querry
Saroja Bhate
BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)
Namaste
In my limits of understanding :
Itihaasa (So it was ) and Purana (- Old and New by referential line drawing for Present = vartamana) are perspectives of analysis.
What is analysed is ‘Vision’ (Darshana).
Probably, ‘itihasa’- basically a three word composite (iti- ha- aasa) acquired the ‘lexicon meaning map as ‘ History of land and people-civilization’.
In this sense, traditional schools see ‘ Mahabharata’ as ‘ iti-ha-aasa’ – and consider Mahabharata as Fifth Veda.
In the later sense, Modern academia looks at ‘Mahabharta’ as ‘itihaasa’- historic narrative and community collective memory.
Similalry, ‘Puraana’ ( of Pancha- lakshanam) - basically a two word composite (Puraa- Navam ) acquired the ‘lexicon meaning map as ‘ Mythology , Gods related Narrative’.
In this sense, traditional schools see ‘Purana’ in Devataa – Yuga Time scale ’ – and consider Purana as key to understand Veda.
In the later sense, Modern academia looks at ‘Purana’ as ‘ sacred faith ritual narrative’- with very little or no historicity.
Inside a traditional frame, Itihasa- Purana serve as means to understand ‘Veda’ ( itihasa- puraanaabhyaam, vedartham samupabruhayet) . This is ‘Darshana ( Vision) integrated approach , and text-language brooks symbolism. (Guhya, Samketa).
In the academic sense, study of Purana- itihasa and Veda are isolated blocks, using differing linguistic methodology.
Why is this clarity considered important ? It is Failure to ‘model language of text by document nativity’ and practicing tradition.
Inside of tradition, the language of texts : Veda, Itihasa, Purana – are unified stream – call it Chandas and/or Bhashaa. There is a common grammar framework, presented in Panini (and also rest of eight grammarians for samskrutham).
When same ‘texts of tradition: Veda, Itihasa, Purana - are placed under a non-native language model, each text seems to yield / need a different historically layered ‘ grammar-lexicon- framework’.
In short, the question could be articulated differently :
In the Chandogyopanishad (3.4) why is the ‘Mantra-Drashtaa’- of Atharva-veda referring to ‘Itihasa-purana?
Is it a prospect futuristic look ? Is it a ‘ integrated perspective defining look’ ? Is it a ‘ clue on how to connect veda to ‘Itihasa-purana?
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BznS1FPyG_uJUox6PqK79UmiCRzYxCyHfm7mLbNdkCEGiOFMw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
In the Chandogyopsnishad(3.4) why is the Atharvaveda referred to as Itihasapurana? Is there any connection between the two?
B V K
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/020101db3db0%24d288ca00%24779a5e00%24%40gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
अथ येऽस्योदञ्चो रश्मयस्ता एवास्योदीच्यो मधुनाड्योऽथर्वाङ्गिरस एव मधुकृत इतिहासपुराणं पुष्पं ता अमृता आपः ॥ १ ॥
ते वा एतेऽथर्वाङ्गिरस एतदितिहासपूराणमभ्यतपꣳस्तस्याभितप्तस्य यशस्तेज इन्द्रियं वीर्यमन्नाद्यꣳरसोऽजायत ॥ २ ॥
तद्व्यक्षरत्तदादित्यमभितोऽश्रयत्तद्वा एतद्यदेतदादित्यस्य परं कृष्णꣳ रूपम् ॥ ३ ॥
https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A9
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFz-r0gvxw%2BM1tYqi_o28cj5rs%2BqjmPx-ZdcUNz-ur_iZLLY7g%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
अथ येऽस्योदञ्चो रश्मयस्ता एवास्योदीच्यो मधुनाड्योऽथर्वाङ्गिरस एव मधुकृत इतिहासपुराणं पुष्पं ता अमृता आपः ॥ १ ॥
ते वा एतेऽथर्वाङ्गिरस एतदितिहासपूराणमभ्यतपꣳस्तस्याभितप्तस्य यशस्तेज इन्द्रियं वीर्यमन्नाद्यꣳरसोऽजायत ॥ २ ॥
तद्व्यक्षरत्तदादित्यमभितोऽश्रयत्तद्वा एतद्यदेतदादित्यस्य परं कृष्णꣳ रूपम् ॥ ३ ॥
Upaniṣad text:
Then, its Northward rays are its northern honey-cells:—The Atharvāṅgirasas are the honey-producers;—the Itihāsa-Purāṇa are the flower;—those waters are the nectar.—(1)
These Atharvāṅgirasas pressed this Itihāsa-Purāna; from it, thus pressed, proceeded its essence in the form of fame, resplendence, efficient organs, strength and eatable food.—(2)
It flowed out: it went round the Sun; this is what appears as the very black colour in the Sun.—(3)
Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):
Then, its Northern rays etc., etc., etc.—as before. Atharvāṅgirasas—are the mantra-texts seen by (revealed to) Atharvan—Aṅgiras; these, as used at sacrificial acts, are the honey-producers. Itihāsa-Purāṇa are the flowers;—the use of Itihāsa-Purāṇa is well-known as to be made as part of the ‘Pāriplava-nights’ at the Aśvamedha sacrifice.—This honey is what appears as the very black colour in the Sun—i.e., that which is extremely black.—(1-3)
Sundareswaran N.K.
In the Chandogyopsnishad(3.4) why is the Atharvaveda referred to as Itihasapurana? Is there any connection between the two?Saroja Bhate
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BznS1FPyG_uJUox6PqK79UmiCRzYxCyHfm7mLbNdkCEGiOFMw%40mail.gmail.com.
Professor (Retired),
University of Calicut,
Kerala - 673635
INDIA
https://universityofcalicut.academia.edu/SundareswaranNK
K S Kannan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB_6t-JNRyd52PXQ3bYTF-o18zd9VFcRyhsBgPEDifPSyg51Qg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor (Retd.), IIT-Madras.
Member, Expert Committee for Review of Criticism of Indian Knowledge Traditions, Central Sanskrit University (under MoE, GoI), Ganganath Jha Campus, Prayagraj.
Adjunct Faculty, Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT Hyderabad.
Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.
Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.
Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.
Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit
University, Bangalore.
Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The
National Colleges, Bangalore.
Saroja Bhate
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5dmo0%2BNdUwrMuOYc%3D6QaGT3B%2Bzn3Fpnyx%3Dcw_Wh4B3Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
Yogananda CS
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZWUT4MgXSp1cW37P3PQTsFRm33WedTciNsSMJoC1U%2Bxg%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramanujachar P
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BznS1FO1uj0PzEJTrBFrZQnhVZ1JvQfHGA2L_G7UirCsUq51g%40mail.gmail.com.
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)
BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)
Namaste
A plausible line of exploration on the specific issue:
< But if we don't want to break the symmetry and retain that this is a reference to the Atharvaveda , can we establish a connection between the contents of the A,Veda and what is understood from the term Itihasapurana ? Can we say that this is one of the earliest references to the Atharvaveda which was yet to get a recognition as a Veda and that its nature was similar to Itihasapurana?
1. If scholars want to explore < ANVAYA- VYATIREKA – MODEL / AAVAAPA – UDVAAPA – CHINTANA>, that is an intellectual
exercise. May be we can term it as < yadi- approach, syat – chet – argument >.
Would the outcome be ‘SAMANVAYA’ (Integrated construct) useful for ‘TAATPARYA-ARTHA – VINIRNAYA’= Decisive conclusion
or
‘SAMUCCHAYA’ ( Put together, Collated) – useful for ‘SAMSHODHANA – CHARCHAA’ = Debate – Open ended View is debatable.
2. On using the given statement, linguistically interpreted as ‘itihasa- Purana’- two terms pointing to two text class- categories,
And debating the positioning of ‘Atharva veda’ as given in tradition as right or needs modification by historicity, is a debate line.
Does not matter even if it goes against given understanding. Debate can continue.
Probably the articulate proto-issue for debate is: What criterion marks a given language document to be reckoned as ‘Veda’?
The tags like rig, Yajus, Saama – are adjectival and based on application.
In short, what is ‘VEDA’- LAKSHANAM ? Distinct from documents like ‘Itihasa- Purana’ or ‘MANTRA- BRAHMANA’?
Is it HUMAN- HISTORIC- LAND SOCIETY based ? OR ‘YOGA- VISION – STATES OFCONSCIOUSNESS’ Related ?
Opinions, Beliefs, Backdrop constructs differ between Traditional schools and Oriental/ Academicians.
For traditionalist, VEDA is ‘DARSHANA of Rushi’ ( Mantra darshanaat rushih). Language is ‘ TRANSCENDENTAL’.
The authority invoked is Gita, Brahma sutra, Upanishats, Panini-Patanjali- Vedanga Model, Vedanta acharyas Paramparaa.
For academics/ orientalists, VEDA is ‘PANEGYRIC of MIGRATING TRIBES, a human rant’ ( ucchaavachaa – bhaava- vachanam).
Language is ‘Historic ( not even related to God/s !) ’.
The authority authenticated / invoked is Tower of Babel- IE linguistics postcolonial Eurocentric narrative.
3. What if the term < itihaasa – purana> is treated as a ‘SUTRA’-
and yoga-vibhaga made as five instructional ‘adhikaara-terms’ : < iti- ha- aasa – puraa- navam > ?
unifying ‘Nirukta –guidance’ in explaining the terms; < prakaranasha arthah niruchyante>.
A way for Reconciliation ??
‘ Academia view fits in < iti- ha- aasa > linear history ; Traditional view fits in < puraa- navam > Cyclic History ??
Regards
BVK Sastry
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BznS1FO1uj0PzEJTrBFrZQnhVZ1JvQfHGA2L_G7UirCsUq51g%40mail.gmail.com.
Mahamaho. Subrahmanyam Korada
अथ येऽस्योदञ्चो रश्मय इत्यादि समानम् । अथर्वाङ्गिरसः अथर्वणा अङ्गिरसा च दृष्टा मन्त्रा अथर्वाङ्गिरसः, कर्मणि प्रयुक्ता मधुकृतः । इतिहासपुराणं पुष्पम् । तयोश्चेतिहासपुराणयोरश्वमेधे पारिप्लवासु रात्रिषु कर्माङ्गत्वेन विनियोगः सिद्धः । मधु एतदादित्यस्य परं कृष्णं रूपम् अतिशयेन कृष्णमित्यर्थः ॥
इति चतुर्थखण्डभाष्यम् ॥
ते वा एते यथोक्ता रोहितादिरूपविशेषा रसानां रसाः । केषां रसानामिति, आह — वेदा हि यस्माल्लोकनिष्यन्दत्वात्सारा इति रसाः, तेषां रसानां कर्मभावमापन्नानामप्येते रोहितादिविशेषा रसा अत्यन्तसारभूता इत्यर्थः । तथा अमृतानाममृतानि वेदा ह्यमृताः, नित्यत्वात् , तेषामेतानि रोहितादीनि रूपाण्यमृतानि । रसानां रसा इत्यादि कर्मस्तुतिरेषा — यस्यैवंविशिष्टान्यमृतानि फलमिति ॥
तथा ऋगाद्यमृतोपजीविनाममृतानां च द्विगुणोत्तरोत्तरवीर्यवत्त्वमनुमीयते भोगकालद्वैगुण्यलिङ्गेन । उद्यमनसंवेशनादि देवानां रुद्रादीनां विदुषश्च समानम् ॥4
Take it as उत्प्रेक्षा and अर्थवाद (कर्मस्तुतिः) । अर्थवाद is employed to generate an urge in the mind of the reader to perform the याग ।
’.....उत्पेक्षा व्यज्यते शब्दैः इवशब्दो’पि तादृशः (दण्डी) ।
The following clarification may be useful --
Fixing time to वेदs (ऋगेदकाल etc.) is spread across the Indian intelligentia (most) like a viral fever - they did / could not resist due to inferiority complex
(आत्मन्यूनताभावः) and also due to laziness .
वेद is नित्य -- त्रिकालाबाध्यः ।
All the four वेदs have been available at a single point of time. Otherwise one cannot perform a याग (वाचिकयागः - मानसिकयागः) ।
In अथर्ववेदभाष्यभूमिका, सायणाचार्य explains the real situation --
एवं त्रय्यां तत्र तत्र प्रतिपादितं तद्ब्रह्मत्वं तद् अथर्ववेदसिद्धमेव लेशेनोक्तम् इति अतात्पर्यविषयत्वात् अकृत्स्नत्वाच्च नादरणीयम् । अकृत्स्नत्वमेव अभिप्रेत्य शाखान्तरोक्तं हौत्रं
नानुष्ठेयम् इति आश्वलायनेनोक्तम् - तद्ये केचन छान्दोग्ये वाध्वर्यवे वा हौत्रामर्शाः समाम्नाता न तान् कुर्यात् अकृत्स्नत्वात् हौत्रस्य (आश्व 6-13) |
By three वेदs half of याग , वाङ्निर्वर्त्य , is done wheras the मानसिकयाग is performed by अथर्ववेद --
स वा एष त्रिभिर्वेदैः यज्ञस्य अन्यतरः पक्षः संस्क्रियते । मनसैव ब्रह्मा यज्ञस्य अन्यतरं पक्षं संस्करोति (गोपथब्राह्मणम् 3-2) |
Adju.Professor , Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT, Hyderabad
Ph:09866110741
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/019601db3e34%24d8671f60%2489355e20%24%40gmail.com.
Saroja Bhate
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQbKE9%2BpEDKRZ3fT1rb4tqM7bB6qj-gU8%3DGoi6EvNsf8A%40mail.gmail.com.
BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)
Namaste
Dhanyavad to Prof. MM Korada for clarifying the issue.
A follow up action question, the response could have totally new illuminating implications for ‘SAMSKRUTH LANGUAGE MODELLING’-
- for construction of Bharateeya Itihasa- Sampradaya (needing Panini – Vyakarana – base , Yaska- Nirukta binder and Patanjali Yoga- anchor),
- for Samskruth- Programming Language/ AI initiatives and Computational Linguistics?
- for sphere heading ‘Samskruth Movements for Social conversation, National Identity and Benefits’ pl.
- for Vedic studies Research and Applications ?
Is there any Indic academic schools supporting the ‘ VEDIC STUDIES’ by the Traditional Stand endorsed in the statement : :
< The following clarification may be useful -- Fixing time to वेदs (ऋगेदकाल etc.) is spread across the Indian intelligentia (most) like a viral fever - they did / could not resist due to inferiority complex (आत्मन्यूनताभावः) and also due to laziness . वेद is नित्य -- त्रिकालाबाध्यः । All the four वेदs have been available at a single point of time. Otherwise one cannot perform a याग (वाचिकयागः - मानसिकयागः) । >
Regards
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BznS1GwtcLmb0WGE-OZUMLFGoVQ%2BBsD-TKQPBFLuJMUh2W%3DrA%40mail.gmail.com.