[Advaita-l] How to read puranas

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

"Brahmana is in its widest sense any part of shruti which is not mantra. "

This makes sense, especially if we read significant parts of Aranyaka as 
arthavAda without attaching it to the guna/artha karma. However the 
classification of Aranyaka predates mImAmsa and there is no reason why the 
entire non-samhita must be treated as brAhmana. 


The question is whether mImAmsa cares for anything that is arthavAda for the 
sake of it, I guess not. It is more utilitarian in it view, explicitly saying 
the reason why the mantra exists and why the other portions of veda exist (all 
for the sake of yajna). From this viewpoint I do not think mImAmsa has any real 
reason to worry about the entire upanishad-aranyaka part. 


That said we are agreeing as far as applying what mImAmsa says from a 
commonsense viewpoint to the entire traditional literature. 


"But suryanamaskara etc. definitely  fall under the purview of karma and 
therefore PM."

The sUrya namaskAra itself is karma, but the mantra bhAga under discussion is 
the Aruna pAtha which is by definition not associated with karma. Esp when there 
is no brAhmana that associates the pAtha with namaskAra/Asana/kriya. 


"On the contrary, Shruti often does.  We recently discussed such a case."

For that matter following sruti is itself optional :) But that is not the point 
here. Sruti stands to say things by its own authority while smriti's validity 
depends on its agreement with sruti (or absence of non-agreement with sruti). I 
think we are agreeing here. 


">Third reason is that Sruti does not by itself subscribe to a worldview but 
only >explains the cosmic phenomenon. Smriti statements in many cases are 
>subscriptions to specific worldviews, and hence are subjective in their 
>relevance and validity. > 


Can you give an example of what you mean by this."

The way a purANa attempts to establish the superiority of one Devata over the 
other, for instance. 


"Do you believe the injuction to celebrate Holi (which is not mentioned in  
Shruti) has any force or is it the opinion of some smrti-kara?"

As a parva, it is only relevant for the subscribers of the smritikAra or the 
sampradaya whose grihya sUtras are given by that smritikAra (with known caches 
like defaulting to a sUtrakAra of one's sAkha as directed by one's subscribed 
sUtrakAra). 




Shankar

Jaldhar H. Vyas jaldhar at braincells.com 
Thu Jun  9 23:17:28 CDT 2011 
________________________________
 
On Mon, 23 May 2011, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli wrote:  > Mimamsa's division 
does not apply even to the entire Sruti - it is only for > Samhita and Brahmana. 
Their first division of Veda is into two parts - the > Mantra (Samhita) and 
Brahmana. >  Brahmana is in its widest sense any part of shruti which is not 
mantra.  Most of the historically earliest upanishads are part of a brahmana.  
For  instance brhadaranyaka (note the name) is the concluding parts of the  
shatapatha brahmana.  In fact its chapters are called brahmanas.  
Taittireyopanishad is the concluding part of the Taittireya Aranyaka which  
itself is the concluding part of the Taittireya Brahmana and so on.   > > > 
While the general principles of Mimamsa, its Pramana Sastra are useful in > 
understanding most of traditional literature, the rules are not strictly > 
applicable, esp reg vidhi nishedha etc. > > > For example, I remember having 
read some discussion on Surya Namaskara procedure > along with Aruna mantras, 
why it should not be done or should be done based on > Mimamsa principles. It 
was probably overlooked that Mimamsa does not apply its > rules to Aranyaka and 
Aruna Patha is part of Aranyaka.  See above.  Now one place where Vedanta and 
purva mimamsa part company is  that the former do not accept the latters 
analysis of the jnana kanda.  (Wherever in shruti that might occur.)  But 
suryanamaskara etc. definitely  fall under the purview of karma and therefore 
PM.  > > > Second reason why Mimamsa cannot be applied to Purana is that 
Purana's > statementes are not vidhi/nishedha but essentially recommendations. 
There is > always a question of whether it should be taken or not. Sruti gives 
not such > option. >  On the contrary, Shruti often does.  We recently discussed 
such a case. See: 
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-April/026965.html  And 
there are many instances where puranas state something unequivocably  and these 
statements are treated as authoritative in dharmashastras.  > > Mimamsa texts 
themselves explicitly mention some of the smriti  > statements which cannot be 
taken as valid. >  Smrti has authority only insofar as it is based on shruti.  
But when it  is, the same principles can be applied to their analysis.  > > > 
Third reason is that Sruti does not by itself subscribe to a worldview but only 
> explains the cosmic phenomenon. Smriti statements in many cases are > 
subscriptions to specific worldviews, and hence are subjective in their > 
relevance and validity. >  Can you give an example of what you mean by this.  > 
> Going by this, the statements on Buddha and Sankara should rather be taken as 
> the opinions of smriti kara and not essentially as having the sanction of 
Sruti, > much less as "true". In contrast, there is no sruti-kara's relevance 
when one > talks of the Apourusheya. >  Do you believe the injuction to 
celebrate Holi (which is not mentioned in  Shruti) has any force or is it the 
opinion of some smrti-kara?  --  Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>