apauruSheyatva of the Veda

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

Someone recently had shared with me for my comments, a facebook article that referred to Koenraad Elst's rebuttal of apauruShyetva of the veda. 

The facebook article is here:

(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02hyqN6immK6tc3NpiLFCsQkHp372H3zmDuUHwcCvxaBRMQLUUqpn5iBmqQBghrGo3l&id=100008111554860&mibextid=Nif5oz) 

I had initially sent a version of the below email in a personal correspondence. Thought it would be useful to share it with the group as it may be of interest.

*******

The facebook article does not appear to have any arguments, rather there are only assertions. What is the proof given for pauruSheyatva? 

The term apauruSheya means that the words of the veda were not composed by a human being by understanding the meaning through other sources of knowledge - ie it is not a case of artham buddhvA shabda rachanA. The words were received in a never ending line of guru shiShya-s and even the RShis associated with each mantra are not held to have composed it, they are simply mantra draShTa-s , not mantra kartA-s.

In fact, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtras of Jaimini itself claim that Vedic words are eternal - unlike the claim made in the FB article, it is not Kumarila Bhatta who came up with apauruSheyatva to support him in his argument with the Buddhists, it was stated by the sUtrakAra himself.  

For example, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra - AkhyA pravachanAt (1.1.30) - holds that the names of the RShis associated with a rescension are not because they composed it, it is because those RShis expounded on the vedic rescensions.

The sUtra - parantu shrutisAmAnyamAtram (1.1.31) - holds that proper names in the Vedas are not names of people, there are common nouns and any similarity is only a similarity of sounds (some examples will be shown below).

Thus the writer of the FB article is mistaken when he says that Kumarila Bhatta invented the apauruSheyatva of the Veda to support his intellectual battle with the Buddhists - this idea is mentioned in the sUtra-s by Jaimini itself.

The writer of the FB article says that words of battle in the veda can be interpreted as a report of a battle witnessed. And cites the consonance of the words of the Zend Avesta with Vedic arthavAda passages to make the claim that both the Vedas and the Avesta are reporting an event. Because they are reporting an event, the Vedas cannot be eternal and apauruSheya as alleged by the Hindus. However that is merely an interpretation, not proof. 

1) According to us, the arthavAda occurring in the Vedas is not a news report. That is, the rishi is not recording an event that he heard of and / or saw, rather, he is recording the words themselves. The reference to the ten kings battling is also dubious - The mantras related to this supposed battle occur in the seventh maNDala of the rigveda, attributed to vasiShTha RShi. Scholars allege that the plausible tribes that battled were the Purus, Yadu / Yaksu , Matsyas, Druhyus, Pakthas, Bhalanas, Alinas, Vishanins, Sivas, Vaikarna, and Anu.

However, a read of mantra 7.18.7 and its commentary by SAyaNAchArya indicates that the words Paktha, Bhalana, Alina, Vishani and Shivas (five of the supposedly 10 kings) are not tribes at all but various participants in a vedic sacrifice.

This is the mantra.

आ प॒क्थासो॑ भला॒नसो॑ भन॒न्तालि॑नासो विषा॒णिन॑: शि॒वास॑: । आ योऽन॑यत्सध॒मा आर्य॑स्य ग॒व्या तृत्सु॑भ्यो अजगन्यु॒धा नॄन् ॥

The commentary by SAyaNa is as follows:

पक्थासः पथा हविषां पाचकाः भलानस भद्रमुखा । भलेति भद्रवाची अलिनास अलिनाः । तपोभिरप्रवृद्धा इत्यर्थः । विषाणिनः कण्डूयनार्थं कृष्णविषाणहस्ता । दीक्षिता इत्यर्थ. । शिवास शिवाः यागादिना सर्वस्य लोकस्य शिवकरा: यागेन हि शिवं भवति लोकस्य । 

पक्थासः - those who cook the offerings in the sacrifice

भलानसः - those who speak the auspicious words

अलिनाः - those who have not practiced austerities

विषाणिनः - those bearing the horns of the black deer, for scratching, ie the dIkshita-s, ie those who have undergone the ritualistic purification for the sacrifice called the dIkshA (The dIkshita-s are not permitted to scratch themselves during the time of the sacrifice, unless with the horns of a black deer)

शिवासः - those who do good for the world through the performance of sacrifices

The previous mantra 7.18.6 refers to one further supposed tribe, the Yakshus - पु॒रो॒ळा इत्तु॒र्वशो॒ यक्षु॑रासीद्रा॒ये मत्स्या॑सो॒ निशि॑ता॒ अपी॑व । श्रु॒ष्टिं च॑क्रु॒र्भृग॑वो द्रु॒ह्यव॑श्च॒ सखा॒ सखा॑यमतर॒द्विषू॑चोः ॥ but again if we look at the commentary of the word Yakshu by SAyaNa, he translates this to be यक्षुः यज्ञकुशलः - he who is skilled in the sacrifice - and not a tribe at all. 

This is in fact referring to a king called Turvasha, skilled in the sacrifice, who destroyed the city of the Matsya-s. The Brigus and Druhyus were his allies, but he was defeated by Indra.

As can be seen, the view that this maNDala is reporting some historical battle between ten kings is itself flawed - the words that supposedly refer to the ten tribes in fact refer to various participants in the sacrifice. There is a reference to a battle - but it is not a battle between ten kings.

2) However, irrespective of the number of kings in the battle, that in itself is no evidence that such a battle actually took place. In fact, in Hinduism, the validity of arthavAda in the karmakANDa is in having ekavAkyatA with a vidhi / niShedha. That is, the story is mentioned not as a news report, but to impel someone into performing a particular action / or if occurring in a mantra, used in the actual performance of a sacrifice. That being the case, it is not the Hindus who claim that this is reporting a true event, rather it is someone outside the tradition who is doing so. The Hindus do not hold the story itself needs to have intrinsic validity. That being the case, why should the story of a battle between however many kings deny the apauruSheyatva of the Veda? 

If it is said that is so because someone outside the tradition holds this to be representative of an event that took place - Why should the words of someone outside the tradition have greater value than those inside it? The same faith that one is denying to tradition is being asked to be reposed in the words of those outside tradition, without there being a basis for why the latter is more valid than the former. 

The words of those within tradition explain the purpose of these types of arthavAda - it is in their acting as subsidiaries to some vedic injunction / prohibition.

3)The FB writer says that the Vedas being apauruSheya is as fanciful as the Avesta being apauruSheya. That is not comparing like for like. The Vedas are apauruSheya because there is no recorded memory of there being an author of the Vedas. The Avesta is pauruSheya because the followers of Zoroastrianism themselves say that it is the teaching of Zarathustra. 

No one is making the claim that the Zend Avesta is apauruSheya - not even the followers of Zoroastrianism themselves. So if the story occurs in the Avesta also why should that deny the apauruSheyatva of the Veda? If I write a version of the Ramayana based on Valmiki Ramayana, can we say that Valmiki wrote the same story that I wrote?

Clearly not. Rather, the obvious explanation of there being a consonance is that the authors of the Zend Avesta translated into Avestan the pre-existing Vedic hymns in Sanskrit. 

Thus a consonance of the story in the Avesta is no basis to deny the validity of the apauruSheyatva of the Veda, unless there is a sound basis to either say that the Avesta predated the Veda, or that there is no possibility whatsoever of the Avesta translating the Veda. 

In fact, we know that the Avesta as is extant now was assembled from remnants of more voluminous manuscripts that were destroyed by Alexander's invasion of Persia and was then standardized under the Sasanian kings (3rd–7th century CE) into the Avesta known today.

Thus there is zero chance of the Avesta being apauruSheya, but that in itself does not negate Veda's apauruSheyatva.

The opponent may argue that our claim that the Avesta translated parts of the Veda is also an interpretation - that is true. However, while the opponent makes no basis for his interpretation - that the Vedas and Avesta both report a battle that really occurred, we have a basis for why our position that the Vedas are apauruSheya and this is not an actual historical battle.

Our rationale is that at no point in the history of the entire Hindu corpus is there the memory of any composer of the Veda. We hold on to apauruSheyatva of the Veda, but say that Bhagavat Gita, the Ramayana, Mahabharata, the 18 Puranas, the texts representing the 64 arts, the Vedangas etc are all  pauruSheya. The reason is that we have a recorded memory of an author of the latter, but there is no recorded memory of an author for the former. 

When the tradition is willing to concede the validity of pauruSheya pramANa, there would have been no harm to the validity of the veda had it been pauruSheya. In fact, as Elst and the writer say, they are willing to concede the validity of the Vedas even if it is pauruSheya. The Buddhist was not swayed by the apauruSheyatva of the veda into conceding its validity either.

Thus, the argument for apauruSheyatva is not to convince either outsiders or insiders of the validity of the Vedas. Outsiders and insiders who agree to the validity of the Vedas agree to its validity irrespective of its apauruSheyatva or pauruSheyatva. 

Outsiders who disagree with the validity of the Vedas do not agree to its validity even if it is apauruSheyatva.

Thus, for us to say that the Vedas are apauruSheya is not because we wish to prove their validity on the basis of its apauruSheyatva, rather we hold that they are apauruSheya because we have no memory of an author, and we would have remembered its author if there had been one - like in the case of the itihAsa-s and purANa-s. It is too important a shabda pramANa - hence the very meticulous preservation of the sound through various modes of chanting such as krama, jaTa, ghanam etc - for us to simply forget an author.

Elst makes the error in supposing that our view of apauruSheyatva - that the Vedas do not have a human source - implies that they have a divine source. He then argues on the basis of this that as many of the mantra-s in the Vedas have God as the object of the mantras and the human beings as the subject (tatsavitur vareNyam....dhiyo yonah pracodayAt / tryambakam yajAmahe etc), they cannot have a divine source - if the Vedas had such a divine source, God would not have made Himself the object of the mantras -  He would have worded divine statements like the Ten Commandments - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" - i.e. have the divine as the subject and the human as the object. As the Vedic mantras are worded the other way around, i.e. have a human subject and divine object, they must have a human source who has simply addressed the divine through religious poetry.

However, our view of apauruSheyatva does not imply that the Vedas have a divine composer - rather, apauruSheyatva means there is no composer of the Vedas. The Veda itself says - अस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः, etc ie the Vedas were the breath of paramAtma. Even the Lord is not the composer of the Vedas. They are a naturally pre-existent phenomenon - Ishvara does not create them, they emerge from Him. Even Ishvara does not have the freedom to change the content of the Vedas in the slightest - that being the case, there is no necessity for the mantra-s to be worded as commandments from Ishvara down to humanity. 

In every instance of creation after pralaya, Ishvara hands over the Veda in the exact same form of words, down to the very sound, to Brahma, to use as the basis for the new creation यो ब्रह्माणम् विदधाति पूर्वम् यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै. The Veda itself says that Ishvara hands over the Vedas to Brahma - i.e. the human beings did not compose such a Veda. That Brahma creates the creation in the exact form as the previous creation - धाता यथापूर्वं अकल्पयत् . The vedas, specifically their sounds, thus are the blueprint of every creation, and there can be no change to a single svara, a single vowel. The Vedas, the life breath of Ishvara, offers the means to reach Him, and in doing so positions itself from the standpoint of the worshipper, addressing Ishvara - thus enabling the worshipper to reach Ishvara. This in itself does not imply that humans created the Veda, thus precluding its apauruSheyatva, as Elst alleges.

No other culture in the world makes such an astounding claim of their foundational text. No wonder people are unable to accept it - but their disagreement does not dismiss such a view.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Sri Chitta prabhuji indulged in this debate with Sri Omkar Deshpande few years back.  IMHO Sri Omkar Deshpande (A dvaitin but modern day thinker)  had argued this point very strongly and logically and to the extent the readers were forced to accept that exclusive attribution of veda’s apaurusheyatva is simply a traditional belief and outsiders have every right to argue this point in a logical otherway.  Sri Subbu prabhuji aware of these discussions I reckon.  I marked this mail to Sri Chiitta prabhuji ( I don’t have Sri Omkar prabhuji’s e-mail ID) for his information and if he is interested and have time I pray him to share his thoughts. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 9:36 AM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [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.

--
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/CAL34aE%3Dmb6NPo55C4JKP-Jcmk_5JFg1yqaErMTA4%2B75x_6kg1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Anyone has the right to argue for anything, but the view that Vedas are pauruSheya is also just that - a view, not proof. That is no basis to establish it for certain - if it is said that the traditional view is conjecture, so is the non-traditional view.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024, 12:38 Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Sri Chitta prabhuji indulged in this debate with Sri Omkar Deshpande few years back.  IMHO Sri Omkar Deshpande (A dvaitin but modern day thinker)  had argued this point very strongly and logically and to the extent the readers were forced to accept that exclusive attribution of veda’s apaurusheyatva is simply a traditional belief and outsiders have every right to argue this point in a logical otherway.  Sri Subbu prabhuji aware of these discussions I reckon.  I marked this mail to Sri Chiitta prabhuji ( I don’t have Sri Omkar prabhuji’s e-mail ID) for his information and if he is interested and have time I pray him to share his thoughts.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

_______________________________________________
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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatji,

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 9:36 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

Someone recently had shared with me for my comments, a facebook article that referred to Koenraad Elst's rebuttal of apauruShyetva of the veda. 

The facebook article is here:

(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02hyqN6immK6tc3NpiLFCsQkHp372H3zmDuUHwcCvxaBRMQLUUqpn5iBmqQBghrGo3l&id=100008111554860&mibextid=Nif5oz) 

I had initially sent a version of the below email in a personal correspondence. Thought it would be useful to share it with the group as it may be of interest.

*******

The facebook article does not appear to have any arguments, rather there are only assertions. What is the proof given for pauruSheyatva? 

What proof can be given for pauruSheyatva other than proof of someone having composed Vedas or claiming to have composed Vedas in the past? That is an impossibility. There is really no argument possible against arthApatti pramANa used by the Purvamimamsaka to establish apauruSheyatva of Vedas, showing no authorship claim in an unbroken shrauta sampradAya. Just like Advaita siddhAnta is established using pramANavyApAra, so too apauruSheyatva. To call it shraddhA or to compare it to well-established and claimed pauruSheya works is either missing the point completely or purposefully ignoring it, just like new era opponents of Advaita Vedanta. The reasoning assumed for apauruSheyatva is also putting the cart before the horse! It is laughable at best. I really admire your patience to analyse and reply logically to ones who keep logic aside! I am sure it is a good exercise in titikShA. :-)

Kind rgds,

--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] */

[Kalyan]

Namaste Venkatji

I think Mimamsa and Vedanta hold that Vedas are apaurusheya.

Nyaya (and Vaiseshika?) hold that Ishwara composed Vedas. Even our Acharya gives one interpretation of BSB 1.1.3 shastrayonitvat stating that Brahman is the author of Vedas. 

I do not know what Samkhya and Yoga schools think.

Best Regards

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

I am not sure why you think there was a debate between me and Sri Omkar Deshpande on this topic in this group. You have been persistently spreading this misleading account of what happened on this group in the past too and I had pointed out to you that you that no such debate had taken place and you should desist from making such claims. 

Yes, it is true that when I started posting on this group (or rather on the earlier Yahoogroup avatar of this group) on the topic of Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, Sri Omkar Deshpande had enlisted himself as a member of the group and had started posting messages to counter the view that the Vedas were apaurusheya. If you recall what happened then, you will know that I had set the condition for a proper debate on this topic by laying down the acceptance by both parties of some common principles, for example, the acceptance of the principle that objects have intrinsic properties, before we could proceed ahead to have a meaningful debate. If you will recall, Sri Omkar was not willing to even accept that an object has intrinsic properties. In the absence of agreement on such basic and fundamental principles, I had told Sri Omkar that a debate on this topic would be futile and that we should first prepare a common platform of discourse before we can have a meaningful debate / dialogue on topics related to Vedanta. The matter was referred to the moderators and further conversation on this topic between me and Sri Omkar was stopped. 

I had even posted a long message thereafter, as an addendum to the series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas titled 'The Question of Method', to stress the need for having a suitable platform of discourse before there could be a meaningful dialogue between Vedantins and those who espouse the scientific worldview. You can check it out on this link (see 'Part IIB - Addendum - The Question of Method'). The link points to all the five parts of the series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas as well as two addendums as they were posted to the Advaitin Yahoogroup in the year 2010 (or 2011, I do not remember the year exactly): 

APAURUSHEYATVA OF THE VEDAS BY CHITTARANJAN NAIK

APAURUSHEYATVA OF THE VEDAS BY CHITTARANJAN NAIK

This a five-part series explaining the idea of apaurusheyatva of Vedas first published on an online forum discus...

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan-ji,

Thank you for posting this rejoinder. 

When Sri Koenraad Elst had posted his views on the paurusheyatva of the Veda, someone had contacted me to provide a rejoinder but as I was (and still am) too preoccupied with something else and I did not want to lose focus on that, so I had not responded to the request. I am happy to see that you have provided a good counter to Sri Elst's views.

I have had the opportunity to interact with Sri Koenraad Elst once. He had posted a message to the Vadavali group stating that the composers of the Veda were intoxicated Soma drinkers. I had responded to him stating that while I admired the views he had expressed in his books Deconstructing the Hindu Mind and Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, I was not able to appreciate his views on the composition of the Vedas. I had requested him to provide the pramaana by which he had arrived at the conclusion that the Vedas had been composed by intoxicated Soma drinkers. He had replied to me stating that he would not involve himself in theological debates. Providing a pramaana was, according to him, a matter of theology!!  

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

I am forwarding an old mail I had written to you in response to your misleading claim, which you had made in the year 2019 too, that Sri Omkar Deshpande had provided effective counter arguments to the claim of the Vedas being apaurusheya. I had requested you tat that time to not make such claims again but I see that you are repeating it.  Please see below...  

----- Forwarded message -----

From: chittaranjan naik <chittara...@yahoo.com>

To: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@in.abb.com>

Sent: Monday, 10 June, 2019 at 04:20:11 pm IST

Subject: Re: Sri Omkar's counter

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

I am really happy to see your post after a long time.  How are you prabhuji?? At what stage is your project which you had undertaken few years back?? 

I am keeping myself busy in writing articles, so i don't engage much with discussions on the Advaitin group nowadays. It took me 2 years to write on just one topic - the topic of perception. I just completed that article at the beginning of this month. I have now starting my second article which is on the topic of the existence of the self. 

If you remember Prabhuji, i had said (during the discussion on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas) that our Siddhanta cannot be discussed effectively in the modern world without us first preparing the background for a meaningful discussion.  This is because the methods of discussion accepted in the modern world are very much different than the methods used by Indian logic or tarka, so we have to prepare the ground for a meaning dialogue between our tradition and the modern world. The articles that i am writing are my small effort to prepare the ground for facilitating such a dialogue.

With regard to Sri Omkar Prabhuji’s query / discussions with regard to apaurusheyatva with you, if I remember right, you did not want to continue the discussion with him due to some reason ( really I have forgotten your clarification for not continuing discussion with him), in vAdAvaLi and in advaitin list as well. 

I have never had a discussion with Sri Omkar Deshpande on the topic of Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas except for exchaneg of a few stray mails. The discussion on this topic in the Vadavali list was primarily between Sri Omkar Deshpande and Sri Krishna Kadiri. I have not participated in that discussion except for maybe a few mails on the sidelines.

As regards discussion in the Advaitin forum, you are right, i refused to discuss the topic with Sri Omkar Deshpande unless he met two criteria with regard to the method of discussion, firstly, that he agrees to conduct the discussion in the light of the intrinsic natures of objects as it is done in Indian logic, and, secondly, that he treats a relation as a guna of an object and not as an independent entity in itself i.e., he should not use alpha characters such a A, B, etc to designate objects but must name the objects so that we can recognize which gunas can be attributed to them. Sri Omkar Deshpande did not agree to the first condition, so i told him that there is no use in us discussing the topic when there is no common method agreed to between us. 

I also told Sri Omkar Deshpande that i am ready to stop the discussion on apaurusheyatva of the Vedas and take up a debate with him on the topic of intrinsic natures of objects but that this will have to be decided by the moderators since the topic is a complex topic that will lead to a long discussion.  

One of the main objection of his, if I remember right, was that how can ‘apaurusheyatva’ of veda-s can guarantee you its faultlessness or something like that.  IMO, he presented his view points with regard to this as well alongwith believing some text as without any origin when the same is viewed from out side the tradition. 

The discussion on this point pertains to the discussion between Sri Omkar Deshpande and Sri Krishna Kadiri and not between me and Sri Omkar Deshpande. 

However, Sri Omkar Deshpande did post a one-paragraph extract from his discussion with Sri Krishna Kadiri in the Advaitin as well, but i told him that i am not ready to discuss in such a hap-hazard manner in which he posts parts from some other discussion held elsewhere without head or tail.

Just for your information, the examples that Sri Omkar Deshpande posted through the extracts from the discussions he held elsewhere were about ants crawling on the sand and accidentally created a sentence and about wind blowing across a mouth of a cave and creating sound matching the sound of a linguistic sentence. These arguments can be rebutted easily but i did not want to take up the discussion with Sri Omkar Dehspande since there was no agreement with respect to the method of discussion.

If you consider these incidents in the Advaitin group as Sri Omkar "well-countering" my arguments, you are free to do so Prabhuji. :-)

As for me, i will do my small bit to prepare the ground for facilitating a proper discussion between our tradition and the modern world. I need to write on four topics - Perception, the Existence of the Self, Knowledge & Epistemology, and the Nature of Language and Logic - before i come to the topic of Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chittaranjan ji,

That is self serving logic by Dr Elst. 

If not interested in debating theological claims, perhaps one should desist from making a theological claim.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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/6009b460-a185-483b-9efb-3cdcd7cf6804n%40googlegroups.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Am copying the main part from the earlier post forwarded in the other thread.

---------------------

When we see a human being, there are two dimensions that we recognize and they are at the opposite ends. One is the material, physical, the body, the reacting and ever-changing. The other is the Knower, the Consciousness principle, that is associated with an unchanging status, of being the Same always. It is the same I that "is" young now and old later, though both young and old pertain to differences in body. In the middle of the extremes is the Mind-level where is linked the one to the other, and through the Mind this Consciousness-I seems to know, desire, will and act upon and in body-mind-world. 

The approach of Tradition, which is the approach taught in its 'eternal' scripture, is rooted in Consciousness. Everything, all considerations begin and end there. It is the Heart of Existence. There itself is a leap of faith to a different knowledge. For we can claim to know through perception, ourselves the jivas as having the Consciousness dimension; but outside of 'living-beings', we only see the material dimension playing on its own, apparently in accordance with certain laws of Nature that Science is seeking to identify completely. What is to say that our consciousness is not but a small lamp-like output sparked inside certain bodies in this material flow of existence? In fact the scientific outlook seems to take this perspective as a starting point, that the physical is the reality that can explain it all and Consciousness is a by-product that should be explained in physical terms.

Religion goes the other route. Religion looks upon Consciousness as the Heart, the I, of Existence, that projects and governs the material play - and this universal Consciousness reflected in, as and through a certain body-mind appears as our individual consciousness. It is the material that is the appearance; Consciousness the reality.

Now we have to understand something very peculiar here. It is not that the material, the manifest name-form universe, is absolutely unreal or non-existent. It is the notion of 'material', as something apart or different from Consciousness, that is unreal. The so-called 'world' when known as Brahman is  eternal, similar to how in normal transactional life, the reference to a changing body-mind remains the constant reference to the same person throughout his life. Because the name-form manifestations denote the non-dual Consciousness that supports them. The meaning of "world" is Brahman; when understood differently, it is ignorance.

In the traditional perspective (known as satkaryavada), this eternality is not merely for Vedic sentences. It is for the computer and the aeroplane as well. It is for all name-form manifestations of Brahman. Consciousness does not produce something anew. In Consciousness (here Ishvara or Brahman associated with maya-shakti) is revealed what was already present in potential form as its eternal Knowledge. The effect is already in the cause before it appears manifest; and even when manifest it is non-different from the cause. It is not that the computer was not known before a human invented it. The computer was always in the Knowledge of Ishvara and it becomes revealed in Consciousness when the obstruction to that knowledge is removed. The human being plays the role of an instrument through which Consciousness removes that obstruction and manifests itself as the computer nama-rupa. 

In a similar way, a poem composed by a human is also only what was already present in potential form in Ishvara (Brahman+Maya) and which through the right upasana gets revealed/reflected in that human-mind. Then what is the big difference? Why should we say the Vedic sentences are unauthored whereas the human poem is authored? Remember what I said all name-forms denote: it is Brahman. The meaning of Vedic sentences is ultimately Brahman for (in the Tradition) they either reveal the knowledge of Brahman or teach the jiva the way to remove the obstructions to that knowledge. They are infallible so far as they point back to the Reality, for that Reality alone is the meaning of all nama-rupa manifestations. The meaning for any word or sentence within Vyavaharika (the transactional realm) is not complete by itself for such a denotation of meaning is false or ignorant unless it is completed in the Knowledge of Brahman as reality. 

The (Vedantic) Tradition does exactly this. Everything about the Veda pertains to (discovering) the Knowledge of Brahman; that is the inner meaning revealed in the Scripture, in each mantra, to the traditionalist. It is the association of that eternal meaning which validates the eternal truth of the sentence and infallibility of the Scripture and guides in every sentence the follower of the Religion towards its realization, because the only Truth is Brahman, the Consciousness that is the Reality of all. And so far as the Tradition is concerned, even this association of meaning is not arbitrarily superimposed by people. It is passed along with the scripture from generation to generation, hence the Veda is apaurusheya (unauthored) within the context of human knowledge as well. The Tradition in fact ties this beginningless process in a puranic sense to the start of this cycle (kalpa) when Brahma revealed the eternal Veda to Manu and the saptarishis who then passed on the knowledge to their offspring and so on. And push comes to shove, the Tradition has its own logical ways of defending itself and dismantling the opposition. {See reference above of Sri Chittaranjan Naik, including the connection between apaurusheyatva and infallibility.)

But what about the computer? We said it is also eternal. The name is computer and it is 'coined' to denote an entity in vyavaharika with certain transactional attributes. We can say it was invented by a human 'author' or in the eyes of tradition, that it is Ishvara's knowledge discovered by a human 'seer'. How is it different from the Vedic sentence? The question is whether the meaning we understand by computer points to the real meaning of this existent nama-rupa - which is Brahman, or is it limited to an adjunct meaning in vyavaharika (whether of real object like computer or imaginary like unicorn) that denotes existence apart from Consciousness. The human 'authorship' is not with regard to the nama-rupa object of Consciousness - that is eternal; but with regard to the ignorant association of incomplete or incorrect meaning to that denotation of Brahman. It is not that the human is showing anything other than the same "rope" the Veda is showing; but the Veda teaches you it is rope and the human parades it as snake. There is the difference. For the human 'author' is subject to his own adrishtas (the inner obstructions to his vision) and the object that Consciousness reveals to him is understood in his mind as something other than Consciousness. Such understanding is based in ignorance and therefore the revealed object or composition is said to be human-authored and hence fallible.

We must understand beyond this, another thing. For knowing the things of this world (seen as "world", in vyavaharika sense), the Tradition accepts certain basic pramanas like perception and related methods like inference etc. when they are rooted in perception. The purpose of the Veda is however not to prove that fire is hot or cold; such a meaning pertains to our sense of touch and we have to determine it from perception. The Veda is scripture because it teaches of Brahman and the way to realizing It. And this teaching is necessarily outside the scope of all the other pramanas and of modern methods of science etc. as well. So when the Veda talks of a sacrifice for the sake of rains, the immediate meaning seems to be with regard to a vyavaharika objective for a jiva - the obtaining of rains as karmaphala for a particular karma. It may or may not happen, depending on Ishvara's total judgment (that is beyond the reach of science) but the Tradition holds this karma as an appropriate (dharmic) method for such a goal. However the higher meaning is incorporated into the ultimate purpose of life for this jiva. As he is compelled by desires, the jiva is seeking to invoke the underlying Consciousness (Ishvara) to reveal Itself in a certain manner and the Vedic mantras and sacrifice all turn his attention to that Consciousness. This process complements the jiva at his level of bondage and yet lifts him to a higher level of consciousness where everything of his life that he seeks through recourse to the Veda connects him subtly and then explicitly to Ishvara and Brahman. The validity and infallibility of the Vedic mantra to that traditional jiva - even with regard to their vyavaharika secondary meanings like the prayer for rains - comes from the fact that it denotes (the word of) Brahman. The non-traditionalist need not accept the vyavaharika meaning that the traditionalist corresponds with the mantra; but he also cannot disprove the traditional position in such things (as per traditionalist logic and tarka) that speak of knowledge of the play of Consciousness beyond the reach of the ordinary pramanas and are only known through Veda. But in order to appreciate the traditionalist's position properly, we have to realize that it cannot be separated from the founding of all name-form objects in the Brahman-meaning beyond vyavaharika. Whereas while the eternal validity of the word computer and its vyavaharika object meaning is established through ordinary pramanas, the real denotation of Brahman is lacking in this description and hence the human attempt to reach beyond valid perception-based pramanas for ‘inner’ knowledge of ‘computer’ is prone to error and doubt unless and until it is by recourse to Veda pramana.

I want to add a couple of conversations with Sri Chittaranjan Naik that describe how Vedic words refer to universals even in vyavaharika.

CN: 

Vedic words do not point to concrete objects in the world; they point to their own meanings which are all universals (samanyas). This is the position of both Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa.

Me:

Correct me if I am wrong. I see there is theory-ladenness on both sides, of this argument. For Elst he assumes evolution Big Bang etc. so the notion a word points to anything before some human came up with the word and associated to meaning (like computer) is simply incomprehensible to him. Names of rivers in Vedas that we identify today on earth must come after earth was formed, humans evolved, and then named the rivers - so how eternal? Etc.

Whereas we begin by accepting the traditional proof and the creation theories that it aligns with, of cyclicity in Ishvara’s manifestations etc., so find it non-contradictory to state as if an axiom that sound based words come with object based meaning at the heart of existence. Is this subject to the charge of being theory laden?

CN: 

Correct me if I am wrong. I see there is theory-ladenness on both sides, of this argument.

I will respond to this at the end. 

For Elst he assumes evolution Big Bang etc. so the notion a word points to anything before some human came up with the word and associated to meaning (like computer) is simply incomprehensible to him. Names of rivers in Vedas that we identify today on earth must come after earth was formed, humans evolved, and then named the rivers - so how eternal? Etc.

Yes, this is how a Charvaka or Lokayata would argue. 

Whereas we begin by accepting the traditional proof and the creation theories that it aligns with, of cyclicity in Ishvara’s manifestations etc., so find it non-contradictory to state as if an axiom that sound based words come with object based meaning at the heart of existence. 

Yes, this argument comes from the Vedic worldview. 

Is this subject to the charge of being theory laden?

If we go by the tenets of Western philosophy, every theory is necessarily theory-laden. But we must remember that Western philosophy and science does not have the concept of pramaana. If we read the Indian shastras carefully, theory-ladenness can arise only when there is epistemic obstruction. Now, since a pramaana essentially shows the true nature of an object by removing the epistemic obstructions that stand in the way of the object being revealed, the charge of theory-ladenness would not apply to a knowledge (prama) that has been obtained through the pramaanas. But this principle has to be argued out in the modern world.

Me:

When a Vedic passage mentions a river or a war among two ‘kingdoms’, is the river name a universal that Ishvara particularizes in each cycle of creation? Or should we not really be thinking Saraswati in Veda is an actual river on earth? Is that war allegorical without necessarily of an historical reality, or is that also a universal that gets particularized into a real war in each cycle (something harder to fathom than the river)? Is the story around Sage Yagnyavalkya referring to universals where the actual story is not historical but only a vehicle meant to teach Tattva? (I understand this with reference to what you mention of proper vs common nouns).

CN: 

In the BSB, Shankaracharya says that the names of the gods mentioned in the Vedas point to universals and not to individual gods, but that certain jivas due to their great merits get to become particular gods in particular manvantaras. Now, the mention of events like wars, mention of certain rishis teaching shishyas, etc., that are described in the Vedas are also universal ideas, not actual events, but they may also particularize as events in certain kalpas and yugas. It is not a rule that the particularization happens in every cycle of creation; it may happen in certain kalpas and in certain chaturyugas and may not happen again in many other brahma kalpas. I recall Sri Madhvacharya placing some of the events as having manifested (particularized) in the first chaturyuga of the first kalpa in the 51st year of brahma, some others as having manifested in some different chaturyuga, etc. so there is no particular pattern or chronology that can be assigned to these events. It is for this reason that the Vedas cannot be used to derive a historical narrative or a historical chronology.  

Me:

And for river Saraswathi, can we understand that it is the rishi who saw the corresponding mantra containing that word who also knew its object-meaning and was able to identify the particular river on earth (called Saraswathi in Tradition, puranas, etc.) whose universal is the Saraswathi found in the Veda? Here not only the word Nadhee is universal, but even the word Saraswathi is universal as far as it appears in the Veda, referring to an entity that may manifest yuga after yuga. This is similar to the word “Putran” that can refer to me here and now or to the same jiva-me that is transmigrating birth after birth.

Thus the rishi passed on this knowledge to his disciples and our tradition talks of that river as if synonymous with the river-word in the Veda. But if there is mention in the Veda of an event on the banks of Saraswathi, it is not necessarily a manifestation in this yuga but knowledge of a universal in Ishvara's Order that He may have (and may again) particularize in some yuga for the sake of the jivas. And even if not manifest, such stories etc. should be understood in a deeper tattwa-perspective. Hope this is close.

CN: Yes, that is how i understand it too.

---------------

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--
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/CAL34aE%3Dmb6NPo55C4JKP-Jcmk_5JFg1yqaErMTA4%2B75x_6kg1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms

I was reading just the mail. Any knowledge takes place by intuition. This is the statement of Dr. Chandrashekar, a Nobel laureate made in his article on Scientific American. Intuition develops when a mind is deeply meditating on a particular subject. Suddenly 'as though' goddess Saraswati descended onto that mind. An objective scientist claims he made a breakthrough and he discovered that truth. On the other hand, the Rushees of our yore, who are contemplative scientists in the seat of meditation when contemplating on a particular aspect, the Goddes Saraswati descended onto their minds. They claim the truth is revealed to us. Hence they do not claim that they discovered it. 

In essence, all knowledge is 'apourusheyam' only. The egotistical scientist claims he discovered it. Our Rushees who are called Veda drashtaas claim the truth is revealed to them - which they passed on to their students - hence the Vedas are called Shrutis. and Rushees of the yore are called Veda drashtas. RushibhiH bahudaa geetam.. says Krishna in Geeta. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 01:15:19 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Venkat ji
Thank you for patiently articulating the fb ideas against apauruSheyatva
and countering them.

One challenge for apauruSheyatva is that, it asserts the existence of
intelligent humans or other higher beings since the beginning of time.
Today, as you know, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth was once
not having any life forms. That gives us two alternatives -
1. Assert that the earth always had human or other intelligent life and all
the scientific theories are incorrect such as the age of the earth being a
few billion years ago etc.
Or
2. Assert that we (Astikas) have no conflict with the assertion, "there was
once no life on planet earth" - ie apauruSheyatva remains preserved even if
this were indeed to be the case.

The assertion 2. is what I would find more reasonable. Because, for us the
physical universe has an intelligent abhinna-nimittopAdAna kAraNam.
Therefore, we have to assert that the Vedas were present in other lokas and
in other beings before being revealed to historical Rishis who were human
beings. Otherwise, the question would remain -"where were the Vedas before
they were revealed to some special human beings called Rishis?".

The sequence of our sRShTi is that first the Devas were manifested and
later the  humans, pitR etc. This is a matter of total divergence of
worldviews between the Astika and scientific worldviews, the latter
asserting jaDakAraNatvaM of jagat.

एते इत्‍येव प्रजापतिर्देवानसृजत । असृग्रमिति मनुष्‍यान् । इन्‍दवः इति
पितृन् । तिरःपवित्रमिति ग्रहान् । आशवः इति स्‍तोमान् । विश्‍वानीति
शास्‍त्रम् । अभिसौभगेत्‍यन्‍याः प्रजाः ।
– जैमिनीय ब्राह्मण, कांड १, कंडिका ९४

Some sort of evolution of life forms on planet earth is not opposed to
apauruSheyatva because evolution can well be merely a tool or process to
express the intelligent will of Ishvara.

Therefore even if we accept that there was once a time when no life existed
on earth, that does not militate against apauruSheyatva.

Om
Raghav






On Sat, 2 Mar, 2024, 9:36 am Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <

> divine composer - rather, apauruSheyatva means there is *no* composer of

> the Vedas. The Veda itself says - अस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो
> यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः, etc ie the Vedas were the breath of

> paramAtma. *Even the Lord is not the composer of the Vedas*. They are a

> naturally pre-existent phenomenon - Ishvara does not create them, they
> emerge from Him. Even Ishvara does not have the freedom to change the
> content of the Vedas in the slightest - that being the case, there is no
> necessity for the mantra-s to be worded as commandments from Ishvara down
> to humanity.
>
> In every instance of creation after pralaya, Ishvara hands over the Veda in
> the exact same form of words, down to the very sound, to Brahma, to use as
> the basis for the new creation यो ब्रह्माणम् विदधाति पूर्वम् यो वै वेदांश्च
> प्रहिणोति तस्मै. The Veda itself says that Ishvara hands over the Vedas to
> Brahma - i.e. the human beings did not compose such a Veda. That Brahma
> creates the creation in the exact form as the previous creation - धाता
> यथापूर्वं अकल्पयत् . The vedas, specifically their sounds, thus are the
> blueprint of every creation, and there can be no change to a single svara,
> a single vowel. The Vedas, the life breath of Ishvara, offers the means to
> reach Him, and in doing so positions itself from the standpoint of the
> worshipper, addressing Ishvara - thus enabling the worshipper to reach
> Ishvara. This in itself does not imply that humans created the Veda, thus
> precluding its apauruSheyatva, as Elst alleges.
>
> No other culture in the world makes such an astounding claim of their
> foundational text. No wonder people are unable to accept it - but their
> disagreement does not dismiss such a view.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Acharya Sadananda-ji,

If you don't mind, I would like to take the opportunity provided by your post to remove a common misconception that people harbor with respect to the notion of the Vedas being apaurusheya. Please bear with me. :-)

"Any knowledge takes place by intuition. This is the statement of Dr. Chandrashekar, a Nobel laureate made in his article on Scientific American. Intuition develops when a mind is deeply meditating on a particular subject."

Dr. Chandrashekhar may be a Nobel Laureate but that is no reason why he should be considered as as an authority with regards to matters relating to Vedic shastras. In the Vedic worldview, knowledge is intrinsic and the knowledge of a thing reveals itself when the obstructions that stand in the way of the thing being revealed gets removed. In the realm of vyavaharika, according to the Vivarana school, this occurs when the tula-avidya of the jiva, determined by the jiva's past karma, removes the obstruction to the cognition of the object that the jiva is destined to experience on account of its past karma.

 "In essence, all knowledge is 'apourusheyam' only."

In the context of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, the word 'apaurusheyam' does not refer to knowledge but to the linguistic units, the strings of words arranged in particular orders and with particular phonetic pronunciations, that constitute the Vedic mantras.  

"Our Rushees who are called Veda drashtaas claim the truth is revealed to them - which they passed on to their students - hence the Vedas are called Shrutis."

The truth may be revealed to them but the determining factor on account of which they are called rishis or mantra-drishtas is because they saw or heard the very sounds of the Vedic mantras. That is why the Vedas are called sruti, that which was heard, because those very strings of words with certain phonetic structures were heard by the rishis. The factor that determines the rishis being mantra-drishtas is not knowledge but is the cognition of the Vedic mantras which are carriers of eternal knowledge. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Chittaji - PraNAms

I have to clarify - Dr. Chadrashekar did not mention anything about the Vedas. He just made a general statement that all knowledge takes place by intuition. He may be only referring to only objective knowledge. 

I have no problem with the rest of your arguments.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

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/964ad4f3-a469-4f55-af4e-c993e85c8dc8n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Sadaji,

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 2:21 PM 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I was reading just the mail. Any knowledge takes place by intuition.

 

Sw. Paramarthanandaji has a catchy phrase response to such ideas, in the context of Vedanta. The knowledge takes place not by intuition, but in tuition, learning from an Acharya trained in sampradAya! It is nicely put by Vicharasagara as: shrotrendrIyasambaddhamahAvAkyajnAnam.

What you describe seems close to sphoTavAda of vaiyAkaraNa.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Acharya Sri Sada-ji,

No problem Sir, many Western philosophers too, notable among them being the highly regarded German philosopher Emmanuel Kant, use the word 'intuition' in regards to the process of obtaining knowledge. But the notion of intuition they speak about is rather confusing considering that they do not admit the existence of a self (or soul), so it is not clear what it is that is doing the intuiting.  :-)

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Praveenji - PraNAms

Yes I remember that statement of Swamiji. I have even quoted that in some of my articles. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

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/CACT7j-E2YHoU_h%2B8fGopNtiL6QpNGzr0_%2BTgqRNfJdccKbJ9Pw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste, 

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

This is what he says of the RSi-s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ध्रु॒वं ज्योति॒र्निहि॑तं दृ॒शये॒ कं मनो॒ जवि॑ष्ठं प॒तय॑त्स्व॒न्तः । विश्वे॑ दे॒वाः सम॑नस॒: सके॑ता॒ एकं॒ क्रतु॑म॒भि वि य॑न्ति सा॒धु ॥

Wilson translates this as "A steady light, swifter than thought, stationed among moving beings to show (the way) to happiness all the gods being of one mind, and of like wisdom, proceed respectfully to the presence of the one (chief) agent"

वि मे॒ कर्णा॑ पतयतो॒ वि चक्षु॒र्वी॒३॒॑दं ज्योति॒र्हृद॑य॒ आहि॑तं॒ यत् । वि मे॒ मन॑श्चरति दू॒रआ॑धी॒: किं स्वि॑द्व॒क्ष्यामि॒ किमु॒ नू म॑निष्ये ॥

“My ears are turned (to hear him), my eyes (to behold him); this light that is in the heart (seeks to know him); my mind, the receptable of distant (objects) hastens (towards him); what shall I declare him? How shall I comprehend him?”

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

This idea reoccurs in the 10th maNDala of the Rig Veda (supposedly occuring later in time according to Dr Elst), 10.71.3

य॒ज्ञेन॑ वा॒चः प॑द॒वीय॑माय॒न्तामन्व॑विन्द॒न्नृषि॑षु॒ प्रवि॑ष्टाम् । तामा॒भृत्या॒ व्य॑दधुः पुरु॒त्रा तां स॒प्त रे॒भा अ॒भि सं न॑वन्ते ॥

Wilson: (The wise) reached the path of Speech by sacrifice, they found it centred in the Rishis ; having acquired it they dispersed it in many places ; the seven noisy (birds) meet together. 

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

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

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

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

The same idea occurs in

1)  supposedly the "oldest" fragments of the rigveda (maNDala 6), 

2) the supposedly newer fragments of the rigveda (maNDala 10), 

3) the comparatively recent nirukta of yAskAchArya, 

4) the even more recent pUrva mImAmsa sUtra-s of Jaimini, 

5) the  bhAShya of Shabara svAmi and the vArttikA of kumArila bhaTTa, 

6) the brahmasUtra bhAShya of ShankarachArya, 

7) and the veda bhAShya-s of bhaTTabhAskara and sAyaNAchArya.

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

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please read "Aupanyava" as "Aupamanyava" in the following paragraphs - google autocorrected Aupamanyava to Aupanyava for some reason.

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

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

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Venkatji

Thanks for this message. The comments of Yaska are very illuminating. 

Please allow me to point out a minor correction

>Elsewhere in the niruktam itself, Yaska says एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायैर्ऋषीणां मन्त्रदृष्टयो भवन्ति । 7.6 

This is 7.3, not 7.6. Apologies for nitpicking. 

Best Regards

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

Yes, it is Nirukta 7.3, not 7.6.

After I sent that email, someone pointed another good reference from Rig Veda, maNDala 8.75.6. 

तस्मै॑ नू॒नम॒भिद्य॑वे वा॒चा वि॑रूप॒ नित्य॑या । वृष्णे॑ चोदस्व सुष्टु॒तिम् ॥

The rishi addresses himself thus (or the yajamAna addreses the hotA) - नित्यया वाचा चोदस्व - glorify (agni) with the eternal word. sAyaNAchArya comments on the words नित्यया वाचा as नित्यया उत्पत्तिरहितया वाचा मन्त्ररूपया - in the mantra form of the word, which is eternal, without birth.

When presented these examples, the opponents of apauruSheyatva may present a few references in the Veda where Rishis are said to have "created" the mantras. A few examples:

Rg Veda 1.62.13 - स॒ना॒य॒ते गोत॑म इन्द्र॒ नव्य॒मत॑क्ष॒द्ब्रह्म॑ हरि॒योज॑नाय । सु॒नी॒थाय॑ नः शवसान नो॒धाः प्रा॒तर्म॒क्षू धि॒याव॑सुर्जगम्यात् ॥ 

Wilson: “Mighty Indra, Nodhas, the son of Gotama, has composed for us this new hymn, (addressed) to you, who have been forever, who harness your coursers (to your car) and are the sure guide (of all). May he who has acquired wealth by propitious acts, come hither quickly in the morning.”

The verb अतक्षत् in the above mantra is translated by sAyaNAchArya as अकरोत्. 

Rig Veda 7.22.9 - ये च॒ पूर्व॒ ऋष॑यो॒ ये च॒ नूत्ना॒ इन्द्र॒ ब्रह्मा॑णि ज॒नय॑न्त॒ विप्रा॑: । अ॒स्मे ते॑ सन्तु स॒ख्या शि॒वानि॑ यू॒यं पा॑त स्व॒स्तिभि॒: सदा॑ नः ॥

Wilson: “May your auspicious regards, Indra, be directed towards us, as they have been to those pious sages,ancient or recent, who have originated (your) praises, and do you ever cherish us with blessings.”

The word जनयन्त has been translated as "originated".

Mantra-s such as these can give the impression that the vedic RSi-s have created the mantra-s - however, wherever mantra-s are said to have been "created", "composed", "originanted" in the Veda, it must be interpreted to mean they have been "seen". A question may be asked if it is permitted for one meaning of a verb to take another meaning. The answer is provided in Patanjali's Mahabhashya - in fact, Patanjali shows the meaning of the very dhAtu कृ ("to make", "to create") can also mean अभूतप्रादुर्भावः - making manifest what was not.

mahAbhAShya - 

बह्वर्था अपि धातवो भवन्ति । ... करोतिरभूतप्रादुर्भावे दृष्टः - root verbs can be used in multiple meanings. The word 'karoti' can be used to mean 'make manifest what was not available'.

In that sense, when speaking of rishis "creating" mantras it has to be understood as manifesting. So even if there are 100 examples given from the Vedas, it will mean the same thing - the RSis are mantra draShTa-s only.

In support, when commenting on the words नम ऋषिभ्यः मन्त्रकृद्भ्यः occurring in TaittirIya AraNyaka 4.1.1, both bhaTTa bhAskara and sAyaNAchArya say the following:

bhaTTa bhAskara
अथ नम ऋषिभ्यः द्रष्टुभ्यः मन्त्रकृद्भ्यो मन्त्राणां द्रष्टभ्यः दर्शनमेव कर्तृत्वं

sAyaNa says -
मन्त्रं कुर्वन्तीति मन्त्रकृतः, यद्यप्यपौरुषेये वेदे कर्तारो न सन्ति, तथापि कल्पादावीश्वरानुग्रहेण मन्त्राणां लब्धारो मन्त्रकृत इत्युच्यन्ते 

We can extend this to every other instance in the Veda where mantra-s are said to have been composed. 

All this evidence may not convince those who refuse to be convinced, but the basic principle remains - if the apauruSheyatva of the Veda is an "invented tradition", then it is a tradition that stretches from the Veda itself. 

Those within the tradition need not discard apauruSheyatva, to fit the Vedas within what is acceptable scientifically - the pedagogy and the subject matter of Vedas are very much outside the scientific sphere - to apply science's methodology in a completely different sphere is as absurd as expecting a musician to perform neurosurgery.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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/78a47934-52ce-4d68-a878-b816a513c4f9n%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 6:07 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

Those within the tradition need not discard apauruSheyatva, to fit the Vedas within what is acceptable scientifically - the pedagogy and the subject matter of Vedas are very much outside the scientific sphere - to apply science's methodology in a completely different sphere is as absurd as expecting a musician to perform neurosurgery.

Nothing better than the above can be said, Venkat ji.  For Aastikas the purpose of the Veda is to deliver/achieve the four purusharthas, including moksha. The Veda itself teaches that the Veda is not paramarthika satya. Yet it serves the purpose of attaining moksha too.  That much is enough.  In BSB 2.1.14 the question 'how can the unreal veda deliver the un-sublatable moksha jnana?' is taken up and discussed with shruti and yukti.

Hence there is no 'responsibility' on the astika to 'prove' apaurusheyatva to the others.

regards

subbu

  

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[K Kathirasan]

Namaste

I totally agree with the both of you. Those with scientific temper appeal to science to prove the validity of Shruti as a pramana. They are usually those who have not understood the nature and validity of shabda pramana. Though I do not see the scientific temper/approach being against shabda pramana, just as pratyaksha and anumana do not stand against Shabda as their scopes are different. 

Warmest Regards,

Kathirasan K

--
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/CAKk0Te0TKAhoSUq%3D8%2B5V%3Dz%2BF1CiZ90AoA1rdAJq2qo_dt%3DZqiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Subbu-ji,

"Hence there is no 'responsibility' on the astika to 'prove' apaurusheyatva to the others."

While there may be no responsibility on the astika to prove apaurusheyatva of the Vedas to others, there is certainly a responsibility on the astika, or at least on the acharyas of the sampradaya, to prove it to the insiders of the tradition so that there is a reasoned ground for the tradition to continue. 

In the Vedic tradition, the word 'siddhanta' means established doctrine and the means to keep it established is to remove the doubts that outsiders, like the Charvakas, put into the minds of the insiders. The means to remove doubt is inferential logic; and that is the reason why Nyaya shastra, which is also called Tarka Shastra or the science of inferential reasoning, is held to be the shastra meant for preserving the authority of the Veda. For this is what Jayanta Bhatta says in the Nyaya Manjari, that while Mimamsa is the science that confers the knowledge contained in the Veda, it is Nyaya which preserves the authority of the Veda. And it is the responsibility of the astikas, more specifically the acharyas of the tradition, to use the methods of Nyaya to ensure that the authority of the Veda is preserved in the land in which the sampradaya operates.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Chittaranjan ji,

While I am no AchArya, I am certainly an Astika - and hence this email thread. 

Nyaya is certainly not the only means for this - as you can see in this thread itself, all the shAstra-s play their part,  be it vyAkaraNa (pada shAstra),  mImAmsa (vakya shAstra), nirukta / nighaNTu (etymology), nyAya / tarka etc.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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/cd3f1bfb-4e4c-45d7-9e38-570fd2af7f88n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Those within the tradition need not discard apauruSheyatva, to fit the Vedas within what is acceptable scientifically - the pedagogy and the subject matter of Vedas are very much outside the scientific sphere - to apply science's methodology in a completely different sphere is as absurd as expecting a musician to perform neurosurgery.

 

• One of the points had come-up during the discussion was that : “ is it mandatory for each and every Astika to accept ‘apaurusheyatva’ of some texts which is not only available in ONLY oral tradition but also in printed version today?”  Is the veda prAmAnyata entirely dependent on ONLY on its tag of  apaurusheyatva or its contents and resultant jnana itself enough to prove its validity ??  When we, traditionally, equally considered nyAya and smruti prasthAna (paurusheya texts) as valid pramANa why and what basis we should attribute apaurusheyatva to some selected texts which has ONLY some limited and restricted traditional and cultural boundaries when conveying the jnana enshrined in it??  Yes, as per the tradition, shruti is untya pramANa and all other man-made texts should be aligned and understood as per veda.  But can it not be done by just considering that veda-s have the primary ‘knowledge source’ (which has anubhavagamya jnana) ??  what is the need there to tag it as apaurusheya when this aparusheyatva claim cannot withstand and proved beyond doubt within the rigors of again some ‘man-made’ logic (tarka).  In short, if someone (traditional Astika) says veda’s paramArtha jnana have been worded by some jnana drashta in their blissful state ( like Krishna did the geeta bOdha to Arjuna in an ecstatic state) would the validity of veda become null !!?? And also just by going through the text itself and contemplating on the meaning of it one cannot ascertain whether it is paUrusheya or apaurusheya text. When there is dangers of interpolation of some biased texts in the name of Upanishads etc. (dvaitins do so a lot), for that matter within the different Astika tradition there is different opinion with regard to apaurusheyatva of the particular text (for example, mAndUkya kArika’s Agama prakaraNa considered as shruti by dvaitins whereas for us it is gaudapAda virachita 😊 ).  So when there is no definite and proven method to prove one particular text as man-made or otherwise and when it rests only on the belief system existing within the tradition since time immemorial,  it is all well and good as long as  we keep this belief within the tradition without trying to prove it to outsiders (individual thinkers who do not want to analyze it within the boundaries of tradition)  who are trying to prove it otherwise using different logic / perspective. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

PS :  As I said my heart goes with tradition but mind is signing different tune perhaps it is lacking proper education with regard to this as Sri Chitta prabhuji pointed out to me.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji, 

Responding in sequence:

1) is it mandatory for each and every Astika to accept ‘apaurusheyatva’ of some texts which is not only available in ONLY oral tradition but also in printed version today?” 

How can you make some one accept anything? You can present arguments and evidence. If that convinces, good. If that does not, keep looking for more arguments and evidence until one is convinced. However, we cannot expect someone to come, peel the banana and put it in our mouth. We have to make that effort.

2) Is the veda prAmAnyata entirely dependent on ONLY on its tag of  apaurusheyatva or its contents and resultant jnana itself enough to prove its validity ??  

No. Veda has svatah prAmANya - it does not depend on apauruSheyatva for its prAmANya, but allegations of aprAmANya on the basis of defects in its creator do not apply to it because it happens to be apauruSheya. Thus when one hears the Veda and understands its meaning, that understanding is not tinged with a doubt about its invalidity owing to it emerging from a faulty source. 

The cause of doubts then is not the origin of Vedas (I am talking of a neutral person within sampradAya, not someone outside who is starting off from a position of a conviction / strong view that the Vedas are wrong). The cause of doubts are potential contradictions that Vedic meaning has with other pramANa-s. That is not going to be remedied even with a conviction of its apauruSheyatva. They have to be resolved by (1) examining the nature of the contradiction (is it real, or only apparent) (2) determining the relative strengths of the two opposing means of knowledge (3) determining if the opposing pramANa-s are valid in that particular context (4) determining whether there is a means to resolve the contradiction in some manner (arthApatti) (5) discarding the weaker pramANa.

3) When we, traditionally, equally considered nyAya and smruti prasthAna (paurusheya texts) as valid pramANa why and what basis we should attribute apaurusheyatva to some selected texts which has ONLY some limited and restricted traditional and cultural boundaries when conveying the jnana enshrined in it??  

We have already discussed the basis for why shruti is apauruSheya - please read the thread.  We know the authors of nyAya and smRti prasthAna, we have no memory of an author for the Veda. That is why there is a difference in the way the two are treated.

4) Yes, as per the tradition, shruti is untya pramANa and all other man-made texts should be aligned and understood as per veda.  But can it not be done by just considering that veda-s have the primary ‘knowledge source’ (which has anubhavagamya jnana) ??  

Ans: 

a) No, because both dharma and Brahman are not anubhava gamya. 

b) anubhava can never validate the shruti in its revelation of these two. If shruti needs anubhava's support in validiting it, then the prAmANya of shruti itself is lost. It is not independently capable of revealing its object. 

c) Further, the Brahman that is anubhava gamya is also considered mithyA only. 

d) In addition, anubhava can never be a universal pramANa. That is, even if you have some anubhava of Brahman, how is that going to help me? It cannot be a pramANa for other people.

4) what is the need there to tag it as apaurusheya when this aparusheyatva claim cannot withstand and proved beyond doubt within the rigors of again some ‘man-made’ logic (tarka).  In short, if someone (traditional Astika) says veda’s paramArtha jnana have been worded by some jnana drashta in their blissful state ( like Krishna did the geeta bOdha to Arjuna in an ecstatic state) would the validity of veda become null !!?? 

Ans: Such a traditional Astika would be going against tradition and selectively applying some aspects of tradition as valid and some as invalid. That Astika will have to examine if the basis of such an application of validity is itself valid, or if it is coloured by their own personal rAga dveSha.

And also just by going through the text itself and contemplating on the meaning of it one cannot ascertain whether it is paUrusheya or apaurusheya text. When there is dangers of interpolation of some biased texts in the name of Upanishads etc. (dvaitins do so a lot), for that matter within the different Astika tradition there is different opinion with regard to apaurusheyatva of the particular text (for example, mAndUkya kArika’s Agama prakaraNa considered as shruti by dvaitins whereas for us it is gaudapAda virachita 😊 ).  So when there is no definite and proven method to prove one particular text as man-made or otherwise and when it rests only on the belief system existing within the tradition since time immemorial,  it is all well and good as long as  we keep this belief within the tradition without trying to prove it to outsiders (individual thinkers who do not want to analyze it within the boundaries of tradition)  who are trying to prove it otherwise using different logic / perspective.

Ans: Yes, to clarify we are not writing this thread to prove to some researcher that Vedas are apauruSheya. We are responding to their claims that apauruSheyatva is an invented tradition. If someone attacks your tradition, will you not stand up and defend it?

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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/AM7PR06MB65812D687568D3A525ED2A5A84232%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Venkatraghavan-ji,

While I agree with you that all the shastras like vyakarana. mimamsa, etc, take part in keeping the tradition alive, what Jayanta Bhatta meant was that Nyaya is the foundation of reasoning that is used in all the vidyas. It is for this reason that some Nayyayikas like Vatsayana in the bhashya and even Chanakya in the Artha Shastra call it the Queen of the Sciences and the enlightener of all the vidyas.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 10:41:31 AM UTC

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Below is the clarification from Sri Chitta prabhuji with regard to my doubt :  using only Indian logic system (nyAya shAstra) as against Western logic to prove veda’s apaurusheyatva’.  As per his instructions I am forwarding his reply to this group as well.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

PS:  I have also apologized for the mistake I did in bringing his name in the debate between Sri Omkar Deshpande with someone else!!.

 

//quote//

 

Dear Sri Bhaskar  Prabhuji,

 

I read your observation that Western logic would not help us to understand logic behind veda’s apaurusheyatva and one should be familiar with nyAya and tarka as per Indian tarka/nyAya shAstra perspective.  Do you mean to say those who want to refute the claim of veda’s apaurusheyatva should do so by using ONLY nyAya and tarka or IOW apaurusheyatva can be proved ONLY through Indian methodology of nyAya / tarka?? 

 

Those who want to refute the claim that the Veda is not apaurusheya should use a method which can get to the truth of the proposition ‘The Veda is not apaurusushaya’. They cannot use a method, namely Western formal logic, which does not have a means to get to the truth, to prove the truth of the proposition because Western formal logic has no means to prove truth; it can only preserve truth-vales from the premises to the conclusion.

 

 

“By saying this are we not forcing the opponent to use ONLY SELECTIVE premise and at the same time agreeing that in the perspective of western logic it is not provable and refutable ??”

 

First of all, please note that logic is not a premise, it is a reasoning method. So, what we are asking the opponent to do is to choose a method of reasoning that can get to the truth instead of relying on a method of reasoning that can only preserve truth values.

 

Now, if you say that the assertion that Western logic cannot get to the truth is only a premise, the answer is no, it is what the logicians of the West themselves acknowledge. The primary purpose of logic, according to them, is to preserve the truth-values, salva veritate, from the premises to the conclusion. The term ‘salva veritate’ means without loss of truth-value. This kind of Western logic is also called formal logic because the validity of the logical argument is said to be dependent of the syntactical form the argument.  

 

In the tradition of contemporary Western logic, logic only confers validity to an argument, which essentially means that it preserves the truth-values from the premises to the conclusion, but it does not assure us that the conclusion it reaches is true. In order for the conclusion to be true, the argument should not only be valid but it should also be sound meaning that the premises should also be true.

 

In the Western tradition, the validity of the argument is given by logic and the soundness of the argument is given by epistemology.

 

We Indians should realize that Western epistemology is in complete doldrums. Western epistemology does not even have to capacity to tell us that what we perceive is true because the stimulus-response theory of perception that it holds on to cannot tell us what the world is like; it can only tell us what the presentations or projections of the brain is like. There is no way by which it can even assert that there exists a correspondence between what we perceive and the world as it exists “out there”. So, how can logical arguments be made both valid and sound? In the Western tradition, logic can only provide us, to use its own terms, validity but not soundness. Western logic therefore has no means whatsoever to get to the truth.   

 

So, the basic question which we, of the Vedic tradition, should ask is: If Western logic has no means to get to the truth, how then do they make so many claims about our tradition which purport to be true? How can they assert them to be true when the conclusions they derive from their logic is based only on the assumptions and premises they start with? We should ask them to first choose a method that can get to the truth before they venture to pontificate to us about our tradition.

 

In contrast to Western logic, logic as given in Nyaya shastra is a means to get to the truth. This is made possible because logic in the Indian tradition is interleaved with epistemology; Nyaya Shastra is therefore not only Tarka Shastra but also Pramana Shastra. And the foundation of epistemology is provided by establishing that perception is a valid means of knowledge. This pramana – perception or pratyaksha – is therefore the foundation of epistemology. It is for this reason that it is called the jyeshta pramana, the eldest and first and foremost of the pramanas. If pratyaksha does not hold, the pillars on which the Vedic tradition is held aloft in the world would come crashing down because the reasoning that keeps it established in the world is dependent on perception being a valid pramana.

 

Before I close this mail, I would like to give you one example of how Western logic has been used in a fallacious way to discredit the proof provided by Descartes to prove the existence of the self.  In the last chapter of my third book (On the Existence of the Self), I have demonstrated that the use of Western logic in this instance is fallacious and I am attaching that chapter here for your perusal. Please go through it when you have the time.

 

And if you don’t mind, I would like to reproduce this part of the conversation between us in the Advaitin forum since it has a relevance to the discussion now taking place there.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

//unquote//

 

 

I read your observation that Western logic would not help us to understand logic behind veda’s apaurusheyatva and one should be familiar with nyAya and tarka as per Indian tarka/nyAya shAstra perspective.  Do you mean to say those who want to refute the claim of veda’s apaurusheyatva should do so by using ONLY nyAya and tarka or IOW apaurusheyatva can be proved ONLY through Indian methodology of nyAya / tarka??  By saying this are we not forcing the opponent to use ONLY SELECTIVE premise and at the same time agreeing that in the perspective of western logic it is not provable and refutable ??

 

In your free time you please clarify this. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am not sure why you think there was a debate between me and Sri Omkar Deshpande on this topic in this group. You have been persistently spreading this misleading account of what happened on this group in the past too and I had pointed out to you that you that no such debate had taken place and you should desist from making such claims. 

 

Ø     My sincere apologies -/\- prabhuji.  As you know, during that priod, there were ocean of mails / exchanges between you and Jay, between you and Omkar, between you and Krishna kadiri and some other active members as well.  I might have mistaken your indulgence in the debate with regard to apaurusheya status of the particular text. As suggested and clarified by you, henceforth, I refrain myself from dragging your name in this.  But if I am not mistaken, Sri Omkar Deshpande argued this issue with (??) very well and I have not seen any meaningful and logical countering except some traditionally inclined minds’ sentimental outbursts.  And if I remember correctly during that time I had also told Sri Omkar Deshpande directly that I would like to see he should lose this debate as my heart goes with tradition (favouring apaurusheyatva) but intellectually I cannot push aside his points ( its faultlessness just because it is not man-made, veda-s are apaurusheya because veda says that etc. highlighting the anyOnyaashraya dosha etc.).  Anyway, I am happy that my repeated mistaken propaganda about your goodself is forced you to re-appear on the stage😊 Please be there for some more time prabhuji.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste,

I would like to post here a part of the conversation I had privately with Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji over the last two days as I believe it has relevance to the discussion now taking place here, especially with regard to the method used by outsiders to discredit Veda apaurushetva as well as many other tenets of our tradition. 

Dear Sri Bhaskar  Prabhuji,

I read your observation that Western logic would not help us to understand logic behind veda’s apaurusheyatva and one should be familiar with nyAya and tarka as per Indian tarka/nyAya shAstra perspective.  Do you mean to say those who want to refute the claim of veda’s apaurusheyatva should do so by using ONLY nyAya and tarka or IOW apaurusheyatva can be proved ONLY through Indian methodology of nyAya / tarka?? 

Those who want to refute the claim that the Veda is not apaurusheya should use a method which can get to the truth of the proposition ‘The Veda is not apaurusushaya’. They cannot use a method, namely Western formal logic, which does not have a means to get to the truth, to prove the truth of the proposition because Western formal logic has no means to prove truth; it can only preserve truth-vales from the premises to the conclusion.

“By saying this are we not forcing the opponent to use ONLY SELECTIVE premise and at the same time agreeing that in the perspective of western logic it is not provable and refutable ??”

First of all, please note that logic is not a premise, it is a reasoning method. So, what we are asking the opponent to do is to choose a method of reasoning that can get to the truth instead of relying on a method of reasoning that can only preserve truth values.

Now, if you say that the assertion that Western logic cannot get to the truth is only a premise, the answer is no, it is what the logicians of the West themselves acknowledge. The primary purpose of logic, according to them, is to preserve the truth-values, salva veritate, from the premises to the conclusion. The term ‘salva veritate’ means without loss of truth-value. This kind of Western logic is also called formal logic because the validity of the logical argument is said to be dependent of the syntactical form the argument.  

In the tradition of contemporary Western logic, logic only confers validity to an argument, which essentially means that it preserves the truth-values from the premises to the conclusion, but it does not assure us that the conclusion it reaches is true. In order for the conclusion to be true, the argument should not only be valid but it should also be sound meaning that the premises should also be true.

In the Western tradition, the validity of the argument is given by logic and the soundness of the argument is given by epistemology.

We Indians should realize that Western epistemology is in complete doldrums. Western epistemology does not even have to capacity to tell us that what we perceive is true because the stimulus-response theory of perception that it holds on to cannot tell us what the world is like; it can only tell us what the presentations or projections of the brain is like. There is no way by which it can even assert that there exists a correspondence between what we perceive and the world as it exists “out there”. So, how can logical arguments be made both valid and sound? In the Western tradition, logic can only provide us, to use its own terms, validity but not soundness. Western logic therefore has no means whatsoever to get to the truth.   

So, the basic question which we, of the Vedic tradition, should ask is: If Western logic has no means to get to the truth, how then do they make so many claims about our tradition which purport to be true? How can they assert them to be true when the conclusions they derive from their logic is based only on the assumptions and premises they start with? We should ask them to first choose a method that can get to the truth before they venture to pontificate to us about our tradition.

In contrast to Western logic, logic as given in Nyaya shastra is a means to get to the truth. This is made possible because logic in the Indian tradition is interleaved with epistemology; Nyaya Shastra is therefore not only Tarka Shastra but also Pramaana Shastra. And the foundation of epistemology is provided by establishing that perception is a valid means of knowledge. This pramaana – perception or pratyaksha – is therefore the foundation of epistemology. It is for this reason that it is called the jyeshta pramaana, the eldest and first and foremost of the pramaanas. If pratyaksha does not hold, the pillars on which the Vedic tradition is held aloft in the world would come crashing down because the reasoning that keeps it established in the world is dependent on perception being a valid pramaana.

Before I close this mail, I would like to give you one example of how Western logic has been used in a fallacious way to discredit the proof provided by Descartes to show the existence of the self.  In the last chapter of my third book (On the Existence of the Self), I have demonstrated that the use of Western logic in this instance is fallacious; I am attaching that chapter here for your perusal. Please go through it when you have the time.

And if you don’t mind Prabhuji, I would like to reproduce this part of the conversation between us in the Advaitin forum since it has relevance to the discussion now taking place there.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

On Monday, 4 March, 2024 at 08:51:52 am IST, Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com> wrote:

 

 

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I read your observation that Western logic would not help us to understand logic behind veda’s apaurusheyatva and one should be familiar with nyAya and tarka as per Indian tarka/nyAya shAstra perspective.  Do you mean to say those who want to refute the claim of veda’s apaurusheyatva should do so by using ONLY nyAya and tarka or IOW apaurusheyatva can be proved ONLY through Indian methodology of nyAya / tarka??  By saying this are we not forcing the opponent to use ONLY SELECTIVE premise and at the same time agreeing that in the perspective of western logic it is not provable and refutable ??

 

In your free time you please clarify this. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

From: chittaranjan naik <chittara...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 4:59 PM
To: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] apauruSheyatva of the Veda

 

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

 

But if I am not mistaken, Sri Omkar Deshpande argued this issue with (??) very well and I have not seen any meaningful and logical countering except some traditionally inclined minds’ sentimental outbursts. 

 

No, I do not think his arguments were logical; they were all fallacious. 

 

Please remember that Western logic does not try to get to the truth; it only argues to preserve the truth-value from the premises to the conclusion, so if you start with a certain premise or assumption, the conclusion of the logical argument will only confirm a conclusion that will be in line with the initial premise or assumption you started with. This was what was happening between Sri Omkar and Sri Krishna Kadiri. But if you want to get to the truth, you will need to adopt Tarka as defined in Nyaya Shastra because it is a logic which, unlike Western logic, is aimed at determining the truth or yathartha. This is what I was always telling Sri Omkar but he was unable to understand what I was talking about.

 

 

And if I remember correctly during that time I had also told Sri Omkar Deshpande directly that I would like to see he should lose this debate as my heart goes with tradition (favouring apaurusheyatva) but intellectually I cannot push aside his points ( its faultlessness just because it is not man-made, veda-s are apaurusheya because veda says that etc. highlighting the anyOnyaashraya dosha etc.). 

 

If you think his points were so good that they cannot be pushed aside, well and good, you may continue to think so. But I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the difference between the common logic we are taught in school today (which is based on Western logic) and Tarka as taught in Nyaya shastra and try to understand why Western logic has no means to get to the truth whereas Nyaya shastra is based on pramaana, the means to know the truth. Please understand that Western logic is divorced from epistemology and that the science of epistemology in the Western tradition is in doldrums because it cannot justify even the first pramaana or epistemological means, that is, perception or pratyaksha. Anyway, I leave it to you to form your own judgment.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

I see that both of us posted here at about the same time. :-)

PS:  I have also apologized for the mistake I did in bringing his name in the debate between Sri Omkar Deshpande with someone else!!.

 No need to apologize Prabhuji, there were so many things happening on the Vadavali forum those days that it would have been easy for you to mix up the discussion he was having with Sri Krishna Kadiri with the discussion he was having with me. Of course I did provide some inputs on that discussion too but my primary debates with Sri Omkar in the Vadavali list were on the foundations of science since he was trying to use the theories of science as if they were gospel truths to discredit the tenets of the Vedic sampradaya.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste,

In continuation of my post in which I had said that Western logic and Western tradition has no effective means to get to the truth, I would like to also point out that today the Western tradition does not even have a proper definition of truth. I would like to post an extract from one of my posts to the BVP forum in which I had highlighted this point. 

QUOTE

The historical events that led to the inability of the Western tradition to speak meaningfully of an objective truth did not begin with the Logical Positivists. It was a problem that had already become endemic in Western philosophy since the time of Descartes and British Empiricism. For, until then, it was assumed that the correspondence theory of truth would hold valid. But, if one couldn’t speak of the perceived world as the real world, how indeed would one be able to substantiate the correspondence theory of truth? If the world were merely mind as the Idealists thought, how may there be an external world with which one’s conceptions may correspond? Or, if, as Locke thought, the world we perceive consists of secondary qualities as brought forth to our sensorium in accordance with the senses we are endowed with and the primary qualities of objects are something we can never know, or even form a conception of, how may one meaningfully speak of correspondence of our conception with objects or their properties thereof? Those who had until then considered the perceived world to be the real world came to be called ‘Naïve Realists’ and it was no more possible for philosophers to naively hold that the conception of truth pointed to the correspondence of our conceptions with the external objects of the world. The Western philosophical tradition hasn’t been able overcome this problem so far. The result of it has been a rather fruitless endeavor to redefine the meaning of the word ‘truth’. Today, this has led to philosophers positing more than ten theories of truth, such as the coherence theory of truth, the pragmatic theory of truth, the semantic theory of truth, the deflationary theory of truth, the consensus theory of truth, the constructivist theory or truth and many other theories of truth, but we are no closer to defining truth now than we were three hundred years ago. It is against this backdrop – of the inability of Western philosophers to define what truth is - that we must look at the genesis of the concepts of paradigm, paradigm-shift and incommensurability. Indeed, we may say that the overarching paradigm of all Western disciplines of knowledge is characterized by a tenuous foundation in which the meaning of word ‘truth’ is not fixed and remains as a floating symbol.

UNQUOTE

Before I close I would like to point out that the common notion of truth as correspondence with facts in the world is preserved in Advaita by two things:

i) The validity of pratyaksha as a pramaana in the vyavaharika world, and

ii) The postulation that until the world is sublated by the rise of brahma-jnana, the notion of shrishti-drishti holds true and that it is Ishvara who provides the common ground by which there is inter-personal validity of things seen in the world. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chittaranjan ji,

There is a famous verse -  काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम् । - the systems of kaNAda (vaisheShika) and pANini (grammar) are useful in the understanding of all systems of philosophy.

Indeed, while Shankaracharya had a rather dim view of reasoning independent of the shruti being able to prove the existence of Brahman, or even from the standpoint of transactional reality, the existence of an Ishvara that gives birth to, sustains and ultimately destroys the universe - he was willing to concede that reasoning that supported the conclusions of shruti certainly was a useful tool.

Ultimately though, the role assigned to reasoning within advaita in the understanding of absolute reality, is just that - as a tool in the toolbox, not as the final revealer of absolute truth. That role is reserved for the shruti alone.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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/9bb94be8-f75d-4168-a5f8-6453e22b5b1fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Venkatraghavan-ji,

There is no disagreement between us on this point. 

The Nayyayikas themselves concede this point in inasmuch as Jayanta Bhatta says that the revelation of the truths given in the Veda can only be obtained from vakhyartha-jnana, that is, Mimamsa, and not from the padartha-jnana that is conferred by Nyaya. Annambatta too, in the last section of Tarka Samgraha, says that the study of Nyaya shastra is only a stepping stone to the pursuit of Atma-jnana. Nyaya is a tool for upholding the Vedic vidyas in the world  and it is perhaps because of this in-the-world characteristic that Chanakya, who assigns Nyaya an important place in the fourfold classification of the vidyas (as trayi, anvikshiki, varta and danda-neeti), still calls it lokayata. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

ii) The postulation that until the world is sublated by the rise of brahma-jnana, the notion of shrishti-drishti holds true and that it is Ishvara who provides the common ground by which there is inter-personal validity of things seen in the world. 

 

Ø     And at the risk of digression according to some, SD is for the tyros and DS and ajAta is for the complete professionals, who knows that world what we are talking is ‘tuccha’, atyanta abhAva and in SD module mOksha / jnana is not possible and it is an exclusive property of DS vAdins who later ultimately realize ajAta. 

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhu-ji,

Since you are insinuating that what you are saying is only a digression, I shall present you with a smile and let it go....

:-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan-ji,

I had a query related to another objection raised by Koenraad Elst and people of his ilk and I thought I would ask you about it in this thread in which you had provided some very good arguments to counter Koenrad Elst's rebuttal of Veda apaurusheyatva. Actually it is a question posed to me in a private mail by someone and I was unable to reply to it as it required a knowledge of Vedic grammar and Panininam grammar which I don't possess, but since I am as  interested in obtaining an answer to the question as the person who posed the question to me is, I thought I would forward it to you. 

The question is this: People like Koenraad Elst and Srikant Talageri say that the Veda is not apaurusheya by providing examples of the Sanskrit found in Rg Veda being at variance with the Yajur Veda Sanskrit found in Panininan grammar. This, according to them, is evidence that the Veda has changed over time and that it is not apaurusheya. Can you please throw some light on this phenomenon and and also on how, according to you, the Vedic tradition would respond to such an objection?

With thanks in advance.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 9:36:36 AM UTC+5:30 agni...@gmail.com wrote:

Namaste,

 

Someone recently had shared with me for my comments, a facebook article that referred to Koenraad Elst's rebuttal of apauruShyetva of the veda. 

The facebook article is here:

(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02hyqN6immK6tc3NpiLFCsQkHp372H3zmDuUHwcCvxaBRMQLUUqpn5iBmqQBghrGo3l&id=100008111554860&mibextid=Nif5oz) 

I had initially sent a version of the below email in a personal correspondence. Thought it would be useful to share it with the group as it may be of interest.

*******

The facebook article does not appear to have any arguments, rather there are only assertions. What is the proof given for pauruSheyatva? 

The term apauruSheya means that the words of the veda were not composed by a human being by understanding the meaning through other sources of knowledge - ie it is not a case of artham buddhvA shabda rachanA. The words were received in a never ending line of guru shiShya-s and even the RShis associated with each mantra are not held to have composed it, they are simply mantra draShTa-s , not mantra kartA-s.

In fact, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtras of Jaimini itself claim that Vedic words are eternal - unlike the claim made in the FB article, it is not Kumarila Bhatta who came up with apauruSheyatva to support him in his argument with the Buddhists, it was stated by the sUtrakAra himself.  

For example, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra - AkhyA pravachanAt (1.1.30) - holds that the names of the RShis associated with a rescension are not because they composed it, it is because those RShis expounded on the vedic rescensions.

The sUtra - parantu shrutisAmAnyamAtram (1.1.31) - holds that proper names in the Vedas are not names of people, there are common nouns and any similarity is only a similarity of sounds (some examples will be shown below).

Thus the writer of the FB article is mistaken when he says that Kumarila Bhatta invented the apauruSheyatva of the Veda to support his intellectual battle with the Buddhists - this idea is mentioned in the sUtra-s by Jaimini itself.

[Bhaskar YR]

The question is this: People like Koenraad Elst and Srikant Talageri say that the Veda is not apaurusheya by providing examples of the Sanskrit found in Rg Veda being at variance with the Yajur Veda Sanskrit found in Panininan grammar. This, according to them, is evidence that the Veda has changed over time and that it is not apaurusheya. Can you please throw some light on this phenomenon and and also on how, according to you, the Vedic tradition would respond to such an objection?

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If I could add my doubts along with Sri chitta prabhuji’s doubt.  You know veda mantra-s chanted with different svara-s in different veda-s and some times it is same mantra (Shabda) with different svara-s about the same ‘vishaya’ (or sAmAnya) when Ishwara before creation while thinking about veda shabda what exactly those words and their svara??  Has he think all the three veda mantra with svara-s before doing the creation??  If yes, how we can avoid punarukti dOsha in this??  And I heard that in academic circle some traditionalists too  say that mantra is something different from brAhmaNa (which is mainly injunctive in its nature) and only mantra (in saMhita portion) can be called apaurusheya but not brAhmaNa portion.  Can I have more details with regard to this please.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan Ji,

I presume Venkat Ji will be responding to your query. Meanwhile I thought I would share my understanding.

Firstly, it is well recognized that the Vedas, as available today, form only a small fraction of the original. Rest having been lost over a period of time.

Secondly, Sri Bhagavatpada presents an argument  for establishing nityatva of Vedas in  BSB 1-3-29  //  स्वतन्त्रस्य कर्तुरस्मरणादिभिः स्थिते वेदस्य नित्यत्वे देवादिव्यक्तिप्रभवाभ्युपगमेन तस्य विरोधमाशङ्क्य ‘अतः प्रभवात्’ इति परिहृत्य इदानीं तदेव वेदनित्यत्वं स्थितं द्रढयति — अत एव च नित्यत्वमिति । //. 

Sri SSS, while translating this, adds in a Footnote as under.

//  That Veda is nitya, apauruSheya etc is established in Jai Sutras 1-1-27 to 1-1-31. This has been accepted here from the standpoint of vyavahAra (word as used by Sri SSS in kannada). How Sri Bhagavatpada has established Vedanityatva can be seen in TUB 2-3 //.

My understanding of the term **vyavahAra** in this footnote denotes the generally accepted  view of Veda  being external shabda mantras, and  the nityatva thus established is in a secondary sense. The primary sense is covered in TUB 2-3. I tend to agree with this view. This perhaps is at variance with the view expressed by Sri MDS as conveyed by Venkat Ji in an earlier post in this thread.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/28142ee2-b7e8-4ed0-976d-f1cbfbf88e7fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

The primary sense is covered in TUB 2-3. I tend to agree with this view.

 

praNAms Sri Chandramouli prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I had shared this information with Sri Venkat prabhuji in one of my previous mail. Sri SSS is of the opinion that in devatAdhikarana nityatva established based on vyAvahArika point of view based on pUrva meemAmsaka view.  But bhAshyakAra himself explains his stand on nityatva in taittireeya bhAshya.  Where he equates veda with vruttyupaadhi parichinna Chaitanya (manOmayAtma).

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You had asked me  for Sri SSS’s observation with regard this.  Here is Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji’s English translation of Sri SSS’s foodnote written in Kannada.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of H S Chandramouli
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 2:19 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: 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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdN3imBBD1RzBeSf%3DOwNT5eHf_7Ave1VszqUh%3Dv%3DUBAP%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chittaranjan ji,

Can you share any of the examples given in this regard? 

I think Srikant Talageri is fighting the good fight against the spurious notions of Aryan Invasion Theory etc, so I am a little wary of posting any of our rebuttals in the context of apauruSheyatva in a public forum, for there is a chance that that is used to reinforce pernicious ideas such as AIT.  

Happy to look at any specific examples he provided, and if I have answers, can share them with you in private.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Bhaskar YR]

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Happy to look at any specific examples he provided, and if I have answers, can share them with you in private.

 

Ø    + 1 my name to be included in your private mail prabhuji.  Ofcourse if you don’t consider me as an ‘outsider’. 

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Sri Chandramauli-ji,

Sri Bhagavatpada presents an argument  for establishing nityatva of Vedas in  BSB 1-3-29  //  स्वतन्त्रस्य कर्तुरस्मरणादिभिः स्थिते वेदस्य नित्यत्वे देवादिव्यक्तिप्रभवाभ्युपगमेन तस्य विरोधमाशङ्क्य ‘अतः प्रभवात्’ इति परिहृत्य इदानीं तदेव वेदनित्यत्वं स्थितं द्रढयति — अत एव च नित्यत्वमिति । //. 

Sri SSS, while translating this, adds in a Footnote as under.

//  That Veda is nitya, apauruSheya etc is established in Jai Sutras 1-1-27 to 1-1-31. This has been accepted here from the standpoint of vyavahAra (word as used by Sri SSS in kannada). How Sri Bhagavatpada has established Vedanityatva can be seen in TUB 2-3 //.

I am not acquainted with Sri SSS's works but I find this part of Sri SSS's explanation to be very interesting.  It not only confirms the way I have understood Shankaracharya's bhashya to this sutra, but also provides a more satisfactory explanation, in my view, than the more ordinary one.   

My understanding of the term **vyavahAra** in this footnote denotes the generally accepted  view of Veda  being external shabda mantras, and  the nityatva thus established is in a secondary sense. The primary sense is covered in TUB 2-3. I tend to agree with this view. This perhaps is at variance with the view expressed by Sri MDS as conveyed by Venkat Ji in an earlier post in this thread.

Yes, I agree with you. I too find the explanation provided by Sri MDS and Sri Venkat-ji to be in conformance with the more ordinary sense in which apaurusheyatva of the Vedas may be understood. The TUB 2-3, going by what you say, seems to be providing the deeper explanation to the nitayatva of Vedic words. The former explanation seems closer to that of Nyaya which says that Ishwara creates the Vedic words at the beginning of creation in exactly the same way and in the same order as He had created them in previous cycles of creation. Nyaya is constrained to speak in this manner because it has to maintain coherence with its doctrine of asatkaryavada but in Vedanta which adheres to satkaryavada I don't see a problem in admitting the existence of Vedic words even during the intervening period of pralaya. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan-ji,

Can you share any of the examples given in this regard? 

I have not been informed of the examples but I will try to get hold of them from the person who posed the question to me and then write to you in private.

I would be interested also in knowing how the tradition would respond to the other difficulty raised by Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, namely the existence of different svaras with which the same mantras may be chanted. How can these differences be explained as not pertaining to variations that have occurred in the Veda over time? If you could share your views of this aspect too, it would be very helpful. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji / Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I would be interested also in knowing how the tradition would respond to the other difficulty raised by Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, namely the existence of different svaras with which the same mantras may be chanted. How can these differences be explained as not pertaining to variations that have occurred in the Veda over time? If you could share your views of this aspect too, it would be very helpful. 

 

• Just to explain my doubt further as the veda mantra-s are chanted according to seven-swara-s (intonation) though nobody dared to change these svara-s and Shabda-s ( the mantra-s are not vyakarana Shuddha, but accept it ‘as it is’ because it is there in veda-s, so says some vyakarana experts. I don’t know what  Sri Praveen prabhuji says about this observation)  the vikruti pAta (like krama, jata, ghana) etc. have seems undergone changes under the shelter of pAta bheda.  And some khila mantra-s also chanted without giving any particular attention to the svara-s.  If we have any doubt in way of chanting these mantra-s with svara-s, even teachers would resort to printed version to cross check.   Ofcourse we argue that with Shabda, veda svara too apaurusheya and these swara-s too not the product of human intellect etc. but how to get rid of these problems when there are multiple repetition about the same subject with different svara-s. And ofcourse the injunctive portion of brAhmaNa which is part and parcel of veda. And problem that inquisitive traditional mind facing is when they come across questions like :  what is so special about the veda-s??  why do the veda Shabda-s believed to be having extra ordinary potency and efficacy?? Tradition asking them to seek the answers within tradition, within veda only, no outside logic allowed nor any other pramANa-s capable of resolving this issue within traditionally accepted pramANa, either you accept it AS IT IS as it is saying so (svataH pramANa) or through one paurusheya pramANa (anupalabdhi in the valid means as per Sri chiita prabhuji, which I yet to know anything about its effectivity in establishing apaurusheyatva) can be used to prove.  And we are still not clear since when audible version of veda getting verified from readable version 😊

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

You are raining objections to the tenet of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas! I can almost see you clapping your hands in glee looking at the pile of objections being built up. :-) 

But I hope to see you someday showing the same zeal towards not building up a pile of objections but in attempting instead to dismantle the objections. It would be nice to see you alongside me and other people here aiming against the weapons that the enemy is launching against us instead of seeing you stand in admiration of the formidable array of weapons the enemy is possessing. I am quite sure that if you steel yourself to fight the enemy, you will begin to see that their weapons do not really have as much firepower as they seem to possess. :-)

Anyway, be that as it may, let me get to what I wanted to say....

 Of course we argue that with Shabda, veda svara too apaurusheya and these swara-s too not the product of human intellect etc. but how to get rid of these problems when there are multiple repetition about the same subject with different svara-s.   

I am wondering if there are rules that have been laid down in the disciplines of Seeksha and Chanda by which these variations in svaras may be explained. I remember that Prof VK ji had once forwarded a message to this list from some devotee of the Kanchi Mahaperyawal in which he was claiming that such rules exist and that by the application of those rules even the origin of some of the hymns of Judaism could be explained. That sounded a bit far fetched to me but if there are rules existing in Seeksha to account for  geographical variations in svaras, it would satisfy me that these variations are part of the eternal structure of the Vedas and that these variations are not due to changes occurring to the Vedas over time. As regards which svarah Ishvara may be employing during creation, it doesn't really bother me because whichever svarah it may be, I do not see that it will stop creation from proceeding forth.

  

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Sri Chandramauli-ji,

How Sri Bhagavatpada has established Vedanityatva can be seen in TUB 2-3 //.

The primary sense is covered in TUB 2-3

I checked up the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya. In Swami Gambhirananda's translation, it appears as II.iii.1. After reading this part of the bhashya (again, after a long time), I must say that I agree with your and Sri SSS's interpretation. And it is clear to me that the Yajur and Rg  Veda mantras are not alluded to as merely existing in the manomayakosha as Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji seems to understand; the Acharya clearly says that the Yajur Veda and Rg Veda  are being considered as mental states (in the manomayakosha) only to explain how their mental repetition becomes possible. But in the primary sense the Yajur and Rg Vedas are to be considered as identical with the beginningless and endless Consciousness because this is the way their eternality becomes justifiable. 

As regards the Vartika, I see that it is voluminous at over 700 pages, so I will have to set aside some time to study it.

Thank you for pointing me to this part of the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

  

On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 2:19:34 PM UTC+5:30 hschand...@gmail.com wrote:

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You are raining objections to the tenet of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas! I can almost see you clapping your hands in glee looking at the pile of objections being built up. :-) 

 

Ø     Infact I have been asking / rising these doubts with a gloomy face, a desperate attempt to get the satisfactory answer if not convincing one…But till now due to my below average intellect these are yet to see the day light.  My humble praNAms to you and others for spending time with me and trying to clarify my doubts. 

 

But I hope to see you someday showing the same zeal towards not building up a pile of objections but in attempting instead to dismantle the objections. It would be nice to see you alongside me and other people here aiming against the weapons that the enemy is launching against us instead of seeing you stand in admiration of the formidable array of weapons the enemy is possessing. I am quite sure that if you steel yourself to fight the enemy, you will begin to see that their weapons do not really have as much firepower as they seem to possess. :-)

 

Ø     See I am already convinced in my heart that veda is mAta, veda is svayaM brahman (Shabda brahma), veda is the parama pramANa, veda is the one which bestow us the paramArtha jnana, veda is the word of Almighty, veda has the subject matter which is not fall under the category of kshullaka (kevala) material experiences of the pAmara-s like me, veda-s are not kevala loukikaM or secular, veda is the one which even sublates the nature of pramAtru as it is untya pramANa in determining one’s own svarUpa.  But you know how a mischievous mind can harp on something which is not going to convince and settles it’s turbulations. Heart fails here to convince the rationale mind and from then on mind takes over the further proceedings.  Nevertheless kindly note I am already/always with you and other prabhuji-s and clapping my hands in glee after seeing your relentless efforts to satisfy the asaMpradAyavAdi in me. 

 

 

I am wondering if there are rules that have been laid down in the disciplines of Seeksha and Chanda by which these variations in svaras may be explained. I remember that Prof VK ji had once forwarded a message to this list from some devotee of the Kanchi Mahaperyawal in which he was claiming that such rules exist and that by the application of those rules even the origin of some of the hymns of Judaism could be explained. That sounded a bit far fetched to me but if there are rules existing in Seeksha to account for  geographical variations in svaras, it would satisfy me that these variations are part of the eternal structure of the Vedas and that these variations are not due to changes occurring to the Vedas over time. As regards which svarah Ishvara may be employing during creation, it doesn't really bother me because whichever svarah it may be, I do not see that it will stop creation from proceeding forth.

 

Ø     Thanks for the clarification prabhuji 😊 If I share anything in reply to this you say : you again started clapping yourself and proud of your objections which you entertain forever without need of any answer 😊

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

I don't know why you are making a separation between the heart and the mind and then saying that the mind is rational. That is not correct. The mind (manas) is like a monkey that jumps from one object to another without ever coming to a definite conclusion. Its nature is to raise one doubt after another. It is the intellect (buddhi) residing in the cave of the heart (hrudaya-guha) which is the faculty that determines the truth by seeing into the stamp of truth in the heart. The heart is really the well-spring and source of truth. What you call the rational mind is really not a rational mind. Its rationality is the materialistic or lokayata rationality that we are all endowed with when we are thrown into the ocean of samsara. The real rationality which the buddhi must be constantly trained to use is the rationality based on padartha-jnana; this is the rationality contained in Nyaya shastra. Padartha-jnana is the stepping stone to vakhyartha-jnana or brahma-jnana, so we must wean ourselves away from the lokayata rationality of mortal beings and learn the higher rationality of Nyaya based on padartha-jnana so that we may get ourselves equipped to walk on the lofty path that leads to immortal truths. 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Bhaskar YR]

Dear Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

See I have even failed to see what is there within me in hrudaya guha and what mana is going to feed buddhi 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:08 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: 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.

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

--

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/b9084468-8939-45b8-9365-9004515cedf9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

No Prabhuji, all of us are in that predicament. Who amongst us in this age of Kali Yuga really has knowledge of the padarthas, dravya, guna, samanya, vishesha, karma, samavaya, and abhava? We may repeat these words like parrots but it takes a lot of cleansing of the mind to get a grip on these tattvas. We do not even realize that relation (sambandha) is a guna and that it cannot be used in isolation from objects like modern logic does. And if we look at the padarthas from the perspective of Pracina Nyaya (see below), it boggles the mind even more.

pramana

prameya

samsaya

prayojana

drstanta

siddhanta

avayava

tarka

nirnaya

vada

jalpa

vitanda

hetvabhasa

chala

jati

nigrahasthana

[Bhaskar YR]

And it is clear to me that the Yajur and Rg  Veda mantras are not alluded to as merely existing in the manomayakosha as Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji seems to understand;

 

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I don’t have enough patience to search my previous mail where I myself quoted bhAshya vAkya from this Up. And Sri SSS observation when addressing to Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji’s observation after seeing my devataadhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya reference.  I have not said veda-s merely existing in manOmaya kOsha I have said upAdhi pratibimbita Chaitanya is equated with yajurAdi veda.  Here chaintanya equated with veda-s, since Chaitanya is nitya  nityatva siddhi can be established for the veda also.  Here in this bhAshya (taittireeya) bhAshyakAra implies that the veda shabda-s (rig, yajur, sAmAtharvaNa) would teach the jnana which is beyond the reach of desha,kAla, kArya-kAraNa, indriya, manO buddhi etc.  It teaches the nityAtma tattva hence teaching also nitya only,  because by following this teaching manOvrutti turns inside realizes the nityAtma tattva that time manOvrutti too becomes Atma Chaitanya which is nitya again.  Hence bhAshyakAra equates this manOvrttyupAdhi pratipalita Chaitanya as veda.  And with the same breath I had also said since veda not only talking ONLY Atma jnana but it also says lot of things about injunctions, karma, upAsana, lOkAntara, kAlAntara phala hence alongwith Atma tattva nityatva these too also nitya only.  Infact this has been clarified by bhAshyakAra somewhere else by saying : tasmAt yadyat tena uktaM tat tathaiva pratipattvyaM AtmanaH shreyaH icchadbhiH jnAnaM vA karmaM vA eti. Whether it is for Shreyas or preyas one has to follow the veda as it is the pramANa for both dharma and brahma jignAsa. 

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 I have not said veda-s merely existing in manOmaya kOsha I have said upAdhi pratibimbita Chaitanya is equated with yajurAdi veda.  Here chaintanya equated with veda-s, since Chaitanya is nitya  nityatva siddhi can be established for the veda also. 

Yes, the bhashyakara here identifies the Vedas with the Self that exists as a Witness in the midst of the mind. If you admit that the Veda is equated with the beginingless and endless Consciousness, then what is your problem in accepting the eternality of the Vedas? I am sorry but I am unable to understand the drift of your messages here.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan Ji,

Reg  //  The question is this: People like Koenraad Elst and Srikant Talageri say that the Veda is not apaurusheya by providing examples of the Sanskrit found in Rg Veda being at variance with the Yajur Veda Sanskrit found in Panininan grammar. This, according to them, is evidence that the Veda has changed over time and that it is not apaurusheya. Can you please throw some light on this phenomenon and and also on how, according to you, the Vedic tradition would respond to such an objection? //,

I am copying some excerpts from  the text  ** Hindu Dharma – The Universal way of Life **, which is a compilation of English translation of talks delivered by Sri Kanchi Paramacharya. This is from Appendix 1 of the hard copy of the text. Also it is an abridged version of the original tamil talk. Unfortunately this part from the published text does not find a place in any of the PDF versions available of the same text. Apparently the second volume of the original tamil text ** Deivattin Kural **  includes the unabridged talk in full under the head ** Vedic Dharma and Tamil Nadu **. I have not referred to it myself.

// While on the subject, I must speak about another matter. Many of you might find what I am going to say to be strange. You must be thinking, don't you, that the Vedas are in the Sanskrit language? If you do so you are wrong. The Vedic language is not Sanskrit but "Chandas". "Chandas" means not only metre but also the Vedas which are metrically composed as well as the language of the Vedas. The language used in ordinary speech, poetry, the Puranas, the epics, other writings is Sanskrit. The Vedic language alone is Chandas. When Panini makes a reference to the Vedas he says, "Iti Chandasi", and when he refers to any question relating to Sanskrit he says, "Iti loke".

Sanskrit, which evolved through a constant process of samskara or refinement, contains many words drawn from the Vedic language. But if there is a language that is based entirely on sounds meant for the well-being of mankind it is Chandas (the Vedic language). "Krtam" means created; "Samskrtam" (Sanskrit) means well created. It would thus mean that the language called Sanskrit was created with great effort and care. The Vedic language is different. Have I not told you so often that the Vedic language (the mantras) occurred to the seers in a flash. Grammar is not important to it. The celestial race used the Vedic language as a base -- that is the sounds of that language that emanated for the good of mankind -- and created Sanskrit out of it and made it their own speech. The Vedas have their own grammar and prosody. Since Sanskrit was created out of the Vedas it follows that the Vedas are not Sanskrit. Sanskrit grew on its own, spreading all over the world and absorbing new words. But there has been no addition to the Vedas or to the Vedic language //.

//  If the mantras are the life-breath of the Vedas, the life-breath of the mantras themselves is the purity or clarity of their sound, their proper intonation. I have spoken about how by altering the sound or tone of the mantras the vibration in space as well as in our nadis will change and how the fruit yielded by the chanting will not be what is desired. The Sikṣā sastra deals in a scientific manner with how the sound of syllables  originating in different parts of the body are revealed.

The sound we hear with our ears is called "vaikhari" and its source is within us and called "parA". Vaikhari originates in the lips and parA is the sound present in the mUlAdhAra below the navel. Before it is revealed as vaikhari through the mouth it goes through two stages, "paśhyanti" and "madhyamA". It is only when we go higher and higher on the path of yogic perfection that we shall be able to hear the sounds paśyanti, madhyamA and parA. The seers who are masters of yoga are capable of hearing the parA sounds. There are certain parA sounds originating in the mUlAdhAra which, on being transformed into vaikhari, can be heard by men. Such sounds please the deities, create good to the world and bring Atmic uplift. It is such parA sounds that the seers have grasped from the transcendent space and given us as the Veda mantras //.

Regards

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:24 AM Chittaranjan Naik <chit...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
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/28142ee2-b7e8-4ed0-976d-f1cbfbf88e7fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Namaste Sri Chandramauli-ji,

It is interesting that you should cite Sri Kanchi Paramacharya's book 'Hindu Dharma - Universal Way of Life' in this context. In particular these two parts of the excerpt quoted by you are very relevant:

The Vedic language is different. Have I not told you so often that the Vedic language (the mantras) occurred to the seers in a flash. Grammar is not important to it. 

The Vedas have their own grammar and prosody.

In a private conversation that I have been having with Sri Venkatraghavan-ji, he pointed out that in the case of the Vedas, grammar is descriptive and not prescriptive (and that if there are any rules for it they are merely optional and not mandatory). This was quite an eye opener to me (though it seemed obvious, once he mentioned it, that in the case of apaurusheya sentences, it should be so). 

There is also another book compiled from Sri Kanchi Paramacharya's discourses in Tamil which is more focused on the Vedas. It is simply tilted 'The Vedas'. In the very first chapter of that book, the Paramacharya devotes quite a bit of space to the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas. And then there are separate chapters devoted to each of the Vedangas and Upangas. A very useful book; if anyone is interested, this is the book I am referring to:

https://www.amazon.in/Chandrasekharendra-Saraswati-Sankaracharya-Kamakoti-Peetham/dp/8172764014/ref=sr_1_2?crid=349WSLEMTKANZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.OCH6C1Ann4gVMEz3w2bghT9yumkS2z_IYDiOOfZcArgdTeEFUG_TzwIclr07AL2JvN74TFSsTpiMOQ_21vAMztqTG6w-3shoxlCEIyoxhQ6TDoYxredmny8wLKGBbWv9BNDqAxVlBbT_xK_LDtjZI3tXCc9_UeyKSQdQ0r9-kBa_y0LSh43EkOqRLftFrZbO6NLzZKUuUZXluPOhDsH38loY3esJLgqWjzzdBJ3VVco.srYrjA20HRGvt1GxWYo59J53_27nYqvOOKODC5jisdw&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+vedas+by+sri+chandrasekharendra+saraswati&qid=1711163585&sprefix=vedas+chandra%2Caps%2C200&sr=8-2

[omkar_d...@yahoo.com]

Dear Sri Chittaranjan, 

 I have aged by 10 years, but nice to see that there is at least one little virtual island where things stand still and don't change across time :-) I hope your body and mind are still as hale and hearty as they were a decade ago. I accidentally opened my yahoo email after some years, and saw that my name recently came up, so just wanted to add a few clarifications. 

<<<i refused to discuss the topic with Sri Omkar Deshpande unless he met two criteria with regard to the method of discussion, firstly, that he agrees to conduct the discussion in the light of the intrinsic natures of objects as it is done in Indian logic, and, secondly, that he treats a relation as a guna of an object and not as an independent entity in itself i.e., he should not use alpha characters such a A, B, etc to designate objects but must name the objects so that we can recognize which gunas can be attributed to them. Sri Omkar Deshpande did not agree to the first condition, so i told him that there is no use in us discussing the topic when there is no common method agreed to between us. >>>

My primary interest was in the traditional (dvaita) arguments in support of apauruSheyatva, where the Charvaka is the Purvapakshi. Your preconditions for arguments were not acceptable, because no such preconditions are mentioned in the traditional works like Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya and its commentaries, and it was thus difficult to see how your arguments (requiring so many a priori assumptions) align in any way with the traditional dvaita arguments with the Charvakas. As an individual, you are of course free to hold any view that you wish, but the views that I was interested in were of the dvaita tradition on apauruSheyatva and their arguments in defence of those views (which I felt I understood), not the unique words you seemed to put forth (which I never understood). 

<<<While there may be no responsibility on the astika to prove apaurusheyatva of the Vedas to others, there is certainly a responsibility on the astika, or at least on the acharyas of the sampradaya, to prove it to the insiders of the tradition so that there is a reasoned ground for the tradition to continue. >>>

If the proof applies only to insiders, then it only means one has to already have faith (i.e, already be an insider) to accept the proof, which makes the whole point of a proof pointless? Why do you need to preach to the choir? 

<<<Just for your information, the examples that Sri Omkar Deshpande posted through the extracts from the discussions he held elsewhere were about ants crawling on the sand and accidentally created a sentence and about wind blowing across a mouth of a cave and creating sound matching the sound of a linguistic sentence. These arguments can be rebutted easily but i did not want to take up the discussion with Sri Omkar Dehspande since there was no agreement with respect to the method of discussion.>>>

I have not seen any such easy rebuttal - my claim was that natural sounds (which are not authored by any person) will generally be meaningless, and even if by chance they produced sounds corresponding to meaningful sentences in a language, there is no reason to expect those sentences to be true propositions. So a text that has no personal author, even if such a text existed, would not be guaranteed to be flawless. If rebutting this requires a host of other flowery assumptions that effectively make one an insider first (as opposed to plain common sense that is shared by the dvaitin and Charvaka), then it defeats the purpose of the whole discussion on apauruSheyatva, which is supposed to be the starting point. 

<<<They cannot use a method, namely Western formal logic, which does not have a means to get to the truth, to prove the truth of the proposition because Western formal logic has no means to prove truth; it can only preserve truth-vales from the premises to the conclusion.>>>

This applies only to deductive logic, not to inductive/abductive logic used in the sciences and social sciences. Just because scientific conclusions are not deductively proved (and hence lack absolute certainty) doesn't mean they are not good assumptions, as they do explain the data better than any competing hypothesis, and thus merit more serious consideration than any other hypothesis. 

<<<This is what I was always telling Sri Omkar but he was unable to understand what I was talking about.>>>

I could understand what Krishna Kadiri was talking about, and I could understand what Madhvacharya and Jayatirtha were writing about. So the issue wasn't with me I think. Maybe you should invite Bhaskar prabhuji or someone else to paraphrase your explanations in their own words, as an exercise, and you'll see if I'm the only one who doesn't understand what you were talking about. 

<<<Please understand that Western logic is divorced from epistemology and that the science of epistemology in the Western tradition is in doldrums because it cannot justify even the first pramaana or epistemological means, that is, perception or pratyaksha.>>>

In spite of Western scientific epistemology being in doldrums, Western science has been able to push forward our understanding of the universe by building on top of what earlier cultures knew, while in spite of Indian epistemology being perfect, the Puranas couldn't go beyond a flat earth (and the best that modern scholars can do is to retrofit modern findings into those Puranic texts, or worse, defend a flat earth). The disconnect is too much here.

<<<But I hope to see you someday showing the same zeal towards not building up a pile of objections but in attempting instead to dismantle the objections. It would be nice to see you alongside me and other people here aiming against the weapons that the enemy is launching against us instead of seeing you stand in admiration of the formidable array of weapons the enemy is possessing.>>>

Enemy launching weapons? I once thought Sir that advaita teachings go well beyond applying "peer pressure" to conform and arousing tribalism instincts via "us" vs "them" distinction. But I have come to believe that whatever be the tradition, all that following any tradition does is to shift our attachments from overt material objects to venerating the tradition (with its gurus) itself as an extension of oneself. There is no detachment as such, just an illusion that one is detached, because the object of attachment is now something else. Everyone is attached to their gurus, their gods and their tradition, so much that a mere argument against tradition becomes a declaration of war. Tribalism will always reign supreme, that's the unhappy conclusion I have come to,   

Regards,

Omkar

--
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/2c71cd0d-7c39-4d5e-b0d8-d2e8a75afb76n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Omkar,

 I have aged by 10 years, but nice to see that there is at least one little virtual island where things stand still and don't change across time :-) I hope your body and mind are still as hale and hearty as they were a decade ago.

 Greetings. Nice to hear from you after a long time.

 No, things have not really stood still in the last 10 years; much water has flowed since then and I don’t participate much on these forums nowadays. I came here a few days ago only because Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji mentioned some debate that he thought had taken place between you and me of this forum some 12 years ago and I wanted to provide a clarification on that.

 

I accidentally opened my yahoo email after some years, and saw that my name recently came up, so just wanted to add a few clarifications. 

Well, this accident seems to have coincided with Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji taking your email address from me with the promise that he would not get me involved in a discussion at this point in time. 😊 Perhaps it was fate that conspired behind my back to get me on this list again. 😊

 

<<<i refused to discuss the topic with Sri Omkar Deshpande unless he met two criteria with regard to the method of discussion, firstly, that he agrees to conduct the discussion in the light of the intrinsic natures of objects as it is done in Indian logic, and, secondly, that he treats a relation as a guna of an object and not as an independent entity in itself i.e., he should not use alpha characters such a A, B, etc to designate objects but must name the objects so that we can recognize which gunas can be attributed to them. Sri Omkar Deshpande did not agree to the first condition, so i told him that there is no use in us discussing the topic when there is no common method agreed to between us. >>>

My primary interest was in the traditional (dvaita) arguments in support of apauruSheyatva, where the Charvaka is the Purvapakshi. Your preconditions for arguments were not acceptable, because no such preconditions are mentioned in the traditional works like Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya and its commentaries, and it was thus difficult to see how your arguments (requiring so many a priori assumptions) align in any way with the traditional dvaita arguments with the Charvakas. As an individual, you are of course free to hold any view that you wish, but the views that I was interested in were of the dvaita tradition on apauruSheyatva and their arguments in defence of those views (which I felt I understood), not the unique words you seemed to put forth (which I never understood). 

Thanks for the clarification. Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji was under the impression that we had had a debate on the topic of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas on this forum and it was my primary intention in writing those words to remove the misapprehension that such a debate had taken place here.

And I am not sure what you mean by saying that my arguments require so many a priori assumptions or that I put forth unique words. I do not remember that you had ever pointed out these a priori assumptions to me before but let us leave that aside for now because I have other tasks to do and am not too keen to get involved in a discussion on this forum right now.   

 

<<<While there may be no responsibility on the astika to prove apaurusheyatva of the Vedas to others, there is certainly a responsibility on the astika, or at least on the acharyas of the sampradaya, to prove it to the insiders of the tradition so that there is a reasoned ground for the tradition to continue. >>>

If the proof applies only to insiders, then it only means one has to already have faith (i.e, already be an insider) to accept the proof, which makes the whole point of a proof pointless? Why do you need to preach to the choir? 

No, that is not the right way of looking at things. You are basically saying this from the perspective of the Western tradition in which knowledge essentially means right knowledge. In the Indian tradition, knowledge may refer to right knowledge, wrong knowledge or knowledge containing traces of doubt. One of the objectives of these discussions is to remove doubts so that by the dispelling of doubts the knowledge may be brought to a state of steadiness. 

 

<<<Just for your information, the examples that Sri Omkar Deshpande posted through the extracts from the discussions he held elsewhere were about ants crawling on the sand and accidentally created a sentence and about wind blowing across a mouth of a cave and creating sound matching the sound of a linguistic sentence. These arguments can be rebutted easily but i did not want to take up the discussion with Sri Omkar Dehspande since there was no agreement with respect to the method of discussion.>>>

I have not seen any such easy rebuttal 

Yes, I agree that there was no rebuttal because we did not proceed ahead with the discussion due to lack of agreement on the method to be employed in the discussion.

 

<<<They cannot use a method, namely Western formal logic, which does not have a means to get to the truth, to prove the truth of the proposition because Western formal logic has no means to prove truth; it can only preserve truth-vales from the premises to the conclusion.>>>

This applies only to deductive logic, not to inductive/abductive logic used in the sciences and social sciences. Just because scientific conclusions are not deductively proved (and hence lack absolute certainty) doesn't mean they are not good assumptions, as they do explain the data better than any competing hypothesis, and thus merit more serious consideration than any other hypothesis. 

That does not get over the difficulty I mentioned but merely makes it reappear in another form because the approach taken by science leads to what is called a ‘paradigm’. You would be aware that a paradigm is a set of theories consisting of an interpretive framework that is held together by its acceptance by the scientific community and that when a paradigm changes it leads to what is called the incommensurability problem because the judgmental criteria of the old and new paradigms may not be commensurable with each other. In other words, it would be problematic to use the judgmental criteria of one paradigm to pass judgment on the theories / doctrines of the other paradigm because the judgmental criteria of a paradigm would be theory laden with its own symbolic framework and a priori assumptions. Do you recall that in the Vadavali forum I would often draw you into a discussion on theory-ladenness whenever you would pitch the approach of science as being a superior or more reasonable approach? So, the problem remains.

 And regarding your contention that scientific theories explain data better than any competing hypothesis, I don’t think it is applicable to most topics of Vedanta inasmuch as they are not based on empirical theories which are derived from matching empirical data against hypotheses.   

 

<<<This is what I was always telling Sri Omkar but he was unable to understand what I was talking about.>>>

I could understand what Krishna Kadiri was talking about, and I could understand what Madhvacharya and Jayatirtha were writing about. So the issue wasn't with me I think.

Well then, let us say the issue was with the topic. :-) The topics that Krishna Kadiri and Madhvacharya and Jayathirtha were writing about were not topics of Philosophy of Science whereas the topics I wanted to discuss with you were primarily on the foundations of science which are dealt with in the Philosophy of Science. That was the issue.

  

Maybe you should invite Bhaskar prabhuji or someone else to paraphrase your explanations in their own words, as an exercise, and you'll see if I'm the only one who doesn't understand what you were talking about. 

If Bhaskar Prabhuji is familiar with Philosophy of Science and can undertake such a task, I would be most grateful to him. 😊

 

<<<Please understand that Western logic is divorced from epistemology and that the science of epistemology in the Western tradition is in doldrums because it cannot justify even the first pramaana or epistemological means, that is, perception or pratyaksha.>>>

In spite of Western scientific epistemology being in doldrums, Western science has been able to push forward our understanding of the universe by building on top of what earlier cultures knew, while in spite of Indian epistemology being perfect, the Puranas couldn't go beyond a flat earth (and the best that modern scholars can do is to retrofit modern findings into those Puranic texts, or worse, defend a flat earth). The disconnect is too much here.

Nobody is arguing here to use the Puranas for building theories on physics, so your argument is quite misplaced.

With regard to Western science, I agree that it has, in many areas, pushed forward our ability to provide explanations of the operations of the physical universe (this is something I had never disputed earlier nor do I dispute it now), but that does not give it the warrant to conduct investigations on topics that lie beyond the range of the senses. That is the first point. The second point is that it would be problematic to hold that the explanations given by science actually depict reality as it is; it is indeed argued by many philosophers of science that these explanations are only convenient devices to provide us with the ability to predict things rather than to say what reality is really like. It is a view known in the philosophy of science as Instrumentalism. Also, the data can often be explained from multiple theories, a problem known as under-determination. All these may be acceptable when the goal is merely to build theories that predict. But in the traditional topics that we discuss in Vedanta, the goal is to get to the truth (yathartha) wherein the meaning of the proposition must conform with the way reality actually is; and to aim for such a goal it is important to have a reliable epistemology. An epistemology in doldrums won’t work in Vedanta.

   

<<<But I hope to see you someday showing the same zeal towards not building up a pile of objections but in attempting instead to dismantle the objections. It would be nice to see you alongside me and other people here aiming against the weapons that the enemy is launching against us instead of seeing you stand in admiration of the formidable array of weapons the enemy is possessing.>>>

Enemy launching weapons? 

These words were meant for Bhaskar Parbhuji, the avowed Vedantin; they were not meant for you. By the word ‘enemy’ is meant the purva-paksha, the opponent in the debate, and not a blood-thirsty war mongering enemy! And by ‘weapon’ is meant an argument and not a poison-tipped arrow or an explosive-laden cruise missile!  So, please relax and don’t get worked up. 😊

 

Having said all this, let me say that it is nice to make contact with you again. The topics touched upon in this post will need more detailed discussions, so let us park them for now and relish our meeting instead. I remember those days in the Vadavali forum very much and irrespective of whether we agreed with each other or not, I think we had some good discussions there. I was actually looking forward to discuss many things with you on the other Google group which you had started later but I guess both of us got busy in other things. How is your Young Socratic site doing?

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste all,

Leaving aside arguments regarding the methodology to be adopted in the debate, are there any arguments for the pauruSheyatva of the Veda? If there are, I for one would be interested in understanding them.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1b1c32c5-20e2-42ef-9e07-59983a19a724n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji / Sri Omkar Prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 No, things have not really stood still in the last 10 years; much water has flowed since then and I don’t participate much on these forums nowadays. I came here a few days ago only because Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji mentioned some debate that he thought had taken place between you and me of this forum some 12 years ago and I wanted to provide a clarification on that.

• Yes that was really my bad, again my sincere apologies prabhuji. 

 Well, this accident seems to have coincided with Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji taking your email address from me with the promise that he would not get me involved in a discussion at this point in time. 😊

Ø     Yes that is the reason why without mentioning any names I just briefed Sri Omkar prabhuji in a private mail about the discussions in Advaitin group.  Perhaps this would have prompted him to have a look at group’s recent activities while on the other job. 

 

Perhaps it was fate that conspired behind my back to get me on this list again. 😊

• Sri Chitta prabhuji kindly note your participation was already started well before me asking you about Sri Omkar prabhuji’s e-mail Id.  Anyway it is not conspired or plotted OTOH I think it is god’s grace that we the members of Advaitin seen you back on the board and now with the scholars like Sri Omkar prabhuji.

Thanks for the clarification. Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji was under the impression that we had had a debate on the topic of apaurusheyatva of the Vedas on this forum and it was my primary intention in writing those words to remove the misapprehension that such a debate had taken place here.

• Clarified more than one time from you prabhuji and one more apology from my side for this misgiving to the group.

If the proof applies only to insiders, then it only means one has to already have faith (i.e, already be an insider) to accept the proof, which makes the whole point of a proof pointless? Why do you need to preach to the choir? 

No, that is not the right way of looking at things. You are basically saying this from the perspective of the Western tradition in which knowledge essentially means right knowledge. In the Indian tradition, knowledge may refer to right knowledge, wrong knowledge or knowledge containing traces of doubt. One of the objectives of these discussions is to remove doubts so that by the dispelling of doubts the knowledge may be brought to a state of steadiness. 

• Yes you said this somany times prabhuji, these clarifications are for the insiders those who are doubting the traditional stand with regard to this.  But question still remains is that :  can we also take up this issue with outsiders as well and defend this stand ?? 

 <<<They cannot use a method, namely Western formal logic, which does not have a means to get to the truth, to prove the truth of the proposition because Western formal logic has no means to prove truth; it can only preserve truth-vales from the premises to the conclusion.>>>

This applies only to deductive logic, not to inductive/abductive logic used in the sciences and social sciences. Just because scientific conclusions are not deductively proved (and hence lack absolute certainty) doesn't mean they are not good assumptions, as they do explain the data better than any competing hypothesis, and thus merit more serious consideration than any other hypothesis. 

That does not get over the difficulty I mentioned but merely makes it reappear in another form because the approach taken by science leads to what is called a ‘paradigm’. You would be aware that a paradigm is a set of theories consisting of an interpretive framework that is held together by its acceptance by the scientific community and that when a paradigm changes it leads to what is called the incommensurability problem because the judgmental criteria of the old and new paradigms may not be commensurable with each other. In other words, it would be problematic to use the judgmental criteria of one paradigm to pass judgment on the theories / doctrines of the other paradigm because the judgmental criteria of a paradigm would be theory laden with its own symbolic framework and a priori assumptions. Do you recall that in the Vadavali forum I would often draw you into a discussion on theory-ladenness whenever you would pitch the approach of science as being a superior or more reasonable approach? So, the problem remains.

• To both prabhuji-s (Sri Chitta prabhuji and Sri Omkar prabhuji)  arguments like above simply go over my head.  Can any one of you clarify me in simple layman terms what exactly you both trying to convey??   Yes I am hungry, you both serving me the Italian, Egyptian foods which I am not able to digest, with folded hands I am praying both of you to serve a simple idly-sambar, dosa-chutney, anna-sambar which is good for me 😊

 

 And regarding your contention that scientific theories explain data better than any competing hypothesis, I don’t think it is applicable to most topics of Vedanta inasmuch as they are not based on empirical theories which are derived from matching empirical data against hypotheses.   

• Dear Sri Omkar prabhuji, could you please clarify me can you defend your stand without taking any recourse to Western logic which is not permissible or acceptable to our tradition due to one or the other reason.    

Maybe you should invite Bhaskar prabhuji or someone else to paraphrase your explanations in their own words, as an exercise, and you'll see if I'm the only one who doesn't understand what you were talking about. 

If Bhaskar Prabhuji is familiar with Philosophy of Science and can undertake such a task, I would be most grateful to him. 😊

• That smiling emoji from Sri Chitta prabhuji is enough to say how Sri Omkar prabhuji’s choice of my name is so imprudent!! Prabhuji I am commerce graduate (with multiple attempts) so I am really an odd man in this abode of academics and intellectuals.  So, kindly spare me.
•  And I sincerely hope you both would continue to grace this podium for few more days. 

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

Yes that is the reason why without mentioning any names I just briefed Sri Omkar prabhuji in a private mail about the discussions in Advaitin group. 

 Oh yes, I am sure it was pure innocence on your part to do this even after I had told you that I did not wish to enter into any discussion on the forum at this point in time!

 

Sri Chitta prabhuji kindly note your participation was already started well before me asking you about Sri Omkar prabhuji’s e-mail Id.

My (recent) appearance here was only because of your message which you had posted here on Mar 2, 2024 at 10.07 am to which I was forced to issue a clarification. Later you took Sri Omkar’s email address from me with the promise that you would not do anything to get me involved in a discussion on this forum and yet you promptly informed Sri Omkar of the discussion happening here knowing quite well that it was likely to draw the two of us into a discussion. Let me be blunt here but I do not appreciate what you have been doing here. 

 

Yes you said this somany times prabhuji, these clarifications are for the insiders those who are doubting the traditional stand with regard to this.  But question still remains is that :  can we also take up this issue with outsiders as well and defend this stand ?? 

 I had provided an answer to this question 12 years ago when the discussion between me and Sri Omkar Deshpande was called off. You may find that answer in the concluding part of a post containing the Essay titled ‘The Question of Method’ from which I quote here below:

“It has been my endeavour in this post to show that there exists an almost unbridgeable gulf between contemporary science and traditional Indian philosophies and to underscore the fact that it would be a gargantuan task to conduct a dialogue between them. I do hope that I have been able to provide some justification for my actions when I insisted that we should follow the method advocated by the Vedic tradition, or at least abide by some minimum set of guidelines having common ground with the traditional epistemologies, when we discuss topics related to Vedanta. I do not of course rule out a full-fledged open debate between the Vedic tradition and science, but such a debate would have to be conducted in a setting in which the ground has been prepared beforehand for the debate to be meaningful. It cannot be done in a haphazard manner.”

The books I am writing are perhaps insignificant endeavours in the direction of preparing the ground for such a dialogue. They may be small drops in the ocean but let me assure you that I am not sitting idle. At the same time I do not want to enter into a dialogue when the ground is yet to be adequately prepared.  

 

And I sincerely hope you both would continue to grace this podium for few more days.  

No thank you. When I want to discuss with Sri Omkar, I will directly write to him asking for a discussion. I don’t need an intermediate agent to set up a discussion between me and him.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[putran M]

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

Leaving aside arguments regarding the methodology to be adopted in the debate, are there any arguments for the pauruSheyatva of the Veda? If there are, I for one would be interested in understanding them.

Part of his argument is here:

quote

my claim was that natural sounds (which are not authored by any person) will generally be meaningless, and even if by chance they produced sounds corresponding to meaningful sentences in a language, there is no reason to expect those sentences to be true propositions. So a text that has no personal author, even if such a text existed, would not be guaranteed to be flawless. If rebutting this requires a host of other flowery assumptions that effectively make one an insider first (as opposed to plain common sense that is shared by the dvaitin and Charvaka), then it defeats the purpose of the whole discussion on apauruSheyatva, which is supposed to be the starting point. 

unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmHo2k26GRA3OuVrjn%3D%3Dx_n5099KGBsxkfN1yQeVvzByA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Putran ji,

Thank you. I think what you have copied below is still a claim, not an argument. However even as a claim it does not prove pauruSheyatva.

What is a natural sound? Whatever it may be, the apauruSheyatva of the Vedas is not on the basis of Vedic sounds being natural - rather it is on the basis of the sound sequence of any Vedic utterance not being independent of a like sound sequence before it, unlike a pauruSheya sentence, which at some point, will have to be a sound sequence independent of any sound sequence before it. That being the case, there can be comprehensible meaning to a Vedic sentence.

Bringing in the validity or otherwise of the Vedas is a bit beside the point when trying to determine if the Vedas are apauruSheya or not. One is not claiming that the validity of the Vedas confers it with apauruSheyatva. Rather, one is claiming that Vedic sounds, being not the product of any creator, are not susceptible to the flaws of the creator. 

That being the case, when the meaning of Vedic sentences is comprehended, that comprehension is not justifiably accompanied by a doubt regarding their validity on account of their creator's flaws. The import of the Vedas is also not falsified by any other valid means of knowledge - that being the case, there is no basis for a subsequent invalidation of that import either. 

Thus, as there is no justification to falsify the import of the Veda, either when it arises or following its examination, one is compelled to admit its validity. This is the doctrine of svatah prAmANya - true until proven otherwise. That has no bearing on whether the Vedas are apauruSheya. Rather, it is the other way around.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q1awadkuVon4hwwfoCBzDpnaepSSCttnZeDc_SXao6YQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• I wonder nowadays you are running out of patience very often 😊 Anyway I have to clarify  you certain things.

  Oh yes, I am sure it was pure innocence on your part to do this even after I had told you that I did not wish to enter into any discussion on the forum at this point in time!

• I asked you about Sri Omkar prabhuji and I only briefed him about group activities, yes that is true.  And I have not dragged your name in that mail that is also true because I know you donot want to get into discussion with him though you are spending lot of time with me and others with regard to the same issue and openly offered me the debate as well 😊   But briefing him about the group activities does not mean you have to shoulder the responsibility to reply him as you are not the only person who is talking and defending this issue you have easily avoided him as he has not written his  mail directly to you but to the group.  Yes it is again true that in that mail he has addressed you, but you could have bluntly told him you are not interested!!  It is your choice whether to respond to him or any other member.  No one is compelling you to strain yourself to participate in the discussion with whom you donot want to enter into a discussion since decades 😊.  Please note again when I briefed him about group activities I expected other interested members also would participate and IMHO you are not the sole representative of this stand and you are not the official spokesperson on this subject to take all the pains on your head.  So prabhuji kindly don’t think I framed and cunningly forced you into this discussion though I will be the most happiest person if you chose to discuss this with me or Sri Omkar prabhuji or any one else. 

 

Sri Chitta prabhuji kindly note your participation was already started well before me asking you about Sri Omkar prabhuji’s e-mail Id.

My (recent) appearance here was only because of your message which you had posted here on Mar 2, 2024 at 10.07 am to which I was forced to issue a clarification. Later you took Sri Omkar’s email address from me with the promise that you would not do anything to get me involved in a discussion on this forum and yet you promptly informed Sri Omkar of the discussion happening here knowing quite well that it was likely to draw the two of us into a discussion.

Ø     Prabhuji, kindly let me know despite your decision not to discuss this with him, are you so tempted to jump into the discussion just coz. he said something in the group?? I promptly informed him about the discussion expecting his participation but not definitely with you and ONLY with you and it is not of his interest either.  This he himself clarified in one of his private mails, “I donot want to discuss this with him on 1:1 basis as he is not going to convince me nor I am going to convince him” So participation / mail in the group not for your personal attention but to the group.  Being one of the moderators you can curb this also if you donot want any member to entertain him in this group.  So still ball is in your court only prabhuji 😊

Let me be blunt here but I do not appreciate what you have been doing here. 

• You are free to have your opinion on me prabhuji.  As always I respect it. 

 

Yes you said this somany times prabhuji, these clarifications are for the insiders those who are doubting the traditional stand with regard to this.  But question still remains is that :  can we also take up this issue with outsiders as well and defend this stand ?? 

 I had provided an answer to this question 12 years ago when the discussion between me and Sri Omkar Deshpande was called off. You may find that answer in the concluding part of a post containing the Essay titled ‘The Question of Method’ from which I quote here below:

 

“It has been my endeavour in this post to show that there exists an almost unbridgeable gulf between contemporary science and traditional Indian philosophies and to underscore the fact that it would be a gargantuan task to conduct a dialogue between them. I do hope that I have been able to provide some justification for my actions when I insisted that we should follow the method advocated by the Vedic tradition, or at least abide by some minimum set of guidelines having common ground with the traditional epistemologies, when we discuss topics related to Vedanta. I do not of course rule out a full-fledged open debate between the Vedic tradition and science, but such a debate would have to be conducted in a setting in which the ground has been prepared beforehand for the debate to be meaningful. It cannot be done in a haphazard manner.”

The books I am writing are perhaps insignificant endeavours in the direction of preparing the ground for such a dialogue. They may be small drops in the ocean but let me assure you that I am not sitting idle. At the same time I do not want to enter into a dialogue when the ground is yet to be adequately prepared.  

• Thanks prabhuji.  With this may I understand ground is not yet set for the meaningful discussion between contemporary science and vedic philosophy / tradition ?? 

 

And I sincerely hope you both would continue to grace this podium for few more days.  

No thank you. When I want to discuss with Sri Omkar, I will directly write to him asking for a discussion. I don’t need an intermediate agent to set up a discussion between me and him.

• Very harsh 😊 I take it as a friendly banter prabhuji.  But you can always keep in mind that this intermediate agent is not expecting any commission nor doing this agent work with any selfish motive but eager to see the debate between two ‘samAna skanda-s’ and learn from it.  Anyway it is clear now that it is not going to happen in near future.

[Chittaranjan Naik]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

And I have not dragged your name in that mail that is also true because I know you donot want to get into discussion with him though you are spending lot of time with me and others with regard to the same issue and openly offered me the debate as well 

I have been spending a lot of time with you because you are pulling me into the discussion by repeatedly asking me a number of questions in spite of me telling you that I do not want to get involved in any discussion at this stage on account of being busy in other activities. You must learn to respect a person's privacy, especially when it is explicitly stated. And please do not misrepresent facts by saying that I have openly offered to debate with you; I have not done any such thing in the recent past and have been constrained to take part in this discussion only because you are not letting me go.   

No one is compelling you to strain yourself to participate in the discussion...

You are right. Perhaps the compulsion to do so was felt because of the need to be polite by not ignoring the other person when he is speaking to you but it is time to take your advice now and ignore the rest of your message. 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji

Hare krishna

 

I have been spending a lot of time with you because you are pulling me into the discussion by repeatedly asking me a number of questions in spite of me telling you that I do not want to get involved in any discussion at this stage on account of being busy in other activities.

 

• I am always indebted to it prabhuji, my humble praNAms to you.  That really shows your affection to me. 

 

You must learn to respect a person's privacy, especially when it is explicitly stated.

 

• There is an idiom in Kannada : eradu kai seridare chappale, we need both hands to clap.  If one hand is busy and straightaway reluctant to clap another hand would have not forced to have the sound of clap 😊 The encouraging signs always a temptations here. 

 

And please do not misrepresent facts by saying that I have openly offered to debate with you; I have not done any such thing in the recent past and have been constrained to take part in this discussion only because you are not letting me go.   

 

Ø     In one of .your recent mails you said : you bring your points let us debate on it…Anyway unlike you I don’t have great memory nor have any patience to pick that statement from your mails.  Perhaps your good self can help me out what exactly you said about it with date and time 😊

 

No one is compelling you to strain yourself to participate in the discussion...

 

You are right. Perhaps the compulsion to do so was felt because of the need to be polite by not ignoring the other person when he is speaking to you but it is time to take your advice now and ignore the rest of your message. 

 

Ø     You are welcome to take your decision prabhuji, who am I to stop it!!??  Thanks for your patience and time.   I have some doubts about anupalabdhi pramANa and its applicability in veda’s apaurusheyatva.  And I will write about it in group, please don’t bother to strain yourself by replying it as I very humbly and painfully letting you to move out of this discussion. 

[prattipa...@yahoo.com]

Interesting.

Needs more penetration in the following to reach  the  WORD VEDA:

1. INTELLECT-BORN-KNOWLEDGE

2.PRAZNA GHANA

3.CHIDAKAASHA

On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 10:24:25 AM GMT+5:30, Chittaranjan Naik <chit...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan-ji,

I had a query related to another objection raised by Koenraad Elst and people of his ilk and I thought I would ask you about it in this thread in which you had provided some very good arguments to counter Koenrad Elst's rebuttal of Veda apaurusheyatva. Actually it is a question posed to me in a private mail by someone and I was unable to reply to it as it required a knowledge of Vedic grammar and Panininam grammar which I don't possess, but since I am as  interested in obtaining an answer to the question as the person who posed the question to me is, I thought I would forward it to you. 

The question is this: People like Koenraad Elst and Srikant Talageri say that the Veda is not apaurusheya by providing examples of the Sanskrit found in Rg Veda being at variance with the Yajur Veda Sanskrit found in Panininan grammar. This, according to them, is evidence that the Veda has changed over time and that it is not apaurusheya. Can you please throw some light on this phenomenon and and also on how, according to you, the Vedic tradition would respond to such an objection?

With thanks in advance.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 9:36:36 AM UTC+5:30 agni...@gmail.com wrote:

Namaste,

 

Someone recently had shared with me for my comments, a facebook article that referred to Koenraad Elst's rebuttal of apauruShyetva of the veda. 

The facebook article is here:

(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02hyqN6immK6tc3NpiLFCsQkHp372H3zmDuUHwcCvxaBRMQLUUqpn5iBmqQBghrGo3l&id=100008111554860&mibextid=Nif5oz) 

I had initially sent a version of the below email in a personal correspondence. Thought it would be useful to share it with the group as it may be of interest.

*******

The facebook article does not appear to have any arguments, rather there are only assertions. What is the proof given for pauruSheyatva? 

The term apauruSheya means that the words of the veda were not composed by a human being by understanding the meaning through other sources of knowledge - ie it is not a case of artham buddhvA shabda rachanA. The words were received in a never ending line of guru shiShya-s and even the RShis associated with each mantra are not held to have composed it, they are simply mantra draShTa-s , not mantra kartA-s.

In fact, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtras of Jaimini itself claim that Vedic words are eternal - unlike the claim made in the FB article, it is not Kumarila Bhatta who came up with apauruSheyatva to support him in his argument with the Buddhists, it was stated by the sUtrakAra himself.  

For example, the pUrvamImAmsa sUtra - AkhyA pravachanAt (1.1.30) - holds that the names of the RShis associated with a rescension are not because they composed it, it is because those RShis expounded on the vedic rescensions.

The sUtra - parantu shrutisAmAnyamAtram (1.1.31) - holds that proper names in the Vedas are not names of people, there are common nouns and any similarity is only a similarity of sounds (some examples will be shown below).

Thus the writer of the FB article is mistaken when he says that Kumarila Bhatta invented the apauruSheyatva of the Veda to support his intellectual battle with the Buddhists - this idea is mentioned in the sUtra-s by Jaimini itself.

The writer of the FB article says that words of battle in the veda can be interpreted as a report of a battle witnessed. And cites the consonance of the words of the Zend Avesta with Vedic arthavAda passages to make the claim that both the Vedas and the Avesta are reporting an event. Because they are reporting an event, the Vedas cannot be eternal and apauruSheya as alleged by the Hindus. However that is merely an interpretation, not proof. 

1) According to us, the arthavAda occurring in the Vedas is not a news report. That is, the rishi is not recording an event that he heard of and / or saw, rather, he is recording the words themselves. The reference to the ten kings battling is also dubious - The mantras related to this supposed battle occur in the seventh maNDala of the rigveda, attributed to vasiShTha RShi. Scholars allege that the plausible tribes that battled were the Purus, Yadu / Yaksu , Matsyas, Druhyus, Pakthas, Bhalanas, Alinas, Vishanins, Sivas, Vaikarna, and Anu.

--
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/28142ee2-b7e8-4ed0-976d-f1cbfbf88e7fn%40googlegroups.com.