[Advaita-l] A tale from the shatapatha brAhmaNa
Venkateswaran N E
venkatne2011 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 12 03:53:55 EDT 2017
Dear Subbuji, pranams.
It's a well written article. Thanks to the author.
I have one question regarding the criteria for classifying a Vedic
statement as prAmANya or arthavAda (specifically guNavAda, as in this case)
In the last paragraph before the summary :
" Coming to our context, that Siva is ISvara himself is repeated
in several places, across the sanAtana dharma canon - within the
veda itself (Sri rudram, mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad etc), itihAsa,
Therefore, if Siva/rudra was the subject matter of this section, and
we take the meaning of the arthavAda at face value, it would be
veda contradicting itself.
Therefore, we have to reinterpret this as a guNavAda, thereby
removing veda prAmANyam from this section and saving veda from
Therefore, if rudra is the subject of this section (he is not,
for reasons outlined above), this would be a case of guNavAda,
and there is no prAmANya for guNavAda. "
Now my question is, if there are contradicting sentences in Veda, how do
you decide which is prAmANya and which is guNavAda ?
For example if an opponent claims that the status of Rudra or Agni in
shatapatha brAhmaNa is prAmANya while the statements indicating Rudra as
Ishvara are guNavAda and hence not prAmANya, how does one respond ?
Is it based on the number of repetitions of a particular assertion, as the
above paragraph seem to indicate ?
On 12-Aug-2017 11:00 AM, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> A tale from the shatapatha brAhmaNa
> Please find below a mediafire link for an article written by my friend who
> does not want to be identified.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list