[Prev][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
In article <ghenE1GF9B.D1@netcom.com>, Sourav <sourav@hotmail.com> wrote:
>1) How does Dvaita justify the apaurusheyatva of Shruti (or whatever shruti
>it claims whose apaurusheyatva can be justified at present) vis-a-vis the
>claim of unauthoredness made by any other party (not necessarily under the
>vedic fold) of some text popular within its circle?
This matter has been beaten to death in another forum, and I regret I
cannot take it up here, because I do not really have the time to have
the same discussion in two places. Also, most people on this
newsgroup interested in this are already aware of the answers, due to
that other discussion. I can only point you to the URL:
http://www.eskimo.com/~dvaita/list/list_06/msg00106.html
for an answer to the specific point you raised.
If you need further clarification, perhaps it would be as well to
approach a scholar in the tradition.
>2) How does apaurusheyatva entail faultlessness ?
tatra vedasyApaurushheyatvena purushhadoshhanibandhanadoshhAbhAvAt.h,
kArANAbhAve cha kAryasya shaN^kitumashakyatvAt.h aprAmANyAbhAvo
nishchIyate | vedo nApramANAM, aprAmANyakAraNadoshhashUnyatvAt.h,
pratyaxAdivat.h | shabdadoshhAshcha purushhadoshhAdhInAH,
tadanvayavyatirekAnuvidhAyitvAt.h |
-- etc. This also has been covered elsewhere.
>Is there an English translation of "pramANa lakSaNam" ?
No.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>-Sourav
--
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
