[Advaita-l] Mantra, Brahmana, Mimamsa and Vedanta (was RE: How to read puranas)

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

Namaste,

"The distinction between saMhitA and brAhmaNa is well established even prior to 
any pUrva mImAMsA analysis or interpretation of the veda texts."

Yes, not just samhita and brAhmaNa but even araNyaka was a well known 
classification by the time mImAMsa came, so my point is there is no reason for 
it to not explicitly use the classification given by sruti itself, unless *it 
does not consider that portion for its analysis as the apourusheya pramANa*. I 
do not know of any exclusive araNyaka portion (that does not overlap with 
brAhmaNa/samhita) used by mImAMsa in the sense of apourusheya. 


"Mantra (or saMhitA) vs. brAhmaNa (and/or AraNyaka) are content descriptors and 
should be clearly distinguished from the pUrva mImAMsA categories of vidhi and 
arthavAda. There can be arthavAda in both the mantra portions and the brAhmaNa 
or the AraNyaka portions. And vidhi-s are rarely found in the mantra portions of 
the veda. They are more often found in the brAhmaNa or AraNyaka portions."

Agreed. I did not mean to classify samhita-brahmana-aranyaka as 
mantra-vidhi/nishedha-arthavAda. 


"The sUrya namaskAra is a smArta karmA, not Srauta karmA."

Yes, and that is the point. Srauta karma has authority in samhita, brAhmaNa or 
srauta sUtras. I am not aware of any srauta karma that derives authority from 
Aranyaka portion alone. There are several smArta rituals that take namesake 
authority from araNyaka/upanishad. I am not at all questioning the validity of 
the ritual itself, only talking of whether karma mImAMsa is relevant there or 
not. 


Pl feel free to correct me if it is not so. 



Shankar

Vidyasankar Sundaresan svidyasankar at hotmail.com 
Wed Jun 15 10:40:32 CDT 2011 
________________________________
 
  Changing the subject line - I think a few clarifications are in order here.   
> "Brahmana is in its widest sense any part of shruti which is not mantra. " >  
> This makes sense, especially if we read significant parts of Aranyaka as  > 
arthavAda without attaching it to the guna/artha karma. However the  > 
classification of Aranyaka predates mImAmsa and there is no reason why the  > 
entire non-samhita must be treated as brAhmana.  >  >  > The question is whether 
mImAmsa cares for anything that is arthavAda for the  > sake of it, I guess not. 
It is more utilitarian in it view, explicitly saying  > the reason why the 
mantra exists and why the other portions of veda exist (all  > for the sake of 
yajna). From this viewpoint I do not think mImAmsa has any real  > reason to 
worry about the entire upanishad-aranyaka part.  >   The distinction between 
saMhitA and brAhmaNa is well established even prior to any pUrva mImAMsA 
analysis or interpretation of the veda texts. Indeed, the primary distinction 
between the kRshNa yajurveda and the Sukla yajurveda in terms of content is that 
in the former, the mantra and brAhmaNa portions are found interspersed with each 
other, whereas in the latter, they are demarcated very explicitly in their 
internal  arrangement. Whether a given text is called saMhitA or mantra or 
brAhmaNa or AraNyaka or upanishad or some combination of these terms(*) is a 
matter of context and varies from veda to veda, or even SAkhA to SAkhA. A text 
is called AraNyaka only because it was originally meant to be learnt in the 
forest, not in the village/settlement. These distinctions of where one must 
learn a text have not been strictly followed for a long time now. The term 
upanishat is given to a text that contains teachings about brahmajnAna and/or 
upAsana-s leading to jnAna.   Mantra (or saMhitA) vs. brAhmaNa (and/or AraNyaka) 
are content descriptors and should be clearly distinguished from the pUrva 
mImAMsA categories of vidhi and arthavAda. There can be arthavAda in both the 
mantra portions and the brAhmaNa or the AraNyaka portions. And vidhi-s are 
rarely found in the mantra portions of the veda. They are more often found in 
the brAhmaNa or AraNyaka portions.  e.g. atha tam agnim indhIta/AdadhIta, 
audumbarIbhis samidbhir agniM paricaret,  uddhRta paripUtAbhir adbhiH kAryaM 
kurvIta, na nishThIvet, na vivasanas snAyAt - these are vidhi-s in the first 
chapter of the taittirIya AraNyaka, also called the aruNa praSna. There are many 
more vidhi-s found in various contexts in this one AraNyaka chapter itself.   
Inasmuch as pUrva mImAMsA has to worry about what is a vidhi, what type of vidhi 
it is, etc., it has to very much worry about the texts traditionally labeled as 
AraNyaka or upanishad or brAhmaNa. Much of the content in these texts is indeed 
described as arthavAda, but the vidhi-s are right there in the middle of the 
rest. A lot of careful attention is therefore paid in the PM analysis to the 
exact wording of sentences, what grammatical tense or mood is used, whether 
there is an implicit vidhi or not, even when an imperative or optative verbal 
construction is not employed, etc.   Indeed, as far as textual analysis is 
concerned, the key point where vedAnta parts company with pUrva mImAMsA, is over 
the question of a vidhi to renounce all action. PM says that by definition a 
vidhi can only impel one to perform a new act (apUrva vidhi) or tell us how to 
do it (niyama vidhi) or how not to do it (parisaMkhyA vidhi). Vedanta, at least 
in the advaita tradition, says that a vidhi can also impel one to renounce all 
action, and indeed the bRhadAraNyaka upanishat 4.4.22 does contain a vidhi to 
renounce. The discussion on this point is found in brahmasUtra bhAshya 3.4.27, 
where SankarAcArya points out that the mAdhyandina pATha has the word paSyet, 
conveying an explicit injunction, as compared to the word paSyati in the kANva 
pATha. In the bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya 4.4.22, he interprets the word pravrajanti 
as pravrajeyuH, and takes it as an injunction to renounce action.   > "But 
suryanamaskara etc. definitely fall under the purview of karma and  > therefore 
PM." >  > The sUrya namaskAra itself is karma, but the mantra bhAga under 
discussion is  > the Aruna pAtha which is by definition not associated with 
karma. Esp when there  > is no brAhmana that associates the pAtha with 
namaskAra/Asana/kriya.   The sUrya namaskAra is a smArta karmA, not Srauta 
karmA. As done nowadays, with recitation of the aruNa praSna, it may well be a 
recent regional innovation (relatively speaking). One would be hard pressed to 
find a brAhmaNa sentence ordaining or praising the vast majority of smArta karmA 
rituals. Much of this is just to be taken as part of SishTAcAra.    It should 
also be remembered that svAdhyAya-pravacana of the entire veda or portions of 
it, involving ritual recitation, is in itself a karmA. As such, recitation of a 
chapter from the taittirIya AraNyaka, whether by itself or in combination with a  
sUrya namaskAra practice, would seem to fall comfortably under the general 
injunction to study, preserve and transmit the veda (svAdhyAya-pravacanAbhyAn na 
pramaditavyam). And there is also arthavAda in praise of this general karmA 
(svAdhyAya-pravacane eveti nAko maudgalyaH, taddhi tapas taddhi tapaH).   
Regards, Vidyasankar                   * Although most texts called upanishat 
are in the brAhmaNa/AraNyaka texts, they are also found in the saMhitA portions. 
The most famous example is the ISAvAsya text, which is entirely within the Sukla 
yajurveda saMhitA.