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

Srinath Vedagarbha svedagarbha at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 20:27:42 CDT 2015

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> >But yagna itself is not final purushArtha for any shades of vEdAntins
> >either.
> >As you already know, dvaitins hold three view -- aadi-bhoutika,
> >aadi-dhaivIka and adhyAtmika
> >Yajna-centric view is aadhi-dhavIka view. It does not mean that they
> negate
> >the phala granting powers of yajna deities, nor they look upon these
> >deities as useless or to avoid worship. After all,  Parabrahman has
> granted
> >such powers (of giving yajna phala etc ) to such deities and He is very
> >much vested in them. Who are we mortals to override it? Dvaitins do
> worship
> >all deities per dictum 'parivArayatha grahyaM, sarvottamatvya agrahyaM".
> >Where as adhyAtmika view of seeing these vEdic texts is altogether
> superior
> >one as the phala itself is of superior nature. That too, there exist
> >explicit niravakASha vAkyas which clearly establishes the source of such
> >powers to other yagna deities.
> A number of irrelevant points are being made above. There was no
> assertion made by anyone that a yajna-centric approach has to adopted
> for interpreting Vedantic texts.

But so called "yagna-centric view" was offered to deny/reject bhagvat para
artha for mantra/brAhmaNa parts of texts. It was rejected so on the basis
that such artha are apramANa.

> There is a long tradition, a
> saMpradAya, of interpreting the mantra and brAhmaNa portions of the
> Veda in a yajna-centric manner.

That's the very exact point I was contesting -- when we have niravakASha
vAkyas (such as 'vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH' etc.), which cannot be
interpreted in any other way, why did "tradition" treat mantra/brAhmaNa
parts differently? Aren't mantra/brAhmaNa part of vEda? Why dilute force of
Krishna's qualifier "sarvE"? Isn't gIta pramAna for those sampradAyavits?
The very division of spectrum of vEdic texts into karama-kAnDa and
jnyAna-kAnDa is artificial and apramANika. On one hand there is no sAdhaka
pramANa, and on the other there is shruti virOdha for such division.

One can accept pUpva-mImAmska's "tradition" in interpreting so, but again
there is no need for Ishvara for them either. But what is the excuse for

The earliest known commentator on the Rigveda, skanda svAmin (7th CE),
> as well as udgItha (7th CE) and VenkaTa mAdhava, just to name a few,
> have all followed the Yajna-centric approach in interpreting the
> mantra and brAhmaNa portions.
> These bhAShyakAras themselves were following the same sampradAya
> established by earlier bhAShyakAras.

But that itself does not make it pramANika.

> And the topic of current
> discussion is not about VedAnta but has to do with the mantra portion.

Current topic is about whether manyu sUkta is shrI narasiMha para or not
(sarva vaidIka shbda-s vAchyatva Parabrahma para or not in general). By
saying this discussion is not about vEdAnta, it implies a artificial line
being drawn between mantra/brAhmaNa part and Upanishadic part. Perhaps,
this may be due to literally interpreting "anta" in vEdAnta as "end"?

> Finally, to repeat the point I made earlier, in the context of a
> Yajna, there is no scope to establish a hierarchy (highest to lowest)
> among the Vedic deities.
Again,  gIta and other quoted shruti vAkya-s does not accept this position
on the force of "sarvE" , "sarvatra" etc, such adjuncts.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list