[Advaita-l] A Brief Introduction to pUrva mImAmsA - 8 (Miscellaneous Topics, Conclusion)

S Jayanarayanan sjayana at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 17 23:19:54 CST 2006

namaste, Amuthan.

--- Amuthan Arunkumar R <aparyap at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> namo nArAyaNAya!
> dear shrI jayanArAyaNan,
> first of all, a heartfelt THANKS to you for the
> wonderful series of articles on pUrva mImAmsA. 

Thanks for your kind comments. Naturally, it was possible solely due to the
grace of the Supreme Guru.

> the last time your article appeared, i digged up the
> archives and read the earlier ones, but unfortunately,
> i didn't note down where those articles are. since the
> articles on PM are "spread over a few years" and since
> searching the archives isn't such a pleasurable task,
> i kindly request you to give references to all the
> previous articles

I'll do a search on the mailing list archives and post the links to the
articles soon.

> and if possible, group all these and
> put them in the advaita-vedanta site so that all the
> members can benefit from them.

Good idea, but they all need to be edited for errors first.

> coming back to your present post, i have some doubts:
> --- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana_at_yahoo_dot_com> wrote:
> > 
> > with a common ground. For example, both accept the
> > Vedas as svataH-pramANa,
> > because the Vedas have already been established as
> > dharma. In order to
> > controvert the Vedas as the basis of dharma, one
> > must provide an alternative
> > means of knowing dharma that is "better" than the
> > Vedas. Since all the
> > alternatives for knowing dharma fail on account of
> > their dependence upon
> > sense-experience, inference, or defective
> > authorship, they're all rejected as
> > unauthoritative on dharma.
> > 
> both the vedAntin and the mImAmsaka accept veda-s as
> apauruSheyam. traditionally, the pUrvapakShin-s to
> this view are the bauddha-s. but the bauddha-s are a
> special category of people who uphold a philosophy
> based on kShanikatva (and hence, they cannot talk
> about the independent validity of their own
> shAstra-s). but consider the present situation where
> we have the religious texts of other religions like
> christianity or islam which do not have a nihilistic
> world view as buddhism. i think the arguments provided
> by mImAmsaka-s for establishing the prAmANyam of the
> veda-s were directed mainly against the bauddha-s. the
> same arguments are certainly not applicable for these
> modern religions. the veda-s and the bible / koran
> obviously have a difference of opinion on different
> ethical issues and they  claim their contents to be
> revealed and (hence) apauruSheyam (let us for the
> moment let apauruSheyatvam of texts to be valid even
> if God 'composed' them). so, to decide if a particular
> action is right or wrong, one has to look for a
> pramANa and now the question will arise - which of
> these (veda-s, bible etc.) is the pramANa? since this
> questions the fundamental axiom of PM that the veda-s
> are the only pramANa-s when it comes to issues
> relating to dharma, and since the ones who raise this
> question do not uphold a nihilistic viewpoint as the
> bauddha-s, it is a valid question. how would a
> mImAmsaka answer this? since advaitin-s agree with
> mImAmsaka-s on issues related to dharma, the question
> remains an important one for an advaitin also. 

I don't know a mImAmsaka's reply to the above, but His Holiness Chandrasekhara
Bharati of Sringeri was once requested by a Christian for some upadesha. HH
replied that God must have given the man birth as a Christian because spiritual
development in that religion would be the best for him, therefore the man must
strive to become a good Christian instead of looking elsewhere. The
conversation is recorded in the book "Dialogues with the Guru".

This from HH is truly amazing, because HH defends the Vedas as being the ONLY
source of dharma on several occasions. Evidently, the conviction that the Vedas
are the source of dharma is for those who are born into the Vedic religion. For
others, the conviction comes from other scriptures, and HH didn't want them to
"change" their religion to an alien one. The gist is that each one must strive
for spiritual development in the religion that one is born into.

> --- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana_at_yahoo_dot_com> wrote:
> >
> > ... and the body is
> > not cognized during the three states of being -
> > waking, dream and deep sleep
> > (when the Self is). Therefore, the Self is not the
> > body, but the body is a
> > superimposition on the Self owing to ignorance
> > (avidyA).
> > 
> i don't understand how the body is not cognized during
> the three states. it is certainly perceived in the
> waking state. in case i've missed the point, please
> let me know.  

It's a mistake, and should correctly read "the body is not cognized during
*all* the three states of being".

> --- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana_at_yahoo_dot_com> wrote:
> > 
> > 1) Ganganath Jha writes, "KumArila's reference to
> > Tamil loosely as
> > AndhradrAviDa is further evidence in favour of
> > general ignorance of the Aryans
> > about the South" [14]. It is unlikely that Jha would
> > be mistaken on this point.
> > 
> what was the time period of gangAnAth jha? presently,
> the Aryan invasion theory is not accepted by
> historians.

I think Jha meant "North Indian" (GauDas) by the term "Aryans". His point is
that a South Indian would not have generally spoken of "One language
AndhradrAviDa", as Telugu and Tamil would've been noted as two separate
languages by a South Indian.

> vAsudevaH sarvaM,
> aparyAptAmR^itaH.  
> Amuthan Arunkumar R,
> Final year, B.Tech/M.Tech Dual Degree,
> Dept. of Aerospace Engg., IIT Madras.

namo nArAyaNAya,


Work for the Employer with the best benefits! Work for God!

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list