[Advaita-l] manyu-sUktaM - as per dvaita siddhAnta

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Srinath Vedagarbha wrote:

> I'm afraid it is not that easy to reject such views as 'apramANa' unless
> you reject away whole bunch of pramANas as apramANa.

...

> It is Dvaita siddhAnta's stand that a purely conventional application
> (rudyArtha) of all names would not be competent to achieve the true
> significance of 'sarva-shabda-samanvaya' in Brahman as sUtrakAra demands. 
> This can be achieved only when applied words are charged with the deep
> meaning supported by (or hidden elsewhere in) shAstra texts.  Knowledge so
> generated from such application is exactly what is being termed as
> "para-vidya".

I'm not arguing that one should go by conventional meanings only but 
rather who is capable of determining "esoteric" meanings?

Shankaracharya in several places invokes the authority of sampradayavids. 
For instance in the introduxtion to chhandogyopaniShadbhAShya he states 
that his commentary is only a restatement of an earlier one.  (Anandagiri 
supplies the name of Dravidacharya as that earlier commentator.)  On the 
other hand there were several previous interpreters of aupanishadic 
thought such as Bhartrprapancha whose interpretations were rejected as not 
being according to sampradaya.  Thus we see that for Shankaracharya having 
an opinion on some Vedic text was not enough to be accepted, it had to 
follow a "tradition" of interpretation with specific principles.

Not long ago Shri Subrahmanian shared some articles he wrote which 
demonstrate that the tatparya of such vakyas as you mentioned is to 
establish the oneness and supremacy of Nirguna Brahman not a saguna 
svarupa.  That can be considered a guiding principle for higher 
interpretation.  Does Dhirendra Tirtha follow this principle?  He does 
not.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>