question on yad vai tanna pasyati: Madhva bhashya takes it differently.
Krishna Kashyap
यत् द्वैतं न पश्यति - madhva bhashya
Krishna Kashyap
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnekRY%2BcBa66OZ2%2BDr0bPa2-%2B7cJ5sVZsEpw%3DJhT0dDyg%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatakrishna
You have made a significant observation, which academicians seem to project
as ‘ Text-Reading (grantha –paatha / shuddha –paatha / apa-paatha – dooshita
paatha / Text- Articulation (uccharana- prayoga) - used for commentators
preferred way of construction and alignment.
In other words, the options open, in - VYAVAHARIKA SATTA – are
A. - the ‘shruti’ needs to be accepted for practice guidance from a ‘Guru’
as roadmap and vehicle /tool ‘maarga- darshana/ saadhana’. The given
document is accepted as ‘visioned (darshana- shruta) by the ‘Prajnaa-
Avasthaa as Sarva-Moola- Darshana with ‘ Poorna-Prajnataa’ in
‘Parama-Hamsa- Sannyasa- Yoga-Samadhi- Brahmi-sthiti. Detailing in GITA as
‘NIR-DVANDVA / YOGA-YUKTO VISHUDDHAATMAA’.
In which case, the ‘arthantara, shruti-taatparya ‘ approach and ‘ multiple
text alignment for ‘common goal- purpose using linguistic ingenuity’ is
outside the pale of all debate. More specifically the talk of ‘variant
shaakhaa bheda readings’ !
B. - The ‘shaakhaa-bheda talk’ is an awareness of ‘ how ‘Shruti’- practice
(yaajnika viniyoga/ veda –shikshana) has reached to us at our times (through
the ‘ guru-kula – paramparaa) acquiring –assimilating everything that has
come across its flow in time. Which in this case for the raised question for
‘Text authenticity’ would be :
‘Till Shankara , what was the reading of the quoted text ? If the dual
reading existed in the hoary past itself, what was the specific purpose,
beyond the pride of different ways of doing the same ‘yajna/ savana’ ?
If the variant reading was in between ‘Shankara to Madhwa’, why did it
surface? For what benefit? Was it scholarly ingenuity? Or ‘Rushi –Darshana’
or ‘ Achaarya- Pramanam’?
Post Madhwa, how did the debating schools and ‘veda –shaakhaa’ practicing
schools defend the reading difference? The simple forgotten fact seems to
be is : ‘Darshana needs to be validated through ‘Divya-Chakshu-Darshana’;
The validation is not on the ‘material document from a scribe, as a
manuscript in a specific script’.
C. - ‘Shruti’ according to Yoga and all acharyas is for ‘Swadhyaya-
Ishwara- pranidhana – Dhyana Kriyaa- Yoga’.
If ‘shruti’ was held so sacred to be ‘apaursheya – uccharana –anooccharana
paramparaa- alikhitam’, why are we looking at ‘scribal differences’ ? Why we
are not focusing more on the ‘ uccharana- paramparaa’ ?? and more than that
‘ viniyoga –paramparaa’ ??
‘Shurti’ is helpful to experience ‘darshana -anubhava’ ;
‘Shruti’- is not to be used as the basis for ‘scholarly deliberations (
Paanditya- Pradarshana/ Vyakhyaa –chaaturee) for ‘ekavakyataa- samanvaya –
tattva vinirnaya’.
The Yajna/ Yaajnikaa traditions APPLIED (viniyoga) of the ‘shruti – sukta
- mantra’ per ‘ Needs of Practice (yajamanasya ishtaartha siddhyartham) ’.
This is a continuing tradition where the ‘ Mantra- Viniyoga mentioning is an
integral part of ‘Veda- vidhi’.
Mahabhashya –kaara asserts on why ‘Vyakarana as Vedanga is important’ in
the statement : ‘Yaajnikaah Pathanti, Vibhaktim kurvanti’. Nirukta kaara
confirms this ‘Text-Modifiers’ as ‘ Nirukta sampradaya per perspectives of
understanding ‘shruti’ adhibhoota, adhidaiva, adhyatma’. The entirety of
Bruhaddevataa – anukramani endorses this. And all this is ‘ Yaajnika-
Vaidika- Vyaavaharika- dharma shaastra – samskara for samsara’. The
‘Purushartha Goal’ of ‘Vyavaharika Sattaa’.
Note: Here, I am still to get more clarity on ‘ All current given Vedanta
schools using ‘Shadanga-Vedanga-Vak Yoga’ approach to build their ‘Vedanta
–Siddhanta’. The main stream ‘Vedanta- Vyaakhyaana / Pravachana – anuvaada’
is mostly using the ‘ narrow lens of ‘ Panini- Bhashaa- Niyama –Darpana’ to
interpret (not practice) ‘shruti- chandas as ‘ Mantra –Yoga- for Ishwara
pranidhana/ Swaadhyaya’. Within this narrow lens view and practice lane, the
‘Sandhi rules to split- space the given voice –document text ’, as the one
debated needs greater clarity and application specificity of ‘Pratishaakhya
Shikhsaa based semantics ’ than ‘Bhashaa –Sandhi –semantics applied to
‘Sa-Svara Chandas text’.
In my limited understanding, this seems to be wisdom
emerging from the statements like ‘ naishaa tarkena –
matiraapneaya/ aapaniiyaa ….’. ; tarka- apratishthanaat’.
D. - Acharya Shankara’s opening declarations in Brahma sutra Bhashya uses a
unique and significant expression – useful for decoding this ‘Patha-bheda’
issue. The term is ‘Yushmat- Asmat-Pratyaya –gocharayoh’. [ This term,
apart from all the technical explanation points to the ‘ Difference in the
Point of View: What I see as it appears to me and What you see as it appears
to you’. Both are real experiences. I cannot see through your eyes!
Paramarthika Satta in the eyes of ‘ HE’ cannot be seen by ‘me’ being in
‘vyaavaharika satta’.
This gets further annotated and explained in Bhamati , using a plurality
of terms : [Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya Bhamati Vachaspati Bhamati Hindi
Vyakhya Swami Yogindranand Part 1 Chowkambha : Free Download, Borrow, and
Streaming : Internet Archive
<https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraShankaraBhashyaBhamatiVachaspatiBham
atiHindiVyakhyaSwamiYogindranandPart1Chowkambha_201806/page/n30/mode/1up> ].
The clarity on terms should be helpful to see the line of thinking in :
‘pareekshaka- Laukika – vyavahara samaya – loka saamaanya – baahyaah –
shaastra chintakah –pratipattarah – praadeshikatvam’. This issue needs an
in house of traditionalists to be resolved !!
‘Using What –How – under whose ‘ presiding’ - is a different issue . The
debate of this nature is highly feared for the potential fear of ‘
possibilities it opens up to bring out the in-house ‘ raga –dvesha’-
‘icchaa- bhaya –krodha’ - clinkers’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Krishna Kashyap
Sent: 14 June 2022 09:10
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} question on yad vai tanna pasyati:
Madhva bhashya takes it differently.
see this doc: geetha prasthana: published by vidya peeta bangalore:
Krishna Kashyap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:04 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com
<mailto:kkashy...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Namaste everyone,
I have a question on this verse of Brihadaranyaka
the whole line is: यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तत्र पश्यति नहि
द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्न तु तद् द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत्॥
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/tanna> tanna
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/pa%C5%9Byati> paśyati
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/pa%C5%9Byanvai> paśyanvai
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/taddra%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADavya%E1
%B9%83> taddraṣṭavyaṃ <https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/na> na
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/pa%C5%9Byati> paśyati
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/na> na
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/hi> hi
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/dra%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADurd%E1%B9%
9B%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADerviparilopo> draṣṭurdṛṣṭerviparilopo
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/vidyate%27vin%C4%81%C5%9Bitv%C4
%81nna> vidyate'vināśitvānna
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/tu> tu
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/taddvit%C4%AByamasti>
taddvitīyamasti
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/tato%27nyadvibhakta%E1%B9%83>
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/yatpa%C5%9Byet> yatpaśyet
Raghavendra
Namaste everyone,I have a question on this verse of Brihadaranyakathe whole line is: यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तत्र पश्यति नहि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्न तु तद् द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत्॥
see details below in this link:My question is there is a difference in the very original verse as per these two acharyas.यत् वै तं न पश्यति - shankara bhashyaयत् द्वैतं न पश्यति - madhva bhashya
Are these 2 different versions both valid according to the recensions of Vedas?. Is this due to difference due to some variation of kanva-madhyandina type paathas?I think these two acharyas have taken this sentence with a clear difference in the original verse itself. Is this allowed? I was under the impression srutis are not corrupted and hence only allowed variations are if they belong to kanva and madyandina recensions. OR there may be andhra- paatha or dravida- paatha differences.Kindly advise what exactly is the situation here.Thanks a lot.Best Regards,Krishna Kashyap
--
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 on the web visit https:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnekRY+cBa66OZ2+Dr0bPa2-+7cJ5sVZsEpw=JhT0...@mail.gmail.com.
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.
Krishna Kashyap
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/01c301d87fb1%24d75bdb90%24861392b0%24%40gmail.com.
Krishna Kashyap
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1655263889.S.69016.autosave.drafts.1655266906.8174%40webmail.rediffmail.com.
BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)
Namaste Raghavendra Mahodaya
1. This is actually a side question, still I think it as a significant part of this thread for explanation. This is triggered by your pointer of ‘Pada-patha use for ‘Multiple Meaning derivation from Vedic text and validation as ‘ Acharya –Sampradaya’.
2. I wish to draw your attention to your quote : use of ‘pada-patha technicality (invoking a word-split-vedic -text reading (पद-पाठ) viz., यत् द्वैतं न पश्यति in the Part-B of the भाष्य to enlarge the scope to include different manifestations of the divine himself. )
Pada-Patha (veda-samhitaa – pada- aanupoorvi-vibhaaga) is primarily dependent on the ‘integrity of source text with ‘svara’. The ‘kaaraka- anvaya krama’ in ‘Ashta- vikruti- text demands more than ‘ Vibhakti - Pratyaya’ rule -considerations.
The textual material and known tradition ( to the limits of my understanding) as printed / digital does not show ‘traisvarya-patha/ ashta-vikruti patha use’ for the text passage under discussion.
The ‘given prose text (brahmana bhaaga) can be musically, accentually rendered by a trained person and seemingly made to fit in to a ’traisvarya- pattern’.
We have seen Technical use, convenient misuse (under inconvenient contexts) and (deliberate) abuse in several occasions. Such illustrations known in the ‘inside circles of practitioners’ are better kept off record in a serious discussion.
Question: Is this entire (Bruhadaranyaka ) text and specific passage/s in particular carrying ‘svara’ markers and a continuity of ‘ living tradition’? What technicalities are needed for generating ‘ashta-vikruti veda-patha’? Has any other Acharya invoked this technicality in their commentary ?
Basically this is a ‘Vedanga- Nirukta- sampradaya, having its basis is Ashtadhyayi- Vaidika Svara –prakriya to generate Yajnika- Sasvara Vaidika shabda’s. Where and when this tradition went underground at India –core pedagogies training next generation practicing scholar’s?
In other words, issue is ‘Integrity of Vedanga foundation for building Vednata- Siddhanta’.
There is a practical tradition for guiding the word-split of given ‘mantra-samhita-source text’, in to the elemental units. The rule base of ‘Panini’ is necessary, but not sufficient to ‘arrive at the communication intended from the mantra’.
The ‘ Vyakarana Shikshana needed for Ashta-Vikruti patha of different Veda- samhitas’ is far above the current known frame work of ‘Ashtadhyayi – Shikshana- Paddhati’, which seems to have disconnected itself from the ‘ shadanga- vedanga frame work and bases of ‘Shikhsaa –Chandas’ [Voice –Flow- Articulations] and ‘Nirukta- Kalpa’ [ Meaning – Contextualization- Professional applications in yajna- practice; and ‘Vaidika – Pratishaakhya – Sampradayas’.
Surface painting can only conceal the deep fissures; it does not resolve the issues or rectify the same.
Question specificity to this context: The text under discussion is Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad : (4-3-23 to 31): The word-segment < यद्वै तन्न पश्यति > appears at least eight times clearly in the specific passage , all seemingly following the same logic.
There is a standard for ‘ashta-vikruti-patha generation from samhita’ - from earliest times. Would the ashta-vikruti patha contribute to ‘ Meaning changes’ is a highly debated and controversial issue.
The ‘ashta-vikruti-patha’ preserves the ‘svara-marked text integrity’ lending itself to correction by rules books is a given convention.
Bruhadaranyaka discourse and dialogue of Janaka – Yajnavalkya points to this unique ‘Veda-Yajnika –Viniyoga’ and ‘Vak-Yoga- Upaasanaa’ upfront; stated in Bruhadaranyaka -4-1-1: Source text and Shankara Bhashya :
जनको ह वैदेह आसां चक्रे । अथ ह याज्ञवल्क्य आवव्राज ।तं होवाच याज्ञवल्क्य किमर्थमचारीः पशूनिच्छनण्वन्तानीति । उभयमेव संराडिति होवाच ॥ बृह. ४,१.१ ॥ यत्ते कश्चिदब्रवीत्तच्छृणवामेति ।अब्रवीन्मे जित्वा शैलिनिः वाग्वै ब्रह्मेति ।यथा मातृमान् पितृमानाचार्यवान् ब्रूयात्तथा तच्छैलिनिरब्रवीद्वाग्वै ब्रह्मेति ।
- जनको ह वैदेह आसाञ्चक्रे आसनं कृतवान् आस्थायिकां दत्तवानित्यर्थः, दर्शनकामेभ्यो राज्ञः । अथ ह तस्मिन्नवसरे याज्ञवल्क्य आवव्राज आगतवान् आत्मनो योगक्षेमार्थम् , राज्ञो वा विविदिषां दृष्ट्वा अनुग्रहार्थम् । तमागतं याज्ञवल्क्यं यथावत्पूजां कृत्वा उवाच ह उक्तवान् जनकः — हे याज्ञवल्क्य किमर्थमचारीः आगतोऽसि ; किं पशूनिच्छन्पुनरपि आहोस्वित् अण्वन्तान् सूक्ष्मान्तान् सूक्ष्मवस्तुनिर्णयान्तान् प्रश्नान् मत्तः श्रोतुमिच्छन्निति । उभयमेव पशून्प्रश्नांश्च, हे सम्राट् — सम्राडिति वाजपेययाजिनो लिङ्गम्; यश्चाज्ञया राज्यं प्रशास्ति, स सम्राट् ; तस्यामन्त्रणं हे सम्राडिति ; समस्तस्य वा भारतस्य वर्षस्य राजा ॥
The ‘Shankara-Bhashya technicality of term < अण्वन्तान् सूक्ष्मान्तान् सूक्ष्मवस्तुनिर्णयान्तान् प्रश्नान् > seems to be the basis for < dravya- approach as = अण्वन्तान् -सूक्ष्मवस्तुनिर्णयान्तान् प्रश्नान् > perspective used in Acharya Madhva bhashya.
This is where I seem to connect to Sri Raghavendra Acharyas post reading : < Clarification:
The term pAramArthika-satya is used in different source texts and it is not denied, but, for Madhva, its import is quite different from what it is for Shankara, this fact is agreed by both of us. What is the basis for the difference in its import? It is a dravya for Madhva, not a dravya for Shankara.>
What then is difference in ‘dravya-lakshana’ ? for two schools ? Certainly this is not the ‘ nyaya – vaisheshika frame of ‘ sapta-padartha / nava-dravya’. The ‘dravya’ in Vedanta frame seems to refer to ‘ Chit-Padartha’ - the ‘Ashta-prakruti – Tri guna ’ frame coming from Gita (7-4).
Therefore invoking ‘pada-patha’ technicality from ‘Yajnika –Tradition of upaasanaa’- to interpret / justify / attack would need more substantiating materials and practicing tradition support for justification.
Technically the ‘ yajnika- tradition’ based meaning, is meant for advanced Vana-prasthi’s and Siddha- Mantra-yogi-antar-yaaga saadhanaa .
Such ‘advanced ‘ Brahmana – Maharshi Siddha -(gita:11-21)- Rushi (Gita:13-4) Yogi’s are called ‘Vyasa-Yogi’s’(Gita:10-37) and ‘ Muni’s- Yatis’ – Sannyasi’.
A sub section of this team are ‘Vaikhanasa’ as ‘ Devalaya –Archakas’, in a different context. Vaikhanasa’s follow mostly the ‘Pancharatra –aagama’ and adapt ‘Saguna – Devataa - Murthy – upaasanaa’.
Potential implications of Scholars position on invoking ‘ ashta-vikruti-patha’ for Vedic – Vednatacharya – Tattva- Vinirnaya / Transaltion and Teaching- Practice traditions:
The entire schema of ‘Veda to Vedanta’ - is an advancing academic exploration and Yoga-Saadhanaa. This journey needs inclusive progression of inputs from :: Poorvameemaamsaa to Uttara meemaamsaa :: technically described as ‘Shaareeraka Meemaamsaa’.
It is a progress from ‘Brahma-karma (Brahma-Yajna) to ‘Brahma-(Yoga-Darshana) Jijnyasa’. It is expansion of ‘antaryaaga’ process given in ‘Bruhadaranyaka Vak-Yoga (Shabda- brahma (Gita: 6-44) / Akshara Brahma (Gita:8-3) / Patanjali –Pratyahara – Yogaanga technicality ‘ to ‘ get to ‘ Para-Brahma/ Parama –Purusha’ from ‘Brahma-Deva (Trimurthy) ’.
The road map is Gita ‘ Kshetra- kshetrajna Vibhaga yoga’ . Madhwa sampradya seems to have a practical of this in ‘Akshara- Maatrukaa- upaasanaa’. So does Shaankara sampradaya in Sri Vidya upaasanaa as ‘Vak-yogini- gana’.
The core tradition uses this template and comes up as unified Veda-Bhashya :: Vaidika – Yajna- Vidhi upaasanaa - viniyoga / Devalaya- Agama devataa- poojaa – paaraayana- paddhati.
This is what I see as ‘Saayana –Veda –Bhashya’ as a ‘ Common –base - Social necessity – for Vaidika – Dharma- Anushthana’, leaving out the ‘choice of ‘Vedanta’ by ‘shraddha’ in any of the Vedantacharya’s.
The Social Media views, shares and posts have created havoc in spreading confusions in this area.
Regards
BVK Sastry
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1655263889.S.69016.autosave.drafts.1655266906.8174%40webmail.rediffmail.com.
Raghavendra
Respected Sir,
स्वस्ति,
Your writings are scholarly and educative. My effort here is more on the side of learning than adding anything to what you have already observed. However, I have two questions in the end and I seek your able guidance.
I cannot agree with you more on the <<Pada-Patha (veda-samhitaa–pada- aanupoorvi-vibhaaga) is primarily dependent on the ‘integrity of source text with ‘svara’. The ‘kaaraka- anvaya krama’ in ‘Ashta- vikruti- text demands more than ‘Vibhakti - Pratyaya’ rule-considerations>>.
Again, I do not think anyone can disagree with you on this one <<We have seen Technical use, convenient misuse (under inconvenient contexts) and (deliberate) abuse in several occasions. Such illustrations known in the ‘inside circles of practitioners’ are better kept off record in a serious discussion>>
<<Question: Is this entire (Bruhadaranyaka ) text and specific passage/s in particular carrying ‘svara’ markers and a continuity of ‘living tradition’? What technicalities are needed for generating ‘ashta-vikruti veda-patha’? Has any other Acharya invoked this technicality in their commentary?>>
<<There is a practical tradition for guiding the word-split of given ‘mantra-samhita-source text’, in to the elemental units. The rule base of ‘Panini’ is necessary, but not sufficient to ‘arrive at the communication intended from the mantra’>>.
I cannot agree with you more on <<The Social Media views, shares and posts have created havoc in spreading confusions in this area>>. It is growing into monstrous proportions and it is indeed a big concern, I share your concerns too.
Coming to the substantive part of your observations below which is in the form of response to my post wherein I had shared the text of the भाष्य of भगवान् आचार्य पूज्यचरण with the group,
<<1. This is actually a side question, still I think it as a significant part of this thread for explanation. This is triggered by your pointer of ‘Pada-patha use for ‘Multiple Meaning derivation from Vedic text and validation as ‘ Acharya –Sampradaya’. 2. I wish to draw your attention to your quote : use of ‘pada-patha technicality (invoking a word-split-vedic -text reading (पद-पाठ) viz., यत् द्वैतं न पश्यति in the Part-B of the भाष्य to enlarge the scope to include different manifestations of the divine himself. ) The textual material and known tradition (to the limits of my understanding) as printed / digital does not show ‘traisvarya-patha/ ashta-vikruti patha use’ for the text passage under discussion. The ‘given prose text (brahmana bhaaga) can be musically, accentually rendered by a trained person and seemingly made to fit in to a ’traisvarya- pattern’. Basically this is a ‘Vedanga- Nirukta- sampradaya, having its basis is Ashtadhyayi-Vaidika Svara–prakriya to generate Yajnika- Sasvara Vaidika shabda’s. Where and when this tradition went underground at India–core pedagogies training next generation practicing scholar’s? In other words, issue is ‘Integrity of Vedanga foundation for building Vednata- Siddhanta’. The ‘ Vyakarana Shikshana needed for Ashta-Vikruti patha of different Veda- samhitas’ is far above the current known frame work of ‘Ashtadhyayi – Shikshana- Paddhati’, which seems to have disconnected itself from the ‘ shadanga- vedanga frame work and bases of ‘Shikhsaa –Chandas’ [Voice –Flow- Articulations] and ‘Nirukta- Kalpa’ [ Meaning – Contextualization- Professional applications in yajna- practice; and ‘Vaidika – Pratishaakhya – Sampradayas’. Surface painting can only conceal the deep fissures; it does not resolve the issues or rectify the same. Question specificity to this context: The text under discussion is Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad : (4-3-23 to 31): The word-segment < यद्वै तन्न पश्यति > appears at least eight times clearly in the specific passage , all seemingly following the same logic. There is a standard for ‘ashta-vikruti-patha generation from samhita’ - from earliest times. Would the ashta-vikruti patha contribute to ‘ Meaning changes’ is a highly debated and controversial issue. The ‘ashta-vikruti-patha’ preserves the ‘svara-marked text integrity’ lending itself to correction by rules books is a given convention. Bruhadaranyaka discourse and dialogue of Janaka – Yajnavalkya points to this unique ‘Veda-Yajnika –Viniyoga’ and ‘Vak-Yoga- Upaasanaa’ upfront; stated in Bruhadaranyaka -4-1-1: Source text and Shankara Bhashya : जनको ह वैदेह आसां चक्रे । अथ ह याज्ञवल्क्य आवव्राज ।तं होवाच याज्ञवल्क्य किमर्थमचारीः पशूनिच्छनण्वन्तानीति । उभयमेव संराडिति होवाच ॥ बृह. ४,१.१ ॥ यत्ते कश्चिदब्रवीत्तच्छृणवामेति ।अब्रवीन्मे जित्वा शैलिनिः वाग्वै ब्रह्मेति ।यथा मातृमान् पितृमानाचार्यवान् ब्रूयात्तथा तच्छैलिनिरब्रवीद्वाग्वै ब्रह्मेति । - जनको ह वैदेह आसाञ्चक्रे आसनं कृतवान् आस्थायिकां दत्तवानित्यर्थः, दर्शनकामेभ्यो राज्ञः । अथ ह तस्मिन्नवसरे याज्ञवल्क्य आवव्राज आगतवान् आत्मनो योगक्षेमार्थम् , राज्ञो वा विविदिषां दृष्ट्वा अनुग्रहार्थम् । तमागतं याज्ञवल्क्यं यथावत्पूजां कृत्वा उवाच ह उक्तवान् जनकः — हे याज्ञवल्क्य किमर्थमचारीः आगतोऽसि ; किं पशूनिच्छन्पुनरपि आहोस्वित् अण्वन्तान् सूक्ष्मान्तान् सूक्ष्मवस्तुनिर्णयान्तान् प्रश्नान् मत्तः श्रोतुमिच्छन्निति । उभयमेव पशून्प्रश्नांश्च, हे सम्राट् — सम्राडिति वाजपेययाजिनो लिङ्गम्; यश्चाज्ञया राज्यं प्रशास्ति, स सम्राट् ; तस्यामन्त्रणं हे सम्राडिति ; समस्तस्य वा भारतस्य वर्षस्य राजा ॥ The ‘Shankara-Bhashya technicality of term < अण्वन्तान् सूक्ष्मान्तान् सूक्ष्मवस्तुनिर्णयान्तान् प्रश्नान् > seems to be the basis for <dravya- approach as = अण्वन्तान् -सूक्ष्मवस्तुनिर्णयान्तान् प्रश्नान् > perspective used in Acharya Madhva bhashya.
This is where I seem to connect to Sri Raghavendra Acharyas post reading : < Clarification: The term pAramArthika-satya is used in different source texts and it is not denied, but, for Madhva, its import is quite different from what it is for Shankara, this fact is agreed by both of us. What is the basis for the difference in its import? It is a dravya for Madhva, not a dravya for Shankara.> What then is difference in ‘dravya-lakshana’ ? for two schools ? Certainly this is not the ‘ nyaya – vaisheshika frame of ‘ sapta-padartha / nava-dravya’. The ‘dravya’ in Vedanta frame seems to refer to ‘Chit-Padartha’ - the ‘Ashta-prakruti – Tri guna ’ frame coming from Gita (7-4).Therefore invoking ‘pada-patha’ technicality from ‘Yajnika –Tradition of upaasanaa’- to interpret / justify / attack would need more substantiating materials and practicing tradition support for justification.Technically the ‘ yajnika- tradition’ based meaning, is meant for advanced Vana-prasthi’s and Siddha- Mantra-yogi-antar-yaaga saadhanaa Such ‘advanced ‘ Brahmana – Maharshi Siddha -(gita:11-21)- Rushi (Gita:13-4) Yogi’s are called ‘Vyasa-Yogi’s’(Gita:10-37) and ‘ Muni’s- Yatis’ – Sannyasi’. A sub section of this team are ‘Vaikhanasa’ as ‘ Devalaya –Archakas’, in a different context. Vaikhanasa’s follow mostly the ‘Pancharatra –aagama’ and adapt ‘Saguna – Devataa - Murthy – upaasanaa’. Potential implications of Scholars position on invoking ‘ ashta-vikruti-patha’ for Vedic – Vednatacharya – Tattva- Vinirnaya / Transaltion and Teaching- Practice traditions: The entire schema of ‘Veda to Vedanta’ - is an advancing academic exploration and Yoga-Saadhanaa. This journey needs inclusive progression of inputs from :: Poorvameemaamsaa to Uttara meemaamsaa :: technically described as ‘Shaareeraka Meemaamsaa’.
It is a progress from ‘Brahma-karma (Brahma-Yajna) to ‘Brahma-(Yoga-Darshana) Jijnyasa’. It is expansion of ‘antaryaaga’ process given in ‘Bruhadaranyaka Vak-Yoga (Shabda- brahma (Gita: 6-44) / Akshara Brahma (Gita:8-3) / Patanjali –Pratyahara – Yogaanga technicality ‘ to ‘ get to ‘ Para-Brahma/ Parama –Purusha’ from ‘Brahma-Deva (Trimurthy) ’. The road map is Gita ‘ Kshetra- kshetrajna Vibhaga yoga’ . Madhwa sampradya seems to have a practical of this in ‘Akshara- Maatrukaa- upaasanaa’. So does Shaankara sampradaya in Sri Vidya upaasanaa as ‘Vak-yogini- gana’. The core tradition uses this template and comes up as unified Veda-Bhashya :: Vaidika – Yajna- Vidhi upaasanaa - viniyoga / Devalaya- Agama devataa- poojaa – paaraayana- paddhati. This is what I see as ‘Saayana –Veda –Bhashya’ as a ‘ Common –base - Social necessity – for Vaidika – Dharma- Anushthana’, leaving out the ‘choice of ‘Vedanta’ by ‘shraddha’ in any of the Vedantacharya’s. Regards BVK Sastry>>
Firstly, in the text of Br. Up and its word readings, I would like to share that there is an 850-year-old palm-leaf manuscript containing collected works (सर्वमूल) of आचार्य, penned down by one of his illustrious direct disciples श्रीहृषिकेशतीर्थ, preserved in पलिमारुमठ, उडुपि, has this reading यद्द्वैतं न पश्यति as part of the original Upanishad itself. The palm leaf dates back to the time of आचार्य. Why that word reading or पद पाठ is important is already covered in my earlier mail.
Different ways of reading (संहितापाठ/पदपाठ/क्रमपाठ/जाटापाठ/घनपाठ) devised is for the preservation of the integrity of the texts. Out of these, the पदपाठ helps as an exegetical tool also is my limited understanding. आचार्य used this exegesis to provide us a निर्णय on the issue of the persona of Brahman and his innumerable auspicious qualities as being non-different Him because He sees it as such. (यद्द्वैतं न पश्यति). This is his metaphysical conception of the highest ontological reality.
सर्वज्ञाचार्य-मध्वमुनि is of the firm view that the स्वर and छन्दस् also work as Vedic exegetical tools. His commentator, par excellence, सर्वज्ञकल्प-श्रीजयतीर्थभिक्षु in one instance disagrees with the view of स्कन्दस्वामि on छन्दस्. स्कन्दस्वामि is of the view that छन्दस् doesn’t help Vedic exegesis when he says: तत्त्रार्षदैवतयोः अर्थावबोधने उपयुज्यमानत्वात् ते दर्शयिष्येते, न छन्दः, अनुपयुज्यमानत्वात्, both आचार्य and his commentator श्रीजयतीर्थभिक्षु disagree and the latter referring to the view of आचार्य says: एतेन छन्दोज्ञानमनुपयुक्तमिति कस्यचिन्मतं निराकृतं भवति.
सर्वज्ञाचार्य-मध्वमुनि, at one place in chandogya, uses the प्लुत appropriately to convey a meaning which fits in well with the context.
…त्वं नु भगवः सयुग्वा रैक्व इत्यहँ ह्यरा३ इति…
मध्व-भाष्य - अहं ह्यरा३ इति *प्लुतिः* पामकषण भावेन…
आचार्य and his able doctors of the school use all the available exegetical tools to arrive at faultless meanings of the Vedas.
I have a question
संभू॑तिं च विना॒शं च॒ यस्तद्वेदो॒भय॑ स॒ह । वि॒ना॒शेन॑ मृ॒त्युं ती॒र्त्वा संभू॑त्या॒मृत॑मश्नुते ॥
असंभू॑तिं is the word reading here, but संभू॑तिं is seen due to अ-वर्ण लोप, this is the view of Sri. Shankara.
स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति
Sri Madhva has स आत्मा (अ)तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति on two occasions to achieve भेद between Brahman and Jeeva. However, he retains स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति on one occasion and achieves भेद between Brahman and Jeeva.
In the case of संहितापाठ viz., संभू॑तिं च विना॒शं च॒ यस्तद्वेदो॒भय॑ स॒ह । वि॒ना॒शेन॑ मृ॒त्युं ती॒र्त्वा संभू॑त्या॒मृत॑मश्नुते ॥ the स्वर is नीयत, does the word reading असंभू॑तिं affect the integrity of Vedic texts?
In the case of, स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति, the स्वर is not नीयत, it is optional in ब्राह्मण, आरण्यक and उपनिषद् texts. Here euphonic combination allows splitting into स आत्मा (अ)तत्त्वमसि, does the dissolution of the euphony स आत्मा (अ)तत्त्वमसि affect the integrity of Vedic texts?
On the enumeration of padArtha and ontological classification of dravya, please find details below.
In the school of Sri Madhva, the categories are,
द्रव्य-गुण-कर्म-सामान्य-विशेष-विशिष्ट-अंशी-शक्ति-सादृश्य-अभावा दश पदार्थाः /
The classification of द्रव्य is as under,
परमात्मा-लक्ष्मी-जीव-अव्याकृताकाश-प्रकृति-गुणत्रय-महातत्त्व-अहङ्कारतत्त्व-बुद्धि-मन-इन्द्रिय-मात्रा-भूत-ब्रह्माण्ड-अविद्या-वर्ण-अन्धकार-वासना-काल-प्रतिबिम्ब भेदात् विंशतिरेव//
द्रव्यम् is defined generically as द्रवण प्राप्यत्वम्. (द्रवणं च गमनम् also)
प्रधान-द्रव्य is श्रीहरि who is अनन्तगुणपरिपूर्ण । सृष्ट्याद्यष्टकर्ता । सर्वज्ञः ।परमुख्यवृत्त्या सकलशब्दवाच्यः । जड-जीव-प्रकृतिभ्यो$त्यन्तविलक्षणः । ज्ञानानन्दाद्यात्मक-कल्याणविग्रहवान् । सर्वस्वतन्त्रः । एक एव । नानारूपः । सर्वाण्यपि रूपाणि पूर्णानि । स्वरूप-गुण-क्रियादिभिर्त्यन्ताभिन्नः । This is the चिद्पदार्थconception of Sri Madhva.
Now, please connect the position of Sri Madhva’s ontological aspect of the divine viz., स्वरूप-गुण-क्रियादिभिर्त्यन्ताभिन्नः with that of what he derived from the second word-reading of the shruti viz., यद्द्वैतं न पश्यति । Sri Hari doesn’t perceive in His own bosom difference at all because He is स्वरूप-गुण-क्रियादिभिर्त्यन्ता अभिन्नः
I doubt Sri Shankara has this kind of ontological status behind his चिद्पदार्थ. In fact, I was surprised when you observed: <<This is where I seem to connect to Sri Raghavendra Acharyas post reading :<Clarification: The term pAramArthika-satya is used in different source texts and it is not denied, but, for Madhva, its import is quite different from what it is for Shankara, this fact is agreed by both of us. What is the basis for the difference in its import? It is a dravya for Madhva, not a dravya for Shankara.> What then is difference in ‘dravya-lakshana’? for two schools? >> चिद्पदार्थ of Sri Shankara is not a द्रव्य is my understanding.
Thank you and Best regards,
Raghavendra B.
To view this discussion on the web visit https:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnekRY cBa66OZ2 Dr0bPa2- 7cJ5sVZsEpw=JhT0...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnosA6GwcQvccVBLaM4PB 6QDEyR4C73N...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1655263889.S.69016.autosa...@webmail.rediffmail.com.
--
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.
BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)
Namaste Raghavendra Mahodaya
1. Thanks for taking time to recognize the ‘challenges’, acknowledge the challenging issues that ‘all of us need to address (irrespective of our personal leaning to any specific school of Vedanta – acharyas and Science- views on Matter- Energy- Time related). The long response is due to the number of complexly connected issues in your post.
Most respectfully, the exchange of ideas – views made here is not with any intention of hurling charges against any one (doshaaropana), proving ‘my acharya is better than your acharya’ ( which will be greatest ‘Bhaagavata- apachaara), or display of scholarship (paandityaabhimaana).
The post is mere loud thinking of inner struggle to understand the guidance provided by ‘parama- kaarunika- acharyas’ for coming out of ‘sandeha –bhranti’ when lost in the ‘shaastra-jaala- mahaaranya’.
2. I would not venture to get in to ‘public forum- analysis’ on the following points.
- ‘Acharya –Views Comparison’ on ‘Chit-padartha/ Dravya’- issues.
- Krishna Kashyap’s observation on ‘Traditionalist Teachers providing the < impression/ Faith- endorsement> reading < I think these two acharyas have taken this sentence with a clear difference in the original verse itself. Is this allowed? I was under the impression srutis are not corrupted and hence only allowed variations are if they belong to kanva and madyandina recensions. OR there may be andhra- paatha or dravida- paatha differences.>
Note: It would hurt the sentiments of many and cause ‘turmoil ( udvega –ashaanti –dvesha). It would be better to have such a dialogue, in a ‘closed room – face to face, with all our reference resources and tools, (and of course with ‘hot-chai’ to keep the mind and body alert). Getting clarity is the sole purpose, as ‘Satya- anveshana’. This is not a ‘ Vaada for prashasti’. If you communicate off line, I would be happy to meet you at your place and learn more:
3. On< चिद्पदार्थ of Sri Shankara is not a द्रव्य is my understanding.> Seems yes.
This is where Gita understanding of 'Jnana- Vijnana' related to 'Paramatma Deha (Gita-11-7), Brahma-Shareera ( as Ashta-Prakruti Gita (7-4), The Padartha -Dravya - Prakruti technicalities across the six darshana shaastras need a revisit. It is a complex exploration.
The traditional scholars have locked themselves in their own 'Mata- Matha -Vedantacharya' silos and wrapping themselves in the preferred ways with 'Modern Science frameworks drawn from Quantum Physics, archaeology, linguistics to Genetics'. The dangers of having lived in this ‘caged mode’ for over decades (Centuries -?) and 'closed- strategy (vyooha)’ has resulted in global digital dis-information constructions and spread of 'science -spirituality of (satya)-vedicism - connected with top Science Research institutions. [ https://www.satyavedism.org/evolution-of-languages/ai-artificial-intelligence-symbolic-discourse-language-stephen-wolfram - One would need to drill down deep and need at least 60 minutes careful reading to get a feel of what the effort is ].
Summary: it is 'Vedanta-Vijnana-Samgraama -Kshetra' with ‘identity at stake’ by 'Dharma-Shaastra,Yoga - Samskrutham'.
4. On < 850 years old manuscript….. Yudhisthira Mimamsaka (1909 – 1994) with ‘Arya-Samaj leaning ….> I am aware of this line of argument.
Yudhisthira mimamsaka: https://www.hindu-blog.com/2021/04/yudhisthira-mimamsaka-vedic-scholar-and.html
This is like using ‘telescope backwards mode’ to see what needs a ‘microscope’. The same argument that promulgated the ‘Critical Edition approach of Sacred Texts’ – following the goal of ‘ Fixing the Sacred Text-Scripture’, the Biblical Model applied to ‘Vedas’. The Old Testament researchers have addressed this issue using the terms : < Majority text - Critical text - text receptus> to sift the <textual variants > and <adapt what suits their needs and context>. Buddhists and Biblical scholars consolidated their position historically.
For Vedic tradition, we have only open ended model of ‘Vyasa –Sampradaya: A combine of ‘unaltered (?) organized ‘Vedas’- and open ended flexi-expanding Mahabharata, Aagama- Puranas as ‘Shaastra- Vyakhyana’ enlarged textual interpretation – resources; all of which needs to be framed inside the ‘Prasthana –Traya : Upanishat (part of Vedas)- Brahma sutras ( Cryptic formulae to decode cognitive linguistic logic) and Gita (Yoga-Discourse in Classical Samskruth-Bhashaa). So, What would be ‘Eka-Vakyataa / Ekaarthataa / Eka –Taatparya –Tattva – Vinirnaya’ ?
This is where I see Patanjali response on the question: Why study Vedanga-Vyakarana ? Study Vedanga Vyakarana for ‘protection of TEXT – Integrity (rakshaartham vedanam) and Firm understanding of text in Practical Applications (asandehartham). You have made reference to the ‘current gap in ‘Vedanga model understanding of Panini-Vyakarana. The scholars of conversational Sanskrit will find this very hard to resolve.
On the other hand, schools which want ‘Vedas’ only as ‘Yajna- Samskara-Vijnana (?)’ will find it difficult to explain ‘Prakruti- Dravya- Vedanta Models’.
5. All three acharyas were looking back and using the texts, language-tools, pedagogy, practices ‘ascribing it to Maharshi Veda –Vyasa, who by historical time scale was separated by each one by a minimum of three to five millennia. The ‘integrity of text –tradition - teaching- practices’ as ‘inheritance to each acharya, the flow down from ‘Moola-Purusha Acharya to the ‘Shishya –paramparaa as ‘sampradaya’, evidence using ‘ manuscripts (prone to scribal errors, the incomplete documentation, manuscript-copier errors, typographic and digital transmission errors) is again based on ‘Faith- Trust- Received text-tradition-resources’. Even srimad bhagavad-gita has been questioned for the ‘ text-integrity of readings’, the ‘ Panini- Patanjali texts are challenged, not to speak of ‘Vedas : as ‘shaakhaa –bhedas, paatha-bheda, prayga-bheda, pravachana-bheda’.
I will keep aside the faith argument of ‘Chiranjeevi Vyasa endorsing each Acharya for their commentaries. This is more based on ‘Faith –Trust’ and not factually verifiable, unless the ‘chiranjeevi (death less survival of a yogi to be present over millennia is unconditionally accepted) . This is where the narrative of ‘ Kaka-Bhushundi (millions of Brahmas with countless faces), Future Brahma position and many other sensitive issues pop up. Let us not get in to this part, as it hurts all. This is a common challenge to all – be it ‘ Bodhisatva returning’, ‘siddhas reborn’ in Jainism, ‘ avatara’s from Puranas’, or ‘ Jesus –return in 21 st century.
6. < Panini is उभय साधु and hence it is useful in arriving at the intended purport of the hymns in the view of many. Panini’s commentator, par excellence, Patanjali is a testimony to it. >
True.
Panini -Patanjali followed 'Shadnaga -Vedanga Model to build 'Pada-Shaastra' as ‘Muni-Sampradaya’ to be supplemented
with 'Nirukta- shaastra' . VedangaVyakarana is answer to ‘Sthita-prajnasya bhashaa’ ( 2-54).
It is not historical social conversation on street with ‘pot-sellers’ or ‘rein holders of donkey to carry mud’ .
This is integrated tradition of 'Pada- Vakya-Pramana- Paddhati' foundation of 'Vednata.
The < Vedanga - Vyakarana > focused < पदमञ्जरीकार - न्यासकार > are not to be blamed for not providing the ' Vedanta - adhyatma - meaning layers to be derived from Nirukta -Sampradaya and applied in ' Yaajnika- Adhidaiva -prayoga and ' Adhi-bhoota -tantra-prayoga'. We safely assume that all three 'acharyas and atleast up to 'Sayana -Maadhava - Vidyaranya swamy- Vyasa Yogi' had total access to this big-picture of 'Vedas'. This big pciture has been scrambled, distorted and forcefully fitted to ' Historical, Biblical world view, modelling 'Vedas as Scriptures'. Once this ' modelling error has been rooted in the study, the outcome becomes defective.
7. On < I doubt Sri Shankara has this kind of ontological status behind his चिद्पदार्थ.>
Vedanta as ‘Swadhyaya- Pravachana / Vangmayam Tapah (Gita 17-15) of today is almost isolated from 'Veda- Upaveda and Vednaga -sampradayas' . This was not the given ground reality of all the acharyas.
Today it is ‘Vedic Consumerism’ which wants ‘bottled juice of ‘Vedas’ [ samgrahena sulabham pravakshyaami ] without need to look at the fruit tree and processes responsible for the juice.
It is in this backdrop, we need to think impartially and dispassionately: Would 'Pradhana-Dravya - Sri Hari' be textually same as 'Naaraayna paro Brahma, Tattvam Naarayanah parah... antarbahischa tatsarvam vyaapya naarayanah stitath' ?
How is this to be aligned to <Gita (7-4) : Ashta-Prakruti model of चिद्पदार्थ >? Why compare this with ‘a-dravya’ model in another school : 'chidaanandaroopah shivoham shivoham' and models of ‘Advaita –upanishats like Tejobindu - upanishat:
नित्यशुद्ध- चिदानन्द- सत्तामात्रोऽहमव्ययः। नित्य-बुद्ध- विशुद्धैक - सच्चिदानन्दमस्म्यहम् ॥.
Last but not least, none of these discussion brings in ‘Votes or Notes’. So who are our supporting ‘Yajamana’s to benefit from this discussion?
If the answer is ‘personal spirituality’, we are self-driven, self- funded, self-satisfied’.
If the answer is ‘Social Identity ’, we need Community support and drive for passing on ‘Identity Baton’.
If the answer is ‘political –religiosity’, we need different kind of support and defence team for safety from ‘ aatataayin’.
If the answer is ‘Dharma-Purushartha’, then the toll is to be paid by those who are making living from these resources’.
Raghavendra
Greetings of the day,
Thank you for your guidance on the discussion we had earlier on. I have learnt new perspectives from your thoughts on the Vedic textual tradition and its importance.
During the discussion, you had asked me about ‘traisvarya-patha/ ashta-vikruti patha in use or not’, <<The textual material and known tradition ( to the limits of my understanding) as printed / digital does not show ‘traisvarya-patha/ ashta-vikruti patha use’ for the text passage under discussion>>
I am happy to let you know that the celebrated Vedic scholar late Vidyavachaspati Shri Bannanje Govindacharya way back in 1970s had made a successful attempt using both "traisvarya-patha" and "chAtusvarya-patha" What is interesting to note is that he used chAtusvarya-patha on the pada-patha, I think, he appears to be the first person experimenting it quite successfully. This is part of the RigBhAshya of Sri Madhva which is available for 40 suktaa-s.
if you look at the word reading
all the four svaraa-s are marked.>The horizontal S at the top is used for udAtta, (not marked generally)
>The horizontal S at the bottom is used for eka-shruti (prachaya)
>The svara markings for svarita and anudAtta is as per the standard practice.
This is for your information and records,
Thank you and best regards,
Raghavendra B.
From: "BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)" <sastr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 11:17:28
To: <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} question on yad vai tanna pasyati: Madhva bhashya takes it differently.
Namaste Raghavendra Mahodaya
1. Thanks for taking time to recognize the ‘challenges’, acknowledge the challenging issues that ‘all of us need to address (irrespective of our personal leaning to any specific school of Vedanta – acharyas and Science- views on Matter- Energy- Time related). The long response is due to the number of complexly connected issues in your post.
--------
Regards
BVK Sastry
Manish Gupta
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1655531248.S.232402.31292.f4-234-222.1655551657.18503%40webmail.rediffmail.com.
BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)
Namaste
1. Does the concept of multiple school of thoughts of Indian Vedic spirituality exist in Veda? i mean do we find any reference in Veda or Upanishad indicating that multiple school of thoughts can exist for the same mantra?
BVK Sastry (1) : Yes. The multiple schools of thought, vision, articulation, application of Vedic Science and Spirituality exist; and are anchored to ‘Vedas’. To understand this, one needs to go through the total logic in this construct.
The pointers are in ‘Taittiriya Upanishad with the cryptic statement. Vedas are telling how to understand Vedas with what language – tools and processes).
If ‘Vedas’ are ‘samhita’, then what is ‘Maha-Samhita’ ? Just an epithet, adjective, eulogy ??
‘athātassagṃhitāyā upaniṣadaṃ vyā̎khyāsyā̠maḥ ।
pañchasvadhika̍raṇē̠ṣu । adhilōkam- adhijyautiṣam- adhividyam- adhipraja̍m - adhyā̠tmam ।
tā mahāsagṃhitā i̍tyācha̠kṣatē ।
Is Vedanta an outcome of ‘Samhita: upanishat selection or ‘ Mahasamhitaa- processes applied on ‘Samhita- totality’??
The foundation to explore ‘ multiple schools of thought in Indian Vedic spirituality’ comes from the ‘Linguistic- Document: Text and Construction Clarity using ‘Science of Samskruth Phonetics (Varna- akshara – Samaamnaaya ) = Shikshaa shaastra foundation of Vyakarana and Nirukta.
This is needed for understanding the ‘ adhyatma- import of Veda mantra to build the ‘Vednatacharya – Siddhanta’.
Per Yoga – Tradition and Indian ‘Vedanta- Acharya’ - schools
- ‘Vedas are Cosmic- Universal – ‘Natures Sounds’ (Apaurusheya- Prakruti- Mantras/ Anadi- nidhanaa
Nithyaa Vak utsrushtaa swayambuvaa / Paramatma Shareera / Shabda-Brahma / Akshara Brahma.
/ Vedanta krit – Vedavideva chaaham )
- ‘Vedas as Yoga-Darshana’ are used by ‘Varna-Asharma :: (Brahmana Hindu’s - ?) in a particular
mode of ‘yaajnika –tradition’. Buddhists and Jains have used ‘Vedas as Mantra- Sutra - Yoga-
Darshana’ in non-yajna tradition for ‘Dhyana – Siddhi Samadhi- Kaivalya’.
The ‘shaastra- paribhashaa’- technical terms used in each school provide a flavour of ‘multiple
schools of thought’ (Rushayah–shrutayo vibhinnah,vishwaroopasya naanaa- vidha -darshana –
aascharyaani – aakhyaanaaani).
- Rushi’s happened to discover and explore these ‘Truths of Prakruti (Satya-Atma- Darshna = Satya
Darshana + Atma Darshana ) Through the ‘Yoga practice, technically called ‘ Tapas’.
The technicalities are detailed in Brahmanas’ aaranyakas, Upanishads- which are ‘ technically
marked sections and organized arrangements of ‘ One Whole Veda (veda- raashi). Maharshi Vyasa
is acknowledged ‘reference authority’ for ‘what ‘organized (?)- texts (?) we are relying now’.
- There are many Rushi –Yogis who have explored the plurality and diversity of ‘Prakruti’. Net outcome
‘countless Veda-Mantra- Darshanas ( anantaa vai vedah). ( naiko rushih yasya matam pramanam).
- Each ‘Mantra’ has a specific viniyoga (application –utility benefit). If Rig-veda has 10,000 plus
Mantras , then there are that many or more applications. This exploration by ‘Rushi-Devata-
Chandas’ is provided as ‘Yajna-Karma’ by Shaunaka Maharshi. His work is essentially ‘Multiple
applications of Veda-mantras’ for various benefits.
- Such application –utilities need a clarity on ‘Language usage and Meaning of Mantra’. The set of tools
for this is called ‘ Vedanga: The six disciplines, pointed by Prof. Korada : Shikshaa, Vyakaranam,
Chandah, Niruktam Jyotisham, Kalpa.
The ‘Language of Mantra’ : Yoga-Darshana-Bhashaa is technically called ‘Vak-Yoga’: The Vedic Name
for ‘Samskrutham; I use the term ‘ Yoga-Samskrutham for today’s convenience. This ‘Language-
study’ – the pedagogy ( Bhashaa – Shaastra – Paddahti) needs to be explored in three lanes
as ‘ Pada-shaastra, Vakya-shaastra, Pramana- shaastra’. (Prof. Korada has repeatedly said this).
This is ‘Vako-Vakya- shaastra’ basics; ‘Cognitive Linguistics’ in Modern science –of Consciousness
Research.
Acharya Madhva explains ‘Vako-Vakya’ is ‘Science to be used for ‘Vedartha –Tattva –
Vinirnaya’; and uses a ‘set of ‘Brahma- technical terminology and Model as ‘ Dravya’.
Acharya Shankara uses a different ‘ linguistic construct for ‘Brahma’ – in ‘chit-padartha’ interpretation.
The end goal in modern research is Samskruth-Digested A.I. – a multibillion dollar global
industry with multiple motives ; the motives could be religion related; market –economy –future
harvest related.
Technical utility validation comes from four Upavedas and Sixty four ‘Vidyas’, a living tradition,
supplemented with Aagama, Tantra, Purana, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Achaarya –sampradayas.
‘ All this is ‘ Big Tree (ashwattha Vruksha) called ‘ Veda (Chandas)’; The fruit- juice (rasa-amrutham) of
this tree is ‘Srimad Bhagavad-Gita . The process to extract the juice is called ‘Yoga-Vijnana- shaastra’.
Or
2. all these school of thoughts are product of Kalyuga?
BVK Sastry(2) : ‘Kali-yuga’ is a lame , lazy explanation to escape the seriousness of issue.
Mostly provided by those who want to take easy routes for social conveniences.
It is clearly a pointer on what one likes most and wants to be their personal comfort zone for cyber chit
chat.
Gita-Yoga (Jnana and Vijnana) Shaastra needs to elevate call on ‘Yoga practice of ‘body on yoga-mat’
to the next level of ‘ body is yoga-mat’ and study of ‘Vak-Yoga:Samskrutham’ beyond ‘ IE historical
Biblical Religion Language frame’.
Acharya Shankara’s tradition says :
Deho Devalayah proktah, jivo devah sanatanah, tyajet ajnana-nirmalyam, soham –bhavena poojayet.
Pooja can be done only in ‘ Jiva in state of Dvaita with a ‘Bhakti-bhaavva- sambandha’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Nagaraj Paturi
एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति Rig Veda 1.164.46
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKHBshYW7c777VvGc1_pRu9mg4BUoekr4QAD6jprGJw0WOuNXw%40mail.gmail.com.
Ajit Gargeshwari
Nagaraj Paturi
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b00b0e23-2646-4354-bcc1-2a1405c63710n%40googlegroups.com.
Ajit Gargeshwari
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R-KmKCTtkaw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZWCcxvp8mJDJTCrYZN0_uhWjRy3dSRvtNSkY_tuu5UHQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALaEieg0T2Lt39eQ11C934a5aHNyZ%2BeNXZYqArHj6yeb1U3WMw%40mail.gmail.com.
Vichitra Thandava
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZWCcxvp8mJDJTCrYZN0_uhWjRy3dSRvtNSkY_tuu5UHQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Krishna Kashyap
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b00b0e23-2646-4354-bcc1-2a1405c63710n%40googlegroups.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFXi14KsrnbWS0Yq7teAbzQLopxf6J1%2BjOSF6Ry9i7qHn0y-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Ajit Gargeshwari
Ajit Gargeshwari
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebnO_S85MuoG0KJUQYOcU4b%3D2kqm%3D7tiW8Es%3D4jBezO6w%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALaEiehfTceFQ8rgEGR1QNh%3DU_Gssom_KSsUY0RqdLfrkViu1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Vichitra Thandava
Kumbha: The Traditionally Modern Mela
By Nityananda MisraTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebnO_S85MuoG0KJUQYOcU4b%3D2kqm%3D7tiW8Es%3D4jBezO6w%40mail.gmail.com.
Vichitra Thandava
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eavgBqVOeuNQLU0%2BgTRcFqJE_h1xxh7pusF8jhCQ7v1eQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Vichitra Thandava
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ_7741%3DJv3Bd%2B_J%3DMUkgbwyA6Vvu9ADVF%3DWSCZ9ikxsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFXi15rWXt96CvQnxAsjxWgPSQkP4nNFFuzRXnSds_vbUVeKA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ajit Gargeshwari
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ82gwTfKQW0HFuAhZmxOixoY4jSXd4RDojwmB2_aw_Hw%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
'
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALaEiei%2BtzqgTujQDqfhy%3DM463s48VWmeip43D2JgwDY4hGrpg%40mail.gmail.com.
Vichitra Thandava
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ82gwTfKQW0HFuAhZmxOixoY4jSXd4RDojwmB2_aw_Hw%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFXi155XPHxSD0jy%2BBLs3tF4GE3Q2m9oEKR_BEQK98__fhd9g%40mail.gmail.com.
Raghavendra
=============
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 12:43:05 GMT+0530
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
'
There are no intention to malign any traditions but to brush aside violent tendencies among traditions and to say they never existed is another thing. Traditions teach non violence but many incidents in the past or present doonot indicate they are just intellectual dis agreements between traditions but hatred distrust and anmonicity run deep within and among traditions. A deeper understanding helps to lesses differences but difference may exist for ever or for along time to come by.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 10:52 AM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
None of these is related to Vaada or Vaakyaartha / shaastraartha culture that I was discussing.The original question was regarding sanction in Vedas for the vaada bhedas.Fist fights by utsava organizers and akhara sadhus do not fit into that topic. If there is fist fight among the followers of the same school of Vedanta, that shows that the cause is not the school of Vedanta. If the fighters are administrative staff , not the shaastra scholars, that again proves the same point.There will be many scrolls that make use of all such incidents to malign the traditions which are not responsible.We need not scroll down to that level.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:38 AM Vichitra Thandava <vichitra...@gmail.com> wrote:
See the section in this book called"Battles between Akharas"Apparently this killing has happened more than once and the book itself calls it an exception.Koenraad's claim was in on his recent lectures. I think it one on Brahminism, either the one on the origins of anti-Brahminism or the one where he negates the claim that Brahmins were responsible for the decline of Buddhism.Kumbha: The Traditionally Modern Mela
By Nityananda Misra
To view this discussion on the web visit https:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b00b0e23-2646-4354...@googlegroups.com.
----Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.Senior Director, IndicABoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruBoS Rashtram School of Public LeadershipEditor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public LeadershipFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R-KmKCTtkaw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZWCcxvp8mJDJTCrYZN...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALaEieg0T2Lt39eQ11C934a5...@mail.gmail.com.
----Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.Senior Director, IndicABoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruBoS Rashtram School of Public LeadershipEditor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public LeadershipFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebnO_S85MuoG0KJUQYOcU4b=2kqm=7tiW8Es=4jBe...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFXi15rWXt96CvQnxAsjxWg...@mail.gmail.com.
----Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.Senior Director, IndicABoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruBoS Rashtram School of Public LeadershipEditor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public LeadershipFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R-KmKCTtkaw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ82gwTfKQW0HFuAhZm...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALaEiei+tzqgTujQDqfhy=M463s48VWmeip4...@mail.gmail.com.
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.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1655715730.S.5568.autosave.drafts.1655717298.27950%40webmail.rediffmail.com.
Ramanujachar P
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eaxHC-aZVdRXfj%3D%3D9uJm5eP-csrB7sMyyo5Gm018BKdzQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)
Venkatakrishna Sastry
Namaste Krishna Kashyap
You have made a significant observation, which academicians seem to project as ‘ Text-Reading / Text- Articulation (uccharana- prayoga) - used for commentators preferred way of construction and alignment.
In other words, the options open, in - VYAVAHARIKA SATTA – are
A. - the ‘shruti’ needs to be accepted for practice guidance from a ‘Guru’ as roadmap and vehicle /tool ‘maarga- darshana/ saadhana’. The given document is accepted as ‘visioned (darshana- shruta) by the ‘ Prajnaa- Avasthaa as Sarva-Moola- Darshana with ‘ Poorna-Prajnataa’ in ‘Parama-Hamsa- Sannyasa- Yoga-Samadhi- Brahmi-sthiti. Detailing in GITA as ‘NIR-DVANDVA / YOGA-YUKTO VISHUDDHAATMAA’.
In which case, the ‘arthantara, shruti-taatparya ‘ approach and ‘ multiple text alignement for common goal- purpose with ‘ linguistic ingenuity’ is outside the pale of all debate. The talk of ‘variant shaakhaa bheda readings’ ! becomes an awareness of ‘ how ‘Shruti’ has reached to us at our times acquiring –assimilating everything that has come across its flow in time. Which in this case the debating question on ‘Text authenticity’ would be : ‘Till Shankara , what was the reading ? If the dual reading existed in the hoary past itself, what was the specific purpose, beyond the pride of different ways of doing the same ‘yajna/ savana’ ?
If the variant reading was in between ‘Shankara to Madhwa’, why did it surface? For what benefit? Was it scholarly ingenuity? Or ‘Rushi –Darshana’ or ‘ Achaarya- Pramanam’?
Post Madhwa, how did the debating schools and ‘veda –shaakhaa’ practicing schools defend the reading difference? The simple forgotten fact is ‘Darshana needs to be validated as ‘Divya-Chakshu-Darshana’; not the ‘material document from a scribe ’. ‘Shruti’ according to Yoga and all acharyas is for ‘Swadhyaya- Ishwara- pranidhana – Dhyana Kriyaa- Yoga’.
The Yajna/ Yaajnikaa traditions APPLIED the ‘Shruti’ per ‘ Needs of Practice’. Mahabhashya –kaara asserts : ‘Yaajnikaah Pathanti, Vibhaktim kurvanti’. Nirukta kaara confirms this ‘Text-Modifiers’ as ‘ Nirukta sampradaya per perspectives of understanding ‘shruti’ adhibhoota, adhidaiva, adhyatma’.
I am still to get more clarity on ‘Vedanta schools using ‘ Shadanga-Vedanga-Vak Yoga’ approach to build their ‘Vedanta –Siddhanta’. The main stream ‘Vedanta- Vyaakhyaana / Pravachana – anuvaada’ is using the ‘ narrow lens of ‘ Panini- Bhashaa- Niyama –Darpana’ to interpret ( not practice) ‘Shruti- Chandas’. Within this narrow lens, the ‘Sandhi rules’, as the one debated below needs greater clarity and application specificity of ‘Pratishaakhya Shikhsaa based semantic splits’ or ‘Bhashaa –Sandhi based sandhi –semantics applied to ‘Sa-Svara Chandas text’.
‘Shurti’ is helpful to experience ‘darshana -anubhava’ ;
‘Shruti’- is not to be used as the basis for ‘scholarly deliberations ( Paanditya- Pradarshana/ Vyakhyaa –chaaturee) for ‘ekavakyataa- samanvaya – tattva vinirnaya’.
In my limited understanding, this seems to be wisdom emerging from the statements like ‘ naishaa tarkena –
matiraapneaya/ aapaniiyaa ….’. ; tarka- apratishthanaat’.
Acharya Shankara’s opening declarations in Brahma sutra Bhashya uses a unique expression – ‘ Yushmat- asmat-
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krishna Kashyap
Sent: 14 June 2022 09:10
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} question on yad vai tanna pasyati: Madhva bhashya takes it differently.
see this doc: geetha prasthana: published by vidya peeta bangalore:
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:04 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste everyone,
I have a question on this verse of Brihadaranyaka
the whole line is: यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तत्र पश्यति नहि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्न तु तद् द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत्॥
yadvai tanna paśyati paśyanvai taddraṣṭavyaṃ na paśyati na hi draṣṭurdṛṣṭerviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvānna tu taddvitīyamasti tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yatpaśyet
see details below in this link:
My question is there is a difference in the very original verse as per these two acharyas.
यत् वै तं न पश्यति - shankara bhashya
यत् द्वैतं न पश्यति - madhva bhashya
Are these 2 different versions both valid according to the recensions of Vedas?. Is this due to difference due to some variation of kanva-madhyandina type paathas?
I think these two acharyas have taken this sentence with a clear difference in the original verse itself. Is this allowed? I was under the impression srutis are not corrupted and hence only allowed variations are if they belong to kanva and madyandina recensions. OR there may be andhra- paatha or dravida- paatha differences.
Kindly advise what exactly is the situation here.
Thanks a lot.
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnekRY%2BcBa66OZ2%2BDr0bPa2-%2B7cJ5sVZsEpw%3DJhT0dDyg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnosA6GwcQvccVBLaM4PB%2B6QDEyR4C73NWqYkCx3b4uEw%40mail.gmail.com.
Krishna Kashyap
Greetings of the dayयद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन् वै तन्न पश्यति न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत् ॥ २३ ॥मध्व-भाष्य :-Part-Aयत् तन्न विष्णुः पश्येत पश्यन् वै तन्न पश्यति । नित्यज्ञानस्वरूपत्वात् तत्समं नान्यदिष्यते ॥ इति च ।यत्किंिचद्वस्तु भगवता न दृष्टं तन्नास्त्येव । विद्यमानं सर्वं पश्यत्येव । न हि द्वितीयो द्रष्टा यो विभक्तत्वेन जगत्पश्यति । तद्विरोधेन पश्यत्यभ्रान्तः । तद्दृष्टादन्यद्वा । नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा इत्यादि श्रुतेः ।यत्तद्दृष्टं भगवता तदेवास्ति न चापरम् । न ह्यन्यो विद्यते द्रष्टा यः पश्येत् तददर्शितम् ॥ ब्रह्मादिरपि यो द्रष्टा पश्येत् तस्य प्रसादतः । तददृष्टं कुतः पश्येदतः को वा विरोधतः ॥ इति च ।Part-B*यदवतारादिकं द्वैतत्वेन न पश्यति न तु तत्ततो द्वितीयम्* । नित्यज्ञानत्वाद् भ्रमाभावात् । यद्विभक्तत्वेन विष्णुः पश्यति तत्ततोऽन्यदस्ति च इति च । यस्माद्विष्णुर्विश्वं विभक्तत्वेनैव पश्यति तस्मात् तदन्यदस्त्येव ।न च जगदभावोऽत्रोच्यते । अन्यद्विभक्तमिति विशेषणवैयर्थ्यात् ।न च भ्रान्तिकल्पितं जगदित्यत्र किंचिन्मानम् । असत्यमप्रतिष्ठं ते जगदाहुरनीश्वरम् इत्यादि निन्दनाच्च ।The part-A of the भाष्य is based on the text यद्वै तन्न पश्यति ...What is covered here is that there is none equal or above Sri Hari in all respects.भगवान्-आचार्य-पूज्यचरण is suggesting a text reading (पदपाठ) viz., यत् द्वैतं न पश्यति in the Part-B of the भाष्य to enlarge the scope to include different manifestations of the divine himself.Please look at the wording of the भाष्य viz., यत् (अवतारादिकं) द्वैतत्वेन न पश्यति न तु तत्ततो द्वितीयम्।This splitting of the text specifically addresses the issue of divine persona and innumerable auspicious qualities he possesses. Is there a difference between His persona and qualities He has, the answer is No, because he doesn't congnize it so.When it comes to His cognition of the universe, He cognizes it as different from him (different from Him, but metaphysically dependent on Him)भगवान्-आचार्य-पूज्यचरण puts this idea succinctly in his तत्वोद्योत प्रकरण ग्रन्थ as: विश्वमीश्वरः सदा पश्यति तेनेदं न मायेत्यवधार्यताम्Trust this input helps the discussion forward,Thank you and Best regards,Raghavendra B.Sent from RediffmailNG on Android==============================From: Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com>Sent: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:10:42 GMT+0530
To view this discussion on the web visit https:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnekRY+cBa66OZ2+Dr0bPa2-+7cJ5sVZsEpw=JhT0...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnosA6GwcQvccVBLaM4...@mail.gmail.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1655263889.S.69016.autosave.drafts.1655266906.8174%40webmail.rediffmail.com.