No subject

[H.B.Dave]

S. V. Subrahmanian wrote:

> Dear Shri Daveji,

>
>
> Few things I did not understand:
>
> 1.
> >(i) this is an internal authority about some ideas; ...<snip>...
> >I shall try to give only internal authority as far as interpretation
>
> What exactly do you mean by internal authority ?

RigVeda itself is generally quoted as an  original authority in our scriptures.
When I am trying to interprete RigVeda, I can NOT quote any other scripture as
authority about what RigVeda says. I must either find the support from within
RigVeda or from some external field (like say physical sciences, mathematics or
so). I prefer to quote from within RigVeda itself, as far as possible, to show
that it is self-consistent system.

>
>
> 2.  In few places you have used the expression Vedas/Mantras "were written".
>   I am presuming that you mean "were cognized".  This whole idea of
> "written" business is a Western influence.  Since you are very keen on
> steering clear from any Western intrepretation, I was just curious how you
> used "written".

You have caught me here. I do not mean "written" in the normal sense. They were
commited to memory. I wish to leave the rag-chewing about whether writing was
available in "Vedik" times to our friends the INDOLOGISTs.
Yes, you can say they were "cognized" or "seen".

>
>
> >Vedas are written in a coded language (post 1)
> >written in poetical style (post 2)

Please see above.

>
>
> 3. In the 3rd example "they are flying planes" you concluded:
>
> >We thus propose : "there may be seeming ambiguity when normal or
> >traditional meanings are attached to referents (words), but under the >
> >special conditions obtained in texts like RigVeda, all properly derived
> >meanings are equivalent."
>

> But from the second example of "endless loop", we can see that there can be
> situations (interpretation of mantras) where the apparent meaning ie., one
> of the "properly derived meanings" found in the text is not what is being
> conveyed, but the real knowledge arises from elsewhere (within).  In such
> cases there could be words that may not necessarily have a derived meaning
> that is apt.  "Loop, enless" is no explanation of endless loop and vice
> versa, but together as you said, they bring up a concept, not contained in
> either of these.  Am I right ?

The two examples refer to two different kinds of situations.
In the first case there is some meaning available in each of the case, but they
may be conflicting or ambiguous.
In the second case,  there is no inkling of the knowledge in the original text
and the knowledge arises
as "Aha!" in your mind.

You are right about your conclusion.

Thank you for your questions ! It gave me chance for clarifications.

Best wishes,
-- Himanshu

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.