आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Decision

Textual authority is not absolute. One must consider statements recorded therein, together with their original context.

One must also consider other valid (*and* appropriate) sources of knowledge including:

the historical and current practices and understandings of respected role-models
direct observation and experience.
Comparative mythology - See reconciliation page.

Once one has deduced the recommendations and knowledge of the shAstra-s, one has to determine the knowledge that applies to one’s particular context. In doing this, the differences between the context of creation and one’s own situation.

We list some factors important to such decisions here.
Also see notes on meanings of mantra-s in mantra page.

arthavAda technique

As a last resort, a statement contradicting other pramANa-s is classified as particular types arthavAda (considered elsewhere).

Incompleteness

One reason for the incompleteness is the sheer impossibility of anticipating and correctly weighing in on circumstances far outside one’s (the sage’s) spatio-temporal context.
Vedic self-declaration of incompleteness is listed elsewhere.

dharma from others

मेधातिथिः “अन्त्याद् अपि परं धर्मं स्त्रीरत्नं दुष्कुलाद् अपि” इत्यत्र - अन्त्यश् चाण्डालस् तस्माद् अपि +++(आददीत)+++ यः परो धर्मः श्रुति-स्मृत्य्-अपेक्षया परो ऽन्यो लौकिकः ।

Errors

The most sacred texts can contain stray errors (even in dharma instruction). Eg. रजस्वलो रक्तदन् सत्यवादी स्याद् इति हि ब्राह्मणम् ११

Corruption

Likelihood of “corruption” (ie later additions, deletions and editing) of the details of nearly all works has been acknowledged (see “Authority contests and pedigree”, and the case of veda-s) in many places.

Verifiability

Sometimes, a supposed observation, quoted elsewhere, can’t even be verified or corroborated with other sources.

मध्वेन “महाव्याकरण"सूत्रोल्लेखः - गुहाशयाम् = गुहाशयायाम् इति प्रतिपादयितुम् -

“गुहाशयां बुद्धौ । लोपः समाने इति सूत्रादेकयकारलोपः । "

Allowance for Context

Express mutability

The acknowledged need to consider the context of their composition and need for later mutation.
Hindu behavioral (../social/ legal/ personal) system is not at all static. More here.

Science of the day

Whence the digression from observation in sacred texts? Possible explanations:

शास्त्रकृतो भौतिकविषयेषु तत्-कालीन-ज्ञान-संस्कार-संस्कृतास् तथा ऽकथयन् - यथा ब्रह्मा तामस-राजस-पुराणानि +उवाच। अतीन्द्रियार्थेषु भगवत्-प्रेरिततरा आसन्।
तत्-तत्-कालीन-श्रोतृ-संस्कारानुकूल्येन तत्त्वान्तरज्ञापनार्थम्

Implausibility

The AchArya-s knew some things better than we ever will - in domains like theology, sanskrit/ maNipravALa/ drAviDa composition, religious practice. However, in some other areas, our understanding surpasses them, eg. the physical universe, biology, history, foreign cultures and religions etc.. They occupied the same physical universe as we do; the physical laws of nature were the same.

Due to this, where the latter domains are concerned, some of their suppositions (and resultant practices) were wrong (If one honestly understood their words, as they intended them, and not make them confess strange meanings by torturing their texts). They would have expected nothing less than such honesty from us.

The validity of pratyakSha and pratyakSha-like anumAna evidence in cases where they are available. In such cases, texts are not to be taken literally.
See the “न हि श्रुतिशतमपि” quote by shankara above.

“अप्रत्यक्षाणि शास्त्राणि
विवादस् तेषु केवलम्।
प्रत्यक्षं ज्योतिषं शास्त्रं
चन्द्रार्कौ यत्र साक्षिणौ।।”

The texts (esp. veda-s) are about matters that are not easily graspable by pratyakSha. No one can see a “puNya” particle when one does a dhArmika act. Only obliquely can one ascribe the benefits of many observances to the “Lindy effect”.
परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः प्रत्यक्षद्विषः।। शतपथ०।।
परोक्षविषया वेदाः परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः ऐ.उ.1।14बृ.उ.4।2।2

Interpretive leaps

Determining the primary intent, and limiting interpretive leaps - even in case of the paroxa-friendly veda-s.

उदाहरणाय शङ्करः -

“ननु हृदयस्य उपासनेष्व् अप्य् उपयोगात्
तद्-द्वारक उपासना-सम्बन्ध उपन्यस्तः —
नेत्युच्यते ;
हृदय-मात्र-सङ्कीर्तनस्य हि एवम् उपयोगः कथञ्चिद् उत्प्रेक्ष्येत ;
न च हृदयमात्रम् अत्र मन्त्रार्थः ;
‘हृदयं प्रविध्य धमनीः प्रवृज्य’ इत्येवं जातीयको हि
न सकलो मन्त्रार्थो विद्याभिर् अभिसम्बध्यते ;
(ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यन्तृतीयोऽध्यायःतृतीयः पादः वेधाद्यधिकरणम् सूत्रम् २५)

Context of creation and intention

Many shAstra-s were created in an era where there was no mass-education/ instant long-distance communication/ book publishing. The *intention* behind shAstric injunctions should be considered - they should not be blindly followed.

यदा शास्त्राणि प्रणीतानि, तदा परिस्थितिर् आसीद् भिन्ना। न सार्वत्रिकशिक्षणम् (mass education) अभूत् सुलभम्। ग्रन्था आसन् दुर्लभाः। सर्वं गुरुमुखादेव श्रोतव्यमभूत्। न कदाचित् दूरस्थबन्धुभिः शिष्टैश् च क्षणेनैव सम्भाषणस्य सम्भावना। नाधुना तादृशी स्थितिः। “शास्त्रेष्व् एवमुक्तं, तेन अस्माभिर् एवमेव कार्यम्” इति चिन्तनमस्तु judeo-christian-islamic-मतोन्मत्तानाम्। अस्माभिस् तु “शास्त्रकर्तारः किमर्थं‌ वर्णव्यवस्थां कल्पितवन्तः, किमर्थं‌ तेषु कैश् चित् म्लेच्छदेशगतिर् निषिद्धा” इति चिन्तनीयम्, तदनु, “संस्काररक्षणार्थम्” इति ज्ञात्वा, अस्मत्कालस्योचितो विधिः कल्पनीयः।

Different social conditions
- Eg. recompilation of manusmRti by bhArgava-s likely during shunga rise specially harsher on shUdra-s.

Geography

सोमपादपस्यावगतिः कथं सिद्धा? दक्षिणे भारते न लभ्यते सा वल्लिः। औदीच्यपर्वतेषु वर्द्धते। तत्सङ्कलनीयम्।
आज्यप्रयोगः कुतो होमेषु प्रायेण? पूर्वजानाम् आर्याणाम् पशुपालनप्रायिकत्वात्।
दर्भप्रयोगः? अश्वखुरचिह्नप्रयोगः आधाने? पूर्वजानाम् आर्याणाम् जम्बूद्वीपमध्यभागवर्तिनाम् तृणसागरे वासात् साश्वानाम्।

Moral ought?

According to some: Hindu traditions do not have the moral “ought” -rather they intend the word “should” - a statement of opinion that may require discussion and justification.
(The distinction is explained in this article by a follower of shrI-bAlagangAdhara.) Summary: (a) " You should not play with fire if you do not want to get burnt.” vs (b) “You ought not to torture fellow-human beings (if you want to remain a moral human being).” : Regarding (a): Is the statement valid if I wear a fire-proof suit, or I use a long non-conductive stick, or move a robot to do that using remote control? Of course not.

Stories as allegories in the shAstra-s

Hindu holy texts sometimes describe events and phenomena, which may be sometimes taken as (or mistaken as) historical or scientific fact.
The stories pertaining to the deva-s are explicitly admitted to be “illusory” in the veda itself.