एक-वाक्यता
shruti statements which support reconciliation include: " सर्वे वेदाः/ सर्वे घोषाः एकैव व्याहृतिः " , “नामानि सर्वाणि यमाविशन्ति "
The way to correctly derive valid knowledge out of the sacred books is to :
- apply proper mImAMsA analysis encompassing all valid texts (thereby applying a sort of averaging),
- One doesn’t use isolated quotes to make cases about what a text does or does not stand for - that is considered childish and stupid within hindu tradition. Instead one needs to consider and reconcile a whole mass of contradictory statements within all “prAmANika” texts – this is the main purpose of a branch of analysis called miimaamsa . That is exactly what old commentators claimed to have done, and that is what modern interpreters and critics must do if they are honest. For example see this series of ongoing classes on rAmAnuja-s commentary on bhagavadgItA - shrIbhAShyam http://ramanuja.org/sri/SribhashyaClass/Topics - the instructor went on and on with preliminaries for well over 10 hours before finally deciding to get to the central text and bring up background/ context as required.
Examples
madhva in Rigbhashya reportedly relies on the एकवाक्यता of the veda-s to show that all of the statements in veda-s (including Indra killing Vrtra, or a description of river or any other geographical or physical matters) are descriptions of hari
- Later thinkers like aravinda-ghoSha and dayAnanda sarasvatI did something similar.
प्रकीर्ण-तन्त्राणि
-
प्रामाण्ये तारतम्यम् - इदम् अन्यत्र निश्चितम्। बलवत्-प्रमाणानुसारेणावरः प्रमाणो नेयः, नान्यथा।
-
सावकाशता - निरवकाशो विधिस् सावकाशापेक्षया बलवान्।
वरं हि वाक्य-वैयर्थ्य-परिहारार्थं पदस्य
गौणार्थ-वर्णनम् अपिइति पूर्व-तन्त्रे दशमाध्याये
‘यद्यपि चतुरवत्ती यजमानस्
तथापि पञ्चावत्तैव वपा कार्या’इत्य्-अत्र शाबर-भाष्य-शास्त्र-दीपिकादौ न्यायः प्रदर्शितः ।
- उत्सर्गापवाद-न्यायः
- सर्वं वाक्यं सावधारणम् - असति बाधके।
- अध्याहारापेक्षया ऽनुषङ्गो वरः।
यथा-सम्भवम् असङ्कोचः -
अनुपाधिक-निर्देशे
ह्य् असङ्कोचो मनीषिभिः ।
“सिद्धे शब्दार्थसम्बन्ध”
इति न्यायेन कथ्यते॥
न हि निन्दा
- By the nahi-nindA nyAya, scholars (LT_U) have often understood these contesting statements as merely advertising their own exaltedness - given the mutual complementarity (besides competitiveness) of the relationship between such texts and traditions.
- Consider the analogous role of myths showing conflicts among the deva-s.
- Even the mutual bickering among brAhmaNa-s of veda shAkhA-s was harmonized in this way by the sUtra period.
विकल्पः
विरोधे बल-साम्ये च सति हि
गत्यन्तराभावाद् विकल्पः स्वीक्रियते ।
न च गुरु-लघुनोर् विकल्पस् संभवति,
गुरु-विधायकस्य शास्त्रस्याननुष्ठान-लक्षणाप्रामाण्य-प्रसङ्गात् ।+++(4)+++
न हि लघौ सति
गुरौ कश्चिद् अपि प्रवर्तते ।
इति वेङ्कटनाथः।
Multi-level understanding
Multiple appropriate meanings
- upaniShad-s provide a framework for understanding a sagely statement in AdyAtmika, Adi-daivika and Adi-bhautika terms.
- yAska’s nirukta explains the same mantra from different perspectives.
- " सोमं॑ मन्यते पपि॒वान् यत् स॑म्पिं॒षन्त्योष॑धिम्। सोमं॒ यं ब्र॒ह्माणो॑ वि॒दुर्न तस्या॑श्नाति॒ कश्च॒न ॥ " इत्य् ऋचो व्याख्या यास्केन द्वेधा दत्ता - अधियज्ञरीत्या, अधिदैवरीत्या च [मूलम्]।
- patanjali in mahAbhAShya provides such an example while elucidating P I.3.14 - 29 R I.16 - 18 {2/29} “catvari śṛṅgā trayaḥ asya padā dve śīrṣe sapta hastāsaḥ asya tridhā baddhaḥ vṛṣabhaḥ roravīti mahaḥ devaḥ martyān a viveśa " [ITX], while sAyaNa acknowledges different multiple meanings [RV4.58.3].