[Advaita-l] Pramanas and non-pramanas

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

[Was Re: [Advaita-l] Brihad Up and Putrakameshti]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Venkatesh Murthy wrote:

> I got one final reference from my friend to prove both you and Sri 
> Saxena are totally wrongly interpreting Adi Sankara and Sureshwara also. 
> Kindly see the Dvivedaganga Dipika of Bruhadaranyaka 6-4-18.

And who is this Dviveda Ganga?  Where is he from?  When did he live?  Was 
he even a Smarta?  Do you and your friend ask any of these questions or 
did you just rummage around a library until you found something that 
aligned with your prejudice?  Such an approach is favored by reformer 
types but it is not how an astika approaches dharma jignasa and is 
intellectual fraud when practiced by anyone.

Dviveda Ganga was a Gujarati Nagara Brahmana who probably flourished in 
the late 18th/early 19th centuries in Kashi.  The Gujarati 
Shuklayajurvedis do not consider his commentary authoritative.  That honor 
is reserved for Hariswami and Sayanacharya on the Shatapatha Brahmana and 
Uvatacharya and Mahidharacharya on the Vajasaneyi Samhita.  The only 
reason Dviveda Ganga is fairly well known is because his commentary was 
included in the first printed edition of the Madhyandina Shatapatha 
Brahmana by Dr. Albrecht Weber.  That is what you want to rely upon for 
your knowledge of Veda?


> This is the correct interpretation for 6-4-18 and Adi Sankara Bhashya
> and Vartika also.  It is  unfortunate both of you miss the point by
> twisting the texts. Others like Sri Bhaskar and Sri Sarma are blindly
> following your side.

Oh the irony is palpable!  In recent times it is the nastikas who have 
adopted this method of pulling texts out of a hat to "prove" whatever 
suits their fancy.  We atleast could claim we practice truth and follow 
unbroken historical tradition.  But you would throw that away and for 
what?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> Kindly thank your friend for this citation and please, also ask him/her
> what sAyaNa and harisvAmin say on this point, if they say anything at
> all.

For the record, Sayancharya confirms that it is bull meat which is being 
refered to.  Hariswami has not commented on the Aranyakakanda of the S.B. 
which includes the B.U.  Some say the available editions we have of his 
commentary are incomplete others say he deliberately did not comment in 
deference to Shankaracharya.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>