[Advaita-l] Veda as source of dharma.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

2011/10/9 D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <dvnsarma at gmail.com>

> It appears that Veda was not always considered to be the only and primary
> source of dharma.


Actually they are.


> Apstamba is a venerable rishi who predated Kumarila.
>
> अथातस्सामयाचारिकान् धर्मान् व्याख्यास्यामः।(1.1)
> धर्मज्ञ समयः प्रमाणम्।(1.2)
> वेदाश्च।(1.3)
>
> The first place is given to the instruction of people who know dharma.
> Second place is given to Veda.
>

That's just because it's easy to follow others. Study of dharma is not so
impressive. When we see studied dharma in practice, we easily follow them.


> Please do not try to throw the commentaries at me. I have seen them.
> च means 'also' but not 'only'.Text tourturing is not good.
>

No text torturing.
But, understanding commentary is essential.
Even if you don't want I present it here for others :

1)
pauruSheyI vyavasthA samayaH...........samayamUlA AchArAH samayAchArAH.
teShu bhavAH sAmayAchArikAH. evembhUtAn dharmAn.
(Arrangement made by human is called samayaH. Conduct arising from it is
samayAchAra. And the dharma arising from it is sAmayAchArika-dharma.) Here
is no difference in us.

2)
kiM nu bhoH samayo yadi pramANam idamapi pramANaM bhavitumarhati - 'chaityaM
vandeta svargakAmaH', 'prAgeva bhu~njIta', 'keshAn lu~nchet', 'tiShThan
bhu~njIta', 'na snAyAt'- iti.
tatrAha - dharmaGYetyAdi. n brUmaH samayamAtraM pramANamiti. kiM tarhi.
dharmaGYA ye manvAdayaH, teShAM samayaH pramANaM dharmAdharmayoH.
(If samaya=arrangement made by human is pramANam=valid mean of knowlede of
dharma-adharma, then words of every human will become pramANam. So,
bauddha-Agama-s as 'one who longs for svarga should worship chaitaya', etc.
will become source of dharma.
To avoid this Apastamba says- Arrangement made by humans, manu, etc. who
know dharma, is pramANam and not of others. So source of knowledge of dharma
are 'arrangements made by knowers of dharma'.)
Here is clear that me and you are not taken as source of knowledge of
dharma.

3)
katahaM punaridamavagataM dharmaGYA manvAdayo, na buddhAdaya iti.
ydyuchyeta na buddhAdInAmatIndriye dharme GYAnaM sambhavati iti.
tat manvAdiShvapi samAnam.
atha teShAM dharmaGYAnAtishayAt atIndriye.apyarthe GYAnaM sambhavati.
tat buddhAdiShvapi samAnam.
yat AhuH :
sugato yadi dharmaGYaH kapilo neti kA pramA.
tAvubhau yadi dharmaGYau matibhedaH kathaM tayoH.
iti.
vaktavyo vA visheShaH.
tamAha- vedAshca.
chaH avadhAraNe.
vedA eve mUlapramANaM dharmAdharmayoH.

(Q. How did you know that manu, etc. are knowers of dharma and buddha, etc.
are not ?
If you say that buddha, etc. can not know dharma because it's out of reach
of senses.
Then it's true for manu, etc. too.
If you say that manu, etc. can know transcendental things because they know
dharma.
Then it's true for buddha, etc. too.
As is said :
If buddha knew dharma, then how could you say that kapila didn't ? If both
knew then why did they differ?
So, you have to propound difference of manu, etc. and buddha, etc.
So he say - vedAshcha.
cha shows determination.
Only veda-s are original authority on dharma and adharma.
)


> Gautama Dharmasutra says.
>
> तुल्यबलविरोधे विकल्पः।(1.4)
>
> If the veda and instruction of people who know dharma are opposite and
> of equal strength either can be followed.


> Do not try to argue that such opposition cannot arise. There will be no
> necessity
> for Gautama to write this sutra in such a case. सूत्र रचनं व्यर्थं भवति।
>

Here again commentary says that :
If two things have same force and a conflicts arises between them,
then you can choose any one of them.
Words or AchAra of manu, etc. are in no way have same strength as words
called veda-s possess. Why ? Because they are apauruSheya.