New member introduction: shrI Subhanu Saxena

[Shrisha Rao]

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> Saxena, Subhanu wrote:
>
> > With reference to Jaldhar Vyas's view that it is better to study one's
> > own Sakha, I certainly fall in the camp that it is better to study a

[...]

> I appreciate your concern for the vedas and propogation of it. I also
> agree with you that studying some veda is better than not studying any
> at all. However in the very kR^ishhNa yajur veda you are studying it is
> said:
>
> svAdhyAyAnmA pramadaH |
>
> One's own veda should be studied. While this is not interpreted as a
> rule by advaitins (it occurs in the upanishhads), it is certainly
> treated as a suggestion.

Surely that's a rather creative interpretation of that injunction, which
prima facie is only saying, "do not neglect your self-study."  I seem to
find no traces of that explanation in the commentarial writings of
Shankara, Anandagiri, or Sureshvara.  The last says, for example:

  agnihotrAdyanushhThAnaM dharmamAhurvipashchitaH  |
  pramAdaM mA kR^ithAstadvatsvAdhyAyAmprati sarvadA  ||

  The observance of rituals like agnihotra, etc., is noble, thus
  say the wise; so too, [they say:] do not be negligent in pursuing
  self-study always.

> And that's only the tradition we have been following all this time also.
> This tradition is not restricted to advaitins: all dvaitins,
> vishishhTAdvaitins also follow it.

I have no idea if there is in fact the tradition that _only_ "one's own
Veda" should be studied, and in fact, people in the past did study more
than one, as attested to by the still-extant patronymics of Trivedi,
Chaturvedi, etc.  As such, one would doubt that such a tradition existed.
Nowadays, when the tradition of studying the Vedas is nearly gone, it
makes no sense to argue whether it exists or not.

> You should not think the view that ones own shAkha should be studied
> first is "parochial". Such a characterization is quite subjective. For

I'm not aware that a statement of injunction indicating a preferential
order in which the Vedas are to be studied, exists either in the Vedas
themselves, or in the writings of teachers of Vedanta.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Rama

>From  Thu Aug 13 22:29:59 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.222959.0400.>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:29:59 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: New member introduction: shrI Subhanu Saxena
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Shrisha Rao wrote:

> > I appreciate your concern for the vedas and propogation of it. I also
> > agree with you that studying some veda is better than not studying any
> > at all. However in the very kR^ishhNa yajur veda you are studying it is
> > said:
> >
> > svAdhyAyAnmA pramadaH |
> >
> > One's own veda should be studied. While this is not interpreted as a
> > rule by advaitins (it occurs in the upanishhads), it is certainly
> > treated as a suggestion.
>
> Surely that's a rather creative interpretation of that injunction, which
> prima facie is only saying, "do not neglect your self-study."  I seem to
> find no traces of that explanation in the commentarial writings of
> Shankara, Anandagiri, or Sureshvara.  The last says, for example:
>
>   agnihotrAdyanushhThAnaM dharmamAhurvipashchitaH  |
>   pramAdaM mA kR^ithAstadvatsvAdhyAyAmprati sarvadA  ||
>
>   The observance of rituals like agnihotra, etc., is noble, thus
>   say the wise; so too, [they say:] do not be negligent in pursuing
>   self-study always.

I am quite aware of what sha.nkara, sureshvara and Anandagiri say. They
expect some baseline knowledge regarding tradition etc, which can be
learnt only from gurus. Sureshvara, for example, is interested in the
main points only and usually hammers them out time and again, but
expects people to know the basic stuff. So we cannot expect a major
exposition from him on points like these.

D: Is the command of the shastra that veda should be studied?

A: Yes. The competent ones must carry out veda adhyayana.

svAdhyAyo.adhyetavyaH.

One's own shAka (portion) of the veda should be studied is the dictate
of the veda. Veda should be learnt only from a guru ....

(page 91, The Jagatguru Replies, H.H Sri Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
Mahaswamigal, Published by Sri Sharada Trust, Sringeri)

PS: please note the "should" above. It's key.

> > And that's only the tradition we have been following all this time also.
> > This tradition is not restricted to advaitins: all dvaitins,
> > vishishhTAdvaitins also follow it.
>
> I have no idea if there is in fact the tradition that _only_ "one's own
> Veda" should be studied, and in fact, people in the past did study more
> than one, as attested to by the still-extant patronymics of Trivedi,
> Chaturvedi, etc.  As such, one would doubt that such a tradition existed.
> Nowadays, when the tradition of studying the Vedas is nearly gone, it
> makes no sense to argue whether it exists or not.

Read my post again and see if I ever said veda-s other than one's own
should _not_ be studied _ever_. What Jaldhar and I were saying was that
one's own shAka should be studied before attempting to study others (I
think Jaldhar will agree with me here, his wife's family name being
dAve!!). The injunction is, that for the people who are supposed to
study vedas, their own shAka _MUST_ be studied. If they are good, they
can study other vedas also. That is optional. Not studying the former
automatically is a sin, since it's a must. The other vedas are only
optional and only the extra-brilliant people can follow it.

I agree that it's sad that tradition of studying veda-s is disappearing.
But, I see that as no license for violating tradition and commands from
AchAryas. If everyone studied his own veda, how would it perish? If
someone is so concerned he should first study his veda and make effort
to read others.

> > You should not think the view that ones own shAkha should be studied
> > first is "parochial". Such a characterization is quite subjective. For
>
> I'm not aware that a statement of injunction indicating a preferential
> order in which the Vedas are to be studied, exists either in the Vedas
> themselves, or in the writings of teachers of Vedanta.

See above.

Vidyasankar or Anand should be able to give a scholarly, explanation
than what I have done. But our gurus are emphatic that one's own shAka
must be learnt before attempting others. I know that as a fact and
that's enough for me.

Rama

PS: Please consult your superiors at Udupi and see what they say. I am
quite confident they will say the same thing. If they don't, it's
another point of difference between our schools :-).