[correct vs. apaurushEya]

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Kasturi Varadarajan,

I read your mail regarding Veda as authority. I think you are little

confused with the order in logic. The veda cannot be taken as autority

based on its correctness alone. Its apporusheyatva (unauthored nature)

is the aspect which confirms its correctness. Further, it is without

begining-middle-end. It is Annadi (without begining). The

Un-Veda cannot be argued as it is not present and its existence is

not a reality. To state the qualities of the Veda, it has

1.Apporusheyatva

2.Aanaaditva

3.Swayam Artha Pratipaadana Sakhi (It has capacity to impart its

meaning by itself)

4.Nirdhoshatva (Without any fault/mistakes)

5.Swata-Praamaanya (By virtue it is authority)

For better understanding, I suggest you reading of Raamaanujaa's

Vedaartha Samgraha regarding this. Even in the Poorva Meemaamsaa,

Jaimini has established these aspects for the Veda.

Thanks &; Regards

M.S.HARI

============================================================

Kasturi Varadarajan wrote:

Dear friends,

 

I had the impression that visistAdvaita philisophy (and vedAnta in general)

seem to rest, among other things, on two premises:

 

1. The veda is apaurushEya (un-authored and beginningless), and

2. The veda is correct.

 

But it appears to me that the first premise is redundant. For is it not

possible that there exists a similar body (say un-veda) which is also

apaurushEya (un-authored and beginningless) but completely incorrect? So the

fact that something is apaurushEya says nothing about its correctness.

 

On the other hand the second premise, that the veda is correct, is

in itself sufficient justification for it to serve as pramANa. So only

the second premise is needed to develop the philisophy.

 

Please note:

 

a. I have not argued that the veda is not apaurushEya, but only that this

premise is not strictly necessary.

 

b. I have not said that such a thing as the un-veda exists, but only that

its existence cannot be denied a-priori.

 

c. My main question is whether my impression is incorrect. That is, is

there some important tenet of visistAdvaita for which the first

premise is necessary and the second is not sufficient.

 

d. In a debate between a vedAntin and a non-vedAntin, the first might

say `Look, veda is more authoritative than your scripture because veda is

apaurushEya'. I don't think such an arguement has any power when

the non-vedAntin is anyway not going to accept the veda as authority.

e. I have a good reason for trying to make this arguement and I'm not

being flippant. Also no offence is meant. Please tolerate these views

as coming from one who basically believes in visistAdvaita but is

trying to undertsand it.

 

krishNArpaNam

Kasturi

 

 

- SrImate raamaanujaaya namaH -

To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list (AT) eGroups (DOT) com

Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information

eGroups.com Home: bhakti-list

www. - Simplifying group communications

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com

[Guest guest]

In response to my remark/query:

>

> I had the impression that visistAdvaita philisophy (and vedAnta in genera=

> l)

> seem to rest, among other things, on two premises:

>

> 1. The veda is apaurushEya (un-authored and beginningless), and

> 2. The veda is correct.

>

> But it appears to me that the first premise is redundant.

 

Srimans Hari and Mani have very appropriately pointed out that the

correctness of the veda by itself is not sufficient to establish

its validity as a pramANa; its apaurushEyatva serves the purpose

of confirming its correctness.

 

I am grateful for this clarification.

 

krishNArpaNam

Kasturi