstruction and manifests itself as the computer nama-rupa.
In a similar way, a poem composed by a human is also only what was already present in potential form in Ishvara (Brahman+Maya) and which through the right upasana gets revealed/reflected in that human-mind. Then what is the big difference? Why should we say the Vedic sentences are unauthored whereas the human poem is authored? Remember what I said all name-forms denote: it is Brahman. The meaning of Vedic sentences is ultimately Brahman for (in the Tradition) they either reveal the knowledge of Brahman or teach the jiva the way to remove the obstructions to that knowledge. They are infallible so far as they point back to the Reality, for that Reality alone is the meaning of all nama-rupa manifestations. The meaning for any word or sentence within Vyavaharika (the transactional realm) is not complete by itself for such a denotation of meaning is false or ignorant unless it is completed in the Knowledge of Brahman as reality.
The (Vedantic) Tradition does exactly this. Everything about the Veda pertains to (discovering) the Knowledge of Brahman; that is the inner meaning revealed in the Scripture, in each mantra, to the traditionalist. It is the association of that eternal meaning which validates the eternal truth of the sentence and infallibility of the Scripture and guides in every sentence the follower of the Religion towards its realization, because the only Truth is Brahman, the Consciousness that is the Reality of all. And so far as the Tradition is concerned, even this association of meaning is not arbitrarily superimposed by people. It is passed along with the scripture from generation to generation, hence the Veda is apaurusheya (unauthored) within the context of human knowledge as well. The Tradition in fact ties this beginningless process in a puranic sense to the start of this cycle (kalpa) when Brahma revealed the eternal Veda to Manu and the saptarishis who then passed on the knowledge to their offspring and so on. And push comes to shove, the Tradition has its own logical ways of defending itself and dismantling the opposition. {See reference above of Sri Chittaranjan Naik, including the connection between apaurusheyatva and infallibility.)
But what about the computer? We said it is also eternal. The name is computer and it is 'coined' to denote an entity in vyavaharika with certain transactional attributes. We can say it was invented by a human 'author' or in the eyes of tradition, that it is Ishvara's knowledge discovered by a human 'seer'. How is it different from the Vedic sentence? The question is whether the meaning we understand by computer points to the real meaning of this existent nama-rupa - which is Brahman, or is it limited to an adjunct meaning in vyavaharika (whether of real object like computer or imaginary like unicorn) that denotes existence apart from Consciousness. The human 'authorship' is not with regard to manifestation of the nama-rupa object of Consciousness - that is eternal; but with regard to the ignorant association of incomplete or incorrect meaning to that denotation of Brahman. It is not that the human is showing anything other than the same "rope" the Veda is showing; but the Veda teaches you it is rope and the human parades it as snake. There is the difference. For the human 'author' is subject to his own adrishtas (the inner obstructions to his vision) and the object that Consciousness reveals to him is understood in his mind as something other than Consciousness. Such understanding is based in ignorance and therefore the revealed object or composition is said to be human-authored and hence fallible.
We must understand beyond this, another thing. For knowing the things of this world (seen as "world", in vyavaharika sense), the Tradition accepts certain basic pramanas like perception and related methods like inference etc. when they are rooted in perception. The purpose of the Veda is however not to prove that fire is hot or cold; such a meaning pertains to our sense of touch and we have to determine it from perception. The Veda is scripture because it teaches of Brahman and the way to realizing It. And this teaching is necessarily outside the scope of all the other pramanas and of modern methods of science etc. as well. So when the Veda talks of a sacrifice for the sake of rains, the immediate meaning seems to be with regard to a vyavaharika objective for a jiva - the obtaining of rains as karmaphala for a particular karma. It may or may not happen, depending on Ishvara's total judgment (that is beyond the reach of science) but the Tradition holds this karma as an appropriate (dharmic) method for such a goal. However the higher meaning is incorporated into the ultimate purpose of life for this jiva. As he is compelled by desires, the jiva is seeking to invoke the underlying Consciousness (Ishvara) to reveal Itself in a certain manner and the Vedic mantras and sacrifice all turn his attention to that Consciousness. This process complements the jiva at his level of bondage and yet lifts him to a higher level of consciousness where everything of his life that he seeks through recourse to the Veda connects him subtly and then explicitly to Ishvara and Brahman. The validity and infallibility of the Vedic mantra to that traditional jiva - even with regard to their vyavaharika secondary meanings like the prayer for rains - comes from the fact that it denotes (the word of) Brahman. The non-traditionalist need not accept the vyavaharika meaning that the traditionalist corresponds with the mantra; but he also cannot disprove the traditional position in such things (as per traditionalist logic and tarka) that speak of knowledge of the play of Consciousness beyond the reach of the ordinary pramanas and are only known through Veda. But in order to appreciate the traditionalist's position properly, we have to realize that it cannot be separated from the founding of all name-form objects in the Brahman-meaning beyond vyavaharika. Whereas while the eternal validity of the word computer and its vyavaharika object meaning is established through ordinary pramanas, the real denotation of Brahman is lacking in this description and hence the human attempt to reach beyond valid perception-based pramanas for ‘inner’ knowledge of ‘computer’ is prone to error and doubt unless and until it is by recourse to Veda pramana.
I want to add a couple of conversations with Sri Chittaranjan Naik that describe how Vedic words refer to universals even in vyavaharika.
CN:
Vedic words do not point to concrete objects in the world; they point to their own meanings which are all universals (samanyas). This is the position of both Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa.
Me:
Correct me if I am wrong. I see there is theory-ladenness on both sides, of this argument. For Elst he assumes evolution Big Bang etc. so the notion a word points to anything before some human came up with the word and associated to meaning (like computer) is simply incomprehensible to him. Names of rivers in Vedas that we identify today on earth must come after earth was formed, humans evolved, and then named the rivers - so how eternal? Etc.
Whereas we begin by accepting the traditional proof and the creation theories that it aligns with, of cyclicity in Ishvara’s manifestations etc., so find it non-contradictory to state as if an axiom that sound based words come with object based meaning at the heart of existence. Is this subject to the charge of being theory laden?
CN:
Correct me if I am wrong. I see there is theory-ladenness on both sides, of this argument.
I will respond to this at the end.
For Elst he assumes evolution Big Bang etc. so the notion a word points to anything before some human came up with the word and associated to meaning (like computer) is simply incomprehensible to him. Names of rivers in Vedas that we identify today on earth must come after earth was formed, humans evolved, and then named the rivers - so how eternal? Etc.
Yes, this is how a Charvaka or Lokayata would argue.
Whereas we begin by accepting the traditional proof and the creation theories that it aligns with, of cyclicity in Ishvara’s manifestations etc., so find it non-contradictory to state as if an axiom that sound based words come with object based meaning at the heart of existence.
Yes, this argument comes from the Vedic worldview.
Is this subject to the charge of being theory laden?
If we go by the tenets of Western philosophy, every theory is necessarily theory-laden. But we must remember that Western philosophy and science does not have the concept of pramaana. If we read the Indian shastras carefully, theory-ladenness can arise only when there is epistemic obstruction. Now, since a pramaana essentially shows the true nature of an object by removing the epistemic obstructions that stand in the way of the object being revealed, the charge of theory-ladenness would not apply to a knowledge (prama) that has been obtained through the pramaanas. But this principle has to be argued out in the modern world.
Me:
When a Vedic passage mentions a river or a war among two ‘kingdoms’, is the river name a universal that Ishvara particularizes in each cycle of creation? Or should we not really be thinking Saraswati in Veda is an actual river on earth? Is that war allegorical without necessarily of an historical reality, or is that also a universal that gets particularized into a real war in each cycle (something harder to fathom than the river)? Is the story around Sage Yagnyavalkya referring to universals where the actual story is not historical but only a vehicle meant to teach Tattva? (I understand this with reference to what you mention of proper vs common nouns).
CN:
In the BSB, Shankaracharya says that the names of the gods mentioned in the Vedas point to universals and not to individual gods, but that certain jivas due to their great merits get to become particular gods in particular manvantaras. Now, the mention of events like wars, mention of certain rishis teaching shishyas, etc., that are described in the Vedas are also universal ideas, not actual events, but they may also particularize as events in certain kalpas and yugas. It is not a rule that the particularization happens in every cycle of creation; it may happen in certain kalpas and in certain chaturyugas and may not happen again in many other brahma kalpas. I recall Sri Madhvacharya placing some of the events as having manifested (particularized) in the first chaturyuga of the first kalpa in the 51st year of brahma, some others as having manifested in some different chaturyuga, etc. so there is no particular pattern or chronology that can be assigned to these events. It is for this reason that the Vedas cannot be used to derive a historical narrative or a historical chronology.
Me:
And for river Saraswathi, can we understand that it is the rishi who saw the corresponding mantra containing that word who also knew its object-meaning and was able to identify the particular river on earth (called Saraswathi in Tradition, puranas, etc.) whose universal is the Saraswathi found in the Veda? Here not only the word Nadhee is universal, but even the word Saraswathi is universal as far as it appears in the Veda, referring to an entity that may manifest yuga after yuga. This is similar to the word “Putran” that can refer to me here and now or to the same jiva-me that is transmigrating birth after birth.
Thus the rishi passed on this knowledge to his disciples and our tradition talks of that river as if synonymous with the river-word in the Veda. But if there is mention in the Veda of an event on the banks of Saraswathi, it is not necessarily a manifestation in this yuga but knowledge of a universal in Ishvara's Order that He may have (and may again) particularize in some yuga for the sake of the jivas. And even if not manifest, such stories etc. should be understood in a deeper tattwa-perspective. Hope this is close.
CN: Yes, that is how i understand it too.
sunil bhattacharjya
--
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/CAKqm3-q6xQ1wcY%3DxNKedUtKCopAw0pj7xa0dzgB4eK7JSR%2B3hQ%40mail.gmail.com.