[Advaita-l] Fwd: A tale from the shatapatha brAhmaNa

[V Subrahmanian]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Venkateswaran N E <venkatne2011 at gmail.com>
Date: 2017-08-12 23:24 GMT+05:30
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A tale from the shatapatha brAhmaNa
To: Subrahmanian V <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>


Thank you Subbuji, for your detailed response, which amply addressed my
query.

Regards
Venkateshwaran

On 12-Aug-2017 10:38 PM, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Venkateswaran N E <venkatne2011 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Dear Subbuji, pranams.
>> It's a well written article. Thanks to the author.
>>
>
> I join you in thanking the author.Please see my reply to  your question at
> the end.
>
>
>>
>> I have one question regarding the criteria for classifying a Vedic
>> statement as prAmANya or arthavAda (specifically guNavAda, as in this case)
>>
>> In the last paragraph before the summary :
>>
>> " Coming  to  our  context,  that  Siva  is  ISvara  himself  is
>>  repeated  in  several  places, across  the  sanAtana  dharma  canon  -
>>  within  the  veda  itself  (Sri  rudram, mahAnArAyaNa  upaniShad  etc),
>>  itihAsa,  purANa,  etc.
>>
>> Therefore,  if  Siva/rudra  was the subject  matter  of  this  section,
>> and  we  take  the  meaning  of  the  arthavAda  at  face value,  it  would
>>  be  veda  contradicting  itself.
>>
>>  Therefore,  we  have  to  reinterpret  this  as  a guNavAda,  thereby
>>  removing  veda  prAmANyam  from  this  section  and  saving  veda from
>>  internal  contradiction.
>>
>>  Therefore,  if  rudra  is  the  subject  of  this  section  (he  is
>>  not, for  reasons  outlined  above),  this  would  be  a  case  of
>>  guNavAda,  and  there  is  no prAmANya  for  guNavAda.   "
>>
>> Now my question is, if there are contradicting sentences in Veda, how do
>> you decide which is prAmANya and which is guNavAda ?
>>
>> For example if an opponent claims that the status of Rudra or Agni in
>> shatapatha brAhmaNa is prAmANya while the statements indicating Rudra as
>> Ishvara are guNavAda and hence not prAmANya, how does one respond ?
>>
>
> In the case of the above, we have to examine why we hold the sentences
> that talk of Siva as Isvara in shruti-smriti-purANas as pramANa.
>
> These are not just stories that call Siva as ISvara. If they were
> arthavAda like for example 'so'rOdIt...', the question of which story is
> prAmANika would be valid. On the other hand, the veda lays out vidhis
> prescribing upAsana of ISvara as Siva. It lays down the specific features
> of the upAsya devatA and steps of the upAsanA. The upAsaka does not have
> freedom to imagine these features or alter how the upAsanA is done. They
> have to follow the rules as laid down by scripture. Because they form part
> of upAsanA injunctions, the sentences that hold Siva as ISvara are very
> much pramANa.
>
>
>