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

[Anand Hudli]

>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.

>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"?

The line between Karma kANDa and JnAna kANDa portions of the Veda is a
natural one. Else, how would we explain the existence of two sets of
sUtras - the pUrva mImAMsA (Jaimini) and the uttara mImAMsA sutras?
The object of inquiry is different for the two sets of sUtras- Dharma
and Brahman. The qualifications required for their study are indeed
different. The Jaimini sUtras athAto dharmajijnAsA and chodanAlakShaNo
.artho dharmaH (1.1.1-2) indicate that dharma is to be inquired into
in the mImAMsA sUtras and dharma is something that is enjoined by the
Veda with a view to attaining a useful objective, such as Yajnas,
dAna, tapas, etc.. tatra vedena prayojanaM uddishya vidhIyamAno artho
dharmaH yathA yAgAdiH and yashchodanAlakShaNo agnihotrAdiH sa dharmaH.
Although Yajnas are not the only things described by the Veda (karma
kANDa), they are certainly the most important subject matter.

Regarding the mantras and brAhmaNas, it is clear that brAhmaNas deal
with yajnas. According to pUrva mImAMsA sUtra avishiShTastu vAkyArthaH
(1.2.40), even the mantras uttered in a Yajna serve the purpose of
conveying some meaning. "arthapratyAyanArthameva yajne
mantrochchAraNam", (shAbara bhAShya). The arthavAda portion also
serves a useful purpose as per the mImAmsakas.

So the bhAShyakAras who follow the yajna-centric approach to
interpreting the karma kANDa are justified in doing so. Now,
sAyaNAchArya has followed the same approach, but he has also not
missed an opportunity to provide an AdhyAtmika explanation where the
Vedic text requires it, as for instance in the case of the nAsadIya
sUkta, Rigveda 10.129.

Notwithstanding the "vedaishcha sarvairahameva vedyaH" shloka, Krishna
also has said "karmaNyeva adhikAraste mA phaleShu kadAchana" and "mA
te sango astu akarmaNi." One must perform the nitya and naimittika
karmas, avoiding kAmya and niShiddha karmas, with a view of attaining
chitta shuddhi. And we cannot not perform karmas without knowing about
them. This information about karmas is provided by the Veda. To the
extent that it helps those who have not renounced karmas completely,
the advaitins are largely in agreement with the pUrva mImAMsaka based
interpretation of the karma kANda portion of the Vedas. In fact, there
is a saying about smArtas, "vyavahAre tu bhATTanayaH". A major
disagreement lies in how the two schools view the upanishads. The
mImAMsakas hold that the upanishads are subordinate to injunctions,
Vidhi, and may reveal some agents or deities needed in some act or
they may have to do with some meditations. This view is, of course,
opposed to the Vedantic view that Brahman is known through the
upanishads (tattu samanvayAt, Brahma sUtras 1.1.4), which are an
independent means of knowledge.

Anand