[Advaita-l] vedic yajna

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 25 05:37:55 CST 2011


On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Venkatesh prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>>>  Yes, but theory (veda & smruti texts in this case) is what stand as
>> pramANa in karma/dharma jignAsa.
> This line of argument is faulty.
>>  No this is the declaration given by shankara bhagavat pAda himself in
> sUtra bhAshya.  In the dharma jignAsa, shruti/smruti is the only
> authority/pramANa.
> If only theory is known and practice
> is different from theory there is no use of this theory.
>>  It should be other way round prabhuji.  If something followed in
> practice without any base in shAstra than it will be of no use prabhuji.
One lecture I remember from Kutumba Sastry a learned scholar in
Sanskrit. He said even the sutra literature was the final point of the
experience in that field. Many times practice is there from the
beginning and theory comes afterwards. For rituals also the practice
comes first and theory afterwards.

> If theory is
> saying Madhuparka must have meat and practice is saying Madhuparka
> does not have meat it is clear practice is the winner of the contest.
>>  No, it is shAstra viruddha AcharaNa, if not,  then every 'new' practice
> would result in new theory which does not have any base in shAstra.
Yes Viruddha Acharana may happen but the original Acharana is correct
one. It will be preserved and practiced by the knowledgeable people.

> Adi Sankara may have studied Mimamsa theory but when practice is different
> we cannot take the theory words as direct meaning. We have to take
> indirect meaning to satisfy the practice. He said Bull Meat but in
> practice there is no Bull meat.
>>  If shAstra & Acharya both saying it is bull meat and practitioner has
> opted for some other alternative then definitely this substitute is
> shAstra nishedhita.  Because these alternatives have not been suggested by
> shAstra.  If there is any alternatives, shAstra would have definitely said
> that.  For example, in agnimukha (Apasthambha sUtra) shAstra itself
> suggests an alternative for brahma in the form of kUrcha (a knotted
> dharbha).
Shastra is saying in another place that is first Yajur Veda Mantra
"Ishe Tvorje" the cows Aghniya cannot be killed. Then how can Shastra
say eat Bull Meat in another place like Br Up. Are you saying cows
cannot be killed but bulls can be killed? This is meaningless.

> Also in practice we know to make son learned he must study hard. He will
> not become learned
> because his father ate meat and impregnated his mother.
>>  as per shAstra vachana eating meat is an additional requirement to get
> a sharp son..otherwise, shAstra would have said to become a learned
> scholar, the son has to study hard :-))
If studying hard makes him learned why is Shastra asking to eat meat?
If Shastra is giving results we can get from another source it will
have no authority.

> That Parakaya Pravesha incident was later than writing the Bhashya.
> But the Parakaya Pravesha proves experience is the best teacher.
>>  But mandana mishra a practitioner had happily agreed to engage himself
> in vAda with an inexperienced bAla sanyAsi without asking for any
> practical experience :-)) is it not??
Mandana Mishra argued with Adi Sankara on a different point. Is Veda
authority for Karma only or does it have authority for Jnana matters
also? The discussion was on Shastra only not practice. His wife was
asking for experience in sex matters.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list