[Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Sun Jan 25 14:40:03 CST 2009
I think we should limit ourselves to the original meaning of the word "Apaurusheya', as evident from its etymology and discard all other stretched meanings.
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
--- On Sun, 1/25/09, Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Mimamsa Question: karmabheda in SAkAs (Jaimini Sutra 2.4.8 )
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 4:50 AM
I do not see any reason why an individual variation of any sort in the vidhis
by time, place, causation
or guru/rishi ceases to be apaurusheya as long as the individual variation of
yajna mirrors the yajna
that is going on within the individual.
It is always a good idea to find common approaches to the vidhis by consensus.
But if some of them are
conditionally wrong so be it. It all depends on the knowledgeable persons being
present at that time.
The process by which one person learns is similar to how another person learns,
but there are also
differences, so there would always be different archetypes.
When there is a disconnect between the vidhis and the real yajna within, the
vidhis cease to be
apaurusheya... unless expiation is done which puts yajna back on track. The
vidhis demand that
the performers' minds be also synchronized, don't they? The catch is
only people with brahmajnanam
can recognize this. If at least the person doing expiation doesn't have
brahmajnanam that may trigger
another expiation and so on going into a loop and we are thrown out of
yajna. A person with the
brahmajnanam will anyway occupy the right place before the yajna starts. So we
may be fine.
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list