New Thread Battle for Sanskrit
651 views
Skip to first unread message
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 27, 2016, 12:25:25 AM3/27/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
At the request of Prof. Prasad, A new thread has been started interested members who are objective in approach may please continue to post. Those who are not please don’t post here Thanks
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।
Nityanand Misra
Mar 27, 2016, 6:17:23 AM3/27/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Sunday, 27 March 2016 09:55:25 UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:
At the request of Prof. Prasad, A new thread has been started interested members who are objective in approach may please continue to post. Those who are not please don’t post here Thanks
Dear list members,
I do not have a position on this debate (as of now, that is), but as I understand, the critique of TBFS on the website of Sandeep Balakrishna is co-authored by Sh. Shatavadhani Ganesh and Sh. Hari Ravikumar. Hari Ravikumar is listed as a co-author in the critique, but separately. Does this mean he is the secondary author? Can somebody please share more information about Hari Ravikumar?
While referring and citing the article, it may be helpful to keep the dual-authorship of the article in mind (and also the fact that appendix E has a third author).
A minor point, the critique may some copy-editing, I saw some minor errors here and there (e.g. missing diacritics in pram??as, Ved??gas, Raghuva??a, San?tana Dharma).
It would be great if a journal can start a series of articles debating TBFS. The critique by Sh. Shatavadhani Ganesh and Sh. Hari Ravikumar as well as a reply by Sh. Rajeev Malhotra (who said he is working on one) may be published in the same journal. The positions of Sh. Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya and Pt. Shripad Damodar Satwalekar on beef consumption by Vedic Hindus were diametrically opposite, but both were published in the same magazine (the weekly Young India) published by Gandhiji. A common neutral platform (same journal and same editorial board) might be great for such debates.
Despite the sharp differences of opinion, there will always be something new to learn in the debate.
Thanks, Nityanand
Sati Shankar
Mar 27, 2016, 9:02:17 AM3/27/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Sir,
Discussion threads on beef etc has already been in BVP database. I remember I had joined the Group and as a learner requested on certain vedic interpretation (not related to beef) but whole was dragged to beef, and thereafter, I started refraining from interaction for some time.
In case of TBFS. discussion, as we know attack and counter attack have part of argumentative tradition, but most of the arguments given so far do not focus on core surface, either are with certain presuppositions or predefined hit surface... it is necessary to focus on the framework itself and the semantic shift. Comparing at the finished output level does not touch the very foundation on which a healthy argumentation rests and arguments remain arguments for their own sake.
It is good to see the new thread which permits interested ones to interact.here.
Best Wishes
Sati Shankar
Nityanand Misra
Mar 27, 2016, 9:31:05 AM3/27/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Sunday, 27 March 2016 18:32:17 UTC+5:30, Sati Shankar wrote:
Sir,Discussion threads on beef etc has already been in BVP database. I remember I had joined the Group and as a learner requested on certain vedic interpretation (not related to beef) but whole was dragged to beef, and thereafter, I started refraining from interaction for some time.
Dear Sati Shankar Ji
I mentioned the debate between C V Vaidya and S D Satwalekar only as an example of how both sides of a hotly debated topic were published in the same magazine brought out by M K Gandhi. In a similar way it would be good to see this debate in an edited/reviewed journal which can provide a common neutral forum for both arguments and counter-arguments.
Kind regards, Nityanand
Sati Shankar
Mar 28, 2016, 6:39:20 AM3/28/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
No problem, nothing personal nor even official Mishra ji.
I do not take serious things seriously unless it is really serious. LOL
regards
Sati Shankar
sunil bhattacharjya
Mar 28, 2016, 12:34:21 PM3/28/16
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Dear Nityananda Misraji,
I think the issue for the debate on the "Battle for Sanskrit" could be slightly different from that for the other debate between C.V.Vaidya and S.D.Satwalekar, in the sense that, the multiple author's critique of Shri Rajiv's work seems to show that the battle was theirs as well (and of course of the all Indian Sanskrit lovers' fraternity), only with the difference that while they missed the bus, Shri Rajiv was the first to take up the cudgel. In such a case there should be more of amity and less of fireworks in the ensuing debate.
--
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
rajivmalhotra2007
Mar 28, 2016, 2:39:31 PM3/28/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
I welcome the idea of publishing Ganesh's review and my (forthcoming) response in some journal.
I have prior experience in this approach. My earlier book, Being Different (2011), was the subject of a special issue of the International Journal of Hindu Studies (Springer). There were 6 separate reviews of my book in that issue, followed by my response. It became one of their most popular issues and the collection of articles is frequently cited. The writers were all well established international scholars in that discipline. A general call for review papers was made by the journal from which these scholars were selected to write their reviews. It was their December, 2012 issue. You can get that issue at: http://link.springer.com/journal/11407/16/3/page/1
The reviews ranged from very negative to very positive, and everything in between. Some felt I emphasized too much difference, and others felt I was not being different enough in contrasting Dharmic/Abrahamic worldviews. It was a rewarding experience to hear solid independent evaluations by experts and to interact with them. This kind of feedback and scholarly interaction has helped the success of each of my books.
Within a year, the American Academy of Religion's annual conference (with about 10,000 scholars attending) had a special panel discussion dedicated to my book. The AAR has a group called Society of Hindu-Christian Studies and this panel served as its annual event for that year. The panel chair, Prof Francis Clooney, is the head of Hinduism Studies at Harvard. Separately from this event, he also held a debate with me on my book at Univ of Mass, Dartmouth. Though a Catholic and a Jesuit, in one event he said this was a book every Christian scholar must read in order to understand important issues about their own religion from an outsider's perspective.
Last night, I proposed to Prof Varakhedi by phone that I would be willing to have a video conference to discuss issues pertaining to my book with any audience in India. This could also include Ganesh, his students and others. I often use Skype or Google Hangout for such things. People should be able to have productive conversations on serious matters concerning our heritage.
We Indians should hold debates, reviews, discussions in India on topics of broad interest, especially topics with controversy. There is no reason to turn this into acrimony. Nor is there anyone too big to be criticized, i.e. no need for idolatry of any scholar no matter how renowned.
Finally, my detailed response to Pollock should be completed in a few days. I want to send the draft to a few scholars for their peer review in confidence. I have a few lined up, but I am open to more persons who find this interesting. Those interested may write to me privately at: RajivMal...@gmail.com. I have always benefited from well-intended critical feedback.
Regards,
Rajiv
I have prior experience in this approach. My earlier book, Being Different (2011), was the subject of a special issue of the International Journal of Hindu Studies (Springer). There were 6 separate reviews of my book in that issue, followed by my response. It became one of their most popular issues and the collection of articles is frequently cited. The writers were all well established international scholars in that discipline. A general call for review papers was made by the journal from which these scholars were selected to write their reviews. It was their December, 2012 issue. You can get that issue at: http://link.springer.com/journal/11407/16/3/page/1
The reviews ranged from very negative to very positive, and everything in between. Some felt I emphasized too much difference, and others felt I was not being different enough in contrasting Dharmic/Abrahamic worldviews. It was a rewarding experience to hear solid independent evaluations by experts and to interact with them. This kind of feedback and scholarly interaction has helped the success of each of my books.
Within a year, the American Academy of Religion's annual conference (with about 10,000 scholars attending) had a special panel discussion dedicated to my book. The AAR has a group called Society of Hindu-Christian Studies and this panel served as its annual event for that year. The panel chair, Prof Francis Clooney, is the head of Hinduism Studies at Harvard. Separately from this event, he also held a debate with me on my book at Univ of Mass, Dartmouth. Though a Catholic and a Jesuit, in one event he said this was a book every Christian scholar must read in order to understand important issues about their own religion from an outsider's perspective.
Last night, I proposed to Prof Varakhedi by phone that I would be willing to have a video conference to discuss issues pertaining to my book with any audience in India. This could also include Ganesh, his students and others. I often use Skype or Google Hangout for such things. People should be able to have productive conversations on serious matters concerning our heritage.
We Indians should hold debates, reviews, discussions in India on topics of broad interest, especially topics with controversy. There is no reason to turn this into acrimony. Nor is there anyone too big to be criticized, i.e. no need for idolatry of any scholar no matter how renowned.
Finally, my detailed response to Pollock should be completed in a few days. I want to send the draft to a few scholars for their peer review in confidence. I have a few lined up, but I am open to more persons who find this interesting. Those interested may write to me privately at: RajivMal...@gmail.com. I have always benefited from well-intended critical feedback.
Regards,
Rajiv
rama prakasha
Mar 29, 2016, 2:28:25 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
1) Topic:- [The following quotation of Sri Shatavadhani Ganesh]
Appendix B. Untenable Arguments
[Sri Rajiv Malhotra says----]
“Meditation mantras…produce effects which ordinary sounds do not.” (p. 21; also see pp. 32, 11)
[Sri Satavadhani Ganesh's comments on this as follows---]
This is at best a theological argument of a mimamsaka. If mantras truly had healing effects, why did our tradition evolve from the daiva-vyapasraya of the Atharva Veda (which believed that certain chants and spells could cure a disease) into the yukti-vyapasraya of Ayurveda (which relies completely on observation; it doesn’t speak about even the healing effects of yogasanas, let alone mantra)? In fact, Vagbhata laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras.
2) Doubt:-
I have a doubt here. Did the tradition understand that the daivya-vyapashraya chikitsa of the Atharva Veda is ineffective and hence wrong? I came across a quotation in Vagbhata (Ashtanga Hridaya, Chikitsa-sthana, 1-177), which recommends the use of Mantras to heal diseases. I am requesting the scholars who has studied the whole context of it to help me clear my doubt.
Do others like Sushruta and Charaka along with Vagbhata really laugh at daiva-vyapashraya Chikitsa in their works? But in the above stated quotation Vagbhata is not laughing at, on the contrary is respectfully recommending it. We find even in the present society many people healing diseases with Mantra Shakti. I myself have seen several people who are alive even now and capable of healing and have healed many. I have heard from the learned people that when Mantras are recieved from a Siddha Guru and practised with shraddha and the neccessary discipline, they become effective. Not recieving from a Siddha Guru, not following the discipline or taking the Mantra from a book - all these are said to be the reasons for ineffectiveness of a Mantra. Does Ayurveda Shastra reject Mantra Sadhana as fake against the living examples of its effectiveness? This is my sincere doubt.
3. My expectation:-
I only wish to have my doubt cleared and have no intention to refute others.
This question pertains to the thread that is already running hence I don't think a seperate thread is required. I don't expect this to be a very big disscussion but some letters which clarify this doubt convincingly.
Appendix B. Untenable Arguments
[Sri Rajiv Malhotra says----]
“Meditation mantras…produce effects which ordinary sounds do not.” (p. 21; also see pp. 32, 11)
[Sri Satavadhani Ganesh's comments on this as follows---]
This is at best a theological argument of a mimamsaka. If mantras truly had healing effects, why did our tradition evolve from the daiva-vyapasraya of the Atharva Veda (which believed that certain chants and spells could cure a disease) into the yukti-vyapasraya of Ayurveda (which relies completely on observation; it doesn’t speak about even the healing effects of yogasanas, let alone mantra)? In fact, Vagbhata laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras.
2) Doubt:-
I have a doubt here. Did the tradition understand that the daivya-vyapashraya chikitsa of the Atharva Veda is ineffective and hence wrong? I came across a quotation in Vagbhata (Ashtanga Hridaya, Chikitsa-sthana, 1-177), which recommends the use of Mantras to heal diseases. I am requesting the scholars who has studied the whole context of it to help me clear my doubt.
Do others like Sushruta and Charaka along with Vagbhata really laugh at daiva-vyapashraya Chikitsa in their works? But in the above stated quotation Vagbhata is not laughing at, on the contrary is respectfully recommending it. We find even in the present society many people healing diseases with Mantra Shakti. I myself have seen several people who are alive even now and capable of healing and have healed many. I have heard from the learned people that when Mantras are recieved from a Siddha Guru and practised with shraddha and the neccessary discipline, they become effective. Not recieving from a Siddha Guru, not following the discipline or taking the Mantra from a book - all these are said to be the reasons for ineffectiveness of a Mantra. Does Ayurveda Shastra reject Mantra Sadhana as fake against the living examples of its effectiveness? This is my sincere doubt.
3. My expectation:-
I only wish to have my doubt cleared and have no intention to refute others.
This question pertains to the thread that is already running hence I don't think a seperate thread is required. I don't expect this to be a very big disscussion but some letters which clarify this doubt convincingly.
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 29, 2016, 2:41:40 PM3/29/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
“Does Ayurveda Shastra reject Mantra Sadhana as fake against the living examples of its effectiveness? This is my sincere doubt.”
Is Mantra Sadhana Part of Aurveda or not ? If you
find answer to that you have got a probable solution. This has question is not related
to the thread. Please post on a new thread. It good not to drag every point
phrase from a book or its review and keep endless debating or asking questions
rajivmalhotra2007
Mar 29, 2016, 3:56:42 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
The context in which this is said in my book must be clear first. I am refuting Pollock in that place. Specifically, he is against mantras and other things he considers spiritual, because one of his core allegations is that yajnas, mantras, sacred texts, etc. (i.e. whatever is not purely "secular") is toxic and oppressive of Dalits and women.
When I say mantras "produce effects" in the sentence quoted by Ganesh, I do not specify healing effects. Effects could be of any kind. I mention that mantras are used in certain types of meditation, but do not claim healing.
My argument is that there is no oppressive effect of mantras that could be seen as a human rights problem the way Pollock wants to prove. Ganesh makes an assumption about healing and then gives his argument against it. His argument does not apply to my book's thesis.
Regards,
rajiv
When I say mantras "produce effects" in the sentence quoted by Ganesh, I do not specify healing effects. Effects could be of any kind. I mention that mantras are used in certain types of meditation, but do not claim healing.
My argument is that there is no oppressive effect of mantras that could be seen as a human rights problem the way Pollock wants to prove. Ganesh makes an assumption about healing and then gives his argument against it. His argument does not apply to my book's thesis.
Regards,
rajiv
sunil bhattacharjya
Mar 29, 2016, 4:42:39 PM3/29/16
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Yes Rajivji, There are many among our intelligentsia too, who really are not aware in what way the mantras are to be chanted and what are their effects. The westerners, of course, think these as mumbo-jumbo and nothing else, and if at all they see some use, that according to them is the brahmanical way to claim superiority over others..
Regards,--
rajivmalhotra2007
Mar 29, 2016, 5:05:35 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Dear Sunil ji,
rajiv
- Many Western Indologists work hard to create a negative brand for such things, and Indian Left eagerly spreads that view into media, etc. But at the same time, in the very same US universities, other departments are doing research to appropriate new "discoveries" based on Indian techniques.
- In USA, the National Institute of Health has funded research on the effects of mantra meditation. In particular, Maharishi Int'l University in Iowa told me that they have data proving specific benefits - they will publish in academic journals when completed.
- It is possible that HR Nagendra's VYASA might also have studies on this.
- Numerous cognitive science and neurosciences researchers in USA are investigating this area using Functional MRI.
- The Tuscon Conference on Consciousness Studies has been at this work for the past two decades and I have been monitoring them for a future book on how this is being rapidly appropriated in USA while in India little is being done. See: http://memo.ahsc.arizona.edu/index.cfm/memos/view/24161/0d5fc7fc2b2c06e4 I have interacted with many of the regular participants at the Tuscon conference, and in the 1990s we used to sponsor some researchers there.
- Yet in India this is considered a suspicious topic to discuss. One day it will get re-imported back to India as a Made in America breakthrough. Then our people will champion it as the latest thing.
rajiv
Bijoy Misra
Mar 29, 2016, 5:37:47 PM3/29/16
to Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Mantra recitation is japa and japa has an effect. I have personally experimented this.
It has a rasa effect. A sick man cannot recite, but a healthy person can keep the
sickness away.
Someone did parody of this in WSC at Bangkok. I protested. There were a whole
group of people with him. One would not understand the power of japa unless one
tries yoga meditation.
By the way we have Devi recitation coming Saturday here.
rajivmalhotra2007
Mar 29, 2016, 10:06:53 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Aditi Banerjee's rejoinder to R. Ganesh's review:
http://www.jagritbharat.com/index.php/bfs/browse-shashtrarth/1205-a-critique-of-dr-ganesh-s-critical-review-of-rajiv-malhotra-s-the-battle-for-sanskrit
http://www.jagritbharat.com/index.php/bfs/browse-shashtrarth/1205-a-critique-of-dr-ganesh-s-critical-review-of-rajiv-malhotra-s-the-battle-for-sanskrit
Nityanand Misra
Mar 29, 2016, 11:18:36 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 23:58:25 UTC+5:30, rama prakasha wrote:
1) Topic:- [The following quotation of Sri Shatavadhani Ganesh]
[Sri Satavadhani Ganesh's comments on this as follows---]
This is at best a theological argument of a mimamsaka. If mantras truly had healing effects, why did our tradition evolve from the daiva-vyapasraya of the Atharva Veda (which believed that certain chants and spells could cure a disease) into the yukti-vyapasraya of Ayurveda (which relies completely on observation; it doesn’t speak about even the healing effects of yogasanas, let alone mantra)? In fact, Vagbhata laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras.
2) Doubt:-
I have a doubt here. Did the tradition understand that the daivya-vyapashraya chikitsa of the Atharva Veda is ineffective and hence wrong? I came across a quotation in Vagbhata (Ashtanga Hridaya, Chikitsa-sthana, 1-177), which recommends the use of Mantras to heal diseases. I am requesting the scholars who has studied the whole context of it to help me clear my doubt.
Do others like Sushruta and Charaka along with Vagbhata really laugh at daiva-vyapashraya Chikitsa in their works? But in the above stated quotation Vagbhata is not laughing at, on the contrary is respectfully recommending it.
It would be great if you could share the precise quotation you are referring to. Perhaps Hari Ravikumar and Shatavadhani Ganesh Ji were referring to some other quote by Vagbhatta (would be good to know the quote they had in mind too). A comparison of the two quotations and their respective contexts can shed more light on the matter.
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 29, 2016, 11:22:45 PM3/29/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Who is Aditi Banejee? Is he an independent reviewer? It might be useful to provide some information about the reviewer
Nagaraj Paturi
Mar 29, 2016, 11:26:30 PM3/29/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Did this name Aditi Banejee figure in this thread? I am clueless.
--
Nagaraj Paturi
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 29, 2016, 11:30:00 PM3/29/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Nityanandji
The question asked By Rama Prakasha has not been answered completely. All Rajiv ji has done sated his known position. One should go beyond simply stating one position over and over agin
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:49 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
--
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 29, 2016, 11:32:33 PM3/29/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sorry I meant Jithu Arav
Nityanand Misra
Mar 29, 2016, 11:49:01 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:00:00 UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:
Thanks Nityanandji
The question asked By Rama Prakasha has not been answered completely. All Rajiv ji has done sated his known position. One should go beyond simply stating one position over and over agin
Ajit Ji
Rajiv Ji was has not answered the question by Rama Prakasha, but neither did did he claim that he was answering the question. He was stating his views on the context of the question, and he stated this at the beginning of his response as "The context in which this is said in my book must be clear first." One may agree or disagree with his views.
To answer Sh. Rama Prakasha's question we have see the original text of Vagbhatta: both where he “laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras” (as Hari Ravikumar and Shatavadhani Ganesh Ji write) and the place where he “recommends the use of Mantras to heal diseases.”
Kidn regards, Nityanand
Nityanand Misra
Mar 29, 2016, 11:54:25 PM3/29/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:19:01 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:
Ajit JiRajiv Ji was has not answered the question by Rama Prakasha, but neither did did he claim that he was answering the question.
Please read that as “Rajiv Ji has not answered the question by Rama Prakasha, but neither did he claim that he was answering the question.”
To answer Sh. Rama Prakasha's question we have see the original text of Vagbhatta:
Please read that as “To answer Sh. Rama Prakasha's question we have to see the original text of Vagbhatta.”
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 30, 2016, 12:00:58 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
May I request scholars to answer his question. Thanks
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:24 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
--
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 30, 2016, 12:06:04 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
That was the reason I said new thread may be required to answer the question requested by Rama Prakasha
From: Ajit Gargeshwari
[mailto:ajit.gar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:31 AM
To: 'bvpar...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New
Thread Battle for Sanskrit
May I request scholars to answer his question. Thanks
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:24 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
--
rama prakasha
Mar 30, 2016, 3:39:38 AM3/30/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
It would be great if you could share the precise quotation you are referring to.
This is the ending shloka of Chikitsasthana 1 Adhyaya of Ashtanga Hrudaya of Vagbhata. It is recommending mantras for healing.
ओषधयो मणयश्च सुमन्त्राः
साधु-गुरु-द्विज-दैवत-पूजाः ।
प्रीतिकरा मनसो विषयाश्च
घ्नन्त्यपि विष्णु-कृतं ज्वरमुग्रम् ॥ १७७ ॥
I am no Pandit in Ayurveda. I just want this doubt clarified by Pandits who know whole context of shlokas.
ओषधयो मणयश्च सुमन्त्राः
साधु-गुरु-द्विज-दैवत-पूजाः ।
प्रीतिकरा मनसो विषयाश्च
घ्नन्त्यपि विष्णु-कृतं ज्वरमुग्रम् ॥ १७७ ॥
I am no Pandit in Ayurveda. I just want this doubt clarified by Pandits who know whole context of shlokas.
rajivmalhotra2007
Mar 30, 2016, 4:23:52 AM3/30/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:30:00 PM UTC-4, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:
Thanks Nityanandji
The question asked By Rama Prakasha has not been answered completely. All Rajiv ji has done sated his known position. One should go beyond simply stating one position over and over agin
Response:
- This thread explicitly exists to discuss my book.
- I have categorically stated that in my book, mantra is not discussed for healing/Ayurveda. Its significance in my book is for a different purpose having to do with what Pollock writes against mantra.
- Therefore, Ganesh's criticism concerning mantra's role in healing is irrelevant to my book
- The fact that mantra in my book is not healing related can be verified by anyone.
Therefore, the separate issue on mantra and healing is irrelevant to this thread.
Message has been deleted
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 30, 2016, 5:44:43 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I had request Shri Rama Prasad to ask his questions on a separate thread it’s you who decided to answer his question without answering his question at all
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rajivmalhotra2007
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:54 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
--
Ajit Gargeshwari
Mar 30, 2016, 5:52:06 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Even I don’t have an answer why are we endlessly discussing this book. A book is a book that’s all I can say. Members are at liberty to discuss the book the So called Battle for Sanskrit or Purva paksha without any siddhanta That was what I was trying to point to high lighten. Why western Indology western thoughts have impact on all aspects of our life should we have a relook at that ?. Let me also say its left to members if they want to make this list devoted to One single book or can more books and authors too be reviewed and discussed. Thanks
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ??????? ??????
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:04 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New Thread
Battle for Sanskrit
A question. There are millions of books related to Sanskrit
and no one can write a review for each one. Why did Shatavadhani ji write a
review on this book. Perhaps he thinks that this book has a huge effect on
Sanskrit studies and so he thinks it important to write a review on it. But
then Western indology also has a huge effect on Sanskrit studies in India. Does
anyone know of reviews written by him on Western scholars. I honestly don't
know the answer.
उज्ज्वलः।
Nityanand Misra
Mar 30, 2016, 6:27:40 AM3/30/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Thanks Rama Prakasha Ji. Here is the verse with two commentaries in the NSP 1939 edition
Indeed, Vagbhata seems to say that good Mantra-s destroy acute jvara (which I guess refers to fever in Ayurveda?).
Would be good to know the other quote also (where he “laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras”).
Perhaps the experts on Ayurveda can help reconcile the two.
Shrinivasa Varakhedi
Mar 30, 2016, 6:44:34 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Rajiv Ji
You have cleared your position on the question raised about your book. If you have the quotation readily available with you which is referred in the book may pl be furnished. We will discuss.
But, now what Prakash Ji is aksing something different, which will be taken up for discussion. In case this matter is not directly connected with your work, fine. Still this independent question could be a matter of discussion in the list. We do not dictate the thread.
Any queries about your book will also be discussed if somebody is interested. However this thread will continue with the question raised by ram prakash Ji.
With best regards
Shrivarakhedi
You have cleared your position on the question raised about your book. If you have the quotation readily available with you which is referred in the book may pl be furnished. We will discuss.
But, now what Prakash Ji is aksing something different, which will be taken up for discussion. In case this matter is not directly connected with your work, fine. Still this independent question could be a matter of discussion in the list. We do not dictate the thread.
Any queries about your book will also be discussed if somebody is interested. However this thread will continue with the question raised by ram prakash Ji.
With best regards
Shrivarakhedi
--
rama prakasha
Mar 30, 2016, 7:24:02 AM3/30/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
I completly agree with Ajit ji and Rajiv ji, and also I have posted my doubt in a separate thread. It may take some time it to get through moderator.
I understood that Rajiv Ji wasnt answering me, but clarifying the point which he holds that could have been mistaken with trivial doubt of mine. So he didnt wanted the discussion under the thread dedicated to TBFS diverted to immature doubts of mine. I welcome this.
However I request any Pandita well versed in Ayurveda or who knows the subject matter to clarify my doubt in a different thread.
I understood that Rajiv Ji wasnt answering me, but clarifying the point which he holds that could have been mistaken with trivial doubt of mine. So he didnt wanted the discussion under the thread dedicated to TBFS diverted to immature doubts of mine. I welcome this.
However I request any Pandita well versed in Ayurveda or who knows the subject matter to clarify my doubt in a different thread.
rajivmalhotra2007
Mar 30, 2016, 7:27:50 AM3/30/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 6:44:34 AM UTC-4, SRINIVASA VARAKHEDI wrote:
Dear Rajiv Ji
You have cleared your position on the question raised about your book. If you have the quotation readily available with you which is referred in the book may pl be furnished. We will discuss.
Dear Srinivasa ji,
Quotes from my book: Mantra is discussed only for purva-paksha of Pollock. He maintains that things like mantra, yajna etc have served brahmin domination and oppression over Dalits/women. He pejoratively refers to mantras as "hymnology", and says these lacked benefits to wider society, and were meant to assert the power of the elites over the masses.
My response covers many items besides just mantras. The relevant quote on mantras is as follows, and it has nothing to do with healing. I mention mantras in two contexts: usage in meditation and yajna.
"The Battle For Sanskrit", Pages 21-22: "Many of them [i.e. mantras] are used for specific meditation practices. Their importance derives from the large body of evidence accumulated by practitioners over the centuries that they produce effects which ordinary sounds do not. Sanskrit is therefore indispensable for adhyatmika purposes (inner sciences) and the pursuit of embodied knowing. (For adhyatmika and embodied knowing as I define them, see Malhotra 2011.) Many rituals and practices involve Sanskrit mantras chanted with specific intonations and in precise steps. Hindus subscribe to the efficacy of these rituals, and consider the Sanskrit mantras used therein as non-translatable. By this, I mean they cannot be replaced with synonymous words even in Sanskrit, leave alone words of another language that might appear to have a similar meaning."
My response covers many items besides just mantras. The relevant quote on mantras is as follows, and it has nothing to do with healing. I mention mantras in two contexts: usage in meditation and yajna.
"The Battle For Sanskrit", Pages 21-22: "Many of them [i.e. mantras] are used for specific meditation practices. Their importance derives from the large body of evidence accumulated by practitioners over the centuries that they produce effects which ordinary sounds do not. Sanskrit is therefore indispensable for adhyatmika purposes (inner sciences) and the pursuit of embodied knowing. (For adhyatmika and embodied knowing as I define them, see Malhotra 2011.) Many rituals and practices involve Sanskrit mantras chanted with specific intonations and in precise steps. Hindus subscribe to the efficacy of these rituals, and consider the Sanskrit mantras used therein as non-translatable. By this, I mean they cannot be replaced with synonymous words even in Sanskrit, leave alone words of another language that might appear to have a similar meaning."
Bvk sastry
Mar 30, 2016, 9:40:54 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste
( i am responding on this thread, as it took reference to the rebuttal of Shatavadhani Ganesh by Aditi Bannerji. ).
1. I agree with Rajiv Malhotras position in the post below, which is also the essence of Aditi Bannerji's statement reading: ' So even if I don’t know Sanskrit it is my duty to defend my Samskriti irrespective of pramanas.' More so when one had the privilege of working in the innermost sacred spaces where Samskrutham and Yoga - Veda- Tantra- Ayurveda can not be dismembered for part and partial studies.
Samskrutham means refined , unified and cultured to emerge as one organic whole. Has it emerged so? Or is it likely to emerge so as this battle seems to be escalating in pitch?
2. Having said this the exchange of mails in this thread( like the previous one) is like the famous debate about the nature of elephant! ( by six blind people or six brilliant people)- each one suffering and stuck to part and partial visions of the bigger issue: Battle for Sanskrit? WHY? BY Whom? For What goal?
3. Rajiv Malhotra is clear in seeing the need to put up Battle for Sanskrit in the ' Pollock focus' - which is just a mark for shooting. The larger problem is why funds of Samskruth anchored and Samskruth loving people is going to the teams which deliver exactly the opposite. Rajivs works have brilliantly exposed the ati-rathi and maha-rathis of this Academic contemporary Kurukshetra, the global issue battle fought from Beyond- India base. The final price and prize is still India, Sanskrit and Yoga! So the request to and expectation sought from Indian traditional scholars/ institutions is of two kinds:
- can you recognize the challenge of current period when battles are fought from satellite channels and not on horse driven chariot with bow and arrows to be powered by mantras? This issue is acknowledged and appreciated by Shayavadhani Ganesh also. Thus there is a concurrence on goal.
- can you contribute your might to support, be a team member to fight this battle in a specific mode for which strategic leadership is give in Rajiv Malhotras pioneering works? This issue is contentious; It seems Shatavadhani Ganesh has difficulties to work in this frame sought by Rajiv Malhotra. This is typical of the pre- kurukshetra battle divisive debate in Duryodhanas strategic team on the issue of who should be 'First Commander in Chief: Bhishma, Drona, Karna!'. While each one had their Dharma, strategies and duties, the outcome of war was Dharma-Samsthapanaa as some one beyond these people had made the decision!
4. While the primary issue of Rajiv Malhotra for the book TBFS has been repeatedly clarified and the focus is ' SP centric poorva-paksha'
The debates and posted issues on ' mantra- efficacy in Ayurveda, Yajna, Meditation studies' are not the main stream issues for this thread. And Shatavadhani Ganeshs TBFS review, as long as it has supported the main issue of battle with SP centric analysis(-with alternate and supplementary issues), i dont find any reason to get engaged in sidetracking issues on ' mantra- efficacy'.
If 'mantra-efficacy' needs irreplaceable Sanskrit, Rajiv is right.
If ' mantra-efficacy' is at best a theological hypothesis, better invest on investigation of Truth of this claim, which will be the challenge for Vagbhatta- Ayurveda-Vaidyas needing ' mantra-japa' prescription for curing ' jvara'. The beliefs, personal experiences, faith, antiquity of tradition, high esteem for Rishis of yore- will not be a substitute for objective research. This is where Bioy Mishra, Ganesh and many others come in. They are not looking at language per se; but combining and mixing it with application in specific streams of texts and prescriptions in practical disciplines. Rajiv is pointing that he has concurrence with these observations, but he discusses them in different chapters and contexts, as a part of his strategy.
How is this influencing SP debate ? Because SP ( and the like) translations are projecting inaccurate painting of traditional texts and practices locked in the intricacies of Sanskrit language.
If Ayurveda- Chikitsaa does not need Mantra- in-Sanskrit( like many other world religions do ), let them use a latin or arabic chant to heal ' jvara'! Then dont ask the question why Vagbhatta prescribed only Sanskrit veda-mantras? This is where ' one needs to make ones own siddhanta also as poorva paksha' to test its strength. It is this part, where Shatavadhani Ganesh and other indian institutions have a very good repertoire of learning, tools and ambience for research ! Albeit the ' money ( of Murthys kind) to support it and the passion of a sage- scientist to explore'.
This is the ' painful situation' to which reactions have come from Aditi Bannerjee, ( whom i know well from different context). She is bright and sharp and is asking the right question , which needs to be answered. She is right in taking up sides in the statement-'
So even if I don’t know Sanskrit it is my duty to defend my Samskriti irrespective of pramanas.'
In other words, Ye learned Saints and Scholars of Sankrit, please provide me just enough tools and supplies related to the ' Sanskrit' -needed for a soldier on the battle- front to fight , return alive, unhurt and safe. And please keep all your Strategy- Scenario detailing to your private board rooms if you can! If you are not aware, what all you consider sacred has been plundered and raped for 300 years when Ye people were lost blissfully in the memory lanes enjoying the ' glory of the past and belief of invincibility and immortality'!
As my good friend Dr. Yadu Moharir keeps repeating: you can not debate or engage with an issue unless you acknowledge it. The very fact that traditional scholars have taken cognizance of the need for 'poorvapaksha made in TBFS', there is no reason for internal fight.
What next? Again as Dr. Yadu says: find the viniyoga for Sanskrit for its survival and growth on global platform, by coming out of history centric back looking walk.
So can this thread come to a conclusion on sending out the patient called 'Sanskrit - freed from its jvara' from this diagnostic lab in a walking fit state to the world outside?? Any mantra for this?
Regards
Bvk Sastry
Sent from my iPhone
Hnbhat B.R.
Mar 30, 2016, 10:57:35 AM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
his is the ending shloka of Chikitsasthana 1 Adhyaya of Ashtanga Hrudaya of Vagbhata. It is recommending mantras for healing.
>>
>> ओषधयो मणयश्च सुमन्त्राः
>> साधु-गुरु-द्विज-दैवत-पूजाः ।
>> प्रीतिकरा मनसो विषयाश्च
>> घ्नन्त्यपि विष्णु-कृतं ज्वरमुग्रम् ॥ १७७ ॥
>>
>>
> Indeed, Vagbhata seems to say that good Mantra-s destroy acute jvara (which I guess refers to fever in Ayurveda?).
>
Vagbhata here refers not any acute fever, but वैष्णवज्वर - विष्णु-कृतं ज्वर which is additional benefit in addition to being प्रीतिकरा मनसो विषयाश्च as I can read the verse.
Others may take any acute jvara. There is शैवज्वर also as have heard. Many other types of jvara, in addition to phyisical वात, पित्त and कफ. I am also not Ayurveda pandit, but this twofold division of jvara I had heard from my friends.
Scholars clarify further.
sunil bhattacharjya
Mar 30, 2016, 12:30:22 PM3/30/16
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Dear Nityanandji,
Vagbhatta not only believed in the efficacy of mantras he also talked about Astrology and the role of the Grahas in human health (and welfare). Vagbhatta was great traditional teacher.--
Bvk sastry
Mar 30, 2016, 1:31:25 PM3/30/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste
In understanding Vagbhata-sloka:
The technicality of the upasarga -अपि should be clearly noticed.
The translation has to be made as two lines:
First one is a plain assertive statement: mantra.... घ्नन्ति विष्णु-कृतं ज्वरमुग्रम् -destroys/ cures jvara caused by ' hetu'= causatives technically marked as ' vishnu' in Ayurveda - diagnostics (- it is not the jvara attributed to the anger of a god or trinity marked with human fragilityZeus / Indra - like under the same name!).
Such naming of diseases by name of Gods and Goddesses is not uncommon in Ayurveda. To learn this, one needs to go beyond sanskrit learning models governed by conversation , Monier-Williams dictionary assisted translation and popular belief of what all ayurveda vaidya ( ignorant of other shaastras like jyotisha, tantra, veda and aagama) promises to deliver!
This is because Ayurveda vaidyas want to be more appreciated by Hippocratus oath governed medical practitioners rather than being being true to Ayurveda as Upa-Veda.
Second one is emphasizing the efficacy of mantras for all the jvaras technically grouped in to the class of विष्णु-कृतं अपि /
विष्णु-कृतं ज्वरमुग्रम् अपि - mantras .. Cure jvaras caused by ' vishnu' factors which have become aggravated / jvaras of similar category.
विष्णु-कृतं ज्वरमुग्रम् अपि - mantras .. Cure jvaras caused by ' vishnu' factors which have become aggravated / jvaras of similar category.
Scholars to please clarify
Bvk Sastry
Sent from my iPhone
--
Ganesh R
Mar 31, 2016, 4:12:19 AM3/31/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear and esteemed Scholars,
Sorry for the delay in replying. As per my request, here is the feedback of my friend Dr. G. L. Krishna, an insightful practitioner of aayurvEda on the issue connected with daiva-vyapaashraya and yukti-vyapaashraya. ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: G L Krishna <gl.kr...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New Thread Battle for Sanskrit
To: Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com>
From: Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com>;
To: G L Krishna <gl.kr...@yahoo.com>;
Subject: Fwd: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New Thread Battle for Sanskrit
Sent: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 6:22:03 AM
From: G L Krishna <gl.kr...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New Thread Battle for Sanskrit
To: Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com>
The switch from faith-based (daiva-vyapashraya) to reason-based (yukti-vyapashraya) medical practice did not happen as a single disruptive event. It happened over a period of time as a gradual process. A change resulting from such a process, though not unremarkable for the path-breaking turns it takes towards scientific advancement, should still be expected to retain ideological vestiges. That the daiva-vyapashraya practice is merely vestigeal becomes clear even from a cursory reading of the classical texts. Charaka's repeated emphasis upon reason (yukti) is unmistakable throughout his text. He declares rather sweepingly in one place: "Vina tarkena ya siddhih yadrichchasiddhireva saa". Vagbhata most memorably finalises the idea when, in one single word, he characterises all of Ayurveda as "NIRMANTRA". Vate pitte shleshmashantau cha pathyam Tailam sarpirmakshikam cha kramena Etad brahma bhashataam brahmajo va Ka NIRMANTRE vaktrubhedoktishaktih |
From: Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com>;
To: G L Krishna <gl.kr...@yahoo.com>;
Subject: Fwd: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New Thread Battle for Sanskrit
Sent: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 6:22:03 AM
Dear Krishna, Here is an inquiry about the quote of vaagbhaTa cited in our review. It has also has a question on our stand wrt daivavyapaashraya and yuktivyapaashraya as some one states here that vaagbhaTa too is subscribing to mantrajapa. Can you please give me an enlightened picture in this regard? Sorry for the trouble. Regards Ganesh |
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ajit Gargeshwari" <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> Date: Mar 30, 2016 9:36 AM Subject: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: New Thread Battle for Sanskrit To: <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> Cc: |
That was the reason I said new thread may be required to answer the question requested by Rama Prakasha
From: Ajit Gargeshwari
[mailto:ajit.gar...@gmail.com]
May I request scholars to answer his question. Thanks
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Ajit Ji
Rajiv Ji was has not answered the question by Rama Prakasha, but neither did did he claim that he was answering the question.
Please read that as “Rajiv Ji has not answered the question by Rama Prakasha, but neither did he claim that he was answering the question.”
Please read that as “To answer Sh. Rama Prakasha's question we have to see the original text of Vagbhatta.” |
-- |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्"
group. |
Nityanand Misra
Mar 31, 2016, 5:03:25 AM3/31/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Thursday, 31 March 2016 13:42:19 UTC+5:30, Ganesh R wrote:
ganeshregardsThe present verse " वाते पित्ते....." occurs at the fag end of the work of vaagbhaTa (uttarasthhaanaM, 40-86) and fits to be held as his conviction. As an additional input one can look the 88th verse too: ऋषिप्रणीते प्रीतिश्चेन्मुक्त्वा चरकसुश्रुतौ।भेडाद्याः किं न पठ्यन्ते तस्माद्ग्राह्यं सुभाषितम्॥Dear and esteemed Scholars,Sorry for the delay in replying. As per my request, here is the feedback of my friend Dr. G. L. Krishna, an insightful practitioner of aayurvEda on the issue connected with daiva-vyapaashraya and yukti-vyapaashraya.
Thanks Shatavadhani Ganesh Ji for the reference. Here are the verses (40-86 and 40-88) with the Sarvangasundara commentary in the NSP 1939 edition
Perhaps the intent of Vagbhata behind the verse 40-86 was paraphrased as “Vagbhata laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras” by Hari Ravikumar and Shatavadhani Ganesh Ji. And probably the statement “[Ayurveda] doesn’t speak about even the healing effects of yogasanas, let alone mantra” by the authors is to be interpreted as a general statement on Ayurveda, while verses like ओषधयो मणयश्च सुमन्त्राः are to be seen as vestigial elements of older tradition.
The references are useful. I do not know even the वृद्धिरादैच् of Ayurveda, the Ayurveda scholars on the list may shed more light on how to reconcile the verse mentioning सुमन्त्रs as having the power to heal with the निर्मन्त्र verse at the end.
Anjan Chattopadhyay
Mar 31, 2016, 6:38:41 AM3/31/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
If vina tarkena is to be taken as the gold standard, we should stop taking allopathic medicine. Nobody knows clearly what the medicines are doing. Sometime drugs are taken back from market when people observe bad effects. The tarka for English medicine use seems to be only statistical (which is not a perfect science).
When the above is the case, how can we call only devavyapashray to be against yukti vyapashray?
Does charak or sushrut say anywhere that devavyapashray is opposite to yukti? If not, then, devavyapashray has its own yukti. Dev vyapashray even today is used in Kerala and many other places to treat mental illness, psychiatric condition etc.
The verbal gymnastics of Krishna ji saying that devavyapashray is vestige is because of preconceptions.
When the above is the case, how can we call only devavyapashray to be against yukti vyapashray?
Does charak or sushrut say anywhere that devavyapashray is opposite to yukti? If not, then, devavyapashray has its own yukti. Dev vyapashray even today is used in Kerala and many other places to treat mental illness, psychiatric condition etc.
The verbal gymnastics of Krishna ji saying that devavyapashray is vestige is because of preconceptions.
rajivmalhotra2007
Apr 1, 2016, 3:39:10 PM4/1/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
The battle now enters the opposing side's home turf. The attached posters pertain to my first two events on USA campuses.
Tomorrow April 2 is at MIT.
April 15 will be at Columbia University, home of Sheldon Pollock.
Both are open to the public. They will be videotaped and uploaded on Youtube.
Regards,
rajiv
Tomorrow April 2 is at MIT.
April 15 will be at Columbia University, home of Sheldon Pollock.
Both are open to the public. They will be videotaped and uploaded on Youtube.
Regards,
rajiv
BVP Management
Apr 2, 2016, 2:28:25 AM4/2/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Dear All,
Let us discuss issues exclusively related to śāstras and allied literature. This point has been reiterated many a time here. Please do not post event related personal fliers. Recently Dr. Biojy Mishra has agreed to such a condition to one of his posts.
Thank you,
BVP Management
Let us discuss issues exclusively related to śāstras and allied literature. This point has been reiterated many a time here. Please do not post event related personal fliers. Recently Dr. Biojy Mishra has agreed to such a condition to one of his posts.
Thank you,
BVP Management
rajivmalhotra2007
Apr 4, 2016, 8:03:10 AM4/4/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Since Shatavadhani Ganesh's review of my book was discusses on bvp, I have published my response to him at Swarajya. It is posted in two parts.
Part 1 explains why it is complex to understand Pollock; what is different in his methodology compared to prior Orientalists; what are common errors traditionalists can make in understanding him.
Part 2 shows that Ganesh Shatavadhani has not understood Pollock. A few concrete examples from his writing are cited to show that Ganesh applies knowledge about "generic" Orientalism to address the issues concerning Pollock. Our purva-paksha tradition requires each purva-pakshin to be studied specifically, and not through superficial generalizations based on reading others.
Part 1 - The challenges of understanding Sheldon Pollock: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/rajiv-malhotra-explains-the-challenges-of-understanding-sheldon-pollock
Part 2: Has Shatavadhani Ganesh really understood Pollock? http://swarajyamag.com/culture/purvapaksha-has-shatavadhani-ganesh-really-understood-pollock#.VwIc6bXX6rM.twitter
Comments may be posted under those articles at the site where they are published.
I will publish Part 3 (and potentially Part 4) of my response to Ganesh after a few days.
Those who want to join an extensive debate on this matter are welcome to my egroup (which has 6,300 members). See: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RajivMalhotraDiscussion/info
Regards,
Rajiv
Part 1 explains why it is complex to understand Pollock; what is different in his methodology compared to prior Orientalists; what are common errors traditionalists can make in understanding him.
Part 2 shows that Ganesh Shatavadhani has not understood Pollock. A few concrete examples from his writing are cited to show that Ganesh applies knowledge about "generic" Orientalism to address the issues concerning Pollock. Our purva-paksha tradition requires each purva-pakshin to be studied specifically, and not through superficial generalizations based on reading others.
Part 1 - The challenges of understanding Sheldon Pollock: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/rajiv-malhotra-explains-the-challenges-of-understanding-sheldon-pollock
Part 2: Has Shatavadhani Ganesh really understood Pollock? http://swarajyamag.com/culture/purvapaksha-has-shatavadhani-ganesh-really-understood-pollock#.VwIc6bXX6rM.twitter
Comments may be posted under those articles at the site where they are published.
I will publish Part 3 (and potentially Part 4) of my response to Ganesh after a few days.
Those who want to join an extensive debate on this matter are welcome to my egroup (which has 6,300 members). See: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RajivMalhotraDiscussion/info
Regards,
Rajiv
Message has been deleted
Sati Shankar
Apr 4, 2016, 2:44:17 PM4/4/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Since the whole issue is circling around the claims and interpretations of Indian scriptures and texts in an improper manner by Prof Sheldon Pollock, related to astitva of and adhikAra on our socio-cultural tradition, it should concern all, the people of our country,and they must be explained in lay man's terms what is it all about.as,simply as possible. It is pertinent to quote here Prof N. Kazanas who summarises his opinion on Prof Pollock as, "There are many O'Flaherty's and Pollock's in this world who, instead of promoting goodness and unity, promote division and hatred....Just as nobody talks of O'Flaherty's aberrations now, so in a year or two nobody will give a thought to Mr. Pollock. There will appear others, of course. Human ignorance and vanity will not cease." ( http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2016/03/on-sheldon-pollock-who-thinks-pedantry.html?q=N+Kazanas )
The efforts to counter the damage, both ongoing and forthcoming, seem to be scattered in pieces need to be put together otherwise we will be failing in generation much warranted awareness and movement. Target operators have to mobilized. For, we need to deal with the people who can be categorized in to three.
Category One, the common man in India who neither knows about the indology nor has to do any thing with, nor Sanskrit, nor Sanskritists, nor tradition.. but has a conscience for his country,knows his Indian society he lives in, its beliefs, its pride and thinks for its preservation. He is least interested in who wrote what and who funded whom and what are the possible repercussions on Indian society, its culture, its tradition. The need is to make the common man aware of the situation properly in lay man's language and style, for example, Defense, Strategy & The Battle For Sanskrit of Rajiv Malhotra,
Category Two, comprises professionals, academicians, , scholars, writers, journalists and other brain workers.People in this category,can be divided in to two groups based on their traits, say Category Two Group I and Category Two, Group II.
Category Two Group I comprises professionals, academicians, , scholars, writers, journalists and other brain workers, are those who are thoroughly career conscious and always keep it above everything including their conscience for motherland. Under the compulsion of success at any cost, not only they exhibit full conformity to their to their Western masters, in speech, in writing and by standing behind them, adopting ideologies or under pressure of publish or perish they accept academic current and the dominating trends which satisfies their objective. As this group remains under pressure of acceptability by the peer. This also includes those who support opponent by other means like campaign and financial support. We can not expect much from them but only send our best wishes.
The members of the Category Two, Group II are the same but with a significant difference, they have , along with all their professional aims, not killed their national conscience and not forgotten their responsibilities towatd the nation.This makes them most valuable with respect to countering the opponent's movement we are aiming at. And it is this group, to which Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's "The Battle for Sanskrit" is directed.While working hard and diligently to guide and equip this segment, the author cautions,"Each purva-paksa opponent must be studied individually. We cannot apply some generic knowledge we have of other persons. Pollock is very clearly not an orientalist in the earlier sense of that term." The author provides very clearly the main tenets, methodologies and schematic conceptualization techniques, adopted by Polllock. He shows way how Pollock has developed his theories and interpretation of paramarthika and vyavaharika,Literarization,aestheticization of power which Pollock borrowed borrows an influential theory developed by Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) and the Frankfurt School of Marxism, to interpret the role played by aesthetics in the rise of the Nazis. He goes on explaining how has Pollock developed his own patent variety of Political Philology and based on that Pollock "advocates with evangelical zeal is that Indian texts must be studied not for spiritual/sacred content, but for the purpose of finding the social exploitation and political domination contained in them." Mr Malhotra while showing the way to purvs paksha cautions the reader of the "Liberation philology, the other side of the coin to political philology" and tells how Polloch works on both sides," He often contradicts himself, not only between one publication of his and another, but also within the same publication. He often plays both sides of an issue to seem balanced. But eventually, he quietly assumes one of the two postures without having explained why it is superior to the other." ...."In other words, one cannot do purva-paksha of Pollock surgically by random citation; it must be done holistically. His work is far too multilayered, full of western idioms, and at times written using codes his fellow scholars are meant to understand."
He suggests, "To really understand Pollock, it is also important to study the three layers of American culture, " "At the top is the deceptive pop culture layer in which everything is nice, all a part of the so-called global village".Then is the ," middle layer where the institutions lie. The institutions provide continuity, infrastructure assets, and a robust transparency. " and at the lowest layer of the three layers is what I term the deep culture. Here, the notion of American Exceptionalism is well established and protected. This deep layer comes out publicly and violently at times of duress – such as the xenophobia of white males that Donald Trump has tapped into.The veneer of civility is very thin indeed."Finally, he says "One must know all this as a unified whole, in dynamic equilibrium. In a nutshell, I am saying that the methodology to do purva-paksha of Pollock has to be multi-disciplinary".
But since there is no water tight compartmentalization between the Groups of Category Two, we often encounter, certain clashes due to personality differences, ego or difference in exposure to modern weaponry available to us due to ideological, scientific and technological developments. A recent controversy came up with a review of Mr. Malhotra's The Defense of Sanskrit by Dr. Ganesh. Nearly half of the review was dedicated to Mr Malhotra. Without really recognising the fact that it is ultimately a fight to retain our adhikAra on our own texts , scriptures and tradition, review made some comments which were remote to the basic objective that the Defense of sanskrit aims at. The clarifications given by Mr.Malhotra in this part shows clearly how mistaken were the comments. In an annexure to the review, Dr. Ganesh got posted some more remarks on mantra. He wrote for use of "mantra" by Mr. Malhotra to be ,"This is at best a theological argument of a mimAmsaka." which when analysed based on our traditional connotation, turned to be "clearly a mistake as we commit most often, especially when we approach our texts through translations by Western authors or by Indians who have /had their Gurus in them."
The second part of the same annexure said, "If mantras truly had healing effects, why did our tradition evolve from the daiva-vyapasraya of the Atharva Veda (which believed that certain chants and spells could cure a disease) into the yukti-vyapasraya of Ayurveda (which relies completely on observation; it doesn’t speak about even the healing effects of yogasanas, let alone mantra)? In fact, Vagbhata laughs at people who seek proof for medicines in mantras." Not less that a dozen Counter examples of which were readily available from the texts of authorities like Charak and Sushrut. https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!topic/bvparishat/e4i_jHilp98
This is cited here just to show how those who can and must join hands to counter forces inimical to our texts and traditions take a different direction. Time has come for all the three categories to join hands, and fight for our own astitva, adhikAra , pride and self respect.
Shubham Bhavatu
Sati Shankar
Ajit Gargeshwari
Apr 4, 2016, 8:49:13 PM4/4/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Please read and post comments under the articles where they are published was the request sent to this mail. Thanks
Nityanand Misra
Apr 11, 2016, 12:58:28 AM4/11/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
I have started reading the book now, and am making my notes. Will take my sweet time to finish it and then possibly write a review (if I do, it will be uploaded on academia.org).
For an important book like this, I expected much better typesetting and composition (responsibility of the publisher Harper Collins, but typesetting is by Saanvi Graphics Noida). A couple of quick remarks:
The worst thing a typesetter can do to put off the reader is changing the book font midway (this is a schoolboy error in typesetting), and that is exactly what happens on the last line of page 17 till the third line of page 18 ("He had visited the US .... superior to Indian ones") where Adobe Jensen 11 pt is replaced by a different font in larger size. Seems the book was composed in a WYSIWYG editor and the paragraph was inserted by copy-pasting from a source which used a different font.
The notes at the back (and there are a lot) are easy to read if one is reading the book sequentially, but God help those who skip some pages (e.g. to refer to chapter 4 which the ) and then turn back to check a note, because .... the notes are renumbered from 1 in every chapter and the Notes appendix (which runs into 50 pages) does not have the chapter name in the header! So flip back and forth 2 or 3 pages in the Notes appendix to check the chapter in the Notes appendix, then go back to the page you were reading and the index to see which chapter's note you are looking for, then flip more pages to locate the note. Not renumbering the note at start of every chapter or printing the chapter name in heading would have made the life of a reader much better.
I promise the review (if at all I write) will be as punctilious (if not more) as the comments above.
Nityanand Misra
Apr 11, 2016, 1:26:36 AM4/11/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Monday, 11 April 2016 10:28:28 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:
(e.g. to refer to chapter 4 which the )
That should read
(e.g. to refer to chapter 4 which the Introduction mentions on page 4, just after the author's claim that Pollock claims that Brahmin elitism was a factor in shaping the ideologies of British colonialism and German Nazism).
rajivmalhotra2007
Apr 11, 2016, 5:45:49 AM4/11/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
I wish to thank Nityanand ji and all others who make critical inputs that are going to improve the book as it evolves. I have passed on all such comments to the publisher. They are pretty quick to fix these for new print runs. Nowadays publishers do short print runs of a few thousand copies each, and hence they can make changes rapidly when pointed out.
I organize the critical feedback I receive into three categories, as follows:
A) Style issues: Things like copy editing, language style, etc. are publisher issues. I pass these on to their copy editor.
B) Purva-paksha and thesis at Pollock-specific meta-level: This is my focus in this book. This is not about generic Indology (too abstract). Nor is it at the specific verse level (too minute). It is in between these levels. His meta-level framing is very different than other Indological schools. I want to explain Pollock to those who are not Pollock experts. This is an enormous task given his opaque style, convoluted language, contradictions and apparent contradictions, heavy use of other western theories and scholarly works, subtle assumptions that are often hidden, etc.
C) Uttara-paksha and specific verse level analysis of Pollock: I have written that this is where traditional scholars who know more than I do must step in and do their job.
In 'B' I want to point out where the issues lie, the foundational errors in his framework and assumptions, etc. But then I call upon traditional scholars to step in and do 'C'. I constantly say this in the book - things like "Following is another red flag I am raising that will trouble many traditional scholars ....xyz." In other words, after reading closely some 3,000 pages of Pollock, I tried to summarize what I found to be quite important for our team to examine. Now it is up to them. This is where I handed over to Prof Kannan, and he is taking this forward in a systematic manner with numerous traditional scholars joining his team. I wish them success because only with their responses can we take back the adhikara from western Indologists.
The western academy has ultra specialists organized into large inter-disciplinary teams. I have participated in, monitored and analyzed closely many such teams in the USA for the past 25 years. For instance, Infinity Foundation used to be the sponsor of the annual Indology Roundtable Conf at Harvard convened by Witzel - back in the 1990s. Every year they brought together (from India, Pakistan, Europe, Japan, USA, etc.) several dozen scholars in disciplines ranging from Sanskrit, linguistics/philology, archeology, art history, politics/social sciences, anthropology, genetics, etc. Their inter-disciplinary coordination is impressive. I stopped funding them when I realized they were controlling the big picture interpretation and synthesis, while putting scholars from India/Pakistan into silos as mere suppliers of isolated information. So I started challenging their framework and eventually we parted company.
We must do this for our side with our drishti - i.e. bring in serious thinkers with different kinds of specialties. Have them work together. Someone can decode Pollock in a specific area, while another person can give a rejoinder to Pollock.
Similar projects need to be done for each major western Indologist. Pollock is just the start, and there are many others to critique one by one. This is a 10 year program. The impact will be long term.
My desire is that scholars should join Kannan's team in whatever capacity they can. How they work together is up to him and the scholars. As these good scholars take control, I take leave this topic of work, and move on ...
Thanks and regards,
rajiv
I organize the critical feedback I receive into three categories, as follows:
A) Style issues: Things like copy editing, language style, etc. are publisher issues. I pass these on to their copy editor.
B) Purva-paksha and thesis at Pollock-specific meta-level: This is my focus in this book. This is not about generic Indology (too abstract). Nor is it at the specific verse level (too minute). It is in between these levels. His meta-level framing is very different than other Indological schools. I want to explain Pollock to those who are not Pollock experts. This is an enormous task given his opaque style, convoluted language, contradictions and apparent contradictions, heavy use of other western theories and scholarly works, subtle assumptions that are often hidden, etc.
C) Uttara-paksha and specific verse level analysis of Pollock: I have written that this is where traditional scholars who know more than I do must step in and do their job.
In 'B' I want to point out where the issues lie, the foundational errors in his framework and assumptions, etc. But then I call upon traditional scholars to step in and do 'C'. I constantly say this in the book - things like "Following is another red flag I am raising that will trouble many traditional scholars ....xyz." In other words, after reading closely some 3,000 pages of Pollock, I tried to summarize what I found to be quite important for our team to examine. Now it is up to them. This is where I handed over to Prof Kannan, and he is taking this forward in a systematic manner with numerous traditional scholars joining his team. I wish them success because only with their responses can we take back the adhikara from western Indologists.
The western academy has ultra specialists organized into large inter-disciplinary teams. I have participated in, monitored and analyzed closely many such teams in the USA for the past 25 years. For instance, Infinity Foundation used to be the sponsor of the annual Indology Roundtable Conf at Harvard convened by Witzel - back in the 1990s. Every year they brought together (from India, Pakistan, Europe, Japan, USA, etc.) several dozen scholars in disciplines ranging from Sanskrit, linguistics/philology, archeology, art history, politics/social sciences, anthropology, genetics, etc. Their inter-disciplinary coordination is impressive. I stopped funding them when I realized they were controlling the big picture interpretation and synthesis, while putting scholars from India/Pakistan into silos as mere suppliers of isolated information. So I started challenging their framework and eventually we parted company.
We must do this for our side with our drishti - i.e. bring in serious thinkers with different kinds of specialties. Have them work together. Someone can decode Pollock in a specific area, while another person can give a rejoinder to Pollock.
Similar projects need to be done for each major western Indologist. Pollock is just the start, and there are many others to critique one by one. This is a 10 year program. The impact will be long term.
My desire is that scholars should join Kannan's team in whatever capacity they can. How they work together is up to him and the scholars. As these good scholars take control, I take leave this topic of work, and move on ...
Thanks and regards,
rajiv
Sati Shankar
Apr 11, 2016, 8:16:29 AM4/11/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sri Rajiv ji
Your last line in your concluding post above reads,
"My desire is that scholars should join Kannan's team in whatever capacity they can. How they work together is up to him and the scholars. As these good scholars take control, I take leave this topic of work, and move on ..."
Sir,
The work being undertaken, to "fight intellectually and strategically" against well founded establishment with all the modern weaponry and when we have to look forward for cooperation between specialists in diverse disciplines it must be kept in mind that this whole "endeavor" will need a core team which will coordinate between the specialists, who will come , join, contribute their intellectual capital and may remain or leave after finishing their work. Since this endeavor has a long term perspective, a "stable" seat for coordination of activities is a must.
Since you have taken the first steps , to my mind, it will NOT be wise for you and beneficial for the whole mission if you, "take leave this topic of work, and move on ..." .
I think, Your very presence is a must.... though specialists will be taking care of their well coordinated tasks.
It is therefore necessary to create an "independent" core team which must be efficient in "Coordination and Management" first.
Hope you will think on this aspect and be there at each and every stage.......
Regards
Yours
Sati Shankar
--
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/Z0v53lMq9rY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
kkapoor40
Apr 12, 2016, 12:03:27 PM4/12/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I am with Sati Shankar hi in this request
Regards
kapil kapoor
Sent from Samsung Mobile
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.
Vashishtha Jha
Apr 12, 2016, 10:49:57 PM4/12/16
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I too endorse the view of Satiji.
VNJha
Prof. V. N. Jha,
Former Director,
Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit,
University of Pune,
Pune-411007.
Residence :
C-3, 402 Kunal Icon,
Pimple Saudagar,
Pune-411027 .
India.
Phone : 0091-20-27201458 (R)
Mobile : 09890215441
E-Mail : vnj...@yahoo.co.in
vnjha1946@gmail. com
विश्वासो वासुकेयः
Apr 19, 2016, 2:47:07 AM4/19/16
to bhAratIya-vidvat-pariShad भारतीय-विद्वत्परिषद्, शतावधानी Ganesh गणेशः रागः
This is in reference to the below discussion.
The verses (40-86 and 40-88) indicate that, atleast within Ayurveda, later discoveries and scholarship overrides even the vedas. To what extant can it be generalized? Of course, there is the concept of arthavAda in mImAmsa and the three level (Adhi-bhautika/ Adhi-daivika/ AdhyAtmika ) interpretation framework ( <-- कस्मिन्नुपनिषदीदं दत्तम्?) which is relevant.
But, how would traditional scholars judge whether
गुरुवार, 31 मार्च 2016 को 2:03:25 पूर्व UTC-7 को, Nityanand Misra ने लिखा:
The verses (40-86 and 40-88) indicate that, atleast within Ayurveda, later discoveries and scholarship overrides even the vedas. To what extant can it be generalized? Of course, there is the concept of arthavAda in mImAmsa and the three level (Adhi-bhautika/ Adhi-daivika/ AdhyAtmika ) interpretation framework ( <-- कस्मिन्नुपनिषदीदं दत्तम्?) which is relevant.
But, how would traditional scholars judge whether
- statement is to be taken as pramANa inspite of contradicting direct observation and logic, versus
- whether it should be taken as arthavAda and non-Adhi-bhautika?
गुरुवार, 31 मार्च 2016 को 2:03:25 पूर्व UTC-7 को, Nityanand Misra ने लिखा:
Nityanand Misra
Apr 19, 2016, 12:19:46 PM4/19/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्, avadhan...@gmail.com
On Tuesday, 19 April 2016 12:17:07 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:
This is in reference to the below discussion.
The verses (40-86 and 40-88) indicate that, atleast within Ayurveda, later discoveries and scholarship overrides even the vedas.
What part of 40-86 and 40-88 indicates that even Vedas are overridden?
40-86 says that in the matter of निर्मन्त्र, it does not matter who the speaker is. But Vedas are not निर्मन्त्र.
40-88 talks about ऋषिप्रणीत and सुभाषित. From a traditional point of view, Vedas are neither ऋषिप्रणीत (they are ऋषिदृष्ट) nor सुभाषित as they are revealed scriptures.
So do 40-86 and 40-88 really imply that later discoveries/scholarship overrides Vedas? Does any translation or commentary say so?
विश्वासो वासुकेयः
Apr 19, 2016, 5:03:36 PM4/19/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्, avadhan...@gmail.com
(As an aside, for future reference - changing the subject does not seem to have spawned a new thread.)
मंगलवार, 19 अप्रैल 2016 को 9:19:46 पूर्व UTC-7 को, Nityanand Misra ने लिखा:
मंगलवार, 19 अप्रैल 2016 को 9:19:46 पूर्व UTC-7 को, Nityanand Misra ने लिखा:
On Tuesday, 19 April 2016 12:17:07 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:This is in reference to the below discussion.
The verses (40-86 and 40-88) indicate that, atleast within Ayurveda, later discoveries and scholarship overrides even the vedas.What part of 40-86 and 40-88 indicates that even Vedas are overridden?40-86 says that in the matter of निर्मन्त्र, it does not matter who the speaker is. But Vedas are not निर्मन्त्र.
So do 40-86 and 40-88 really imply that later discoveries/scholarship overrides Vedas? Does any translation or commentary say so?
In the matter of nirmantra = in the domain of (say) Ayurveda, it does not matter who the speaker is. It follows that does not matter that something comes from some anonymous (or brahmaa created) composition.
40-88 talks about ऋषिप्रणीत and सुभाषित. From a traditional point of view, Vedas are neither ऋषिप्रणीत (they are ऋषिदृष्ट) nor सुभाषित as they are revealed scriptures.
veda-s can be considered as revealed by brahmA, right? ब्रह्मा भाषताम् … applies.
Nityanand Misra
Apr 19, 2016, 9:26:13 PM4/19/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्, avadhan...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 02:33:36 UTC+5:30, विश्वासो वासुकेयः wrote:
(As an aside, for future reference - changing the subject does not seem to have spawned a new thread.)
What part of 40-86 and 40-88 indicates that even Vedas are overridden?40-86 says that in the matter of निर्मन्त्र, it does not matter who the speaker is. But Vedas are not निर्मन्त्र.
So do 40-86 and 40-88 really imply that later discoveries/scholarship overrides Vedas? Does any translation or commentary say so?In the matter of nirmantra = in the domain of (say) Ayurveda, it does not matter who the speaker is. It follows that does not matter that something comes from some anonymous (or brahmaa created) composition.
The सर्वाङ्गसुन्दर commentary glosses निर्मन्त्रे as अशब्दस्वभावे तैलादिके. The essence, as I understand is, it does not matter who says that तैल is पथ्य for वात. This is not exactly the same as a discovery/scholar can override the Vedas.
40-88 talks about ऋषिप्रणीत and सुभाषित. From a traditional point of view, Vedas are neither ऋषिप्रणीत (they are ऋषिदृष्ट) nor सुभाषित as they are revealed scriptures.veda-s can be considered as revealed by brahmA, right? ब्रह्मा भाषताम् … applies.
Are not Vedas given by the Supreme Lord to Brahma? यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै। तं ह देवमात्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुर्वै शरणमहं प्रपद्ये॥ (श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ६-१८). 40-88 does not mention ब्रह्मा भाषताम्. The सर्वाङ्गसुन्दर commentary says भेडजातूकर्ण्यादिमुनिप्रणीतानि and makes no reference to Vedas.
I believe we first need to see the available translations and commentaries before concluding anything. It is also important to keep in mind that the author Vagbhata was most likely a Buddhist. His statements on overriding the Vedas (if indeed there is such an implied sense in the above verses) may not have any bearing on the traditional Hindu/Sanatana Dharma position.
In my limited knowledge, Caraka does give importance to the utterances of the शिष्ट-s which are असंशय:
रजस्तमोभ्यां निर्मुक्ता नित्यज्ञानबलेन ये।
येषां त्रिकालममलं ज्ञानमव्याहतं सदा॥
आप्ताः शिष्टा विबुधास्ते तेषां वाक्यमसंशयम्।
सत्यं वक्ष्यन्ति ते कस्मादसत्यं नीरजस्तमाः॥
– च॰सं॰ सू॰स्था॰ ११.१८,१९
Nagesa quotes the definition of आप्त as per चरक/पतञ्जलि in the लघुमञ्जूषा as आप्तो नाम अनुभवेन वस्तुतत्त्वस्य कार्त्स्येन निश्चयवान्, रागादिवशादपि नान्यथावादी यः स इति चरके पतञ्जलिः।
I leave it to the experts on Ayurveda to comment further if the system rejects the authority of Vedas or not.
K S Kannan
Apr 19, 2016, 9:59:23 PM4/19/16
to bvparishat
The proper reading as I have come across is (Caraka SamhitA 1.11.18):
rajas-tamobhyAm nirmuktAs
tapo-jn"Ana-balena ye.
Discussions on Apta also in
Caraka SamhitA 3.4.4 and 3.8; and
Sus'ruta SamhitA 1.1.16
--
K S Kannan
Apr 19, 2016, 10:03:23 PM4/19/16
to bvparishat
And in 1.11.19,
AptAs' s'is"TA vibuddhAs te.
Else, metre also affected.
-KSKannan
Nityanand Misra
Apr 20, 2016, 12:51:09 AM4/20/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
On Wednesday, 20 April 2016 07:33:23 UTC+5:30, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:
And in 1.11.19,AptAs' s'is"TA vibuddhAs te.Else, metre also affected.-KSKannanOn Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:29 AM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:The proper reading as I have come across is (Caraka SamhitA 1.11.18):rajas-tamobhyAm nirmuktAstapo-jn"Ana-balena ye.
Thanks Prof. Kannan for the correct readings (तपोज्ञानबलेन and विबुद्धाः).
Another published version is सत्यं वक्ष्यन्ति ते कस्मान्नीरजस्तमसो मृषा
S Saha
Apr 26, 2016, 3:47:00 AM4/26/16
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages