Assessing the Five-Man Panel Report in Light of Mīmāṁsā

Assessing the Five-Man Panel Report in Light of Mīmāṁsā

April 8, 2022Posted inEssaysNo Comments
The only meaningful aspect of the report that merits scrutiny are the different approaches, or theories, of textual interpretation that the Minority and Majority use to reach their opposite conclusions. The Minority explicitly names a theoretical approach that they use for interpreting applicable law, and interpretations produced by this approach form the basis of their dissent. . . . It is unnecessary to examine the final decisions each side has made, since they proceed from their different ways of interpreting GBC laws. Hence, in order assess which side has more merit, it is necessary only to consider the different approaches to textual interpretation used by each side.
Yajnavalkya with Maitreyi and Gargi teaching Maharaja Janaka

Vedic Jurisprudence and Atonement

December 29, 2021Posted inEssays, Research, Translations4 Comments
In this paper, we will present some of the various texts in pañcarātra-śāstra and vaidika-śāstra pertaining to prāyaścitta (atonement) prescribed for a Vaiṣṇava. We should keep in mind that Pāñcarātra is the governing scripture for all topics related to vaiṣṇava-saṁskāras, specifically the rules and regulations of pañcarātra-dīkṣā, which ISKCON follows. At the same time, one should also be conversant with the rules and regulations presented in the vaidika-saṁskāras and their corresponding prāyaścitta, because these prescribe the limit for the punishment for non-devotees, what to speak of devotees who are on a higher path. Neither should be neglected. In summary, although both the Pañcarātra and Vaidika paths offer atonement even for great sins such as the killing of a brāhmaṇa, it does not necessarily follow that the person atoning for such sins be removed from a position of guruship. And punishing someone again for the same sin for which he has already atoned is prohibited.