[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Veda

[Anand Hudli]

Bhaskar wrote:

>" it also holds as the pramANa for the lOkAteeta / indriyAteeta anubhava
like svargAdi lOka. But for this do we have to invariably tie apaurusheyatva
tag to veda-s prabhuji?? "

It is precisely to rule out any *possible* defect in the Veda, however
infinitesimally small that possibility may be, it has to be accepted as
apauruSheya. Any work created by a human would be open to at least the
possibility of some defect somewhere in the work. And such defects could
lead to an inconsistency. As the pUrva mImAMsA work mAnameyodaya says,
"duShTavaktR^ipraNItatvadoShaH shabde yadA syAt| tadA syAd vyabhichAro api
pauruSheyagirAM kvachit.h||"

Besides, the apauruSheyatva of the Veda is due to the fact that no one has,
at any time, remembered an author or authors of the Veda. It has always been
passed on to a disciple by a Guru where the Guru himself learnt it from his
Guru, and so on. It has always been like this and continues to be so. As the
pUrva mImAMsA work, mImAMsA nyAya prakAsha says, "vedasya adhyayanaM sarvaM
gurvadhyayanapUrvakam.h| vedAdhyayanasAmAnyAd adhunA adhyayanaM yathA||"

If the Veda is accepted as apauruSheya, then we must agree that it will have
no defect and that it will have no inconstancy, as the pUrva mImAMsA work
mAnameyodaya says, "apauruSheye vede puruShasparshasaMgataH| kalaMko na
vishaMkyeta tatkuto vyabhichAritA||"

>"anubhava-s like aNimAdi siddhi-s in ashtAnga yoga's, yOga shAstra/sUtra-s
which is paurusheya grantha is pramANa and we have accepted it & somany
other paurusheya grantha-s without any reservation is it not??"

However, in Shankara's bhAShya, he does not hesitate to disagree with
sAnkhya-yoga when it is in conflict with VedAnta. We can accept only what is
relevant. This is the difference. In the case of the Veda, we have to accept
it *in toto*, every bit of it.

Anand