A classification of statements of veda-s is:
- vidhi-vAkya (command/ injunction)
- arthavAda (laudatory or denunciatory statement).
Subdivisions of arthavAda:
- gunavada - opposed to what is known through other pramanas, and thus has to be interpreted in a different way.
- anuvada - “merely repeats what is known through other pramana-s, and cannot thus be the main import of the Vedas, which are supposed to reveal what cannot be known from other sources.”
- bhutArthavada - “neither opposed to what is known by other pranianas, nor can they be confirmed by other pramana-s.”.
- vedAntin-s consider them authoritative.
- pUrva-mImAmsaka-s don’t consider them authoritative.
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].
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 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.