FW: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [Advaita-l] Re: RE: Re: [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda
Bhaskar YR
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
Bhaskar YR
Hare Krishna
Sorry, sorry previous mail / thinking of mine is just after reading Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji's mail in Advaita-L group. Just thought of sharing it here also. My apologies to Sri ChadramouLi prabhuji for taking this liberty to share his mail here also.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: Advaita-l <advaita-...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> On Behalf Of H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:15 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>
Subject: ***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.
If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook.
See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.
Namaste.
Reg Bhashya reference on the topic of apauruSheyatva of vedAs, following from TUB is relevant. The term *nitya* is used in place of *apauruSheya*.
TUB, Anandavalli, AnuvAka 3
// ‘त्रिः प्रथमामन्वाह त्रिरुत्तमाम्’ इति ऋगावृत्तिः श्रूयते । तत्र ऋचः अविषयत्वे तद्विषयस्मृत्यावृत्त्या मन्त्रावृत्तौ च क्रियमाणायाम् ‘त्रिः प्रथमामन्वाह’ इति ऋगावृत्तिर्मुख्योऽर्थश्चोदितः परित्यक्तः स्यात् । तस्मान्मनोवृत्त्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नं मनोवृत्तिनिष्ठमात्मचैतन्यमनादिनिधनं
यजुःशब्दवाच्यम् आत्मविज्ञानं मन्त्रा इति । एवं च नित्यत्वोपपत्तिर्वेदानाम् । अन्यथाविषयत्वे रूपादिवदनित्यत्वं च स्यात् ; नैतद्युक्तम् । ‘सर्वे वेदा यत्रैकं भवन्ति स मानसीन आत्मा’ इति च श्रुतिः नित्यात्मनैकत्वं ब्रुवन्ती ऋगादीनां नित्यत्वे समञ्जसा स्यात् । //
// ‘triH prathamAmanvAha triruttamAm’ iti RRigAvRRittiH shrUyate | tatra RRichaH aviShayatve tadviShayasmRRityAvRRittyA mantrAvRRittau cha kriyamANAyAm ‘triH prathamAmanvAha’ iti RRigAvRRittirmukhyo.arthashchoditaH
parityaktaH syAt | tasmAnmanovRRittyupAdhiparichChinnaM
manovRRittiniShThamAtmachaitanyamanAdinidhanaM yajuHshabdavAchyam Atmavij~nAnaM mantrA iti | evaM cha nityatvopapattirvedAnAm | anyathAviShayatve rUpAdivadanityatvaM cha syAt ; naitadyuktam | ‘sarve vedA yatraikaM bhavanti sa mAnasIna AtmA’ iti cha shrutiH nityAtmanaikatvaM bruvantI RRigAdInAM nityatve sama~njasA syAt | //
Translation by Swami Gambhirananda // The repetition of Rg-mantra is enjoined in the text., “The first Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice and the last Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice.”
That being so, if the Rg-mantras themselves be not made the objects of repetition, and if the repetition of their memory be undertaken, the repetition of the Rg-mantra, in the primary sense, that is enjoined in ‘"the first Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice”, will be discarded. Hence the mantras called Yajuh are (in the last analysis) nothing but the Consciousness of the Self that is identical with the beginningless and endless Self lodged in and conditioned by the mental functions that act as Its limiting adjuncts. Thus is the etemality of the Vedas justifiable.
Else, if they are objects like colour etc., they will be impermanent. Nor is that right. And the Vedic text, “Where all the Vedas get united is the Self in the mind” , which declares the identity of the Rg-mantras etc., with the eternal Self, can be reconciled only if the mantras are eternal //.
Regards
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:40 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Bhaskar ji,
>
> As you said, Shankaracharya says that the meaning of the terms
> itihAsa, purANa, vidyA, upaniShad, Sloka, sUtra, vyAkhyA, anuvyAkhyA
> all refer to various parts of the Veda only.
>
> We don't have to consider ourselves with what non advaitins are saying
> when the bhAShyakAra is so clearly saying that the other terms refer
> to various parts of the Veda only - you have argued for the sanctity
> of only the bhAShya when reviewing and dismissing the works of other
> AchAryas within advaita sampradAya, why should the same not be
> extended here also, when dismissing what non advaitins have to say?
>
> Shankaracharya has said -
>
> किं तन्निश्वसितमिव ततो जातमित्युच्यते — यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः
> सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः - चतुर्विधं मन्त्रजातम् , इतिहास इति,
> उर्वशीपुरूरवसोः संवादादिः — ‘उर्वशी हाप्सराः’ (शत. ब्रा. ११ । ५ । १ ।
> १) इत्यादि ब्राह्मणमेव, पुराणम् — ‘असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्’ (तै. उ. २ । ७
> । १) इत्यादि, विद्या देवजनविद्या — वेदः सोऽयम् — इत्याद्या, उपनिषदः ‘प्रियमित्येतदुपासीत’
> (बृ. उ. ४ । १ । ३) इत्याद्याः, श्लोकाः ब्राह्मणप्रभवा मन्त्राः ‘तदेते
> श्लोकाः’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । ८) इत्यादयः, सूत्राणि वस्तुसङ्ग्रहवाक्यानि
> वेदे यथा — ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । ७) इत्यादीनि,
> अनुव्याख्यानानि मन्त्रविवरणानि, व्याख्यानान्यर्थवादाः, अथवा
> वस्तुसङ्ग्रहवाक्यविवरणान्यनुव्याख्यानानि — यथा चतुर्थाध्याये
> ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । ७) इत्यस्य यथा वा
> ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । १०)
> इत्यस्य अयमेवाध्यायशेषः, मन्त्रविवरणानि व्याख्यानानि — एवमष्टविधं
> ब्राह्मणम् ।
>
> *एवं मन्त्रब्राह्मणयोरेव ग्रहणम् ; नियतरचनावतो विद्यमानस्यैव
> वेदस्याभिव्यक्तिः पुरुषनिश्वासवत् , न च पुरुषबुद्धिप्रयत्नपूर्वकः ;
> अतः प्रमाणं निरपेक्ष एव स्वार्थे ; तस्मात् यत् तेनोक्तं तत्तथैव
> प्रतिपत्तव्यम्
> ,* आत्मनः श्रेय इच्छद्भिः, ज्ञानं वा कर्म वेति ।
>
> Swami Madhavananda's translation -
>
> What are those things that are spoken of as issuing from It as Its breath?
> The Rg- Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvāngirasa, i.e. the four
> kinds of Mantras.
>
> 1) History (itihAsa), such as the dialogue between Urvasi and
> Purūravas 'The nymph Urvasi,' and so on (§. XI. iv. 4. 1); it is this
> Brāhmaṇa that is meant.
>
> 2) Mythology (purANa), such as, 'This universe was in the beginning
> unmanifest,' etc. (Tai. II. 7).
>
> 3) Arts (vidyA), which treat of music, dancing, etc.- 'This is also Veda,'
> etc. (S. XIII. iv. 3. 10-14).
>
> 4) Upanisads (upaniShad), such as, 'It should be meditated upon as. dear,'
> etc. (IV. 1. 3).
>
> 5) Verses (Sloka), the Mantras occurring in the Brahmaņas, such as,
> 'Regarding this there are the following verses' (IV. iii. II; IV. iv. 8).
>
> 6) Aphorisms (sUtra), those passages of the Vedas which present the
> truth in a nutshell, for example,. 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I.
> iv. 7).
>
> 7) Elucidations-of the Mantras. (anuvyAkhyA)
>
> 8) Explanations (vyAkhyA), eulogistic passages.
>
> Or 'elucidations' (anuvyAkhyA) may be of the 'aphorisms' above. As the
> passage, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' or the passage, 'He
> (who worships another god thinking), "He is one, and I am another,"
> does not know. He is like an animal (to the gods)' (I. iv. 10), has
> this concluding portion of the present chapter as its elucidation.
>
> And 'explanations' (vyAkhyA) may be of the Mantras. Thus these are the
> eight divisions of the Brāhmaṇas.
>
> *So only the Mantras and Brāhmaṇas are meant.(1) It is the eternally
> composed and already existent Vedas that are manifested like a man's
> breath--without any thought or effort on his part. Hence they are an
> authority as regards their meaning, independently of any other means
> of knowledge. *Therefore those who aspire after well-being must accept
> the verdict of the Vedas on knowledge or on rites, as it is.
>
> (1) And not the popular meanings of those eight terms.
>
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, 18:44 Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <
> adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > In fact Vedas were breath of the Brahman
> >
> > praNAms
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > ItihAsa, purANa, shloka, vyAkhyAna, anuvyAkhyAna also included along
> > with Rig, Yajur, sAma and atharvAgirasa as paramAtma's exhalation in br.
> Shruti
> > (2-4-10), though bhAshyakAra clarifies this (itihAsa, purANa etc.)
> > is within shruti, commentaries vary within theistic darshana. Since
> > brahman is the source of all, he is not only the source of mere
> > veda-s but for
> the
> > whole world so itihAsa, purAna, vyAkhyAna, anuvyAkhyAna also he is
> > the only source and there is no problem in accepting this. So goes
> > some other observations. And Some other commentaries treating
> > itihAsa pUrAna in
> its
> > popular meaning only i..e paurusheya pUrAna (vyAsa virachita) etc.
> > since vyAsa is vishNu avatAra etc. Another declaration that he is
> > vedAnta krut
> > (15-15) from geeta also subject to different interpretation among
> > different theistic schools i.e. Astika sampradaya to be precise. So
> going
> > by the original source of these texts we cannot establish anything
> > authoritatively and again we have to depend on paurus heya
> > commentaries (which is in all probability limited to respective
> > commentator's capability of understanding of these texts and its
> > articulation) on it to prove one or the other.
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> >
> >
> > Archives:
> > https://li/
> > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbha
> > skar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7C1b3fd1f91da84e8b816908dc3cf8dae6%7C783
> > 1e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638452286723293932%7CUnknown
> > %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
> > CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EkFmsHhi4%2F2M5J%2BKaH0achVZhHHDZA4
> > 142w%2FBxCF4rg%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://li/
> > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C0
> > 2%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7C1b3fd1f91da84e8b816908dc3cf8dae
> > 6%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638452286723303984%7C
> > Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
> > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qOT38X0y%2FYh5HHZ2Ei50wHmk%2
> > BFnukxaOh1RlbNflkD4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives:
> https://list/
> s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbhaskar
> .yr%40hitachienergy.com%7C1b3fd1f91da84e8b816908dc3cf8dae6%7C7831e6d9d
> c6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638452286723310627%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
> %3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zI0kuh58kJ1pj1qx0rjIY62Tyv86oQspJ25mitpgPOo%3D&
> reserved=0
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://list/
> s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C02%7C
> bhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7C1b3fd1f91da84e8b816908dc3cf8dae6%7C78
> 31e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638452286723316660%7CUnknown%
> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NgluTzrX7M%2F2gEwCoFvpO%2BLMI4h%2FVMNWvP
> D9T9JuOiM%3D&reserved=0
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.http://www.avast.com/
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
H S Chandramouli
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
H S Chandramouli
H S Chandramouli
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.
RegardsBhaskar YR
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.
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).
Kalyan
V Subrahmanian
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.
Bhaskar YR
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
--
suresh srinivasamurthy
Suresh
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:39 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: FW: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [Advaita-l] Re: RE: Re: [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda
H S Chandramouli
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
Bhaskar YR
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?
- Yes, brahman is veda that is what bhAshyakAra / shruti taittireeya also saying is it not ?? see manOmaya kOsha explanation in this up. manOmaya kOsha has been explained here as ‘vedAtma’ for him Rigveda is right side, yajus is head etc. ( tasya yajureva shiraH, rigdakshiNah pakshaH, sAmOttara pakshaH, atharvAngirasaH pucchaM pratishTa etc.) And here only bhAshyakAra clarifies the reflected Chaitanya in manOvrutti is yajus (Yajurveda or veda). So no qualms here in accepting veda=brahma / Chaitanya. But alongwith this acceptance we have to accept that whatever is there in veda is also nitya and there is nothing something that can be called anitya or anAtma. The same veda in braHmaNa bhAga (Adesha) instructs something, the same veda talks a lot about karma,upAsana and lOkAntara phala, yajna-yAga etc. every thing ever word every artha of the veda Shabda also to be considered as nitya only. bhashakAra also endorses this view in bru.bh. by saying : tasmAt yadyat tena uktaM tat tathaiva pratipattavyaM AtmanaH Shreya icchadbhiH jnAnaM vA karmam vA iti. The point to be noted here we have to take ‘as it is’ whatever said in veda whether it is all about jnana or karma. So if veda is eternal in brahma svarUpa there is nothing that can be segregated and call it as ‘anAtma / anitya’. This is as simple as that. But who is going to accept it?? We are the passionate flag bearers of jagat anityatva / mithyatva, we are the one who explains everything as ‘tuccha’ and abhAva. We are the propagators of avidyA Astitva in sushupti where in veda as Vishaya is absent. We can quote 101 bhAshya support for the veda apaurusheyatva but we have to accept that when shruti speak about veda which is aveda in our daily sushupti veda as Vishaya rejected there and veda as Chaitanya it is eternal like Atma Chaitanya. And nityatva can not only be attributed to ONLY veda jnana tattva but it equally applies to its karma pratipAdana and phala also. Only realists can argue veda apaurusheyatva not others who selectively saying veda-s are eternal but jagat is anitya/anAtma vastu.
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!!??
Venkatraghavan S
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45162A7F6767824C1E32D7C2A9272%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
Venkatraghavan S
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Veda nityatva is vyAvahArika, Brahman's nityatva is pAramArthika.
- If I am not an intruder here, yes like jagat veda-s too kevala vyAvahArika satya and since there is no vyavahAra in sushupti there is no veda, deva, father etc. And vyAvahArika satyatva and nityatva of veda/jagat gained from brahman’s nityatva which is pAramArthika. Hence it is said that veda remembered in the beginning of srushti by brahma and followed by saptarshi-s who are directly born from brahma’s mind (brahma mAnasa putra-s) and also their descendants who are capable of remembering samagra veda as a result of their severe austerity (devataadhikaraNa in sUtra bhAshya). And these veda-s contain not only brahma jnana but also dharma, adharma, jeeva svarUpa, lOkAntara phala etc. Hence for the dharma jignAsa too veda-s (shAstra) is the only pramANa.
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.
Venkatraghavan S
- 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.
Praveen R. Bhat
प्रमाणनिरपेक्षम् अपौरुषेयम्। apauruSheya is independent of pramANa.
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
suresh srinivasamurthy
Suresh
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 11:08 AM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Venkatraghavan S
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45165ED9ED6EAF771AA26432A9242%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
Bhaskar YR
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.
- Thanks for this clarification but it seems bit confusion is there with regard to this ‘difference’.
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.
- dhAta yathA pUrvamakalpayatu, as we know the world creation is not as per whims and fancies of Ishwara if that is the case he becomes biased and cruel to someone and favouring someone else. It is for the sake of jeeva-s he does the srushti. The purpose of creation has been explained like this. So, Ishwara’s self interest here with regard to creation depends on jeeva’s respective karma and karmaphala. And the creation consists of ‘same’ pancha tanmAtra-s and pancha mahAbhUta-s etc. In this sense like veda, jagat too in avyakta rUpa prior to creation becomes vyAkruta and available for the transaction. So both veda and jagat are vyAvahArika satya both jagat and veda become absent where there is no vyavahAra (like in sushupti and paramArtha jnana). If the veda is neither kArya nor kAraNa is it enjoying a separate status apart from these two!!?? Really not clear to me.
Bhaskar YR
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.
- Though it is digression I have to say this. The above bhAshya vAkya confirms that avyAkruta / mAya too enternal (nityaM) and the equation of OmkAra with avyAkruta / mAya is nothing but saying avayAkruta is brahman ( OmetyekAksharaM brahma). So avyAkruta/mAya=OmkAra=brahma. Atleast in this equation, the vyAkhyAnakAra-s definition of the mUlAvidyA which is avyAkruta nAma rUpa mAya does not come into picture. Let that be aside, here the mAyA/avyAkruta is too eternal and equated with brahman. So as said earlier, the creation of Jagat is exclusively for the sake of the jeeva-s to experience the fruits of their respective Karmas. There is no other valid reason for this creation. This means that the Jagat of this Kalpa is for the sake of the jeeva-s of the previous Kalpa. Therefore there is no beginning for the Kalpas. There is nothing like the first Kalpa hence kalpa / jagat too to be eternal. Jagat is vyAkruta rUpa of the mAya and hence mAya too is eternal. The jagat with all its movable and immovable objects CONTINUOUSLY emanates from the Atman like sparks and submerge like water bubbles and stay with HIM during sthiti kAla says shruti. Shankara bhAshya in geeta is very relevant here : nityeshwaratvAt Ishwarasya tatprakrutyOrapi yuktaM nityatvena bhavituM. So pravAha nityatva can be applied to both veda and prakruti.
Shruti is not Brahman. It cannot objectify Brahman.
- Shall I take it as two different sentences giving two different meanings!! First one says shruti is not brahman but there exists nothing apart from brahman. So what is shruti if it is not brahman!! Is it any problem in accepting the source of veda is sarvajna Ishwara?? I don’t think so. And the second one it cannot objectify brahman as such and such thing but still it talks about Atma sAkshAtkAra (AtmAvaa are drshtavyaH, ahaM pratyaya gOcharatvaM of paramArtha etc. Like shruti asking us to look at the jagat and understanding its tattva which is 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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
Kalyan
Venkatraghavan S
--
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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
Bhaskar YR
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’ !!
Venkatraghavan S
--
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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
Kalyan
Venkatraghavan S
--
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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- I forgot to clarify some points in my previous mail :
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 😊
Bhaskar YR
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.
Venkatraghavan S
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).
- 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.
Venkatraghavan S
Venkatraghavan S
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.
Venkatraghavan S
Chittaranjan Naik
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
Bhaskar YR
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.
- 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?? 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 ?? Agama prakaraNa for us is gaudapAda virachita for dvaitins it is shruti. Some Upanishad (which is aparusheya as per them) is fabricated and concocted one for us advaitins just because it is saying something against what we believe as Upanishad siddhAnta. So we always suspicious about its origin. So without traditional belief you / we cannot categorically conclude any words / statements whether it is mantra of veda-s or just man made statements in smruti.
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?
- 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?? When some other shruti saying he wished may I become plenteous, may I be born as the manifold. He created all this, whatsoever we find here. The real became both the real and the unreal. Whatever there is here it is called as reality. And as per shruti the creation is not like a civil contractor thinking about construction, preparing blue print taking some outside help and constructing the building etc.. Here for the creation HE is nimitta, HE is upAdAna and HE himself is ‘sahakAri’ kAraNa. So this is the reasoning accepted based on shruti vAkya ( shruyukta tarka) which is not so helpful, like other pramANa tarka, this tarka too operates only under the sphere of triad. So we being the vaidika what is the stand that we have to take ?? 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. Perhaps you might now see the problem that we saMpradAyavAdins facing when presenting these theories to the outsiders.
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.
- Have I said anywhere I don’t have the conviction that the universe is not arising from brahman!!?? OTOH I have been reiterating the fact that as per shruti brahman is the abhinna nimittopadAna kAraNa for this universe as against avidyA (mUlAvidyA or primordial) is the upAdAna kAraNa for the jagat / adhyAsa.
Bhaskar YR
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 –
- Thanks for clarifying this. So before creation (kArya-jagat) veda too kArya of the brahman but prior to another kArya i.e. jagat, it is quite acceptable since as per shruti IT is ekamevAdviteeyaM at the very beginning and it is nirvisheha.
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.
- 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!!??
However, according to you, is Shankaracharya saying that the nityatva of Vedas is a vyAvahArika nityatva, or is it pAramArthika nityatva?
- pAramArthika nityatva can be attributed to one and ONLY one i.e. parabrahman. If anything that can be said as nitya during its cognition period (vyAvahArika) then for that nityatva source is pAramArthika nityatva and these cognized vyAvahArika nitya vastus should go back to its source then only it is fit to be called nityaM. Otherwise it would become Vishaya / anAtma which is unreal.
Is Shankaracharya saying "seeing the vedas having aikya with brahman is the only reason why they are nitya"?
- If the nityatva carries its true meaning then both world and veda have to go back to its source then only it is called nitya otherwise it has to carry special prefix pravAha / pariNAmi / vyAvahArika tags to say these are ‘nitya’ only at one particular point of view.
- 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.
- The changing nature of world is nitya if unchanging is the nature of veda. Former is pariNAmi nitya ( what is so consistent in jagat is ‘changing’ is its consistency😊) and later one is pravAha nitya hence I said both are nitya in its own sphere and for these two nitya-s ‘kUtasTha nitya’ is the source. (kUtasthan cha nityaM brahma sarvavikriya pratishedhAt). Though prakruti have the pariNAma ( vyAkruta and avyAkruta rUpa) it is eternal. This does not contradict the stand that ONLY brahman exists because prakruti is not different from brahman in srushti prakriya. The jagat retains its seed form during pralaya it is born only from that seed form. If that is not the case then it would lead to fault of accidental creation ( kindly see sUtra bhAshya 1.3.30).
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.
Thus, it would be helpful if you can present your understanding of the following:
- Is Shankaracharya's position that Vedas are apauruSheya in vyavahAra.
> 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.
- Is Shankaracharya's position that Vedas are nitya in vyavahAra.
- Do you think anywhere bhAshyakAra categorically bifurcate the status of veda nityatva like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika, the inference is drawn only based on his contextual observation on veda nityatva. Or if you have any reference to this kindly share.
Venkatraghavan S
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
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
Bhaskar YR
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.
- Yes, those who are reading by dual characters like statements (heart goes with tradition but mind goes other way!!) may think that I am playing devil’s advocate 😊 And perhaps you know who that ‘devil’ is and how it is so influential to make this query which always be mind over heart. And this time I am really very brief hence skipping most of your replies and just concentrating on some points. And als this time I am taking some leniency in replying you freely since as you know you are more than just my E-mail friend 😊
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.
- Could you please explain this in the light of anupalabdhi pramANa which you are using to prove veda’s apaurusheyatva.
(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.
- So with this reasoning of yours should I say : what we are seeing as jagat in our day to day is NOT the jagat which is created by brahman by ‘using the vedic words” and veda Shabda does not say anything about jagat for which brahman is efficient and material cause.
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. 😊
- 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 brahman 😊
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.
- I am sorry whether you agree or not this is not to obfuscate the discussion this is an attempt to talk about the samanvaya of veda nityatva, avyAkruta / mAya nityatva and contrasting it from the brahma nityatva.
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.
- Thanks for the explanation but I beg you where I said ‘this’ would obviate from ‘that’?? ( for the sake of brevity this and that used)
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.
- I completely agree with this. The coexistence of veda-s with saguNa brahman quite agreeable in the scheme of creation. And the coterminous of avyAkruta / mAya with brahman too well established in the scheme of creation. I don’t have to give references as you are very well aware of it.
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 😊)
- We are talking about the before creation in the scheme of creation, now tell me is there any difference between veda Shabda and avyAkruta nAma rUpa (in seed form) which has the locus in (saguNa) brahman itself before the creation?? Don’t tell me this insistence between veda viz a viz jagat causing the readers’ fatigue, as per me, this is required to understand how kArya veda of brahman which is brahmAnanya is different from kArya jagat which is in its mUla rUpa brahmAnanya too BEFORE creation. If you can show me the bifurcation line between veda Shabda and avyAkruta mUla prakruti I think I can more clearly understand why veda is apaurusheya and eternal AND veda Shabda janita jagat is not apaurusheya and is anitya.
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?
- No here nityatva siddhi can be proved for both creation and veda-s in the scheme of creation. And there is no need for any preconceived conclusion about one particular kArya of parabrahman. By the way, don’t pick me to say I have not said veda is brahma kArya 😊 I know it has been said and clarified by Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji. I hope you agreed with him. And addressing all these issues by saying ‘we’ instead of I 😊
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.
- Yes, it is not the question of talking about the ‘first’ time when kalpa is anAdi. So here from prashna shruti what needs to be understood is whatever order said in the shruti and bhAshya is anAdi and eternal we cannot say ONLY eternal veda-s prANa / hiraNyagarbha projecting before us but all others are anitya / anAtma. The samanvaya should be done without just applying ‘ardha kukkuti nyAya’ 😊 is it not prabhuji.
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!
- Yes, I am well known for throwing some stupid gems sometimes 😊
Now I know why all the arguments that have been presented to you have failed to convince you that the Vedas are apaurusheya!
- Thanks for understanding my plight prabhuji
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 any other method / logic if at all you are using that should be paurusheya method only which is, no need to say, has its own limitation and restricted boundaries and prone to mistakes and wrong conclusions as we ourselves claim that paurusheya tarka / granthi-s always have the chances of carrying mistakes as it is limited and subjective.
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.
- 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’ 😊 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.
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.
- Sorry prabhuji same as above not so convincing examples.
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 you could define and prove that the paurusheya texts has its own characteristics and one can easily make out it is indeed paurusheya even though you don’t know it’s author then it is agreeable that you can also prove some other texts as apaurusheya by contrasting these apaurusheya texts from that of paurusheya texts. But that is not possible it seems as there is no such method through which these differences can be determined. If I present you some kAtaka mantra-s from geeta and says it is geeta verses you believe that it is indeed from geeta and lord says it. You cannot differentiate and highlight ONLY these shlokas are from kAtaka shruti unless you know already that these shloka-s are kAtaka mantra-s and those kAtaka mantra-s are already accepted as apaurusheya in tradition. Hope by this you could understand which is planet and which is star we are talking here in the veda vAngmaya.
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!
- Loukika words and its meaning / intended meaning comes from the vrutti generated in the mind. And this mind would by taking the devil’s side trying to argue that some are just there as it is as Aapta vAkya and we have to believe with shraddha as it is since they (aapta-s) are saying some good provable things through sAdhana.
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!
- I think I have expressed my concern with regard to this when this same Pramana comes for discussion during the bhAvarUpa avidyA. 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 think veda’s paurusheyatvam can be more reasonable through arthApatti ( devil’s advocate thinks that way)…in our day to day business having seen every text which is written circumscribing ONLY restricted socio-biological area / life style/culture must have written by the people who lived in that environment though we don’t see any author’s name mentioned in these texts. If I am fat and healthy even though nobody seen taking food, one can easily decide through upapatti understandable and accepted reasoning that I must be eating when no one seeing it 😊 But in the anupalabdhi pramANa (I am open to correction) there is no possibility of any talks on either prama or pramANa when the object itself (which we are talking about) is missing/absent !!??
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.
- 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.
- I have to stop here as it is already getting lengthy.
Chittaranjan Naik
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
Chittaranjan Naik
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
putran M
--
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
putran M
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
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
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- I hope Sri Chitta prabhuji would address your concern. But here is my take.
Basic Question is how to know if the tradition of handing down is beginningless,
- Normally as a traditional practice we have deva paraMpara, Rishi Parampara and manushya Parampara in ‘guru parampara’. Hope you know guru Parampara shloka in advaita tradition. Likewise dualists too have their ‘own’ guru paraMpara shloka-s and like us they too believe it is more authentic and authoritative when compared to other traditional guru paraMpara. Deva Parampara starts from Narayana (vishNu) so parampara is anAdi.
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.
- I am stopping here as I just saw Sri Chitta prabhuji replied.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
in those religions and philosophies the Word or Logos through which creation occurs has not been identified
- Please elaborate this. Words or logos has not been identified in other religions and philosophies. I am not able to understand this!! Which logos or words they hold through which creation comes out?? How they failed to identify this?? . Do you mean to say we have identified the words for the creation based on 1.3.28 of sUtra bhAshya??
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
Why take such a narrow view? The sutra bhashya 1.3.28 itself cites the Sruti mantras as well as Smriti passages which mention the universe having arisen out of Vedic words. Besides, it is there in the Puranas as well wherein the narration of how Brahma tried to remember the words of the Vedas in order to create the world, etc. may be found.
putran M
--
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
suresh srinivasamurthy
Suresh
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 3:17 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: FW: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [Advaita-l] Re: RE: Re: [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda
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.
putran M
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516F1CECF4AAD152BF9DBF6A92C2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
Chittaranjan Naik
Bhaskar YR
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.
- Yes before creation that jnana has to be there in him and that jnAnam is coterminous with Ishwara otherwise Ishwara is NOT Ishwara (srushtikarta) and with this shakti only he ‘thinks’ about creation in ‘words’ before creation. Even if we look at the ‘process’ of creation it is quite evident. The five tanmAtra-s like sound, touch, form, taste,smell (shabdarUparasagandha) As the idea of creation arises in Ishwara, samaṣhti buddhi, manas and ahaMkAra appear. hiraNyagarbha who is born along with them has identity with this samashti buddhi as himself. He is aparabrahman it is he who creates paNcha bhUta-s from these tanmAtra-s. prajApati, virAt purusha etc. subsequent steps. (sU.bh. 4.3.7 to 10) So, in all these creation exercises the shakti which is co-existing with Ishwara (brahman) is very very important and primordial. With this shakti (mAya/mUlaprakruti) only Ishwara gets the ‘words’ in his mind to do the creation for the sake of jeeva-s. So if one say before creation some sound existing in brahman eternally and with the help of it he created jagat they have to accept that words which he thought of before creation is through ‘shakti’ and that shakti to be there even before he worded his thoughts with the help of veda Shabda.
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.
- USING the vedic knowledge means he is already endowed with the agency called power (mAyAshakti) and through this shakti he thinks in words about the srushti and this srushti is as per previous kalpa ( sUryAchandramasau dhAtA yathApurvam akalpayat divaM cha pruthiveem chAntarikshamathOsvaH) this proves that vyAkruta jagat has the srushti ‘as they were’ in previous kalpa and dissolution as well and goes back to its primordial power (mUlaprakruti) and this mUlaprakruti in its svarUpa nothing but parabrahman.
Bhaskar YR
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!!?? 😊
putran M
--
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
Warm regards,
Bhaskar YR
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 😊
Chittaranjan Naik
--
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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
putran M
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.
H S Chandramouli
--
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.
Chittaranjan Naik
Bhaskar YR
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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’.
putran M
- 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.
Bhaskar YR
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.
Vikram Jagannathan
--
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.
putran M
--
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.
putran M
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.
