Origin of Vedas

[Guest guest]

Sri Narender Reddy garu and respected list members,

 

>To say that "Vedas are not apourusheya" is NASTHIK

>argument. Asthika is one who beleves in Vedas and a

>Nasthika is one who does not beleve in Vedas. Vedas

>are eternal.

 

My apologies for those who were concerned about my argument. I was not

trying to promote a nAstika opinion. I wish to submit that I am very much an

Astika. I am arguing from the pUrva mImAmsa point of view.

 

Nastikas bring up the apourusheya argument tongue in cheek, with the sole

objective of putting up various objections like how can the vedas be

expressed in words or recorded on palm leafs or how they can be spoken as

sabda pramANam etc. We can strike down these objections fairly easily. We

will not go into it for now, as there is no disagreement on this matter.

 

There is also no dispute re: the accounts from satvic puranas. But puranas

are not the only authority in Astika tradition. The vedic brahmaNas tell

different other stories how the vedas are born. We need to consider all the

stories to arrive at the truth.

 

>>Every deva such as varuNa/viSNu or every seer such as

>>vizvAmitra/vaSiStHa is capable of propounding vEdas.

 

>Devas are NOT capable of creating Vedas. Seers are NOT

>capable of creating Vedas. Visvamithra and other

>rushis simply recompiled or regrouped the Vedas. Even

>Srimad Vyasa Bhagavan only REGROUPED the Vedas.

 

If we read the original vedic works such as aitareya brAhmaNa we will see

that individual devas and Rsis are very much intricately involved in the

creation of the Rk and other verses down to the detail of individual

syllables. We can not rule out this evidence. I admit that the narrations of

aitareya brAHmaNa and purANas may appear to contradict, but there is

generally no such contradiction. The question whether devas and Rsis were

created first who then propounded the vedas (Rks etc) as explained in

brAhmaNa texts OR whether the veda was created first (as per purANas) is

like discussing whether chicken or egg was born first. The yajna was born

along with all its individual players at the same time from the paramAtma.

 

> >The literal meaning "vEdas are not made by puruSa" is

> >actually illogical and wrong. In this statement, the

> >vedic word puruSa is used in error inadvertantly.

>

>You and me are not qualified to pass comments on the

>correctness of Vedas as they are the governing rules

>of the universe.

 

Agreed. But we also have no right to minimalise the meaning of the word

puruSa as 'man' (opposite of 'stree' (woman)). pura means heart. puruSa is

the person in the heart, meaning brahman or universal soul. In aitereya

upaniSad it was said that, indra realises Himself as the being in His own

heart as 'puruSa'. So if we bring back the original meaning of the word

'puruSa' then the usage of the word 'puruSa' in 'apourusheya' becomes

literally disputable. I would like to know whether there is a scriptural

evidence for vedas being apourusheyas. Kindly let me know. The dispute here

is about the difference between the intent of the word puruSa between the

original vedic works and the later Astika traditions of the last 2000 years.

If you think I brought up a trivial issue we can close the matter.

 

>

> >We have puruSa sUktam, which describes vEda puruSa as

>

> >cosmic form of the universe and vEdas are described

>of >originating from puruSa. If vEdas are

>apouruSheyas, >then it leads to the defect that puruSa

>can not

> >speak out vEdas, thus invalidating puruSa sUktam.

>

>First, the purusasuktham referes to the supreme being.

>Vedas have never been described as originating from

>purusha, and there is no invalidation of purusa

>suktha. There is no contradiction among different

>parts our sastras.

 

Kindly check..

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-3.html

 

The verse 10 explains how vedas were born, when the deveas sacrificed with

the cosmic puruSa; so it implies definitely that devas, Rsis and puruSa

existed before sama and other vedas were born (!) It is implicitly

understood in verse 10 that puruSa is involved in creation of vedas, though

not alone by himself but in collaboration with the devas and Rsis. I am not

saying there is any contradiction among different parts of sastras, all I am

saying is at worst we will end up with a chicken-and-egg situation. But I

would still be interested in knowing what sastra has the word 'apourusheya'.

 

Regards

Bhadraiah

 

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx