[Advaita-l] vedic yajna

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
<svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> Your question is superfluous, as I already gave you the answer to this. You
> need to read before writing. In my opinion, your view of the SAnkara bhAshya
> vs. smRti and/or SishTAcAra is a totally false opposition. Any SishTa worth the
> name today will consider and give due weight to the SAnkara bhAshya before
> deciding on what should be done. That is, if such a question arises in the first
> place. Your own personal opinions of what the smRti says and what SishTAcAra
> should be is a poor substitute.
>
Yes a Sista will consider Sankara Bhashya but he must also consider
Smruti and other references. If he does that he will 100% conclude
Sankara Bhashya cannot be taken directly because the direct meaning is
against other works. He must take the modfied meaning of Sankara
Bhashya and not eat Bull meat if he has desire to have a learned son.

Try this if possible. Anyone can ask Sri Bharati Tirtha Svami, Svami
Raghaveshwara Bharati of Ramchandrapura Math or Mani Dravid Sastrigal.
They will all say a man cannot accept Bull meat today if he has desire
for a learned son and he wants to follow the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
ritual. They will all say a Brahmin has to substitute by vegetarian
meal.

Try this also. Look at Anandagiri or some other Vyakhya for Sankara Bhashya.


>
> Please note, it is easy to mistake what I am saying, as you seem to have done
> consistently. All I am arguing for is that you cannot interpret as you please, just
> in order to satisfy your own preconceptions of what dharma is.
No I did not say interpret in any way you please but I am saying look
at Smruti, Purana and Sistachara before you jump to conclusion about
Bull meat. Is there anything wrong?

>
>> > On the other hand, if you overlook the proper methods of interpretation
>> > and apply your generalizations, to claim that SankarAcArya's explanation
>> > should be set aside, and further claim that this is because he was only a
>> > saMnyAsin and not a ritualist, then you are overstepping all SishTAcAra
>> > at the very root and claiming for yourself a superior interpretation to the
>> > bhAshya, without justification. Are you of the view that SankarAcArya was
>> > not aware of the smRti texts and SishTAcAra that you cite?
>> He has allowed his own interpretation to be modified according to
>> Subrahmanian's mail. When there is conflict in Srutis we have to look
>> at Smruti, Purana and Sistachara. Vedas saying Cows are Aghnya is
>> conflicting with the Upanishad talking of Bull meat. Now we have to
>> look at Smruti and Sistachara only. There is no other way.
>
> He has not. He has only advised you to take the advice of and emulate the
> behaviour of learned SishTa-s in the case of doubt about dharma. That is
> a far cry from saying he allowed his own interpretation to be modified willy
> nilly. Do you think SankarAcArya was so ignorant of even "ishe tvorje" that
> he would overlook the application of the word aghniyAH in that very first
> yajur vAkya when he commented upon the bRhadAraNyaka reference to
> ukshA and Rshabha? What nonsense is this?! I reiterate, the dichotomy you
> see is completely false and of your own making. That is all.
I am making a very important point but not seeing dichotomy. Adi
Sankara has agreed his Bhashya has to be examined according to Desha
and Kala. I am saying we have to examine his Bhashya looking at very
important things like Smruti and Sistachara, Desha and Kala Dharma. If
there is a problem with direct meaning we have to take indirect
meaning according to today's circumstances. That is all.  There is no
chance to modify interpretations will nilly.

> Finally, the veda is what it is and the bhAshya is what it is. We need to understand them without
> judgement on these kinds of issues. Coming up with "naturalistic" or "scientific" explanations for
> one or the other detail in the vast corpus of the veda may be appealing for whatever reason, but
> it only ends up trivializing the content of the scripture and the intent of the commentary.
Kindly see above comment.


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh