[Advaita-l] A Brief Introduction to pUrva mImAmsA - 6 (Mantras)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Yadu Moharir wrote:

> This dilemma what is important must have haunted our ancestors as well. 
> Just because the road is not easy does not work when it comes to 
> knowledge.  Everyone on us want to preserve our cultural heritage, but 
> how can we preserve it if we do not understand the associated meaning or 
> it's significance.  This is like a bad driver trying to teach everything 
> he knows to their kids and be proudly say - I taught him everything I 
> know!!?.
>
>
>
> diirghattamaa while praising veda he says comments -
>
>
>
> R^ico axare parame vyoman yasmin devaa adhi vish{}ve niSheduH . yastanna 
> veda kimR^icaa kariShyati ya ittad vidusta ime samaasate .. R^igveda. 
> 1.164.39 ..
>
>
>
> (liberal translation) Gods reside in vedic R^icaa.  But if one does not 
> understand their meaning then what is the use of such vead for him? 
> One who realizes this live together with understanding.
>
>
>
> Acharya in vivekachuDamaNI places importance on understanding the 
> meaning as well:
>
>
>
> arthasya nish{}chayo dR^ishhTo vichaareNa hitok{}titaH .
> na s{}naanena na daanena praaNaayamashatena vaa .. 13..
>
>
>
> Finally, it is up to us whether we wish to learn or remain contented 
> with "partial-understanding".  In this case we have really no right to 
> blame Maculley for giving us wrong knowledge by establishing the 
> education system that was suitable from Britishers.
>
>
>
> Recent discussions - "If sanyaasa is required for moxa" will always 
> remain in the cyber achieves of academic virtual reality.
>
>
>
> moxasya na hi vaaso.asti na graamantarameva . adnyaana 
> hR^idayagranthinaasho moxa iti smR^ita .. shivagiitaa 13.32 ..
>
>
>
> Meaning - moxa is not going from one place to another (Mumbai to Delhi 
> or vaiku.nTha) but the amputation of the glands that secrete ignorance.
>
>
>
> If we ask the question what is the # 1 reason for a project failure in 
> any industry, corporation or the Government, it is always communication 
> (Not understanding what was said).  This applies to vyavahaarikaa as 
> well as parmarthika as well.
>
>

I'm afraid you're still missing the point a little.  What do we mean by 
the word "meaning?"  Perhaps an analogy is in order.  A mistake in a 
computer program is called a bug.  This word has passed out of the narrow 
circle of computer scientists into popular parlance.  It is even found in 
dictionaries etc.  But why bug?  It seems in the early days of computing 
Grace Hopper, a pioneer in the field, had a problem in one of her programs 
she simply could not explain.  It turned out a moth (a literal "bug") had 
got into the computer and caused a short circuit which burned out one of 
the vacuum tubes (this was long before the invention of the silicon chip) 
and caused the malfunction.

Now this story is colorful and interesting and nice to know but do you 
agree it is not necessary to know it in order to talk meaningfully about 
computer bugs?  This is what our acharya were saying about the literal 
meaning of mantras.  It is not that one shouldn't know the literal 
meanings.  Acharyas such as Shayana, Uvata, Mahidhara, Haradatta, 
Skandaswami etc. have written bhashyas explaining the grammatical and 
etymological meanings of the Vedas.  It is just that this type of meaning 
takes a back seat to knowing the correct pronounciation, Rshi, Chanda, 
devata etc.  which is also meaningful in its own way.

No we should not be content with partial understanding.  We should ideally 
know _both_ the literal and the practical meanings of the mantras.  But in 
less than ideal situations, the practical is more important.

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