RE: apaurusheya
From the Bhakti List Archives
• May 13, 1998
Swami Dileepan and all other esteemed BhAgawatAs, || Srimate VedAnta RAmAnuja mahAdesikAya namah || Please accept my praNamams. Several interesting questions have been posted as follow-ups to an article I wrote in the "Religious experiences of others" thread. Several excellent answers have already been posted to those questions. This is my humble attempt at answering the questions. I have to admit, though, that there are within this group far more knowledgeable members who would be able to address the questions at hand in far more eloquent ways and with far greater sAstraic precision than I possibly can. Kindly view this attempt as that from a person who is learning rather than teaching. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Q. 1. Are the Vedas Apaureshaya? From what is presented here it seems that the claim to non-authorship of Vedas is based on the fact that the Vedas do not say that they are authored. All they say is that the Vedas were taught by the Lord to Brahma at the beginning of creation. But, do they say they were not authored? If not, what we have, at best, is unknown authorship, not no-authorship. In this situation, since our Lord was there without a second, and He taught the Vedas to Brahmma, it seems reasonable to assume the Lord to be author and unreasonable to assume no-authorship. Answer: Yes, Vedas are apaurusheya. Consider the following two prAmANic statements, one within the body of the Vedas and one outside it. a. The SvestAsvatara Upanishad says: || yo brahmANam vidadhAti poorvam yovai vedAnsca prahiNoti tasmai || which roughly means: "He, who created Brahma in the past, and who gifted him with the Vedas ..." This clearly implies that the ParamAtma gifted to Chaturmukha Brahma the Vedas which already existed. Hence a positive proof of the non-authorship of the Vedas. b. Sri Krishna says in 15.15 of the Bhagawad Geeta: vedaisca sarvaih aham eva vedyo | vedAntakrt vedavit eva ca aham || which roughly translates to: "All the Vedas speak about me and I am the ONLY (eva) one who knows all the Vedas." (Note: In the above statement, vedAntakrt does NOT mean creator of vedAnta, rather it means the giver of the fruits of the Vedas i.e. moksha. (Veda + antakrt).) In this context, not only does Krishna quote the Veda as an independent testimony to His supremacy and glory, but also says that He alone knows all the Vedas. It can be easily implied that at best he could have been its author. But then again, Krishna could easily have mentioned that he created the Vedas, since he has anyway taken the pains to tell Arjuna (and the whole world) that he knows all of the Vedas. So, an implied proof of the non-authorship of the Vedas. Now, consider the ChAndogya Upanishad statement sadeva soma idam-agra aaseet ekameva adviteeyam || ... which confirms that only "sat" existed in the beginning, alone and without a second. From this it might possibly be inferred that not even the sruthis existed in the beginning. This in turn might imply sruthi's personal origin. We should not just stop at this; rather, go the whole nine yards and ask: What about Nitya Vibhuti (Paramapadam) and Nitya SUris? The prefixes "Nitya" (or eternal) would have no meaning then. The same scriptures talk about an eternal halcyon heaven, and eternal angels who serve that Supreme. SwAmi Desikan resolves this matter by pointing out that the "idam" (=this) refers to the prakrti and prakrti-related creation. This is confirmed in other upanishadic passages as well. Since only prakrti is under consideration, the Nityas, Paramapada and the Sruthis do not fall into this realm. In conclusion, there is proof (both internal and external) that Veda is an independent pramANa of the Brahman, and that it is apaurusheya, and seeming contradictions to this theory can be easily resolved. It is not that its authorship is undeterminable, but that its authorship is non-existent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Q. 2. Why is apaurusheyam important? It is said that Apaurusheya gives us an independent affirmation of our Lord's supremacy. But why do we need independent affirmation? Can we not believe our Lord? After all, we have only His word for what the Vedas say. That is, we do not have any independent confirmation for what the Vedas are supposed to say. If we are to doubt His own words about His supremacy, we can also doubt His version of the Vedas. Answer. I am not sure of the original source of the following conversation, but this is apparently Sage BhattArya's symbolic depiction of God's unquenchable love towards the jeevAtma (I found this in the Holy Life of the AzhwArs and the DrAvida Saints by AlkoNdavalli GovindAcharya). Seems very topical. (Note in the dialogue God first quoting the Vedas as a pramANa for his claims. Only later does He refer to his own words (Geeta).) God: tvam mE || -- Thou art mine. Soul: aham mE || -- Nay, I am mine. God: kutah tat || -- How is that? Soul: tat api kutah || -- But, how is that (what Thou says)? God: idam vedamoolapramANAt || -- This is proved in the Veda. Soul: etat ca anAdi siddhAdanubhavavibhAti || -- That I am mine is proved by my own timeless enjoyment of myself. God: tarhi saakrosha eva || -- There is an objection to that. Soul: kvaakrosha kasya || -- Who objected and where is it? God: geetAdishu mama viditah || -- I have said it in the Geeta. Soul: kOtra saakshi || -- Any witnesses? God: sudheessyAt, hanta || -- Most certainly!!! the wise men. Soul: tvat pakshapAtee sa || -- But they are on Thine side. God: iti nrkalahe mrgyamadhyasthavattvam || -- O suspecting soul ! Let me swear: Thou art mine. Fabricated as this conversation may seem, it essentially is true in character of what the Parabrahman might speak if a soul did engage in this kind of one-on-one debate with Him. I would view myself as someone as much doubting in these divine claims as the "Soul" in the above conversation, if not more. So, for me, who is determined not to take anybody's word for what it means, neither the apaurusheyatvam stamp nor God's own words can make any impression. Now, there are better evolved species than myself, who might actually want a "second opinion," and are likely to believe an independent testimony of God's existence and Lordship. There, independent testimony has served its purpose. For a person more advanced in his relationship with God, all these matters mean precious little, for he knows fully well the very truth of God's existence and his relationship with Him. For such a person, j~nana has turned into bhakti. All he yearns for is communion with the Infinite. There is a lot of truth to what SwAmi Dileepan has said, and all that can be resolved from all this is that faith plays a very important role in our journey towards God realization. But the apaurusheyatva card is a very important one, since the Infinite cannot be perceived by our senses nor can He be inferred. So, where do we start our search for the Infinite? The only way is through the sAstras (sAstra yonitvAt as the Vedanta Sutras say). And, since we have accepted that the Brahman is beyond sensual perception and reason, how can we trust anybody's word, whose senses or reason (we might suspect) is the means for their testimony? The only option left is a pramANa that is not the work of a creator. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Q. 3. Is Apaurusheyam necessary for freedom from defects? It is also said that Apaureshayam guarantees freedom from defects. But if our Lord made the Vedas that also can guarantee freedom from defects, is it not. Then, it seems Apauresheyam is not necessary for a text to be free of defects. Thus Apauresheyam by itself cannot give superior status for our Vedas in comaprison to other texts. Answer: No, apaurusheyatvam is not necessary for a pramANa to be defect-free. Here is the equation: apaurusheya ==>(implies) defect-free testimony. This does NOT reduce to: not apaurusheya (= paurusheya) ==>(implies) defective testimony. Rather, it only means that defective testimony ==> (implies) paurusheya origin. So we conclude that a paurusheya text is not necessarily defective. Infact, the true import of the cryptic and at times allegorical statements of the upanishads is understood far more easily through the smritis, purANas and the itihAsas. Only through the blessed instructions of a spiritual preceptor (AchArya) will we be able to comprehend these vedic imports. And, this AchArya should be one among an unadulterated and unbroken lineage of preceptors, the first of which is Sriman NArAyaNa himself, because only then can we be assured of the unadulterated content of the knowledge. The sruthi is not superior because of its apaurusheya status, rather it is unique in its assurance of its defect-free character. It gives us a baseline for measuring somebody's testimony. And once the validity of that testimony is established, it has attained the same status of authority as the sruthi itself. Hope, this clarifies. I would request our extremely knowledgeable readership to view the above writing critically, but forgive me for errors. || Sarvam Sri KrishNarpaNamastu || || SarvAparAdhAn kshamasva || -- Adiyen Murali KadAmbi
- Next message: Krishna Susarla: "The Butter Thief"
- Previous message: VVijay236: "Anec.21&22 of Part I: Myths"
- Maybe in reply to: Parthasarati Dileepan: "apaurusheya"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]