question on Yad vai Tanna pasyati
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Priya SanthanaKrishnan
Jun 14, 2022, 11:43:07 PM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
By the sutra अनचि च the दकार of यद् gets द्वित्वम् optionally . So it can be यद् वै तन्न or यद् द्वैतन्न।This may be the case .
With regards
Priya santhanakrishnan.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022, 04:41 , <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
- About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika' - 5 Updates
- Punarjanma is not Vaidika in origin as per Dr Elst - 4 Updates
- Question about the Southern Recension of Ramayana - 5 Updates
- [No Subject] - 1 Update
- question on yad vai tanna pasyati: Madhva bhashya takes it differently. - 3 Updates
- New Master's Programme: MA in Interdisciplinary Humanities & Research at Rishihood University - 1 Update
- Rama lakshmana killed the deer meant for yajna?..... - 1 Update
- One Simple Thing - Today's Talk on Yoga by Eddie Stern - 1 Update
- " Punarjanma and Atmagatividya" , a compilation by Sri Vishal Agarwal - 1 Update
Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 10:43AM +0530
Namaste
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 3:11 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Also note that you as a dreamer and wakeful person and deep sleep-person
are the same, it does not mean that you walked into your dream and when the
>dream ended, you came back to yourself. You were in bed all the time. So,
why do you get confused? When you say that you move from
wakeful(vyAvahArika) >to Paramartha, are you saying that you moved from
dream to wakeful state, because you as dreamer is same as you as wakeful
person? What a heavy >confusion?
There is no confusion. What you are saying regarding not walking into a
dream, and so on is also obvious to any child. There is no great
revelation by you. Everybody knows the dreamer does not walk into his dream
or waking state. I wrote the same person moves from one state to another
only in a figurative sense and not literally. In summary the same person
experiences dream, waking and deep sleep states. It is the same person on
the dawn of Jnana who experiences the Turiya also where Vyavaharika objects
will not exist. This is the Paramarthika reality.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 3:11 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Regards
-Venkatesh
"Raghavendra" <rv...@rediffmail.com>: Jun 14 06:05AM
Hello Sir,
Greetings of the day,
Knowledge is self valid, not perceptual error.
At 10pm, perceptual error occurred on the part of the perceiver due to prevailing conditions which impacted contact of his sensory apparatus with the object, {which in this case is a 'rope'}.
At 10.05pm, *the rope was seen as a rope as it is* and it's validity was on account of the following,
◆it was seen by flawless senses,◆there was certainty of it, that it was not due to defective senses,◆the rope seen had pragmatic efficiency (that it could be used to tying purposes),◆there was an agreement with the perception of such rope on an earlier occasion / earlier day,◆there was absence of disagreement,◆and more importantly, the rope was seen as rope *as it is*.
This means, under normal conditions the knowledge of rope carried with itself, *it's own (self) validity*.
The question is, how provisional reality (vyāvahārika status) is assigned to objects seen under normal conditions which carry with them their own (self) validity.
I am asking this question in the backdrop of Srī Shankara agreeing to self validity of knowledge as his siddhānta position.
This is my jigñāsā, answer to this question is highly appreciated,
Thank you & best regards,Raghavendra. B
Sent from RediffmailNG on Android
=============================
From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:34:25 GMT+0530
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'
Namaste
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:56 AM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>To say, vyāvahārika is *māna* at one time and *amāna* at another time is a contradiction, which goes against the very concept of स्वगोचर or >स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge.
Let us suppose a person is witnessing a snake instead of a rope - a case of Bhrama.
At time say 10 PM he is witnessing the snake and he is convinced it is real and its reality cannot be questioned because of स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge of the snake.
After some time say at 10:05 PM a passer by will tell him it is not a snake but a rope. This is when he realizes the snake he is thinking is not a snake but a rope. This happens at time 10:05 PM which is later than 10 PM.
What do you say now? At time 10 PM the snake was real and at time 10:05 PM it is not real.
The same happens to Vyavaharika objects. They are real now but at the time of dawn of knowledge they will lose reality.
But you can still argue the snake was real at one time and so it cannot be false absolutely. Yes we agree it is not absolutely false but it cannot be absolutely real also. We call it Anirvachaniya because it is neither real nor false nor both real and false.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:56 AM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Nagara Ji,
Svasti,
Thank you for sharing the relevant links to the earlier discussions on the above subject matter, which contains copious quotations drawn from various source texts.
A couple of observations,
Firstly, the question of, whether or not, Srī Shankara used the terms viz., prātibhāsika, vyāvhārika, and pāramarthika is wrong.
Trying to find them in his works or finding their equivalent/s (vyavahāravishayam) is also wrong.
Why?
Because it is the prerogative of the philosophical system builder to use it or not, yet communicate the philosophical position around the tripartite classification, as deemed fit by him. This independence of a philosopher is beyond the question mark.
Secondly, the provisional reality is a stated position in the philosophical system of Srī Shankara (and in Buddhism, it varies in detail, though)
Vyāvahārika is provisioned to account for the practical life, (a meaningful practical life), this is the stated position in the philosophical system of Srī Shankara.
Thirdly, what is vyāvahārika is sublatable at the dawn of knowledge (that knowledge being absolute knowledge / pāramarthika), this is again the stated position in the philosophical system of Srī Shankara.
Srī Shankara is pledged to the idea of self-validity of knowledge (स्वतस्त्वम्) and it is in the backdrop of this position that tests need to be carried out concerning the provisional validity or vyāvahārika prāmānyam of what is thought of as vyāvahārika Satyam.
What is vyāvahārika cannot be Satyam, the other way round is also equally true, what is Satyam cannot be vyāvahārika. Therefore, the test of prāmānya or validity of vyāvahārika fails.
Bhāmatikāra puts the स्वगोचर (स्वतस्त्वम्) idea of प्रमाणानि nicely,
… नह्येयं सर्वप्रमाणप्रसिद्धो लोकव्यवहारोऽन्यत्तत्त्वमनधिगम्य शक्यतेऽपह्नोतुम् । *प्रमाणानि हि स्वगोचरे प्रवर्तमानानि तत्त्वमिदमित्येव प्रवर्तन्ते*। अतात्त्विकत्वं तु तद्गोचरस्यान्यतो बाधकादवगन्तव्यम् । न पुनः सांव्यवहारिकं नः प्रामाण्यं न तु तात्त्विकमित्येव प्रवर्तन्ते …
The objection to the vyāvahārika is in the backdrop of स्वगोचर (स्वतस्त्वम्) idea of प्रमाणानि or self validity of knowledge.
How is it that the provisional validity of vyāvahārika has truth value today when it is bound to be invalid tomorrow?
To come back and say that it is the sacred texts which talk of provisional validity of vyāvahārika and its unreality upon the dawn of knowledge, which is backed up by inference is not correct till such time we do not convincingly answer the penetrating objection to the idea of vyāvahārika itself.
Srī Madhva asked that pertinent and penetrating question in the back of self-validity of knowledge (स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम्)
प्रामाण्यस्य च मर्यादा कालतो व्यहता भवेत् । कालान्तरे$प्यमानं चेत् इदानीं मानता कुतः?
To say, vyāvahārika is *māna* at one time and *amāna* at another time is a contradiction, which goes against the very concept of स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge.
Thus, the objection to vyāvahārika is based on sound logic and reasoning in the backdrop of the sound premise of स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम् idea of knowledge accepted in the Vedanta thought, not sentimental at all.
A note on adducing support to philosophical positions from the source texts. Our forefathers always followed the method of discussing the subject matter first and then citing texts in support thereof. We live in the age of the internet which brings with it *the problem of many*. The term vyavahāra in all instances culled out from those sources cannot be the one that is thought of getting sublated tomorrow as per the conception of it by Srī Shankara.
Over the 3 email chains you have shared, which contain copious details on the discussions had in the past on the tripartite classification of the reality of the conception of Srī Shankara, it is conspicuous to note that the texts from various purānas have been relied upon. None forthcoming from the principal Upanishads and the four Vedas. Reliance on the texts which are outside the fold of principal Upanishads and the four Vedas is also conspicuous about mahāvākya.
I am sure, you may have answers, but thought sharing with the group the background to objection Idea of vyāvahārika or provisional reality from the standpoint of realism and that background is the unassailable self-validity or स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम् concept of knowledge.
Thank you & Best regardsRaghavendra. B=================From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:14:42 GMT+0530
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'
https:roups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/dI1QgECjvCk/m/PMv0JzghE8sJ
I found the following at https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/: Sri Sureshwaracharya concurs with the Acharya’s Bhashya!!In his Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, while commenting, in verse form, the Bhashya of Bhagavatpada, for the mantra: ‘सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत्’, the VArtikakAra says:व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः । (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, Bhashya)पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407 (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means empirical truth because of the context and also because of the fact that the absolute truth is spoken of at the end of the sentence.]It can be seen beyond doubt that Sri Sureshwaracharya unambiguously uses the words ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ to comment upon Bhagavatpada’s words: ‘paramArthasatyam’ and ‘vyavahAra-vishayam’.It becomes certain that Sri Sureshwaracharya has initiated the use of the two terms: ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ that have been popularly used by the Advaita Acharyas of the Sampradaya initiated by Shankara Bhagavatpada.This brings us upto the the two terms : vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika.Extracting of praatibhaaasika from Shankara's works, adding it to these two and forming the set of three seems to have happened later to Sureshwaracharya.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 3:09 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
https:roups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/dI1QgECjvCk/m/c0MP0UIGuxkJ
Namaste
Although Shankaracharya has not mentioned the term 'sattātraividhya' or 'prātibhāsika sattā' in the prasthānatraya bhāṣya, there is a clear mention of all the three sattās in one place: The Taittiriyopanishad bhāṣya: 2.6:
'सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत्' -
He comments on the above mantra:
सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत् परमार्थसत्यम् ।
He does not name the third as 'prātibhāsikam' but simply says 'the word 'anṛtam' of the mantra means 'that which is of the nature of the mirage-water'. Sureshwaracharya, in the vārtika to the above bhāṣya says:व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः । (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, Bhashya)पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407 (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means empirical truth because of the context and also because of the fact that the absolute truth is spoken of at the end of the sentence.]Sāyanāchārya’s commentaryIn his commentary to the Kṛṣṇayajurvediya taittiriya āraṁyakam wherein occurs the passage that we are now considering, Sayanacharya says:सत्यम् – लोकव्यवहारे बाधरहितं शुक्तिरज्जुस्थाण्वादि । अनृतं तु व्यहारदशायामारोपितं रजतसर्पचोरादि । …उपरितनसत्यशब्देन ब्रह्म उच्यते ।[satyam – that which does not undergo sublation in the common parlance namely shell, rope, pillar, etc. anRtam, however, refers to the cases of silver, snake, thief, etc. that undergo sublation in the empirical state itself. The other word ‘Satyam’ refers to Brahman.]Even he does not use the word 'prātibhāsikam' to comment on the mantra-word 'anṛtam.'Sri AchyutakrishNAnanda Tirtha, the author of the popular and lucid subcommentary named ‘VanamAlaa’ on the Bhashyam of Bhagavatpada says:’सत्यं चानृतं च’ इत्यत्र सत्यशब्देन व्यवहारसत्यमेवोच्यते न तु परमार्थसत्यमित्यत्र हेतुः – अधिकारादिति । सच्च त्यच्च इत्यादीनां व्यवहारविषयाणामेव विकाराणां प्रकरणादित्यर्थः । किं च ’सत्यं च’ इत्यत्र परमार्थसत्यग्रहणे परमार्थद्वयं प्रसज्येत, ’सत्यमभवत्’ इत्यत्रापि परमार्थसत्यस्य गृहीतत्वात् ।…. किमपेक्षया उदकादिलक्षणस्य सत्यस्य आपेक्षिकत्वमित्याकाङ्क्षायामाह –मृगतृष्णिकादि इति । ‘सत्यं चानृतं च ’ इत्यत्र व्यावहारिकं वस्तु सत्यशब्दार्थः, प्रातिभासिकं वस्तु अनृतशब्दार्थ इति निष्कर्षः ।The purport of the above passage is:In the mantra under consideration the reason to hold the word ‘satyam’ as denoting the vyAvahArika reality alone and not the pAramArthika is the ‘context’ in which this word occurs in the Shruti. Any created entity has to be less real than the Absolutely Real Brahman. This word ‘satyam’ occurs in the context of the entities that undergo transformation – विकारः. Further, if the word ‘satyam’ is understood as the ParamArtha satyam (Brahman), then there will be the contingency of two Absolutely Real entities existing since the other word ‘Satyam’ has been taken to be the Absolutely Real. Related to what is the water and the like taken to be vyAvahaarika? It is relative to the waterKesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 03:57AM -0700
Namaste.
Your-quote:
There is no confusion. What you are saying regarding not walking into a
dream, and so on is also obvious to any child. There is no great
revelation by you. Everybody knows the dreamer does not walk into his dream
or waking state. I wrote the same person moves from one state to another
only in a figurative sense and not literally. In summary the same person
experiences dream, waking and deep sleep states. It is the same person on
the dawn of Jnana who experiences the Turiya also where Vyavaharika objects
will not exist. This is the Paramarthika reality.
End-quote.
Agreed that regarding not walking into dream, it is obvious to you and even
the child that no revelation is needed for that as it is in pratyakSha
realm. The discussion here is about the turya state, which is in
non-pratyakSha realm. Either you did not watch the video or did not
understand the video. If you did not understand the video, watch it again
and again until you understand it. It gives precisely the Advaita position.
Claiming that Jiva is same as Brahma in wakeful state here, which is
vyAvahArika satya, but Jiva did not realize it, but when Jiva realizes it,
it enters the ParamArthika satya and pAramArthika state is bAlisha vAk
based upon the video explanation and you gave exactly that statement -
Your-Quote:
Similarly One who is in Vyavahara can move to Paramartha when and if
enlightened.
End-quote.
The video says -
1. svapna prapaMcha – prAtibhAsika – projected reality
2. This prapaMcha – vyAvahArika – empirical reality
3. Turya stage – pAramArthika – absolute reality
A1. What ever is 1, remains in 1. Period. It will not go into 2
A2. What ever is in 1, will not go into 3.
B1. Similarly, whatever is in 2, remain in 2. Period. It will not go into
1.
B2. What ever is in 2, will not go into 3.
C1. Similarly, whatever is in 3, remain in 3. Period. It will not go into 1.
C2. What ever is in 3, will not go into 2.
You wrote that there is no confusion. But you have terrible amount of
confusion.
P1: Whatever is obvious to the child and also to you and also to all, and
no revelation is needed are only A1 and B1. For all others, viz. A2, B2, C1
and C2, either revelation is needed or perfect ability to logically analyze
is needed. You have no clarity on these.
P2: You are so confused that you wrote this time -
Your-Quote:
I wrote the same person moves from one state to another only in a
figurative sense and not literally.
Unquote.
In fact that is not true. The same person does move from one state to
another literally.
Actually you wrote earlier not about the states, but that the same person
moves from one world to another literally – like from actual dream to
wakeful world and vice versa. That is what is objected to.
P3: The confusion is between states and worlds and between worlds and
truths and between states and truths. Dream world and our actual world are
two different kinds. States are fully fine. There are no multiple truths.
The problem is that instead of saying “a person moves from dream state to
wakeful state and vice versa”, Advaitins say things like -
P3-1: A person moves from one world to another world.
and in another breath
P3-2: Nothing moves from one world to another.
P4. You bring some figurative stuff to justify some other situation. But
this figurative stuff itself is confusing and unacceptable. You do not make
conclusions in shaastras based on figurative stuff. The conclusions are
made from actual things or logical things and not figurative things.
Unable to handle your confusion, you accuse me that I am doing some
revelations. I am not doing any revelations, but pointing your own
absurdities and confusion, which you vehemently deny.
P5. You are able to realize that objects do not go from vyavahAra to
Turiya, but not able to realize that Jivas can not go from vyavahAra to
Turiya and as you face this quandary, you pull a fast one that it is
figurative.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#m_6657012938554646925_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:13 PM Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMXBGWvpzyjqe9rq7V6DRpgsrGVKstk%2B3SCakeLOxnyuRw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMXBGWvpzyjqe9rq7V6DRpgsrGVKstk%2B3SCakeLOxnyuRw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#m_6657012938554646925_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
"Raghavendra" <rv...@rediffmail.com>: Jun 14 04:58PM
V. Subramanian Ji,
Svasti,
On many counts, your assessment of paramarthika and vyavaharika vis-à-vis the system of Sri. Madhva is 100% wrong.
Before, I elaborate, why you are wrong, where you are wrong, I would like to capture the following,
◆Recently, a question was addressed to you to show evidence (scriptural or otherwise) for paramarthika and vyavaharika truths.
◆Your articles written, earlier on, on the subject matter, which were posted on the BVP platform and outside of it, were re-posted such that the questioner could get all of it, in one place.
◆Your survey covered quite a large span of literature, it had quotations from numerous sources, and they were enlisted in support of the classification of truth (paramarthika and vyavaharika), but, it had not covered the works of Sri Madhvacharya.
◆On June 9, 2022, you presented few quotes from the writings of Sri Madhvacharya, ^which according to you, supported the classification of truth (paramarthika and vyavaharika) as we find them in the works of Sri Shankara and his school^.
◆Your conclusion was this: ^Madhva’s works also have evidence concerning the paramarthika and vyavaharika classification of truth^.
Firstly, the ontology of Shankara and Madhva are not the same.
Let’s take the conception of paramarthika for a *quick litmus test*,
The highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Madhva is a *द्रव्य*.
The highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Shankara is *not a द्रव्य*.
The contention that the paramarthika conception of both the Acharyas’ is the same is thus wrong, because there a huge difference between what is a द्रव्य and what is not a द्रव्य.
Because, the highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Madhva is a द्रव्य, the सविशेष, सगुण, साकार and other innumerable auspicious qualities of the Vedantic Brahman naturally follows *as qualities can only inhere in a द्रव्य*.
Because the highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Shankara is ●not a dravya●, the question of the Vedantic Brahman (shuddha-brahman) having qualities doesn’t arise at all. *Qualities cannot inhere in what is not a dravya and hence the Vedantic Brahman is निर्विशेष निर्गुण, and निराकार* here.
Secondly, Sri Madhva has 10 ontological categories which make up this universe, द्रव्य is one among them, the द्रव्य has 20 classifications, Shri Hari is प्रधान-द्रव्य,
द्रव्य सामान्यतः परः is what Sri. Madhva himself says.
Sri Jayateertha makes it abundantly clear when he says: द्रव्यं भगवान् इति in his celebrated Nyaya Sudha commentary. This is to be borne in mind when one understands the conception Svatantra reality of Sri Madhva, it is exclusive, the rest (paratantra) is metaphysically dependent on the Svatantra reality and thus DR. BNK Sharma used the term *dichotomy*, which means exclusivity on the side of Svatantra reality, because, the being and becoming of the rest (paratantra) is under his metaphysical control.
Thus, the ‘correspondence’ you tried to make out between the ontological conceptions of Madhva and Shankara is strikingly wrong.
Coming to the quote from the Bhagavata-tatparya-nirnaya and the term व्यावहारिकाः which you have highlighted in yellow is not the व्यावहारिक of the conception of Shankara at all.
स्वरूपभूता अपि तु भेदवत् व्यावहारिकाः – Here Sri Madhvacharya is discussing the concept of Vishesha which is a self-differentiating mechanism, which didn't strike to you at all. You seem to have taken that term on the face value and hurried up to a hasty conclusion not realising what is behind it. The term भेदवत् is key here.
The इच्छा, ज्ञान, क्रिया belong to Him eternally but they are not separate from HIM, they are स्वरूपभूत, yet the vyavhaara (vishehsa) brings in the semblance of difference (भेदवत् व्यावहारिकाः) among those qualities. Thus, your english translation of it is 100% wrong and it happily misrepresents the force behind it.
In Madhva’s conception, the इच्छा-शक्ति of Sri Hari can function as ज्ञान-शक्ति, and क्रिया-शक्ति as इच्छा-शक्ति and so on *mutually*, though, there is absolutely no difference in His bosom, yet the differentiation is possible amongst those स्वरूपभूत qualities through the functioning of the visheshas. Please note that vishesha as a differentiating mechanism can work in a dravya.
I am placing on record the *right-angle view of the ontology of Sri Madhva* such that the misrepresentation which created thick air is cleared.
Scholars from the तत्ववाद school of Sri. Madhva, who are on the group, are requested to take note of it, such that the correct view gets presented to the group at large and beyond it.
Sir - You are a scholar of eminence in your own school of thought, I respect it, here I have no intention of pointing the misrepresentation happened deliberately, we live in an age where everything has to happen in nano-seconds and in real time, when hurried up it happens sometimes. The intention is just to place the record straight.
Thank you Raghavendra. B=============
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 22:06:26 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:56:26 AM UTC+5:30 kesava.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Respected members,
Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels?
In the Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya Madhva cites a verse while commenting on this verse of the Bhagavata:
यदुपादाय पूर्वस्तु भावो विकुरुते परम् ।आदिरन्तो यतो यस्मिंस्तत् सत्यमभिधीयते ॥ १८ ॥
'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते । तद्विष्णोरेव नान्यस्य तदन्येषां सदाऽस्तिता''॥ इति च ॥ यद्ब्रह्मोपादाय । पूर्वः प्रकृत्यादिः । आदिरन्तश्च यद्ब्रह्मणि यस्मात् तस्मात् तह्म परमार्थसत्यम् ॥ १८ ॥ He has cited this verse for the previous verse's commentary:'प्रकृतेस्तु विकाराणां कोट्यंशोऽभेद इष्यते । तथैवैकांशतो भेदः सोऽपि नाभेदवर्जितः । भेदाभेदमतः प्राहुरभेदं वा तयोर्बुधाः''॥ इति विवेके ॥ १७ ॥
Hence, the 'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते ।..verse is from the same text 'viveka'.In the verse under consideration the word clearly says that Vishnu alone has paramarthika Satyatvam, Absolute reality, and all else does not have that paramarthika satyatvam. The second half of the verse says that everything else is is endowed with 'eternal existence'. In any case it is evident from the terminology employed here that there are two types of satyatvam that is admitted in this verse: Paramarthika satyatvam (Vishnu who alone is Swatantra (Independent) as per Madhva, and the other is paratantra (dependent) as per the Tattvasankhyana of Madhva).On page 142 of the Book History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature - B.N.K.Sharma says:// The TattvasankhyAna (11 granthas) enumerates the categories recognized
by Madhva. Here*reality* is *dichotomized* into ‘Swatantra’ (Independent)
and ‘paratantra’ (dependent). This is the highest metaphysical and
ontological classification in Madhva’s system, whence his system derives
its name ‘Dvaita’. God Vishnu is the One Highest Independent Real. All
else is dependent on Him, including the Goddess Lakshmi, the presiding
deity of a-cit prakRti. // (emphasis mine)
//Everything in finite reality is grounded in the Infinite reality and
needs it for its *being and becoming*.// p.62
The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the
sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the *essential
condition and sustaining principle* that invests them with their reality *and
without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities.* //
(emphasis mine) (page 67)Thus we see two types of reality are admitted by Madhvacharya. Going by the verse cited by him we can conclude that this Swatantra Satya corresponds to the Paramarthika Satya and the paratantra Satya is this same as vyavaharika satya. It is obvious that Madhva would not hold the latter to be unreal as Advaita does. Here is another verse cited by Madhva, in the Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya:श्रीशुक उवाच–नमः परस्मै पुरुषाय भूयसेसदुद्भवस्थाननिरोधलीलया ।गृहीतशक्तित्रितयाय देहिनाम्अन्तर्ध्रुवायाऽनुपलभ्यवर्त्मने ॥ १२ ॥ (Bhagavatam)गृहीतशक्तित्रितयायेति, 'इच्छा ज्ञानं क्रिया चेति नित्याः शक्तय ईशितुः । स्वरूपभूता अपि तु भेदवद्व्यावहारिकाः''॥ इति प्रकाशसंहितावचनान्नित्यगृहीतशक्तित्वमेव ॥ १२ ॥
The three powers - Iccha, Jnana and Kriya - of Brahman stated to be vyavaharika even though they are inalienable from Brahman. He cites other verses too that have the term 'vyavaharika' that distinguish it from Vishnu.
Thus, we have, in Madhva's own works evidence for 'Paramarthika satyatvam' and the other category 'vyavaharika (satyatvam)'. In the light of the above, one can revisit the various textual evidences presented in the earlier post (shown below) for the terms 'paramartha' and 'vyavahara'. regardssubrahmanian.vThese verses of Vishnu Purana uphold the Paramarthika – Vyavaharika’ premise:
विष्णुपुराणम्/षष्टांशः/अध्यायः ७https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1smdतद्भावभावमापन्नस्ततोऽसौ परमात्मना ।भवत्यभेदी भेदश्च तस्याज्ञानकृतो भवेत् ॥ ६,७.९५ ॥विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥ ६,७.९६ ॥इत्युक्तस्ते मया योगः खाण्डिक्य परिपृच्छतः ।संक्षेपविस्तराभ्यां तु किमन्यत्क्रियतां तव ॥ ६,७.९७&n bsp;॥खाण्डिक्य उवाचकथिते योगसद्भावे सर्वमेव कृतं मम ।तवोपदेशेनाशेषो नष्टश्चित्तमलो यतः ॥ ६,७.९८ ॥ममेति यन्मया चोक्तमसदेतन्न चान्यथा ।नरेन्द्र गदितुं शक्यमपि विज्ञेयवेदिभिः ॥ ६,७.९९ ॥अहं ममेत्यविद्येयं व्यवहारस्तथानयोः ।परमार्थस्त्वसंलाप्यो गोचरो वचसां न सः ॥ ६,७.१०० ॥तद्गच्छ श्रेयसे सर्वं ममैतद्भवता कृत� �् ।यद्विमुक्तिप्रदो योगः प्रोक्तः केशिध्वजाव्ययः ॥ ६,७.१०१ ॥It is vyavaharika state to say 'I am mine', due to Avidya. The ‘paramarthika’ state is beyond words; cannot be articulated.
The purport of these lines of Buddhist texts cited by Madhva in Tattvodyota – सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥शून्यं तत्त्वमविज्ञेयं मनोवाचामगोचरम् ॥ (beyond words)is conspicuous in the Vishnu Purana cited above.
In another chapter of the same VishnuVenkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com>: Jun 15 12:31AM +0530
Namaste
Though some scholars have attempted to show Svatantra and Paratantra
reality as Paramarthika and Vyavaharika reality respectively the
traditional Dvaita scholars have not accepted it. No point in forcing it.
Vyavaharika reality is provisional but Paratantra reality is not
provisional though it depends on Svatantra. And Svatantra is not Nirguna
like Paramarthika.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:06 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Regards
-Venkatesh
Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 07:29PM +0530
नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
पुनर्जन्म ---
There is a serious problem with many so called scholars -- they are not
qualified - did not learn वेदाङ्गानि and दर्शनानि । Do not understand the
original text and
depend upon translations which are not faithful .
Simply state -'* it is not there in Vedas' -- When and where did they study
1,130 branches of Veda ? (hardly 12 or 13 branches of all Vedas are
available .*
( ऋग्वेदः - 21 शाखाः , सामवेदः - 1000 , यजुर्वेदः - 100 , अथर्ववेदः - 9 )
-- *महाभाष्यम् , पस्पशाह्निकम्* etc. .
Panini could discern *all वेदशाखाः through योगिप्रत्यक्षम्* ।
Another point -- how can you treat वेदाङ्गानि separately from वॆद ? They
are part and parcel of वेद ।
If one does not accept पुनर्जन्म then he has to account for the
differences among people in terms of various aspects like beauty , health
, wealth , intelligence etc.
*ज्योतिषम् , गरुडपुराणम्* etc clearly state पूर्वजन्मकर्म is the cause of
one's vicissitudes -- fortunes and misfortunes .
If anybody does not agree to* कर्मसिद्धांत* , then let him postulate a
cause for the same .
*कृष्णयजुर्वेदः - आरण्यकम् - अरुणप्रपाठकः , 31,32* --
ते’शरीराः प्रपद्यन्ते । यथापुण्यस्य कर्मणः । अपाण्यपादकेशासः । तत्र
ते’योनिजा जनाः । मृत्वा पुनर्मृत्युमापद्यन्ते । *अद्यमानाः स्वकर्मभिः* ।
आशातिकाः क्रिमय इव ।
There is one thing called प्रतिभा -- neither humans nor animals nor birds
etc can ignore प्रतिभा - it is the very cause of their behavior - and this
प्रतिभा is attained from
पूर्वजन्म -- this aspect is explained by *भर्तृहरि in वाक्यकाण्ड of
वाक्यपदीयम् (146-150) --*
साक्षाच्छब्देन जनितां भावनानुगमेन वा ।
इतिकर्तव्यतायां तां न कश्चिदतिवर्तते ॥ 146
साक्षात् = प्रत्यक्षम् अस्मिन् जन्मनि ; शन्देन = वृद्धव्यवहारेण ;
भावनानुगमेन वा = पूर्वजन्मभावनया वा ; ताम् = तां प्रतिभाम् ;
इतिकर्तव्यतायम् = व्यवहारे ।
प्रमाणत्वेन तां लोकः सर्वः समनुपश्यति ।
समारंभाःप्रतायन्ते तिरश्चामपि तद्वशात् ॥ 147
तिरश्चाम् = पशुपक्ष्यादीनाम् ।
यथा द्रव्यविशेषाणां परिपाकैरयत्नजाः ।
मदादिशक्तयो दृष्टाः प्रतिभास्तद्वतां तथा ॥ 148
Without any separate effort certain things like jaggery , rice etc (wine)
get मदशक्ति due to fermentation - प्रतिभा is also a natural capacity for
all प्राणिs .
स्वरवृत्तिं विकुरुते मधौ पुंस्कोकिलस्य यः ?
जन्त्वादयः कुलायादिकरणे केन शिक्षिताः ? 149
Who caused the change of स्वर to पञ्चम during वसन्त for a male cuckoo ?
Who trained a spider in constructing its web ?
आहारप्रीत्यपद्वेषप्लवनादिक्रियासु कः ।
जात्यन्वयप्रसिद्धासु प्रयोक्ता मृगपक्षिणाम् ? 150
Rat is food for a cat - a dog loves his master - hostility between a tiger
and a cow - some creatures floating in water -- all these things do happen
without a कर्ता ।
They do happen naturally due to प्रतिभा , attained from पूर्वजन्म ।
Before drawing a conclusion just think -- why all the people are not alike
? Or why you are like that ?
धन्यो’स्मि
Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)
299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741
*Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada*
*Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in <http://Koradeeyam.blogspot.in> *
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:04 PM 'Shrikant Jamadagni' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 09:42AM -0700
नमः सर्वेभ्यः
> If one does not accept पुनर्जन्म then he has to account for the
differences among people in terms of various aspects like beauty , health
, wealth , intelligence etc.
Why should one account for differences? Let's just say its all random. That
seems a good enough reason to me.
> Before drawing a conclusion just think -- why all the people are not
alike ? Or why you are like that ?
Just as all waves of an ocean are not alike, in the same manner not all
people are alike. Simple as that.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 7:30:05 PM UTC+5:30 korada11 wrote:
Sreedhar Chintalapaty <sree...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 12:54PM -0500
Requesting indulgence from the true vidvAns, I'd like to make a couple of
comments despite my distinct lack of shAstric knowledge.
"Random" does not mean "without a cause". It only means that no one has a
theory that predicts the outcome of any *particular* trial. Notice that it
is possible to still predict outcomes in the aggregate, even if not a
particular trial. For instance, we can say that the probability of a coin
flip resulting in HEADS is 0.5, but we cannot predict whether any
particular flip of the coin will result in HEADS.
So when we call an event "random", what we are really saying is that we
don't know all the variables involved in causing it.
Empirically, we see people with vastly different levels of pratibhā; some
are born geniuses while others cannot learn no matter how much they try.
Mozart, for example, was supposed to have started composing music at the
ripe old age of three while as a strapping young man of fifty, I still have
difficulty identifying shadjama.
It's one thing to not be interested in knowing *why *that is so; it's quite
another to argue that one's disinterest in knowing about it disproves
another's hypothesis about why it occurs in the first place.
At the very least, karma and punarjanma attempt to explain this phenomenon
in the aggregate, even if it may not necessarily be able to predict/explain
*particular* cases. "Let's assume it's random" does not refute or
invalidate these theories. In fact, the use of words such as *adr̥ṣṭa
*and *alaukika
*seems to imply that these theories themselves say that the outcomes are
random i.e., unpredictable at the individual level.
As statistician George Box once said, "all models are wrong, but some are
useful". It occurs to me that with concepts such as *karma *and
*punarjanma*, the right question is not whether they are true but how they
should be utilized.
svasti,
Sreedhar
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:47 AM Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Vishal Agarwal <vsagar...@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 06:21PM
Swami Hariharananda Aranya gives a useful analogy. A weather forecast is reasonably accurate in predicting whether it will rain in Delhi tomorrow or not. But it cannot predict exactly how many mm of rain will fall over a particular house. The flaw is not with the model, which is correct overall. But things are way more complex and no amount of weather modelling can forecast such minute details with such a high resolution. But for the Omniscient One, this is not impossible. And so, Ishvara is the Karma-Phala-Pradaataa.
The view of Shri Lokesh Sharma that it is all random is like the Koranic view that Allah gives to us what he pleases, makes us do what he pleases. I wasn't aware that there is an Advaitic theodicy like Abrahamic ones.
Vishal
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022, 12:55:05 PM CDT, Sreedhar Chintalapaty <sree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Requesting indulgence from the true vidvAns, I'd like to make a couple of comments despite my distinct lack of shAstric knowledge.
"Random" does not mean "without a cause". It only means that no one has a theory that predicts the outcome of any particular trial. Notice that it is possible to still predict outcomes in the aggregate, even if not a particular trial. For instance, we can say that the probability of a coin flip resulting in HEADS is 0.5, but we cannot predict whether any particular flip of the coin will result in HEADS.
So when we call an event "random", what we are really saying is that we don't know all the variables involved in causing it.
Empirically, we see people with vastly different levels of pratibhā; some are born geniuses while others cannot learn no matter how much they try. Mozart, for example, was supposed to have started composing music at the ripe old age of three while as a strapping young man of fifty, I still have difficulty identifying shadjama.
It's one thing to not be interested in knowing why that is so; it's quite another to argue that one's disinterest in knowing about it disproves another's hypothesis about why it occurs in the first place.
At the very least, karma and punarjanma attempt to explain this phenomenon in the aggregate, even if it may not necessarily be able to predict/explain particular cases. "Let's assume it's random" does not refute or invalidate these theories. In fact, the use of words such as adr̥ṣṭa and alaukika seems to imply that these theories themselves say that the outcomes are random i.e., unpredictable at the individual level.
As statistician George Box once said, "all models are wrong, but some are useful". It occurs to me that with concepts such as karma and punarjanma, the right question is not whether they are true but how they should be utilized.
svasti,Sreedhar
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:47 AM Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:
नमः सर्वेभ्यः
> If one does not accept पुनर्जन्म then he has to account for the differences among people in terms of various aspects like beauty , health , wealth , intelligence etc.
Why should one account for differences? Let's just say its all random. That seems a good enough reason to me.
> Before drawing a conclusion just think -- why all the people are not alike ? Or why you are like that ?
Just as all waves of an ocean are not alike, in the same manner not all people are alike. Simple as that.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 7:30:05 PM UTC+5:30 korada11 wrote:
नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
पुनर्जन्म ---
There is a serious problem with many so called scholars -- they are not qualified - did not learn वेदाङ्गानि and दर्शनानि । Do not understand the original text anddepend upon translations which are not faithful .
Simply state -' it is not there in Vedas' -- When and where did they study 1,130 branches of Veda ? (hardly 12 or 13 branches of all Vedas are available .
( ऋग्वेदः - 21 शाखाः , सामवेदः - 1000 , यजुर्वेदः - 100 , अथर्ववेदः - 9 ) -- महाभाष्यम् , पस्पशाह्निकम् etc. .
Panini could discern all वेदशाखाः through योगिप्रत्यक्षम् ।
Another point -- how can you treat वेदाङ्गानि separately from वॆद ? They are part and parcel of वेद ।
If one does not accept पुनर्जन्म then he has to account for the differences among people in terms of various aspects like beauty , health , wealth , intelligence etc.
ज्योतिषम् , गरुडपुराणम् etc clearly state पूर्वजन्मकर्म is the cause of one's vicissitudes -- fortunes and misfortunes .
If anybody does not agree to कर्मसिद्धांत , then let him postulate a cause for the same .
कृष्णयजुर्वेदः - आरण्यकम् - अरुणप्रपाठकः , 31,32 --
ते’शरीराः प्रपद्यन्ते । यथापुण्यस्य कर्मणः । अपाण्यपादकेशासः । तत्र ते’योनिजा जनाः । मृत्वा पुनर्मृत्युमापद्यन्ते । अद्यमानाः स्वकर्मभिः । आशातिकाः क्रिमय इव ।
There is one thing called प्रतिभा -- neither humans nor animals nor birds etc can ignore प्रतिभा - it is the very cause of their behavior - and this प्रतिभा is attained fromपूर्वजन्म -- this aspect is explained by भर्तृहरि in वाक्यकाण्ड of वाक्यपदीयम् (146-150) --
साक्षाच्छब्देन जनितां भावनानुगमेन वा ।इतिकर्तव्यतायां तां न कश्चिदतिवर्तते ॥ 146
साक्षात् = प्रत्यक्षम् अस्मिन् जन्मनि ; शन्देन = वृद्धव्यवहारेण ; भावनानुगमेन वा = पूर्वजन्मभावनया वा ; ताम् = तां प्रतिभाम् ; इतिकर्तव्यतायम् = व्यवहारे ।
प्रमाणत्वेन तां लोकः सर्वः समनुपश्यति ।समारंभाःप्रतायन्ते तिरश्चामपि तद्वशात् ॥ 147तिरश्चाम् = पशुपक्ष्यादीनाम् ।
यथा द्रव्यविशेषाणां परिपाकैरयत्नजाः ।
मदादिशक्तयो दृष्टाः प्रतिभास्तद्वतां तथा ॥ 148Without any separate effort certain things like jaggery , rice etc (wine) get मदशक्ति due to fermentation - प्रतिभा is also a natural capacity for all प्राणिs .
स्वरवृत्तिं विकुरुते मधौ पुंस्कोकिलस्य यः ?जन्त्वादयः कुलायादिकरणे केन शिक्षिताः ? 149
Who caused the change of स्वर to पञ्चम during वसन्त for a male cuckoo ? Who trained a spider in constructing its web ?
आहारप्रीत्यपद्वेषप्लवनादिक्रियासु कः ।जात्यन्वयप्रसिद्धासु प्रयोक्ता मृगपक्षिणाम् ? 150
Rat is food for a cat - a dog loves his master - hostility between a tiger and a cow - some creatures floating in water -- all these things do happen without a कर्ता ।They do happen naturally due to प्रतिभा , attained from पूर्वजन्म ।
Before drawing a conclusion just think -- why all the people are not alike ? Or why you are like that ?
धन्यो’स्मि
Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741Skype Id: Subrahmanyam KoradaBlog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:04 PM 'Shrikant Jamadagni' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Thanks to all who have responded.
It seems to me that Dr Elst has been a little hasty in drawing his conclusions.
If it is Chandogya 5.3 that he is alluding to, then clearly the question asked of Shvetaketu, grandson of Aruna is about the "Where" and "How" of punarjanma and not "If". The questioner is inquiring about detailed process which is clear from his long response.
here is the beginning of the dialogue with English xlation by Swami Svaahaananda from Ramakrishna Math:
"Do you know where created beings go above from here?" "No, revered sir",
"Do you know how they return again?", "No, revered sir","Do you know the place of parting of the two paths - the path of the gods and the path of the fathers?", "No, revered sir". 5.3.2"Do you know why the other world is not filled up?", "No revered sir",etc....वेत्थ यदितोऽधि प्रजाः प्रयन्तीति न भगव इति वेत्थ
यथा पुनरावर्तन्त३ इति न भगव इति वेत्थ
पथोर्देवयानस्य पितृयाणस्य च व्यावर्तना३ इति
न भगव इति ॥ ५.३.२॥
वेत्थ यथासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यत३ इति न भगव इति
वेत्थ यथा पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो
भवन्तीति नैव भगव इति ॥ ५.३.३ ॥
Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru
On Thursday, 2 June, 2022, 08:10:00 pm IST, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I shared this article by Prof. Joanna Jurewicz:
https://www.academia.edu/8179799/Rebirth_eschatology_in_the_Rgveda_In_search_for_roots_of_transmigration
Rebirth eschatology in the Rgveda. In search for roots of transmigration
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:57 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:
sorry I did not see some messages when I wrote my email.
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:55 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:
To clarify, these opponents are talking about portions of Vedas that are not the Upanishads.
Is rebirth mentioned in the Vedas (other than the Upanishads, which they assume to be of later origin)?this is the question.
we need clear statements from the sources to explain.
a simple answer is that re-birth is hidden in several statements. I don't recollect those statements. Once I had researched this. I have to check my notes somewhere.
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 8:54 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
A seminal question in the Kathopnishad is also centred on punarjanma. Nachiketas asks Yama about the status of those who have left their mortal body here: whether they exist or not in the hereafter. The reply is also clear: those who think there is this world alone and not the other will keep coming to me again and again.
In the Samhita and the Aranyakas too there can be e clear mentions about rebirth.
Om
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:05 AM Shashi Joshi <shas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Advance apologies for adding to the conversation, while being learner (and not learned) in the field.
The story of Shvetaketu and Gautama going to the court of PravAhaNa in ChhAndogya Chapter 5 Khanda 3 is clear on it.
The question is about - Where do beings go after leaving this world, and how do they come back.
Gautam saying he doesn't know this, would imply that 'beings going to other worlds after death and coming back' would not have been considered before in Gautam's knowledge-system of scholars. Else, where and how would also have been pondered upon and Gautam would have had some answer to give (whether PravAhaNa likes the answer or not).
Another related question/observation.1. In the entire Rigveda the word 'mokSha' does not appear (text search in GRETL text). It appears in Upanishads a lot. If mokSha is not mentioned, then rebirth may not have been an idea for them. Since mokSha is from the cycle of birth and rebirth. If that cycle is not there, then no mokSha from it would be needed.
2. When did mokSha become the fourth puruShArtha? Were not there only 3 to begin with? (E.g. KAmasUtra only mentions 3 in its opening)
Thanks,
~ Shashikant Joshi
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 5:50 PM 'Shrikant Jamadagni' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear all
Please listen from 27:15
I would appreciate feedback from learned scholars on Dr. Elst's argument in support of the above contention.
The Shoulders He Stood on: the Buddha's Teachers | Dr Koenraad Elst | #SangamTalks
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
The Shoulders He Stood on: the Buddha's Teachers | Dr Koenraad Elst | #S...
|
|
|
regards
Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru
--
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/124893962.4636019.1654085988323%40mail.yahoo.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/CANu%2BFoASBcfvQGvF5JOCKYRvhKCBm_-Yg5Y55WamxG7U17WeXg%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/CAKk0Te0dFWgiJ4Sz6Oxi8Xi78u2P8dTpdCB5RQkAq6WFVpEfTw%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/CANkLSMm3MTOEdNZd1RTdf0yCB9gmq_%3DEEQhGL%3DrTsagw0BHptg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Nagaraj Paturi Hyderabad, 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
Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <b.ra...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 08:21AM -0400
Dear List members,
I have been using the sundarakANDam (SK) published by the Vani Vilas Press
(1973) for a long time. As it has started going to pieces, I wanted to
replace it. So I looked at the Gita Press book, but it seems to have some
differences, as well as missing shlokas here and there. I thought that the
Gita Press also used the Southern recension. As an aside, it seems some of
the chants of the SK available in CDs and on platforms like spotify also
use the Gita Press edition. I have the CD of the SK by Pandit V.
Raghavendra Sharma and like that (also available on spotify).
The Vani Vilas Press SK printing basically seems to be the same as the one
printed by T. R. Krishnamacharya in Kumbakonam (1911). See:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.485809/mode/2up and
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.467625/mode/2up
Is there any recent printed version of the SK, or even the entire rAmAyaNa,
which follows this edition available? I can always get my old SK book
rebound as the last option. But I was wondering if the members of this list
know of any good publications which follow this edition.
Thank you.
Ramakrishnan
Harissh Swaminathan <hari.ya...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:16PM +0530
Have you looked at the ramayanam text published by webolim (Shri Ranganji
son of Shri Krishna Premi)
I was told their edition was based on a hand written version of the
ramayanam preserved over many generations
Not sure whether this answers your question but Shri Rangan ji is someone
who has done extensive research in ramayanam and that's published out of
that
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, 17:51 Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan, <
Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <b.ra...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 11:42AM -0400
Thank you Harissh-ji. Is this what you are referring to:
https://webolimramayanashlokamala.wordpress.com/ ?
It seems to be a very selected downsampled subset of the rAmAyaNam - only
119 shloka-s.
Ramakrishnan
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:36 AM Harissh Swaminathan <
Harissh Swaminathan <hari.ya...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 09:37PM +0530
Definitely not
They have a book for every kaanda along with english translation for every
shloka
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, 21:12 Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan, <
Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <b.ra...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 02:19PM -0400
Harissh-ji - do you have a link or some info where this book is available?
I am not able to locate any info on the internet.
Thanks.
Ramakrishnan
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:11 PM Harissh Swaminathan <
Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 08:04PM +0530
नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
मातरं स्मरति - मातुः स्मरति / मातुः स्मरणम्
’* विवक्षातः करकाणि भवन्ति* ’ - is the general rule . When कर्मकारकम् then
मातरं स्मरति ।
But when such a कर्म is विवक्षित as संबन्धसामान्य , then there will not be
द्वितीया but षष्ठी by *षष्ठी शेषे* (2-3-50) - मातुः स्मरति । मातुः स्मरणम्
- is also an example .
So without any additional सूत्रम् we get षष्ठी in cases like मातुः स्मरणम्
।
But Panini offered another सूत्रम् for getting षष्ठी in cases like
मातुः स्मरणम् -- *अधीगर्थदयेशां कर्मणि *(2-3-52) - if the कर्म of
स्मृत्यर्थकधातुs , दयधातु and ईश् धातु is विवक्षित as
शेष ( संबन्धसामान्य ) then there will be षष्ठी ।
Why this सूत्रम् ?
There is a वैयाकरणसंप्रदाय -- सिद्धे सति आरभ्यमाणो विधिः नियमाय भवति - when
some कार्यम् is happening by a शास्त्रम् then another शास्त्रम् for the
same कार्यम् is for a
नियम -- here Panini offered the second सूत्रम् simply to suggest that such
a षष्ठी does not have a समास -- मातुः स्मरणम् but never मातृस्मरणम् ।
The षष्ठी by अधीगर्थ... is called प्रतिपदविधाना षष्ठी ।
The same is clearly stated by वार्तिककार -- *प्रतिपदविधना षष्ठी न समस्यते
इति वाच्यम्* ( वाच्यम् = व्याख्येयम् ) ।
Explained by Hari --
तत्र षष्ठी प्रतिपदं समासस्य निवृत्तये ।
विहिता , दर्शनार्थं तु कारकं प्रत्युदाहृतम् ॥ *वाक्यपदीयम् , वाक्यकाण्डः,
198*
*कारकम् - classes (28) are there on my You tube account .*
धन्यो’स्मि
Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)
299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741
*Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada*
*Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in <http://Koradeeyam.blogspot.in> *
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:26 PM govindapoduval kg <
Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 09:04AM +0530
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 <https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/yadvai> tanna
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/tanna> paśyati
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/pa%C5%9Byati> paśyanvai
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/pa%C5%9Byanvai> taddraṣṭavyaṃ
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/taddra%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADavya%E1%B9%83>
na <https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/na> paśyati
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/pa%C5%9Byati> na
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/na> hi
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/hi> draṣṭurdṛṣṭerviparilopo
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/dra%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADurd%E1%B9%9B%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADerviparilopo>
vidyate'vināśitvānna
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/vidyate%27vin%C4%81%C5%9Bitv%C4%81nna>
tu <https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/tu> taddvitīyamasti
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/taddvit%C4%AByamasti>
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/tato%27nyadvibhakta%E1%B9%83>
yatpaśyet <https://www.wisdomlib.org/sanskrit/segments/yatpa%C5%9Byet>
see details below in this link:
https://upanishads.org.in/upanishads/12/4/3/23
*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*
Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 09:10AM +0530
see this doc: geetha prasthana: published by vidya peeta bangalore:
[image: image.png]
*Best Regards,*
*Krishna Kashyap*
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:04 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Venkatakrishna" <sastr...@gmail.com>: Jun 14 11:14AM +0530
Namaste Krishna Kashyap
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:
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:04 AM Krishna Kashyap <
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages