[Advaita-l] Shruti prAmANya and jnAna

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:38 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Praveen-ji,
> >
> >  But my question was how do you substantiate lack of
> > apAmANya when it was said vedAs are also kalpita (by a single chaitanya)
> > along with entire jagat advaita system? Isn't it kalpita equivalent to
> > authored?
> >
>
> We must first know what is meant when we say a text is 'authored,
> pauruṣeya'.  When a person composes a work there is this process: artham
> buddhvā śabda rachanā. He knows the meaning of the words he intends to
> write and then arranges the words.  For example the works composed by
> Kālidāsa, etc. Then alone it can be called pauruṣeya, authored. The Veda is
> not admitted to be such a composition by Advaitins when they hold the Veda
> to be part of the kalpita prapancha. They hold the Veda to be product of
> mantra draṣṭā-s and collectively brought forth at the beginning of every
> creation.
>

That all make sense if such creation cycle are accepted as really real. But
you know when you deny creation itself (ajAti vAda) then there is no
validity for apourushEya vAda.

When you already know this dvandva-jagat is due to  avidya, by implication
we already know vEdas (and all other texts) are equally avidyamaya. Why
call vEda is pramA janaka? why introduce yet another dvaita of  apourusEya
vs. pourushEya ?

Same example -- when snake appearance is already known to be illusory, does
it matter snake is aadishESha (vEda) or takShaka (Bible/Quron etc)?


/sv