[Advaita-l] vedic yajna

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

My absolute last contribution to this thread.

> Namaste Sri Sarma and Sri Vidyasankara
> 
> You have got the wrong picture of this discussion thread.> 

Absolutely not. I have understood your picture perfectly well and showed
you where it goes wrong.
> The simple point I have made is forget what Rishis did in the ancient
> times but follow Smrutis like Parashara Smruti meant for Kali Yuga.
> Sri Sriram gave a reference for beef prohibition from this Parashara
> Smruti. The people arguing with me say Sruti Vakya meaning will be the
> same in all Yugas and we have to take the direct meaning. I am saying
> we have to do revision of Sruti Vakya meaning depending on our

Thank you for stating this so clearly and explicitly. It proves that I have
very accurately depicted your views throughout. Now, please go to Sri
Mani Dravid Sastri, or to Swami Raghaveshwara Bharati or to Jagadguru
Sankaracharya Swami at Sringeri, Swami Bharati Tirtha, and ask them
if they agree that "we have to do revision of Sruti Vakya meaning...". 
And if any of these three Sishta-s named originally by you do agree with
you, please let us know. 
And please do not hide behind terms like direct meaning and indirect
meaning. You cite the direct meaning of the word aghniya as Sruti
support for your position. Thereby, you have just laid claim to a better
understanding of the entirety of Sruti than Adi SankarAcarya, the long
tradition of mImAMsA interpretation, practitioners of Srauta yajna-s
over the centuries, as also a whole host of dharmaSAstra writers. That
was the reason I called you a paNDitaM-manya and I will do so again.
> Question- Now you have seen how Dharma changes by Rishis. Do we not> follow the above Rishi's rule today? Do we say in ancient times ladies
> were very free to go with any man let them do the same now also?
> Similarly, Parashara has said Beef is prohibited in Kali Yuga should
> we not follow the rule? We should not refer ancient customs and follow
> them today.

By all means, follow the dharmaSAstras. Nobody, least of all me, says
that you should do otherwise. However, if you think that this means you
can pick some random ritual described in the veda and modify it in some
random manner that suits your understanding of dharma, NO, think again. 
In the example you cite, the tradition is very clear that it was Svetaketu
who modified and imposed restrictions on strIdharma and that we have
accepted it. No strI prior to his times was retroactively judged by the new
standard of dharma that he imposed. You are not claiming the same kind
of thing in your blase talk of meanings, revisions and substitutions. Your
understanding of the word aghniya is effectively saying that the past
practice of ritual sacrifice in a yajna was actually a-dharma even when
it was being done. Or else, you are saying that the past understanding
of dharma was badly tainted by an irreconcilable internal contradiction
between the "theory" and "practice". And finally, you are implicitly finding
fault even with the "theory", i.e. the words of the veda, and accusing it
of needlessly issuing contradictory mandates in different places. You may
not realize that you are making all these inevitable judgments about the
veda, but you are indeed.
Think about it, long and hard, very long and very hard, before responding
with a mere reiteration of your stance.
Vidyasankar