[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The definition of HINDU (Was about VK Rao's def) .. very long
[Newsgroups line had soc.culture.indian listed twice. I fixed that. I also
removed alt.religion.vaishnava since it has been replaced by soc.religion.v
(which does not allow cross-posts).
Follow-ups set to soc.religion.hindu]
In article <9601011158.AA11281@qasid.cc.iitk.ernet.in>,
sghosh@iitk.ernet.in wrote:
[tatvavaadins' argument]
>b) If the objector says that an authored work can or _may_ have the
>reputation of being unauthored, then the tattva vAdIs will challenge
>the objector to do an experiment where the objector will be asked to
>produce an authored work having the reputation of being unauthored.
>c) tattva-vAdI claim - such an experiment is not possible.
>I hope Gopal ji or Vidyanath Rao ji, you can discuss this issue with the
>tattva-vAdIs.
>-Sourav
This is completely off-topic (since the claim made by Shrisa Rao and
presumably being defended by Gopal Ramana, and with which I disagree,
is that tattvavaadins are Hindus who do not consider Vedas to be
infallible truth or to be scriptures), not having anything to do with
defining Hinduism. But as it is interesting in its own right, and in
the hope that someone with more knowledge will take it up, I will
display my ignorance.
The argument presented above seems to be an old one since Kumarilla Bhatta
apparently rose to the challenge. (My knowledge on this based on third hand
information; take with a large grain of salt.)
Kumarila says that the `fourth book' of the Aitreya Aranyaka is authored
by a human (Asvalayana?) but has been included in the shruti by the
mistake of humans. I have no access to the works of Kumarila, either in
Sanskrit or in translation. So I cannot offer any further information.
The term `fourth book' is in quotation marks because the interpretation
is dicey. The modern manuscripts and editions call the Mahanamni verses
the `fourth book'. As the Mahanamni verses occur, in a slight differences,
in Samaveda samhitas, I (and quite a few academics who have written on
this) fail to see how Kumarila can be talking about them. On the other
hand, the `fifth book' is really a kalpa sutra. Kumarila must have
been referring to that (the Mahanamni verses being not really a part of
the aranyaka, but just taught after it). A. B. Keith disagreed,
claiming that the last book is often ascribed to Saunaka and not to
Asvalayana. I hope that someone with better knowledge can shed some
light on this.
--
Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
