Childish Talks Again.
Again he is quoting Puranas in competition with Vedas. Let's continue till end to understand this. I can quote puranas that mentions animal sacrifice(quoted) but let's start from basic.
I have explained this whole thing already in thread but still.
Mimansa स्मृत्याधिकरण (१/३/३) The authority of Smriti vachan is not valid if it goes against Vedas.
या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः ।(Manu १२/९५)
Vyas smriti १/४ describes Vedas>>>Smritis>>puranas. Former blocks later.
An entry level gurukula student know such basics
This Manu- Vachan can solve all problems.
"तस्माद्यज्ञे वधोSवध:" in yajnas वध is अवध. Similarly Devi Bhagvat ३/२६/३३ "for yajnas Pashu Hinsa is not Hinsa" So half of problems gone.
Don't try to misinterpret medhatithi or cry about Adulteration. This one is from Kulluka Bhashya.
Bhagavatam 11/21/29-30 also does the Nishedh of Hinsa that is "राग प्राप्त".
Similar is the story with Mahabharaa,all that is written there is to do the nishedh of रागप्राप्त हिंसा.
I already knew the verses he is going to quote, hence I mentioned it all before him.
Not every Yajnya but only few Somyaga,Jyotishtoma, Ashvamedha mentions animal sacrifice.
We are Smartas we don't even take water from the hands of meat eaters but Yajna is a whole diff paradigm with अपूर्वसाधनत्व. Killing doesn't mean eating.
So if you are seeing the Ninda of Animal killing in Itihasa Purana then it has to be interpreted in Vedic way otherwise those words will simply be anti-vedic .
At a time parts of verified itihasa like Mahabhrata i.e. " gita was "fake" .Now he is using Puranas to prove himself right
His problem is simple He has too much effect of Agnivrat,ankur arya,rahul arya. Vedas do not matter to him his silly emotions does.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Rgveda Shakala samhita the total number of letters is 4,32,000. Rishis have calculated every word of Veda so the knowledge can be passed without a single letter getting lost.
Similar is the case with the tradition of interpretation. You can notice it in DarshanaShastras too. In Vedanta the debate about what is the meaning of अथ in the sutra अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा has taken many books to explain.
Interpretation of vedas require much effort.
Durgacharya has written {meaning in image
"Women didn't used to cover their breasts before British Rule" All this is Victorian Morality
Traditions, customs and dresses may vary within communities and region. But you can't say that "women didn't used to cover the upper part of body". There are different types of clothes mentioned to serve the purpose.
All of us agree that Kalidasa is Pre Mughal, Pre-British and maybe pre to any type pf cultural invasion.
For a second imagine all these stories to be true(in the way he has represented).
anecdotes cannot be against Vedas. By saying that the "meaning of Vedas should be taken from Itihasa and Puranas" we mean that history and Puranas are only for Vedas. Not against it.
If the method is derived from the Anecdote going against Veda or Smriti. So Due to the stability of the fame of Ravana,till date who abducted someone's wife such method can be derived :-
"कीर्तिकामः परदारानपहरेत् (the person who desires fame has to abduct the wife)"
But it's not derived because it's against Veda and Smritis. Therefore, one should imagine that the anecdotes holds no authority to determine what is dharma and adharma by themselves...
😂 Real Ramayan, Lol who takes these people seriously
In the very first page see how ill logic "Rama was a human not an avatara" this is the propaganda they are promoting and Hindus will be fine with this.
Also in this "pure ramayana "Hanumanji used monoplane ✈️ to reach lanka