Six keys for decoding Veda - Six Darsanas
subrahmanyam korada
Here is the Paper I presented at the recently held conference at Guntur , Andhra Pradesh .
A scholar pointed out - I missed a sentence in the Taittiriya quotation - अग्नेरापः !
Feel free to offer comments .
धन्यो’स्मि
--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)
V Subrahmanian
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
Dhananjay Jog
subrahmanyam korada
परमतम् अप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति - is for the first time ( as far as I know) said by सुश्रुत in Tantrayuktis -अनुमतम् .
You are right - Vacaspatimisra did works on all Darsanas except Vaisesika . I think he did two works in Nyaya .
Both Vedangas and Darsanas are a must for any serious student of Sanskrit .
धन्यो’स्मि
S.R.Krishnamurthy
Sri V.Subramanyam's paper imported many impertinent characters on downloading. However he goes by the traditional commentary of Nasadiya Sukta, which is quite off the mark, since it ignores the scientific content there. I quote the relevent excerpts on that aspect from my research book 'The Science of Hinduism'.
Excerpts:
Nasadiya Sukta
In Rigveda, the cosmography is dealt with in Ashtaka 8 (Mandala 10), in what is famous as Nasadiya Sukta, (because it commences from the word Nasath). This again is misinterpreted often leading to the same confusion. The first verse reads thus.
lÉÉxÉSÉxÉϳÉÉå xÉSÉxÉϨÉSÉlÉÏqÉç lÉÉxÉÏSìeÉÉå lÉÉå urÉÉåqÉÉ mÉUÉå rÉiÉç |
ÌMüqÉÉuÉUÏuÉÈ MÑüWû MüxrÉ zÉqÉï³ÉÇpÉÈ ÌMüqÉÉxÉÏSè aÉWûlÉqÉç aÉpÉÏUqÉç ||G. (Rik) 10.129.1.
(There was no Asat. Not even Sat was there! There was no matter. Not even Space beyond! What housed this (flood of water)? What supported this? What was this profound and impenetrable?).
The first half is quoted by many in support of their illusory view that even Sat was not there at the beginning. Obviousoy those who quote this asunder, do not go further to realize that the entire verse and the next are obviously a question based upon the assumption by the disciple; and that they are followed by the answer in the following verses. The non-cognition of this verse as a question is the cause of their doubt about the Vedic enunciation.The next three verses, answering the quest of the disciple, elucidate that Sat was indeed there at the beginning and nothing else. As already stated, the words used are different, no doubt; but the Truth related is the same throughout. Verse 4 is emphatic that Sat was there always: MüÉqÉxiÉSaÉëå xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉÍkÉ | [Indeed That was always there]
Here I must comment that SayanaBhashya, which is highly elaborate, fails to see the first two verses as the question of the disciple; and therefore errs in interpreting the same; and struggles to reconcile. In order to cover up his earlier misinterpretation, he misinterprets even MüÉqÉxiÉSaÉëå xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉÍkÉ, as the desire arose. It is a pity that the learned commentator fails to observe the nuance in the change of the verb. He equates xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉ with ajaayata, which is absurd. The former means ‘stood in equilibrium for long’; and the latter ‘was born’, which is instantaneous. He interprets kamah tad samavartata as tasya kamah samavartata. He takes kamah as the subject; then the verb is inappropriate, in that it opposes the shruti that samkalpaadeva samudathishtat; which implies that the wish is translated into reality instantly; which the verb samavartata negates. Further the preceptor was bound to rebut the earlier presumption that one arose from that Nothing even which did not exist; and further to establish that something was indeed there! Therefore I hold that the word kamah is not the subject here but only an interjection, meaning ‘indeed’ ‘satyam khalu’. Just as ‘kaamam’ indicates a grudging concession, (akaamaanumathau – amarakosha) kamaH indicates an assertion; and the usage is ‘aarsha’. Of course I have wasted more than half a year to find evidences to substantiate this interpretation of mine about the word; but in vain. But that is the only logical possibility of reconciliation. Hence, the argument that Asat was there at the beginning, out of which Sat was born is totally illogical and unscientific; because even Asat was not there! This corresponds with Ch.U 6-2-1/2 supra. Bhagavad-gita elaborates in lÉÉxÉiÉÉå ÌuɱiÉå pÉÉuÉÉå lÉÉpÉÉuÉÉå ÌuɱiÉå xÉiÉÈ (Asat never exists Sat is never absent)
Rik 8.7.3.1 endorses the above in
ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉïÈ xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉaÉëå pÉÔiÉxrÉ eÉÉiÉÈ mÉÌiÉUåMü AÉxÉÏiÉç |
Here, notice that the THAT in the Upanishadic verse is referred to as Hiranyagarbha. This is because of the student’s question ‘nothing was there in the beginning; no space, no sky. Then where was this universe? What contained it? What was the matter?’ A beautiful question indeed! The preceptor’s answer is equally beautiful! That THAT was the Hiranyagarbha indeed. This word indicates that THAT was a highly condensed capsule of energy. (Just as a tree is packed in a seed – author). The word samavartata implies that THAT was in equilibrium for long (inert). (cf. AkShobhyaH in Vishnusahasranama). That was the originator of all that was born. This is akin to the Super-Gravity-Super Density that the modern science speaks of.
It is patent from the above that Sat, which is said at other places to have existed at the beginning, is referred to here by the name HiraNyagarbha; a perennial source of energy. That is shown as the source of Sat only. Thus there is NO variance whatsoever between the Nasadiya sukta and other mantras at other places. So the confusion that many interpreters speak of is in their perceptions only and not in the texts per se. This is for example like Madam Blavatsky calling Pharisees as atheists[1]. All that she means is that they do not cognize a personal god.
--- S.R.Krishna Murthy
[1] The Zoroastrian Philosophy and Way of Life By B.P.Wadia,Theosophic Co.(India) Pvt.Ltd, Bombay,1964; p.5
V Subrahmanian
Sri V.Subramanyam's paper imported many impertinent characters on downloading. However he goes by the traditional commentary of Nasadiya Sukta, which is quite off the mark, since it ignores the scientific content there. I quote the relevent excerpts on that aspect from my research book 'The Science of Hinduism'.