[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 16:45, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Omkar Deshpande
> <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > Namaskara,
> >
> > <<<Correct. This is what parataH-prAmANyavAdin-s say.
> > But, mImAMsaka-s and vedAntin-s are svataH-prAmANyavAdin-s. So, there is
> no
> > need of guNa-s of puruSha to make words pramANa.>>>
> >
>
> On the aspect of 'guNa-s of puruSha are not taken care of while asserting
> apauruSheya', it can be seen that the Veda has for its subject matter the
> four puruShArtha-s that are relevant for the purusha, human.  So, despite
> being a-pauruSheya, it can and does address itself to the puruSha's
> 'artha',
> that which the human seeks/longs for/desires most, at one or the other
> stage/level in life.  Thus there is definitely the 'puruSha guNa' while at
> the same time there is no 'doSha' that could be attributed to a purusha.
> All schools based on the Veda/anta agree that Ishwara is 'guNa pUrNa and
> doSha-dUra.'  So, a Veda that comes from such an entity, where such an
> entity is the pratipAdya viShaya, ultimately, cannot have any doSha, being
> un-authored, and at the same time does not lack the 'guNa' that is
> beneficial for the puruSha. So, पुरुष-अनिर्मितत्वेन पुरुषकृतदोषासत्वे सति
> पुरुषार्थबोधकत्वेन पुरुषगुण-अवर्जितत्वं वेदस्य.
>

One more thing to make clear for all :
When we say 'veda-s are devoid of puruSha-guNa and puruSha-doSha' then we
mean that as there is no puruSha = a person who first used words without
depending on words of that category.
As kAlidAsa said 'sa rAjyaM guruNA dattam', etc. without hearing same words
from any other source. So he is said creator of that word in this specific
sense.
When we negate entry of puruSha, including Ishvara, in veda-s , we mean to
say that even Ishvara didn't say veda-s without hearing it. So, he is not
it's creator. And if he is not creator of veda-s , he can't affect authority
of veda-s positively or negatively because of his guNa or doSha.
If a pramANa word is uttered by a man of low character, it will not become
apramANa. You may have doubts because of vaktA, but it's innate nature,
prAmANyam, is never affected or destroyed. It is just barred.
In the same way, repeating veda-s by Ishvara or shUdra doesn't affect it's
validity.

No doubt that pratyaksha is essential even for the shabda to operate.


There are two types of words,i.e. shabda - pramANa-shabda and
apramANa-shabda.
For birth of both pratyaxa is needed when it's subject is something
pratyaxa.
So, you can't say that pratyaxa is also cause of prAmANya residing in
pramANa-shabda. Because, it is also cause of aprAmANya of apramANa-shabda. A
common cause of two opposite things is not counted as 'cause'. Otherwise,
taking breath will become cause of moxa.
So, pratyaxa is not needed for prAmANyam of shabda at all. It is needed for
birth of substratum of prAmANyam, i.e of shabda, that too in specific cases.