[Advaita-l] Logical Basis of Apaureshyatva

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Dear Shri Sadananda,

If shraddha alone is enough, then all faiths will be equally valid. As
differents faiths are mutually contradictory, none of them can be
considered true. Both Islam and Christianity, for example, assert they are
the only path. Both of them cannot be true. Or we have to take a position
that all faiths are valid for its followers. Then the question will be if
all the followers are equally qualified. If the answer is yes, then there
cannot be two faiths. If the answer is no, then all faiths cannot be equal.
Then we are again forced to grade faiths as relative truths. This counters
our original proposition stated above that all faiths are equally valid.

I do not know if you consider your position to be that of the traditional
acharyas. In my opinion, it is not the case. Our traditions have defended
the Veda Dharma with impenetrable fortress of logic. Specifically with
respect to apaureshyatva, it was defended with logic to deal with
objections raised at different points in time.

If you agree that my statements are logical and irrefutable, then you
cannot say that logic cannot be applied to defend apaureshyatva. If you say
that my statements are illogical, you have to show what is the flaw in the
logic. A mere assertion on your part will not dismiss the defense.

*There is a lot of work to do in this if I have to publish this as a
paper.  Once it is done, I hope schools in the US and Europe as well as
India teach Vedas are apuareshya instead of the current indological view
point. I hope that this discussion proceeds is in the right direction. *
**
Best Regards
Rajaram Venkataramani

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:56 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Shree Rajaram - PraNAms
>
> I must say, with due respects, that there is no logic in the arguments.
> Logic formally is based on having a dRishTanta for vyaapti.
> Apourusheyatvam is aloukikam; and it is suffice to say that
> apourusheyatvam is scripturally based and leave it with that. Any other
> proof is what is normally called self-fulfilling prophesy only, that is
> trying to prove what is already taken for granted.
>
> There is no need to defend Vedas - there is no need to defend any
> science. It provides its own defence since what is pointed is truth not
> some belief. For example Gravitational forces requires no defence from any
> body. Similarly I am conscious-existent entity and is non-negatable
> absolute truth is obvious form avathaatrayam analysis. It requires no
> defence.
>
> What is required is shraddha for a seeker to precede taking Vedas as
> working hypothesis and give up wrong notions about oneself. Faith is
> essential ingredient for any new knowledge to take place.  addhyatmika
> vidya is no exception.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
> --- On Sat, 11/5/11, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am of the opinion that veda apaureshyatva has to be defended from
> logical, historical, scriptural, philosophical, scientific and relgious
> perspective.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>