[Advaita-l] Fwd: A tale from the shatapatha brAhmaNa
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Aug 12 22:30:44 EDT 2017
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Venkateswaran N E <venkatne2011 at gmail.com>
Date: 2017-08-12 23:24 GMT+05:30
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A tale from the shatapatha brAhmaNa
To: Subrahmanian V <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Thank you Subbuji, for your detailed response, which amply addressed my
On 12-Aug-2017 10:38 PM, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Venkateswaran N E <venkatne2011 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> Dear Subbuji, pranams.
>> It's a well written article. Thanks to the author.
> I join you in thanking the author.Please see my reply to your question at
> the end.
>> 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, purANa, etc.
>> 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
>> internal contradiction.
>> 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 ?
> In the case of the above, we have to examine why we hold the sentences
> that talk of Siva as Isvara in shruti-smriti-purANas as pramANa.
> These are not just stories that call Siva as ISvara. If they were
> arthavAda like for example 'so'rOdIt...', the question of which story is
> prAmANika would be valid. On the other hand, the veda lays out vidhis
> prescribing upAsana of ISvara as Siva. It lays down the specific features
> of the upAsya devatA and steps of the upAsanA. The upAsaka does not have
> freedom to imagine these features or alter how the upAsanA is done. They
> have to follow the rules as laid down by scripture. Because they form part
> of upAsanA injunctions, the sentences that hold Siva as ISvara are very
> much pramANa.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list