@Tezz I just found a really interesting passage in Kumarila Bhatta's Tantra Vartika. The context is that there's a statement in the Vedas that says "You should wash the vessel used in the Jyotishtima Yagna." And the question arises whether the intention of the sentence is that you should only watch one vessel, since it says "the vessel", or whether you should wash all the vessels.

@KeshavSrinivasan haha.. and so what should one do..?..

@Tezz No, that's not the interesting part.

@Tezz But then the Purvapakshin raises an objection, how can you even speak about the intention of a Vedic sentence? If you're dealing with a work composed by humans, then you can talk about the intention of the author of that work. But since the Vedas are authorless, how can you talk about the intention behind a Vedic sentence?

@KeshavSrinivasan so.. what does he say?...

@Tezz Kumarila Bhatta responds it's true that the Vedas are authorless, but we can still speak about the intentions behind a Vedic sentence. That's because we can speak about the intention of the soul of the Vedas. He says that all the Vedas together make up Sabda Brahman, and the soul of Sabda Brahman is Paramatma: gdurl.com/vUSi

@KeshavSrinivasan oh so.. Mimamsakas also believe in Shabda Brahman...

@Tezz Yeah, this is the first time I've seen a Mimamsaka connect the Vedas to Brahman. The Purva Mimamsa school firmly believed that Brahman is not the author of the Vedas.

@KeshavSrinivasan but still it doesn't mean that Brahman is the author of the Vedas...

@Tezz Yeah, Kumarila Bhatta definitely did not think that Brahman was the author of the Vedas. Elsewhere in his works he specifically refutes that idea.

@KeshavSrinivasan what argument does he gives to prove Brahman can't be the author of the Vedas?...

@Tezz Well, one argument he gives is that it's impossible for any being, even Brahman, to have the knowledge needed to compose the Vedas.

@Tezz In any case, even the Vedanta school doesn't think that Brahman is the author of the Vedas. The Vedas constitute the eternal breath of Brahman.

@KeshavSrinivasan he means anyone can't be fully omniscient...

@Tezz Yes, he makes a very detailed argument that no being can be omniscient.

@KeshavSrinivasan haha... what argument does he makes.. It would be interesting to read... can you give me that part...?..

@Tezz Yes, it's in the Shloka Vartika, let me find it.

Ok..

Here:

ia601403.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/15/…

ia601403.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/15/…

@Tezz He says that any scriptural passage that says that Brahman is omniscient is just Arthavada, haha

@Tezz Oh, it starts one page earlier: ia601403.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/15/…

@KeshavSrinivasan Thank You for above (images)...

@KeshavSrinivasan Does he ever talk that why do Vedas emphasize on Arthavada.. ?...

@SwiftPushkar Whenever you find any unanswered question that you think may/can be answered, then feel free to discuss that question. our main chat-room remains silent mostly (or used rarely), So, How about discussing unanswered questions on here? /cc To all active, knowledgeable and experienced users!