[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 23:33, Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:

> <<<I'll need exact words from bhAShyam of vyAsa or any other AchArya on
> yoga-sUtram to confirm it.>>>
>
> I will type up the explanation of Vachaspati Mishra on Sutra 1.6 (given in
> Edwin Bryant's book) when I find some time. According to that book, he is
> one of the commentators who takes the authority of scripture to be dependent
> on its truths being perceived by someone, ultimately Ishvara's pratyakSha
> (as opposed to being an authority independent of anyone's pratyakSha).


As you know shiva senani has done your work in another thread and I replied
too.
But for convenience I'm posting my answer here :

First, Vyasabhashya in Sanskrit, concerning the third pramANa mentioned in
1.7 namely "aagama":
आप्तेन दृष्टोऽनुमितो वार्थः परत्र स्वबोधसंक्रान्तये शब्देनोपदिश्यते ।
शब्दात्तदर्थविषया वृत्तिःश्रोतुरागमः । यस्याश्रद्धेयार्थो वक्ता न
दृष्टानुमितार्थः, स आगमः प्लवते । मूलवक्तरि तु दृष्टानुमितार्थे निर्विप्लवः
स्यात्।

And, then Vacaspati Misras TattvavaiSaaradee on the above bhashya, again in
Sanskrit:
आगमस्य वृत्तेर्लक्षणमाह – आप्तेनेति।तत्त्वदर्शनकारुण्यकरणपाटवाभिसम्बन्ध
आप्तिः, तया सह वर्तत इत्याप्तः, तेन दृष्टोऽनुमितो वार्थः। श्रुतस्य
पृथगनुपादनात्तस्य दृष्टानुमितमूलत्वेन ताभ्यामेव चरितार्थत्वात् ।
आप्तचित्तवर्तिज्ञानसदृशस्य ज्ञानस्य श्रोतृचित्ते समुत्पादः
स्वबोधसङ्क्रान्तिस्तस्यै । अर्थ उपदिश्यते श्रोतृहिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारोपायतया
प्रज्ञाप्यते । शेषं सुगमम् । यस्यागमस्याश्रद्धेयार्थो वक्ता, यथा 'यान्येव दश
दाडिमानि, तानि षडपूपा भविष्यन्ति' - इति, च, न दृष्टानुमितार्थः यथा 'चैत्यं
वन्देत स्वर्गकामः'- इति, स आगमः प्लवते । नन्वेवं मन्वादीनामप्यागमः प्लवेत ।
न हि तेऽपि दृष्टानुमितार्थाः। यथाहुः – “यः कश्चित्कस्यचिद्धर्मो मनुना
परिकीर्तितः। स सर्वोऽभिहितो वेदे सर्वज्ञानमयो हि सः।।" - इत्यत आह –
मूलवक्तरि त्विति । मूलवक्ता हि तत्रेश्वरो दृष्टानुमितार्थ इत्यर्थः ।। 7 ।।



As it is clear that :
shabda, anumAna, etc. depend on pratyaxa to take birth
and
shabda gains validity only when it is said by specific person who has
knowledge of things to be said by pratyxa or anumAna.
So, it appears that shabda gains validity from pratyaxa or anumANa - in
vAchaspati's view.

But, this will bring a well explained problem, i.e,
How did you know that Ishvara, who knows everything  which is said by words
called veda-s by pratyaxa, exist ?
From veda.
How could you say that veda-s, telling about truth, are valid ?
Because they were said by Ishvara.
So, interdependency will prove veda-s apramANa and Ishvara extinct.

Although, it appears as vAchaspati is telling pratyaxa, etc. of vaktA as
source of validity of shabda; the correct explanation is - it's
Apta-vaktA(vaktA equipped with pratyaxa, karuNA, etc.) who is cause of
validity. Both are almost same but not totally.  But, both are far away from
'pratyaxa, etc. are cause of validity of shabda'.

Another thing to see is that :
pratyaxa is of two types : pramA and bhrama.
You definitely will not say that shabda gains validity from pratyaxa-bhrama
of vaktA.
So, pratyaxa-pramA remains cause of validity of shabda.
Now the question is how do you determine that the pratyaxa which is basis of
validity of shabda was pramA ?
Definitely not because it is pratyaxa. I've already explained the cause.
So, if you are a true believer of vAchaspati you will never believe many or
any shabda, including that which tells that a specific lady is your mother.

Another objection for yogin-s who believe veda-s and Ishvara :
veda-s may be uttered by Ishvara but they were definitely not created by him
as say veda-s themselves : vAcA vIrUpanityayA, yo brahmANam vidadhAti
pUrvam, etc.
So, veda-s don't depend on a person, called Ishvara, who is just repeating
it .

If one (some scientist, etc.) says, we don't accept Ishvara and will like to
use theory of yogin-s only.
Then,
read above again 'Another thing to see is that : pratyaxa is of two types
.........'
and other things said elsewhere for proving that pratyaxa should not be
favored due to blind faith because it will lead you to wrong results.