१-१-१ इ॒षे त्वा॒र्जेत्वा १- १ - २ य॒ज्ञस्य॑ घ॒षद॑सि १-१-३ शुन्ध॑ध्वं॒ दैव्या॑य॒ कर्म॑णे १-१-४ कर्मणे वां देवेभ्य॑ः १-१-५ दे॒वो व॑ सवि॒तोत्पु॑नातु॒ १-१-६ अव॑धूत॒ रक्षोऽव॑धूताः १-१-७ धृष्टि॑र॒सि॒ ब्रह्म॑ यच्छ १-१-८ संर्वपामि समापेः १-१-९ आद॑द॒ इन्द्र॑स्य॒ १-१-१० प्रत्यु॑ष्ट॒ रक्षः प्रत्यु॑ष्टाः १-१-११ कृष्णऽस्याखरेष्ठः १-१-१२ भुव॑न॒मसि॒ विप्र॑थस्व १-१-१३ वाज॑स्य॒ मा प्रसवेन

These 13 hymns (and much more), are ascribed to Prajāpatir̥ṣi. Who is Prajāpatir̥ṣi? Is there another name for them?

  • 'X is the Rishi of vaidika mantra Y' means that the mantra Y was first revealed before the world by the Rishi named X. It is not uncommon for Vaidika deities themselves to be the revealers of some Vaidika mantras, which might be even addressed to their own selves. If the Rishi of a particular mantra is Prajapati, then it means that the mantra was not revealed by any human, it was passed on to the rishis by the deity Prajapati himself. And Prajapati is a title of Brahma.
    – অনু
    Commented Apr 7, 2023 at 13:00
  • 1
    N.B Revealing something before the world is not the same as creating it. For example, when we say that Newton revealed gravity to the world, it doesn't means that Newton created gravity or gravity didn't exist before Newton found it out. Similarly, revelation through human medium doesn't affects the apaurasheyatva of the Veda.
    – অনু
    Commented Apr 7, 2023 at 13:09
  • @অনু The post-vedic Apāuruṣeyatvá argument that you are citing is just a laughable attempt of mental gymnastics by proponents of Mīmān̐sa to increase their faith in the Véda, by stating that EVERY single proper noun is a common noun. There is no mention of Apāuruṣeyatvá in the Mantra–Brāhmaṇa.
    – Savitr̥
    Commented Apr 7, 2023 at 13:18
  • Apaurasheyatva of the Veda is an established fact within all Hindu sampradayas. To challenge it is akin to blasphemy. Besides, your logic sounds to the Sola scriptura doctrine of Christians.
    – অনু
    Commented Apr 7, 2023 at 13:36
  • 1
    There is no problem in being inquisitive. However, as you have pointed out, apaurusheyatva of the Veda is deeply rooted in Purva-Mimamsa - an important branch of āstika theology, & was a crucial postulation which aided panditas of Purva-Mimamsa, Nyaya & Vedanta of the past to purge Mādhyamaka heresy out of Indian theological discourse. To question it, would be a grave insult to the effort of those Acharyas & would open doors for proselytization by non-Hindus. Even extremely deviant forms like the Brahmo Samaj (Hinduised Unitarianism) & Arya Samaj (Hinduised Lutheranism) don't doubt on it.
    – অনু
    Commented Apr 7, 2023 at 15:17


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .