Historicity & eternity
The element of personal authorship in the वेदमन्त्र-s, where the words of a mantra are directly relevant and meaningful to the immediate context of the ऋषि who visualizes it from within, does not contradict the pre-existence or eternity (if you will) of the वेद.
An example to understand: Tradition clearly tells us that विश्वामित्र “saw” a particular सूक्त when attempting to cross the confluence of 2 rivers (RV 3.33 “प्र पर्व̍तानाम् उश̱ती…”). He addresses the rivers with a particular intention in real time.
This need not & does NOT negate the fact that RV 3.33 predates विश्वामित्र. Just as ईश्वर exists here within time & without, so too the वेद exists both within time (& can thus acquire legitimate historical meaning) & without (& thus refers to things beyond time) simultaneously. Thus, historical contexts as described in tradition will never contradict any theological framework within which you want to place the वेद, whether you want to claim that it is अपौरुषेय & thus eternal, or that it is the first creation of ईश्वर and thus predates all else. Any such contradiction is purely in your head and your own inability to view things without contradiction.
Thus, the वेद can be simultaneously an expression of a human’s (albeit exalted) real-time praise of the देव-s & the देव-s’ revelation.
Imagination
Eternal (or simply pre-cosmic) existence of Veda is not at all mutually exclusive with the idea of different layers of the Veda “manifesting” in historical time at different points as part of an evolutionary trajectory, with the latter idea having a clear basis in at least four Paurāņika accounts.
The only traditionalists who are incapable of seeing non-contradiction in this are those who have taken up a Vrata to be completely unimaginative.
There is also no contradiction between eternal/pre-cosmic existence of Veda in Īśvara’s mind & the very human aspect of authorial input/creative inspiration behind a Vedamantra.
Think about a Deva and his Avatāra. The Avatāra is taught to be eternal. Every phase of the Avatāra’s life (as child, as grown man, etc) eternally exists in a sublime form even before this cosmos came into existence, and way before the earthly parents of the Avatāra were born. Apply same logic to Veda.
Unfortunately, those who can talk for hours about eternity of Sāketaloka or Goloka or the eternity of forms which we only know from stories set on this earth—they are unable to imagine even this and might even get upset at this.
There is no need to change the end-conclusions (eternal existence of Veda or pre-cosmic existence if you are a Siddhāntī or the like) but you can always update the arguments to reach those same end-conclusions.
Throughout history, different teachers came up with different arguments to explain or defend the exact same point of belief. Your obstinate refusal to even hear out someone coming up with a different explanation for the same belief doesn’t make you pious. It just makes you an agent of ossification.
Revelation times
Source: TW
However, Veda being anādi/apaurușeya (for you & other Vedāntīs) does not mean that the seeing of the Veda by a Rși is also anādi.
By way of analogy:
Deva’s rūpas (including rūpas of its avatāras) are all anādi
But when an avatāra itself takes birth on earth, there is a time for it.
Likewise.
- There are express references to order of sūktas in the Veda itself: “Viśvāmitra saw these sūktas, Vāmadeva ran off with them; Viśvāmitra then saw new ones in place of those he had lost”—Aitareya
Commentaries on Veda also testify to the seeing of the Śruti at a particular point in time: “When Sudās replaced his purohita Viśvāmitra with Vasișțha, Viśvāmitra then saw this sūkta to beat the dullness that had been caused in him by Vasișțha’s son Śakti”. From the genealogical records of the Purāņas, we know that Sudās was a king of Uttara Pañcala and therefore the above ‘seeing’ also happened in real time after a certain incident.
There is nothing wrong in holding that different parts of the Śruti were seen at different points in time. In fact, to disagree would render certain, rather plain statements in the Śruti useless. Of course, you have the option of proclaiming all those stories “arthavāda” but that is just a view and not everyone is obliged to agree with it.
deva-s not narcissistic
And no, the fact of it being the देव-s’ revelation does not make the देव-s narcissistic. Why so? For reasons twofold:
- i. It can only be narcissistic self praise if it is an act of communication, where the conveyance of the meaning (i.e. praise) is of primary importance to the deity. But no; it is the sonic quality of the मन्त्र that predominates. What is being transmitted or revealed by the देव to the ऋषि is primarily a set of sounds, that happens to be meaningful and relevant to the ऋषि’s immediate context.
-
- The deity’s identity with the मन्त्र praising him. The deity is not praising himself. He is merely revealing himself. The वेद itself makes this clear. From शतपथ-ब्राह्मण 6th Kaṇḍa, 5th Adhyāya, 1st Brāhmaṇa, 2nd Kaṇḍikā. This idea is also beautifully described in this article by @blog_supplement.
Decided to do the above thread real quick as neither traditional scholars nor the likes of those with sympathies for Hindu dharma are going to move forward with their rigid thinking.
Phonic shifts
core bits are nitya, historical bits are not.
seems (more) reasonable. Else no allowance for kalpa-bheda, corruptions, phonic shifts etc..
Source: TW
Every variation with phonic shifts also exists in him and is received by the Rși at the appropriate time.
If Īśvara is omniscient & omnipresent, then one should have no problem believing that every infinitesimal evolutionary step of every language existed in Him before manifesting in historical time at the appropriate moment. And one should have no problem that certain forms & registers in the evolutionary trajectory of Sam̐skṛta were blessed by Him to become, in the course of history, repositories of mantras with divine meanings.
There is randomness as a fundamental part of the universe - by the Ishvara’s design. So, every small thing can’t be predetermined - even by Ishvara. Else no “free will” as well.
All I am saying is that the whole set of combinations of words, their dialect variants (ļ -> D in RV->YV), etc all exist in Ishvara (whether nitya or simply purAtana). He causes the appropriate words to be received by a specific RSi as per the RSi’s freewill, capability, inborn knack for words, etc. There is nothing to contradict freewill here.
Proving
Source: TW
- Firstly, the old preoccupation with “proving”, born of insecurity, has to be abandoned. Theological claims can be shown to be internally cogent in their larger framework; they cannot be “proven” like evidence-based claims. No matter how good the arguments are, it remains that claims such as apaurușeyatva cannot be “proven” in the strict sense of the term. No, “Veda’s authors are not rememebred” is not a credible argument, let alone “proof” for apaurușeyatva, as the Śaivāgama correctly points out.
Once this need to “prove” is set aside, efforts can be freed up for building meaningful theological meta-narratives, allied closely to the praxis that should validate these narratives and the theological claims underpinning those narratives.
- This leads us to the importance of distinguishing between theological and non-theological claims. “Veda is unauthored and co-eternal with Īśvara” or “Veda is authored by Īśvara and predates creation” are theological claims.
“Veda was revealed at different points in time” or “Veda makes references to historical figures” are not theological claims but non-theological claims meant to be evaluated through evidence and inference. Non-theological claims do not affect theological claims and vice-versa.
The inability to distinguish these leads to fantastic (and characteristically needless) apologia for traditional positions—all this achieves is the erosion of confidence in the merit and excellence of traditional scholarship.
- Once theological claims are properly distinguished from non-theological ones, the art of building the bigger picture—the metanarrative that stitches together the positions on both types of claims in a single framework—comes to the foray. There can be multiple attempts at this from multiple vantage points. While thinking outside the box cannot be taught, a good student of tradition should keep an open mind and study as wide a body of texts as possible and keep himself inspired. For me, the profound Śaiva theology on mantras offers an excellent supply of raw material to inspire a robust theology on issues such as the status of Śruti. The Paurāņika accounts of the evolution of the Vaidika canon are extremely helpful as well.