Acharyas and Their commentary on Brahmsutra 3.1.25 "अशुद्धमिति चेन्न शब्दात्".{about पशु्याग}
The commentary of Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya ji is famous which says
"Do not harm any creature,but that is a general rule, while the precept, 'let him offer an animal to agnishoma' embodies an exception; and general rule and exception have different spheres of application".
Bhagvan Ramanujacharya ji writes it as:-
"For scripture declares that the killing of sacrificial animals makes them to go up to the heavenly world, and therefore is not of the nature of harm. An action which is the means of supreme exaltation is not of the nature of harm"
The commentaries of Nimbarka Samprdaya :-
"If it be objected that their works like jyotiṣṭoma and the rest are "Impure", involving, as they do, the killing of living creatures, and therefore these lead them to immobile births, we reply: no impurity is involved in jyotiṣṭoma
Baladeva VidyaBhushan (गौडीय वैष्णव):-
"One should sacrifice an animal in an agnisomiya- vajña," is an exception to that general rule. A general rule and a specific exception to that rule need not contradict each other."
Shri Madhvacharya although he had not mentioned animal specifically. He advised to use Pishta Pashu in PashuYaga in place of living pashu(which proves that animal sacrifice is there).
He has quotes a verse which talks about no evil consequences of hinsa auth by the vedas.
Vallabhacharya ji though didn't say anything about pashubali while commenting on brahmasutra 3.1.25 be he too supports it while commenting on bhagwat puran 1.16.7 where he writes "Shaamitram pashuhimsanam"and quotes a shruti of taittariya samhita mentioning pashuvadh
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