muktika upanishhad (was Re: Brahmana)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> No. The mAdhva-s find fault with the advaitins for telling that this sentence
> is important.

And they expend a lot of energy and ink on it don't they?  Which means
they must think its important doesn't it?

> Negative remarks and positive remarks can be interpreted. Silence can only be
> ignored since arguments can be given both ways.
> Since none of them  condemned it
> it may or may not be accepted, but that cannot be decided on the basis of
> anyone's silence.
>

Abhava or absence _is_ significant in Mimamsa.  It is a pramana.  I'll
give you an example.  There isn't a Vedic text that specifically says
Shudras cannot wear the yagnopavit but in the texts that describe the
upanayana samskara, the procedure is given for Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and
Vaishyas and Shudras are not mentioned.  It's on this basis they are
barred from wearing it.  When the Arya Samaja made arguments similar to
yours to allow Shudras to wear it, all Astikas vehemently opposed the
idea.

> What do you mean by face value?

I mean is it taken literally or not.

> Each interpreter thinks his interpretation is
> the "face value".

And we, having brains in our heads, should be able to tell whether they
are being truthful or not.

> If you noticed something, I never commented about the interpretation of
> the vajrasUchi. I only objected to your methodology of comparing with smR^iti
> texts to claim that this is a forgery.

The smrtis and nibandhs I've quoted are the ones which have been in use
for knowing Dharma for hundreds of years.  Now out of the blue this
unheard of work comes along making outrageous claims.  Of course I'm going
to compare it with what I already know.

> No. Here we are talking vedAnta or not. This is not a teaching for different
> kinds of students based on their competence.
>

My point is there aren't 100 foot walls between "western" and "eastern"
scholarship.  Quite orthodox people have made use of indology to some
degree or the other.

> I am also not interested in what the mAdhva-s or the shrI vaishhhNava-s have
 to
> say about the 108 upanishhads. I merely said that _in_ the advaitic tradition
> these have been handed down as shruti and count as such. Ananda tIrtha quotes
> passages from things like the brahma tarka, parama upanisshad etc. I don't
> care
> two hoots for any of these texts and similarly I will stick to the principal
> upanishhad-s if I am talking to any non-advaitin. The mAdhva-s are welcome to
> consider those (brahma tarka etc) as shruti, but they cannot quote those texts
> to prove something to advaitins. Similarly no advaitic teacher will quote
> anything other than about 15-20 standard upanishhad-s which everyone seems to
> accept. The point here is what the advaitic tradition accepts as shruti.

You are standing things on your head if you start off with an advaita
tradition or a dvaita tradition.  All the sampradayas are based on the
Vedic tradition.  They have to justify themselves in terms of that.  After
all advaita and dvaita are just adjectives and the noun they modify is
Vedanta.  So even if the opposing camps don't want to accept what the
other has to say, they should be aware of it.  Otherwise they are
needlessly blinding themselves.

> ?!!! Let me clarify. I am _not_ interested in hearing your ad-hoc statements

Then listen to my shastric ones.

> and
> they certainly don't count as tradition. After the misunderstanding you
> displayed about brahma loka (your exchange with Giri), you can hardly call
> yourself even a scholar. The "te brahma loketu parAntakAle parimuchyanti
 sarve"
> is in fact one of the most famous statements,

So now one has to be a sarvajna to be a scholar?  We might as well disband
the list then.  No one here qualifies.  I'm right far often than I'm wrong
and you know it.

> in fact. That being the case,
> claiming that the "difference between me and Shankaracharya ... is only one of
> quantity ... " is ridiculous, to say the least.
>

Shankaracharya isn't St. Peter and his successors the Jagadgurus aren't
the Pope.  They are master teachers and their teachngs should be listened
to and understood.  But things don't become right just because they say
so.  I need to use my brain and look at what the eternal Shruti and its
ancillaries say and compare it to get the full picture.  And if there is a
discrepancy I need to question and explore it.  That's the way I'm the
same as Shankaracharya and that's the only way I'm going to be able to
pass his teachings on to a new generation of Brahmans.

> Really! Then who is the modern jaimini who gives us how much of "modern
> scholarship" we should accept and how much we shouldn't?

Hmm let's see how about MM Chinnaswami Shastri and his student MM
Pattabhirama Shastri two of the greatest mimamsakas of the 20th Century?
Both wrote original works and commentaries on Mimamsa and were professors
in universities preparing critical editions and the like.  Or the many
Pandits all over India who advise the bhaktas on dharmic matters.  You
don't think they make use of all available resources?  Or how about
the Jagadguru of Sringeri who seems to have read a few books on Indology
in his time?

>  Of course the part of
> the "modern scholarship" which calls the veda-s as written will be avoided.
> Pray, is it you by any chance, who is going to take up the monumental task of
> forming this navya pUrva mImA.nsA?

It would be too late.  While you were ensconsed in your ivory tower the
work had already begun.  (Mimamsa is after all a practical tool.  That's
why its referred to as Bhatta Tantra.)  So I can't found anything but I
can certainly help.  I don't encourage people asking me dharmic questions
because I feel they should talk to someone older and more experienced but
sometimes they still do.  I give answers which my grandfather and even his
grandfather would approve of.  And I do it based on _all_ relevant
knowledge.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!