[Advaita-l] Re: [advaitin] Re: Origin of vedas

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

On 24/07/06, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Per the mImA.nsA shaastra, the names/personalities mentioned in vedas
> have no historical connection. As per Sri Mahasannidhaanam, if the
> names and incidents happen to correspond with any historical incidents
> from the itihaasas/puraaNas it is purely coincidental. So the list of
> "realized" people can only be taken as arthavaada or an
> advice/injuction to strive for realization.
>
> Sri Shankara strictly adheres to mImA.nsA rules when it does not
> contradict advaita. So he interprets itihaasas and puraaNas in the
> same upanishad to mean the *un-historical* inclidents related in the
> vedas itself and not as the usual puraaNas or itihaasas. Of course
> Sureshvara thinks this is durukta and states so in the vaartika. He
> interprtes the passage to mean the usual puraaNas and itihaasas. But
> it seems most advaitins follow Shankaras opinion on this matter.
>

So how are the itihAsa-purANa interpreted? Would an incident like SrI
hanumAn jumping over the ocean be interpreted as "historical"? Is
there any difference between the status of the itihAsa and the purAna
in this matter?

Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya says that the itihAsa-purANa
is "part history and part poetry", though I haven't yet come across
any detailed explanation of this view.

Ramesh