Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[egodust]

Vidyasankar wrote:
>
> [...]  vedAnta,
>especially advaita vedAnta, denies that there is such a thing called
>apUrva.
>

Since purva or apurva imply impermanence, violating the advaitic standard
of reality: viz. That which, to be considered real, must be eternally so.
Of course OM TAT SAT isn't here today and gone tomorrow.  Clearly it must
even exist in pralaya, as well as manvantara--like relentless flowing oil.

>
>ISvara, i.e. saguNa brahman, is brought in to explain how the
>karma-phala is mediated to the one who performs the karma. The mImAm.sA
>objections to an ISvara, whose existence is inferred via the nyAya route
>is noted. vedAnta then denies that ISvara is inferred. As ISvara is
>nothing but saguNa brahman, and brahmavidyA, i.e. AtmavidyA, is obtained
>from the jnAna-kANDa of the Vedas, the ISvara that vedAntins talk of is
>known directly from the Vedas.
>

The infinite wisdom of the vedas is the product of saguna brahman Itself,
of which Isvara is also a relative adjunct.  It seems compelling that the
mulaprakrit [out of which vedas, Isvara, jiva, jagat, etc. have been
mysteriously projected], although representing the seed of action for
saguna brahman, is yet inherently temporal and therefore ultimately
inconsequential!  The whole purpose for it relates *exclusively* to the
path of yoga.  When the Other Shore has been reached, the Tathagata
Buddha--that esoteric advaitin!--tells us to use the raft for firewood!
(Intent here portrayed; not literally what He said of course.)


>
>Once this saguNa brahman is accepted as
>the one who mediates karma-phala, there is no harm in saying that brahman
>is also the one who gives the Vedas to humans. This is supported by
>upanishad statements where rudra or nArAyaNa is described as the one
>who gave the Vedas to hiraNyagarbha at the beginning of creation.
>

Did you mean to say 'saguna brahman'?
                     ^^^^^^

>
>(rudra is mentioned in the SvetASvatara and nArAyaNa in the mahAnArAyaNa
>upanishads, as "yo brahmANam vidadhAti pUrvam, yo vai vedAm.Sca prahiNoti
>tasmai." Both upanishads are from the kr.shNa yajurveda.)
>

There seems to be some difference of opinion as to the import of Siva
(Rudra) and narayana, as to whether these names represent nirguna
brahman or are manifestations of Isvara.  Is there any sastric evidence
that supports one interpretation over the other?

>
>This is the advaita vedAnta position on the apaurusheyatvam of the Vedas.
>

Yes. It seems that not only humans but Isvara Himself couldn't have
either authored the vedas, simply because the entire sohamidam is nothing
more than a projection of saguna brahman.  Which begs the follow-up
question: If the Parabrahmam is paramarthika, what then is saguna brahman
a projection of?  The only conceivable answer is moksha itself(!), where
this question, and ALL others, morph smoothly/effortlessly into suddha chit
once and forever!

Namaskaar.