[Advaita-l] brahma sAkshAtkAra (was RE: Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.)

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> Bhaskar, to me it seems as if you always deliberately impute unnecessary 
> extra meanings
> to sentences like that quoted above and always bring in a negative 
> reference to nirvikalpa
> samAdhi.
> 
> > I dont know why you always see only negative intentions in my mails. I 
> dont blame you prabhuji for that, it is only my misfortune. I was just 
> trying to say vAkyArtha jnAna or vedAnta vAkya janita jnAna is enough for 
> the samyak jnAna & there is no interval between the jnAna & sAkshAtkAra as 
> such and mOksha is ajnAna nivrutti only and not a special & afresh 
> 'darshana' of ever existing Atman. 

I see negative and positive intentions in the mails of a bunch of people, including
me no doubt, but I feel free to express a response to you! It has nothing to do with
misfortune.
 
My point was that this is not necessarily pertinent in a thread on apaurusheyatva of
the veda. I can see now that this is an outcome of a misunderstanding of what this
concept means for pramANatva of the veda.
 
It seems to me that your doubts about how the Rshi-s saw the veda and how that
makes the veda apaurusheya are directly in conflict with your stance that there is
no interval between vedAnta vAkya janita jnAna and sAkshAtkAra as such. For the
vAkya janita jnAna to be pramA, the vAkya itself, including its wording have to be
accepted as pramA in the first place. In order to accept the vAkya as pramA in and
of itself, not subject to verification by pratyaksha and other means of knowing, you
have to grant that the veda is pramANa because it is apaurusheya. But that is exactly
what you seem to have a problem with!
 
Anyway, enough of this digression for me. I will get back to the apaurusheyatva
thread to address some of the very pertinent points made by Sri Omkar Deshpande
and then your points about svara-s and intonation in Rg and yajur veda-s.
 
Regards,
Vidyasankar