[Advaita-l] veda is eternal implies jnAnI returns as a seeker ?

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 13:44, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. The Veda mantras are infinite in number - I do indeed remember reading
> in
> one of the granthas. I do not remember where. But there is this interesting
> para from the website of the kAnchi-kAmakoti peetham,
> http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap12.htm
>
> "If the cosmos of sound (sabda-prapanca) enfolds all creation and what is
> beyond it, it must naturally be immensely vast. However voluminous the
> Vedas
> are, one might wonder whether it would be right to claim that they embrace
> all activities of the universe. "Anantah vai Vedah", the Vedas themselves
> proclaim so (the Vedas are endless). We cannot claim that all the Vedas
> have
> been revealed to the seers. Only about a thousand sakhas or recensions
> belonging to the four Vedas have been revealed to them. "
>

OK. I saw. It also says:
Brahma, the Creator, alone knows the Vedas in their entirety.

Now,
We know that we are not as capable as brahma. So, brahma gave different
shAkhAs to different R^iShis. I don't have any cause to believe that he kept
some in his stock.
If you say that shAkhAs are lost now. Then it's OK. Every one starting
shabara swAmI and pata~njali accepts it.

For ' anantA vai vedAH ' :
It occurs in taittirIya-brAhmaNam as :

 *bharadvAjo ha vai tribhirAyubhirbrahmacaryamuvAsa. taM ha jIrNaM sthaviraM
shayAnamindra upavrajyovAca. bharadvAja yat te caturtha(?)mAyurdadyAM kim
anena kuryA iti. brahmacaryamevAnena chreyamiti hovAca. taM ha
trIngirirUpAnaviGYAtAniva darshayA~ncakAra. teShAM haikaikasmAnmuShTimAdade.
sa hovAca bharadvAjetyAmantrya. vedA vA ete. anantA vai vedAH. etadvA
etaistribhirAyubhiranvavocathAH. atha ta itaradananUktameva.*

The context is to destroy shAstravAsanA and ego of bharadvAja - as
says*shrI-vidyAraNya
*. It can be done by saying that veda-s have many shAkhAs which are
impossible to study by a person. So, according to me the word vedAH means
shAkhA-s of veda-s.

Showing three mountains as three veda-s, clearly shows that veda-s are
three. Fixed in number.

You may say number of mantra-s is infinite. If one veda has infinite number,
then other will have no mantra at all.

Again showing mountains as heap of mantras clearly says that a few mantras
or shAkhA-s were studied by bharadvAja out of many-many(but not infinite)
mantras or shAkhA-s.

So, the meaning of veda is either mantra or shAkhA of veda-s and that is
very large, out of reach of study-capacity of a single man.

In jIvanmuktiviveka shrI-*vidyAraNya *doesn't make clear that what does it
mean.

I'd no access to sAyaNa-bhAShyam, so the reply delayed.
Now with grce of shri siva senani, I've found bhAShyam :
*सायणभाष्यम्*
ततः सर्ववेदाध्ययनकृतयत्नं तं भरद्वाजमुद्दिश्य सर्वाध्ययनस्याशक्यत्वं
बोधयितुमृग्यजुःसामवेदानां त्रायाणां स्वकीययोगसामर्थ्येन पर्वताकारत्वं
सम्पाद्य
So, three veda-s were shown as mountain. They were not infinite. Their names
are also given.
गिरित्रयरूपान्पूर्वमविज्ञातानेव वेदानस्मै दर्शयामास।
They were unknown to bharadvAja. It doesn't proves that they were not
revealed. At least Indra knew all. Human have limited knowledge, of one or a
few shAkhA-s. That is seen even today.
ततस्तेषां पर्वातानां मध्य एकैकस्मात्पर्वतान्मुष्टिना पांसूनाददे। आदायैवमुवाच
--  हे भहद्वाज, एते त्रयः पर्वता वेदा एव।
He says three mountains as veda-s, not infinite.
तत्रैकैकः पांसुरेको वेदः
Every particle of them was veda. It shows that he is referring mantras or
shAkhA-s as veda here.
तस्मादनन्ता वेदाः
These mantras or shAkhAs are numerous
तेषां मध्ये त्वमेतैस्त्रिभिरायुर्भिरेतन्मुष्टित्रयपरिमितं वेदजातं
गुरूपदेशमन्वधीतवान् असि।
Only one shAkhA(if one muShTi = one shAkhA) or a few shAkhA-s were studied
by bharadvAja in 300 years.
अथानन्तरं तवेतरद्वेदजातमनधीतमेव।
Rest shAkhA-s or mantra-s of veda were not studied by bharadvAja.
तस्मात्सर्वंवेदाध्ययनमशक्यमेव।
*
भट्टभास्करकृतं भाष्यम्
*
अथ कृत्स्नवेदाध्ययनस्य अशक्यतां दर्शयितुं गिरिरूपान् प्रशस्तान् पर्वतान्
वेदमयान्, प्रशंसायां रूपप्। त्रीन् त्रयीलक्षणानविज्ञातानिव अननुभूतपूर्वनिव
स्थितान् तं भरद्वाजं दर्शयामास। ‘अभिभवादिदृशोरात्मनेपद उपसङ्ख्यानम्’इति
वयनाद्व्यत्ययेन भरद्वाजस्य कर्मत्वम्। अथेन्द्रस्तेषां
वेदराशीनमेकदेशमेकैकस्माद्गिरेः मुष्टिना मुष्टिमात्रया आददे। आदाय च
भरद्वाजेति भहद्वाजमवधानार्थमामन्त्र्य इन्द्र उवाच – एतेगिरिस्थानीया
वेदराशयः। अनन्ताः खलु वेदाः, एतत्खलु मुष्टित्रयमात्रमेव एतैस्त्रिभिरायुर्भिः
अन्ववोचथाः गुरूपदेशमनु अधीतवानसि। अथ अनन्तरं तव इतरत् वेदजातं अननूक्तं
अनधीतमेव। तस्मात्सर्वान् वेदान् कोऽध्येप्यते ?
I will say this says almost same as previous.

Both of these are not clear about the word ananta.

Even if no one makes clear the meaning of word veda-s there, let us think of
it :

If vedA-s are ananta. It will make even our words veda. How ? because veda-s
are words. And if all possible words(including sentences) are veda, then
what I utter is veda too. (because anantA vai vedAH)

If you say that GYAnam is veda, then GYAnam of ghaTa, paTa, etc. will become
veda. (because anantA vai vedAH)

So, you have to accept that special set of words is veda. And that can not
be unlimited.
That's why I said that word vedAH means shAkhA-s of veda. Taking this
meaning will not contradict the context in anyway.

Can you shrI lalitAlAlita ji or someone else kindly tell me  what sAyana
> bhAShya says on this mantra - "ananto vai vedAH" and where if at all it
> occurs in the Veda.I am curious if someone else too has seen a similar
> quotation anywhere else. Maybe you or someone else can help me arrive at
> some conclusion about whether Veda-mantras are a definite finite number or
> they are infinite. Is there any way to show that they have to necessarily
> be
> finite in number ?


Just shown above.


> We cannot talk of the mantras existing today as the sum
> total of all mantras hitherto available.


True. No one says so. we accept that many shAkhAs are lost now.


> Moreover, in brahmasutra bhAShya,
> the name of pANiNi is brought in, in the following manner.
>

That's a different thing. Comparing with pANini proves Ishvara
adhikatraGYAnavAn and nothing more.
Q: If Ishvara has more knowledge than veda-s then it proves that veda-s are
more.
A: Surely not. One can not say that whatever pANini knew other than
vyAkaraNam is essentially vyAkaraNam. In the same way whatever Ishvara knows
is not essentially veda.
Moreover, I saw people using veda as divine or some type of knowledge.
That's wrong.
veda-s are specific words without puruSha as origin. Knowledge is produced
by them. They themselves are not knowledge.  Remember 'apauruSheyam vAkyam
vedaH'.

Moreover,
*yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha vyAkaraNadi
pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH kimu
vaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH*--- this bhAShyam only says that
origin of R^ik, etc. veda-s, i.e. Ishvara, has more knowledge than revealed
in veda-s. It doesn't say that Ishvara has more veda than revealed veda-s.

 2. Regarding the example of pANiNi, in shAstra-yonitvAt bhAShya, we see
> yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha vyAkaraNadi
> pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH
> kimuvaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH
>
> "whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
> particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
> the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
> what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara, this
> kaimUtika-nyAya is presented.)
>

Just replied above.


> The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
> noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knwoledge
> which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not freshly
> creating)
> the Vedas as we know them.
>

Not all knowledge which exists in Ishvara is veda.


> The next line also explains the **effortlessness** with which Ishvara
> manifested the Veda, (aprayatnenaiva - leela-nyAyena as the next line
> makes  clear) ensuring it is apaurusheya (not created but effortlessly
> breathed out , i.e., manifested and so  the word "nishvasitam" is used.)
>

it's OK.


> In the above, **more** seen in conjunction with ananto vai vedAH may
> support
> the idea that the Vedic mantras are infinite in number a small part of
> which
> was manifested at the beginning of this kalpa of creation.
>  However, sAyana bhAShya will have the last word on this.
>

I've cleared that anantA vai vedhAH and bhAShya-vacanam, both are not
showing any sign of unlimitedness of vedas.


> 3. The mImAmsakah did not have to deal with the quesiton of return of the
> jnAni in the next kalpa since for them sRShti has no kalpAnta pralaya as in
> Vedanta and the beginning of another fresh kalpa with the same characters
> does not arise for them.
>

Actually, they accepted it as abhyupagama and came near to vedAnta. Even
shloka-vArtikam has some hints about it.


> 4. Mithila, Magadha etc mentioned in the Veda have no connection whatsoever
> with places bearing their names in ancient or contemporary India ? Really ?
> (You have said "No, there is no connection" )
> We can say that the mantras mentioning Magadha, Mithila, Janaka etc
> pre-dated , existed before, any people or places which might have existed
> historically (coincidentally by kAkatAliya-nyAya).
>

Nothing different from my view is meant here, I think.
Otherwise, make clear so that I'll be able to reply.


> 5.  But then the following question arises - what if any is the role played
> by the mantradRShTR ? Did the mantradRShTR exist historically or not?
> If the mediation of mantradRShTR is not accepted there are some difficult
> questions which arise regarding the first manifestation of these mantras on
> Earth etc., which I will elaborate in a subsequent mail.
>

What is the meaning of mantra-draShTA ?
If you accept mediation of RiShis, it will prove that
svAdhyAya-adhyayanam(study of veda) is not anAdI. In that case it will be
impossible to prove them apauruSheya.
Moreover, mImAMsaka-s don't accept sarvaGYas or any other people with
reveletion-type knowledge. If you accept, you will have to accept
bauddha-matam as pramANam.