[Advaita-l] vedic yajna

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> > This question only arises for one who has the desire to do this particular
> > rite. I don't, so it is immaterial for me. If someone has the desire to do it,
> > he must consult his family purohita and/or other SishTa-s and follow their
> > advice. End of the matter. The trouble comes when you apply your limited
> > understanding of general rules to specific cases where they don't apply.
> > If nothing else, the SAnkara-bhAshya proves that well into kaliyuga, he
> > did not talk of an exception to or modification of the rule described in the
> > upanishad reference.
> The matter is not so simple to end there. Question- If a man living
> today in 2011 wants to get a learned son and he sees Sankarbhashya
> talking of Bull meat for getting a learned son, should he follow A the
> Sankara Bhashya or B should he follow the Sistachara and Smrutis
> prohibiting cow meat and bull meat and make subsititution?

Your question is superfluous, as I already gave you the answer to this. You
need to read before writing. In my opinion, your view of the SAnkara bhAshya 
vs. smRti and/or SishTAcAra is a totally false opposition. Any SishTa worth the
name today will consider and give due weight to the SAnkara bhAshya before
deciding on what should be done. That is, if such a question arises in the first
place. Your own personal opinions of what the smRti says and what SishTAcAra
should be is a poor substitute.
 
> 
> If your answer is A it is wrong because it contradicts Smruti and
> Sistachara. Sri V Subrahmanian has said Sankara Bhashya allows
> modifications or following Sistachara in case of doubt. If answer is B
> you are correct.
> 

Not only the taittirIya SAnkara bhAshya, but the taittirIya upanishad itself
advises you to follow the example of learned people who are committed to
dharma. 
 
> >
> > We are not talking of mAMsa to feed brAhmaNa-s in a SrAddha or for
> > madhuparka to honor a guest. For these instances, yes, there are smRti
> > texts that describe the older practice and modify it for our circumstances.
> > I have not seen such for this particular rite and you haven't provided one
> > yet, in all your numerous posts on this topic.
> >
> There is a general permission to modify a ritual if it has meat
> prescription. No particular permission is needed. Sankara Bhashya is

Where? Provide an authoritative citation that makes a universal and general
substitution. Morevoer, you first substituted goat meat for bull meat. Now you
claim otherwise, in a more general sense, for all meat.
 
Please note, it is easy to mistake what I am saying, as you seem to have done
consistently. All I am arguing for is that you cannot interpret as you please, just
in order to satisfy your own preconceptions of what dharma is. 
 
> > On the other hand, if you overlook the proper methods of interpretation
> > and apply your generalizations, to claim that SankarAcArya's explanation
> > should be set aside, and further claim that this is because he was only a
> > saMnyAsin and not a ritualist, then you are overstepping all SishTAcAra
> > at the very root and claiming for yourself a superior interpretation to the
> > bhAshya, without justification. Are you of the view that SankarAcArya was
> > not aware of the smRti texts and SishTAcAra that you cite?
> He has allowed his own interpretation to be modified according to
> Subrahmanian's mail. When there is conflict in Srutis we have to look
> at Smruti, Purana and Sistachara. Vedas saying Cows are Aghnya is
> conflicting with the Upanishad talking of Bull meat. Now we have to
> look at Smruti and Sistachara only. There is no other way.

He has not. He has only advised you to take the advice of and emulate the
behaviour of learned SishTa-s in the case of doubt about dharma. That is
a far cry from saying he allowed his own interpretation to be modified willy
nilly. Do you think SankarAcArya was so ignorant of even "ishe tvorje" that
he would overlook the application of the word aghniyAH in that very first
yajur vAkya when he commented upon the bRhadAraNyaka reference to
ukshA and Rshabha? What nonsense is this?! I reiterate, the dichotomy you
see is completely false and of your own making. That is all.
 
Vidyasankar