[Advaita-l] manyu-sUktaM - as per dvaita siddhAnta

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Srinath Vedagarbha observed


 when we have niravakASha
vAkyas (such as 'vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH' etc.), which cannot be
interpreted in any other way, why did "tradition" treat mantra/brAhmaNa
parts differently?


 Then he also observed


 Why dilute force of
Krishna's qualifier "sarvE"?


 He went on to question


 But what is the excuse for
vEdAntins?


 Why should the vedantin have any excuse. He has interpreted this vAkya
correctly only. He has interpreted the word *aham* as
*Chaitanyam/BrahmanAtman.* Actually the dvaita position as explained by Sri
Vedagarbha would correspond to the statement


 'vEdEschha sarvEbhedEva vEdyaH' .


 But Krishna did not make such a statement.


 Regards.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > >But yagna itself is not final purushArtha for any shades of vEdAntins
> > >either.
> >
> > >As you already know, dvaitins hold three view -- aadi-bhoutika,
> > >aadi-dhaivIka and adhyAtmika
> >
> > >Yajna-centric view is aadhi-dhavIka view. It does not mean that they
> > negate
> > >the phala granting powers of yajna deities, nor they look upon these
> > >deities as useless or to avoid worship. After all,  Parabrahman has
> > granted
> > >such powers (of giving yajna phala etc ) to such deities and He is very
> > >much vested in them. Who are we mortals to override it? Dvaitins do
> > worship
> > >all deities per dictum 'parivArayatha grahyaM, sarvottamatvya agrahyaM".
> > >Where as adhyAtmika view of seeing these vEdic texts is altogether
> > superior
> > >one as the phala itself is of superior nature. That too, there exist
> > >explicit niravakASha vAkyas which clearly establishes the source of such
> > >powers to other yagna deities.
> >
> >
> > A number of irrelevant points are being made above. There was no
> > assertion made by anyone that a yajna-centric approach has to adopted
> > for interpreting Vedantic texts.
>
>
> But so called "yagna-centric view" was offered to deny/reject bhagvat para
> artha for mantra/brAhmaNa parts of texts. It was rejected so on the basis
> that such artha are apramANa.
>
>
> > There is a long tradition, a
> > saMpradAya, of interpreting the mantra and brAhmaNa portions of the
> > Veda in a yajna-centric manner.
> >
>
> That's the very exact point I was contesting -- when we have niravakASha
> vAkyas (such as 'vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH' etc.), which cannot be
> interpreted in any other way, why did "tradition" treat mantra/brAhmaNa
> parts differently? Aren't mantra/brAhmaNa part of vEda? Why dilute force of
> Krishna's qualifier "sarvE"? Isn't gIta pramAna for those sampradAyavits?
> The very division of spectrum of vEdic texts into karama-kAnDa and
> jnyAna-kAnDa is artificial and apramANika. On one hand there is no sAdhaka
> pramANa, and on the other there is shruti virOdha for such division.
>
> One can accept pUpva-mImAmska's "tradition" in interpreting so, but again
> there is no need for Ishvara for them either. But what is the excuse for
> vEdAntins?
>
>
> The earliest known commentator on the Rigveda, skanda svAmin (7th CE),
> > as well as udgItha (7th CE) and VenkaTa mAdhava, just to name a few,
> > have all followed the Yajna-centric approach in interpreting the
> > mantra and brAhmaNa portions.
> >
> > These bhAShyakAras themselves were following the same sampradAya
> > established by earlier bhAShyakAras.
>
>
> But that itself does not make it pramANika.
>
>
>
> > And the topic of current
> > discussion is not about VedAnta but has to do with the mantra portion.
> >
>
> Current topic is about whether manyu sUkta is shrI narasiMha para or not
> (sarva vaidIka shbda-s vAchyatva Parabrahma para or not in general). By
> saying this discussion is not about vEdAnta, it implies a artificial line
> being drawn between mantra/brAhmaNa part and Upanishadic part. Perhaps,
> this may be due to literally interpreting "anta" in vEdAnta as "end"?
>
>
> > Finally, to repeat the point I made earlier, in the context of a
> > Yajna, there is no scope to establish a hierarchy (highest to lowest)
> > among the Vedic deities.
> >
> >
> Again,  gIta and other quoted shruti vAkya-s does not accept this position
> on the force of "sarvE" , "sarvatra" etc, such adjuncts.
>
>
> /SV
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>