@__ILLUMINATED 1. No, you are placing an artificial requirement on the Veda; that it must expressly set it out.
It is not for you or others to pick apart the tradition of the Ṛṣis; “oh I will take the Veda not the Smṛti”.
It is not for you or others to pick apart the tradition of the Ṛṣis; “oh I will take the Veda not the Smṛti”.
@__ILLUMINATED 2. I have also explained extensively how the Veda doesn’t address readers like normal religious texts. So your expectation is misplaced & misconceived. Please read.
@__ILLUMINATED 3. The Veda was churned out by insiders for the direct consumption of designated insiders. It is for the most part not a “self-aware” text that will explicitly lay out the restrictions on itself. You won’t find vidhis for so many things in Veda. Doesn’t mean you reject them.
@__ILLUMINATED 4. The Veda & ancillary texts are a single tradition. So what’s found in the ancillary texts (Kalpasūtras, etc) are good enough.
@__ILLUMINATED 5. Then, there are Purāṇas & other texts which are accessible to others & reiterate these restrictions. So, I am not sure why you keep harping on “ppl are to be implicated”.
@__ILLUMINATED 6. This is like saying that a secret military document, quickly created for internal communication, needs to tell you that it is P&C & be accessible to everyone so that ppl can read it & be convinced that it is P&C. That’s the worldly analog of your reasoning.
@__ILLUMINATED 7. There are accessible texts which say that the Veda is restricted. And that’s more than good enough.
8. Lastly, the Veda does contain Liṅga-pramāṇas which give rise to the inference that the Veda is not for all. So, it’s not right to state that the Veda says nothing.
8. Lastly, the Veda does contain Liṅga-pramāṇas which give rise to the inference that the Veda is not for all. So, it’s not right to state that the Veda says nothing.
@__ILLUMINATED //End
Loading suggestions...