[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Shree Rajaram and Shree Jaldhar Vyas - PraNams.
 
Shree Jaldhar 2+2 = 4 is based on axiomatic system of mathematics starting with basic axioms and building on it. It is purely self-consistent inferential system. And all axiomatic systems are not necessarily facts - see for example Godel's incompleteness theorm - Googling will provide you the info about these systems.
 
Shraddha is defined as - shaastraya guruvaakyasya satyabudhyavadhaaraNaa saa shraddhaa - says Sankara in VevekachuDAmaNi. - that what shastras say and the interpretation of them by the teacher are indeed true - without that faith - no knowledge will takes place - shraddhaavan labhate jnaanam. This is intrinsic nature of Shabda pramANa whether we agree or not. 
 
Shree Rajaram - in your earlier post also you mentioned that X certifying that y has realized. Frankly I do not think one can know that other is realized. One can know that other is not realized as in the example you gave that praaNa kosha is brahman or some objectifyable is brahman. Kenopanishad clearly says one who says I know Brahman - he does not know Brahman since it is not an object of knowledge. At the same time one cannot say I do not know Brahman since it does not come under list of unknowns too. It is beyond the knowns and unknowns. Yes we have contradictory statements by a student in the Upanishad who declares - I know - then recognizing that he may be misunderstood - he declares He does not know (since it is an not an object of knowledge) - then he realizes that he in fact understood the truth and then declares that Not that I do not know - all these because it is understanding of the substratum of subject, knower and the object, known. No
 words can reach there - na vaak gacchati. The only litmus test for realization is clear understanding of the fact that aham brahmaasmi and that understanding will reflect in terms of jnaanis actions and attitudes towards the vyavahaara - dukheshu anudvigna maanaaH, sukheshu vigata sphuraH, etc that Krishna gives as lakshanas for sthitaprajna. He will not get burned when he makes contact with the red-hot world of plurality since he understood they are all mithyaa. Others can infer based on the behavior of a mahaatma depending on the chitta suddhi of that person - that is not necesarily a proof but faith and can be misleading too since a mahaatma can be - yogaratovaa, bhogaratovaa, sangaratovaa sangavihiinaH.. Hence outward appearance can also be deceptive for others to know or not to know a mahaatma. Normally in his presence one can find mental peace, if the student has chitta Siddhi, the later being important factor even to feel that his teacher is
 realized. 
With this I rest since I have no further to contribute. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda
 


--- On Mon, 9/12/11, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:


someone on this list equated sraddha in vedas with that in other
systems of thought or religions. I wanted to point out that the
existence of heaven and hell cannot be verified while living but jivan
mukti can be. this is a non-trivial difference. the second major
difference is that you cannot get the commandments or quran revealed
to you. but you can access vedic knowledge without the aid of books or
formal teachings. there are contemporaries who have done that and been
kind enough to share their experience. totakacharya is a classic
example.

On 12/09/2011, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011, Omkar Deshpande wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, I do accept evolutionary theory, and my point was that
>> even if we set it aside, as long as we accept the earth had a finite
>> origin in the past (as people who accept modern science will say they
>> believe independent of any scripture), one will need to be explicit
>> about how the Vedas were first transmitted to the earth.
>
> Why?  All we need to know is the transmission occured.
>
> In popular culture we have many notions about the Rshis but the Mimamsakas
> themselves are silent on how or why the they "saw" mantras.  They did
> that's all.
>
>> This means that there is no fundamental
>> difference between accepting apauruSheyatva or accepting revelation in
>> some other specific way (as done in other traditions/religions) in terms
>> of the amount of faith needed.
>
> In theistic traditions (including "Hindu" ones like nyaya-vaisheshika as
> was pointed out.) _who_ does the revealing is of paramount importance.
> The key difference here is we don't particularly care.
>
> Maybe some primordial molecules combined to form more complex ones which
> began self-replicating which became bacteria which became plants which
> became animals which became mammals which became primates which became men
> who saw mantras.  It's as good an explanation as any.
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
_______________________________________________
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