apaurusheya

[Guest guest]

Dear members:

 

Sri Murali Rajagolan's post a few days ago was lucid and

informative. Please permit me to submit a few questions.

These are not meant as challenges. Please forgive me if

they seem so.

 

Are the Vedas Apaureshaya?

>From what is presented here it seems that the claim to

non-authorship of Vedas is based on the fact that the

Vedas do not say that they are authored. All they say

is that the Vedas were taught by the Lord to Brahma at

the beginning of creation. But, do they say they were

not authored? If not, what we have, at best, is unknown

authorship, not no-authorship. In this situation, since our

Lord was there without a second, and He taught the Vedas

to Brahmma, it seems reasonable to assume the Lord to

be author and unreasonable to assume no-authorship.

 

Why is Apaureshaya important?

It is said that Apaurusheya gives us an independent

affirmation of our Lord’s supremacy. But why do we

need independent affirmation? Can we not believe our

Lord? After all, we have only His word for what the

Vedas say. That is, we do not have any independent

confirmation for what the Vedas are supposed to say.

If we are to doubt His own words about His supremacy,

we can also doubt His version of the Vedas.

 

Is Apaurusheyam necessary for freedom from defects?

It is also said that Apaureshayam guarantees freedom

from defects. But if our Lord made the Vedas that also

can guarantee freedom from defects, is it not. Then,

it seems Apauresheyam is not necessary for a text

to be free of defects. Thus Apauresheyam by itself

cannot give superior status for our Vedas in comaprison

to other texts.

 

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dhasan

[Guest guest]

> It is said that Apaurusheya gives us an independent

> affirmation of our Lord^Rs supremacy. But why do we

> need independent affirmation? Can we not believe our

> Lord?

 

But how do we know who the Lord is? And whether He has

spoken at all, what form he takes, and what His nature

is? How do you know that *I* am not God and what *I* say

is not scripture?

 

This is where the Vedas, a preterpersonal, unoriginated

authority, come in. It is from the Vedas that we know

the first principle -- that there is an Absolute, that

there is God. From the Vedas, we know who God is, what

Its nature is, and what Its characteristics are.

 

Faith in someone's teachings can only go so far. How

do we know that that someone is God? Therefore, the

necessity of the Vedas as an absolute and preterpersonal

authority is established.

 

Realize that even Srimad Bhagavad Gita (the words of

the Lord) are only valid because they correspond to the

teachings of the Vedas. If the Gita disagreed with the

Vedas in any fundamental, irreconcilable way, we as

Vaidikas would be forced to toss out the Gita itself.

 

The consequences otherwise? We would have to follow the

teachings of anyone who is said to be an avatAra of God --

Buddha, Sai Baba, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

 

If God authored the Vedas, there would be a logical seesaw.

We rely on the Vedas as our authority for God, but we

rely on God as our authority for the Vedas. This is

untenable.

 

Therefore, the apaurusheyatva (preterpersonal) nature of

the Vedas is an absolute must for us, and is established

throughout the Vedic tradition including the writing of Ramanuja.

However, just because the Vedas are unauthored does not

mean that they are independent of God. They exist as the

very language of reality, rooted in God's essence. This

is why the Upanishad speaks of the Vedas as the very

"breath" of the Supreme Brahman (Reality).

 

namo vedapurushAya,

Mani

[Guest guest]

At 12:59 PM 5/9/1998 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>

 

Thank you for your answer. But in the absence of answers for

my other questions I am still not completely free of confusion.

> and is established

> throughout the Vedic tradition including the writing of Ramanuja.

 

I would like restate that I have complete faith in our sampradayam.

All I want to do is gain a better understanding. It would be nice to

have comprehensive answer all the questions.

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

Swami Dileepan and all other esteemed BhAgawatAs,

 

|| Srimate VedAnta RAmAnuja mahAdesikAya namah ||

 

Please accept my praNamams. Several interesting questions have been posted

as follow-ups to an article I wrote in the "Religious experiences of others"

thread. Several excellent answers have already been posted to those

questions. This is my humble attempt at answering the questions. I have to

admit, though, that there are within this group far more knowledgeable

members who would be able to address the questions at hand in far more

eloquent ways and with far greater sAstraic precision than I possibly can.

Kindly view this attempt as that from a person who is learning rather than

teaching.

 

----------

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

Q. 1. Are the Vedas Apaureshaya? From what is presented here it

seems that the claim to non-authorship of Vedas is based on the fact that

the Vedas do not say that they are authored. All they say is that the Vedas

were taught by the Lord to Brahma at the beginning of creation. But, do

they say they were not authored? If not, what we have, at best, is unknown

authorship, not no-authorship. In this situation, since our Lord was there

without a second, and He taught the Vedas to Brahmma, it seems reasonable to

assume the Lord to be author and unreasonable to assume no-authorship.

 

Answer:

Yes, Vedas are apaurusheya. Consider the following two prAmANic statements,

one within the body of the Vedas and one outside it.

 

a. The SvestAsvatara Upanishad says:

|| yo brahmANam vidadhAti poorvam yovai vedAnsca prahiNoti tasmai ||

which roughly means: "He, who created Brahma in the past, and who

gifted him with the Vedas ..."

This clearly implies that the ParamAtma gifted to Chaturmukha Brahma

the Vedas which already existed. Hence a positive proof of the

non-authorship of the Vedas.

 

b. Sri Krishna says in 15.15 of the Bhagawad Geeta:

vedaisca sarvaih aham eva vedyo |

vedAntakrt vedavit eva ca aham ||

 

which roughly translates to:

"All the Vedas speak about me and I am the ONLY (eva) one who knows

all the Vedas." (Note: In the above statement, vedAntakrt does NOT mean

creator of vedAnta, rather it means the giver of the fruits of the Vedas

i.e. moksha. (Veda + antakrt).) In this context, not only does Krishna

quote the Veda as an independent testimony to His supremacy and glory, but

also says that He alone knows all the Vedas. It can be easily implied that

at best he could have been its author. But then again, Krishna could easily

have mentioned that he created the Vedas, since he has anyway taken the

pains to tell Arjuna (and the whole world) that he knows all of the Vedas.

So, an implied proof of the non-authorship of the Vedas.

 

Now, consider the ChAndogya Upanishad statement

sadeva soma idam-agra aaseet ekameva adviteeyam || ...

which confirms that only "sat" existed in the beginning, alone and

without a second. From this it might possibly be inferred that not even the

sruthis existed in the beginning. This in turn might imply sruthi's

personal origin. We should not just stop at this; rather, go the whole

nine yards and ask: What about Nitya Vibhuti (Paramapadam) and Nitya SUris?

The prefixes "Nitya" (or eternal) would have no meaning then. The same

scriptures talk about an eternal halcyon heaven, and eternal angels who

serve that Supreme. SwAmi Desikan resolves this matter by pointing out that

the "idam" (=this) refers to the prakrti and prakrti-related creation. This

is confirmed in other upanishadic passages as well. Since only prakrti is

under consideration, the Nityas, Paramapada and the Sruthis do not fall into

this realm.

 

In conclusion, there is proof (both internal and external) that Veda is an

independent pramANa of the Brahman, and that it is apaurusheya, and seeming

contradictions to this theory can be easily resolved. It is not that its

authorship is undeterminable, but that its authorship is non-existent.

 

----------

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

Q. 2. Why is apaurusheyam important? It is said that Apaurusheya

gives us an independent affirmation of our Lord's supremacy. But why do we

need independent affirmation? Can we not believe our Lord? After all, we

have only His word for what the Vedas say. That is, we do not have any

independent confirmation for what the Vedas are supposed to say. If we are

to doubt His own words about His supremacy, we can also doubt His version of

the Vedas.

 

Answer.

I am not sure of the original source of the following conversation, but this

is apparently Sage BhattArya's symbolic depiction of God's unquenchable love

towards the jeevAtma (I found this in the Holy Life of the AzhwArs and the

DrAvida Saints by AlkoNdavalli GovindAcharya). Seems very topical. (Note

in the dialogue God first quoting the Vedas as a pramANa for his claims.

Only later does He refer to his own words (Geeta).)

 

God: tvam mE ||

-- Thou art mine.

Soul: aham mE ||

-- Nay, I am mine.

God: kutah tat ||

-- How is that?

Soul: tat api kutah ||

-- But, how is that (what Thou says)?

God: idam vedamoolapramANAt ||

-- This is proved in the Veda.

Soul: etat ca anAdi siddhAdanubhavavibhAti ||

-- That I am mine is proved by my own timeless

enjoyment of myself.

God: tarhi saakrosha eva ||

-- There is an objection to that.

Soul: kvaakrosha kasya ||

-- Who objected and where is it?

God: geetAdishu mama viditah ||

-- I have said it in the Geeta.

Soul: kOtra saakshi ||

-- Any witnesses?

God: sudheessyAt, hanta ||

-- Most certainly!!! the wise men.

Soul: tvat pakshapAtee sa ||

-- But they are on Thine side.

God: iti nrkalahe mrgyamadhyasthavattvam ||

-- O suspecting soul ! Let me swear: Thou art mine.

 

Fabricated as this conversation may seem, it essentially is true in

character of what the Parabrahman might speak if a soul did engage in this

kind of one-on-one debate with Him. I would view myself as someone as much

doubting in these divine claims as the "Soul" in the above conversation, if

not more. So, for me, who is determined not to take anybody's word for what

it means, neither the apaurusheyatvam stamp nor God's own words can make any

impression. Now, there are better evolved species than myself, who might

actually want a "second opinion," and are likely to believe an independent

testimony of God's existence and Lordship. There, independent testimony has

served its purpose. For a person more advanced in his relationship with

God, all these matters mean precious little, for he knows fully well the

very truth of God's existence and his relationship with Him. For such a

person, j~nana has turned into bhakti. All he yearns for is communion with

the Infinite.

 

There is a lot of truth to what SwAmi Dileepan has said, and all that can be

resolved from all this is that faith plays a very important role in our

journey towards God realization. But the apaurusheyatva card is a very

important one, since the Infinite cannot be perceived by our senses nor can

He be inferred. So, where do we start our search for the Infinite? The

only way is through the sAstras (sAstra yonitvAt as the Vedanta Sutras say).

And, since we have accepted that the Brahman is beyond sensual perception

and reason, how can we trust anybody's word, whose senses or reason (we

might suspect) is the means for their testimony? The only option left is a

pramANa that is not the work of a creator.

 

----------

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

Q. 3. Is Apaurusheyam necessary for freedom from defects? It is also

said that Apaureshayam guarantees freedom from defects. But if our Lord

made the Vedas that also can guarantee freedom from defects, is it not.

Then, it seems Apauresheyam is not necessary for a text to be free of

defects. Thus Apauresheyam by itself cannot give superior status for our

Vedas in comaprison to other texts.

 

Answer:

No, apaurusheyatvam is not necessary for a pramANa to be defect-free. Here

is the equation:

 

apaurusheya ==>(implies) defect-free testimony.

 

This does NOT reduce to:

not apaurusheya (= paurusheya) ==>(implies) defective

testimony.

 

Rather, it only means that

defective testimony ==> (implies) paurusheya origin.

 

So we conclude that a paurusheya text is not necessarily defective. Infact,

the true import of the cryptic and at times allegorical statements of the

upanishads is understood far more easily through the smritis, purANas and

the itihAsas. Only through the blessed instructions of a spiritual

preceptor (AchArya) will we be able to comprehend these vedic imports. And,

this AchArya should be one among an unadulterated and unbroken lineage of

preceptors, the first of which is Sriman NArAyaNa himself, because only then

can we be assured of the unadulterated content of the knowledge.

 

The sruthi is not superior because of its apaurusheya status, rather it is

unique in its assurance of its defect-free character. It gives us a

baseline for measuring somebody's testimony. And once the validity of that

testimony is established, it has attained the same status of authority as

the sruthi itself.

 

Hope, this clarifies. I would request our extremely knowledgeable

readership to view the above writing critically, but forgive me for errors.

 

|| Sarvam Sri KrishNarpaNamastu ||

|| SarvAparAdhAn kshamasva ||

 

-- Adiyen Murali KadAmbi