[Advaita-l] Svarita in RV and YV (was Re: SRI SUKTAM - Meaning)
Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)
vidyasankar.sundaresan at ge.com
Fri Feb 27 09:59:13 CST 2009
>Vishwam, What a qualified guru has taught is the correct method.
>The proof for the apaurusheyatva of the vedas, be it Rg veda or
>otherwise, is thatit has been known to be taught by a series of
>teachers in the same way (see Kumarilas arguments). So what
>svaram was taught by a guru is the correct svaram. All this
>comparsion to the Rg veda svarams are quite meaningless
>because it is a case of the Rg veda pot calling the yajur veda
Indeed, the correct method is what a qualified guru has taught,
but I don't think a comparison is meaningless. For one thing, it
aids comprehension and for another, we need both the pot
and the kettle, no matter whether each is black or white! To
dismiss a comparison completely is like throwing out all grammar
in favor of spoken language. It seems to me that grammar can
be a very good aid in learning to refine one's language usage,
but one should also learn the limits of the application of grammar.
To get back to Vishwam's original question, I don't think anyone
says that the current method of recitation is "not correct". To begin
with, there are many current methods of recitation, which are
distributed geographically. Each is "correct" within its frame of
reference. Rama was just pointing out that they are *different*
from what is described in the taittirIya prAtiSAkhya text and its
oldest available bhAshya. I stated that one can, to some extent,
re-adjust our interpretation of what these texts say, which would
fit current practice. Now, this may be an unnecessary retro-fitting
(I fully realize that), but then, the rules described in the written
prAtiSAkhya text do not override the practice of recitation.
The traditionally approved practice (SishTAcAra) is a sure
guide in case of doubt.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list