Mantra and Beeja mantra

[N.R.Joshi]

Aug 15, 2016

 Respected scholars, Namaskar!

 

We always hear about Beeja mantras.

In what way Beeja mantra is different from mantra?

Is Beeja mantra embedded in a mantra?

Can beeja mantra be a VarNa, a syllable or more than one syllable?

Who invented Beeja mantras from a given Stotra like Saptashati. This is one example I am quoting.

Do Beeja mantras have meanings?  Thanks in advance. N.R.Joshi

____________________________________________________________
Smart Trends
Police Urge Americans to Carry This With Them at All Times
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/57b245a8c4f9745a80f10st04vuc

[sadasivamurty rani]

A mantra has many explanations as found in different traditions.

1. Vedic Tradition:

All compositions in the Veda Samhitas may be a Rk or Saman or Yajus is called a Mantra. (The statement "Mantra brahmanatmakasya Veda namadheyah" and "mantra brahmanatmako vedah" supports this view). Some Vedic Mantras (Rks and Yajus) are chanted and some others (Samans) are sung. In case of Rks and Yajus .. "mananaat trayate it mantrah"is considered. In case of Samans since it is sung being composed in Gayatri and other metres .. the definition of Gayatri says: "gataram trayate yasmaat gayatrii tena saa smrtaa"

2. In Tantra and Agama Tradition:

a) A mantra can  be in any of the  following forms:

 I. Bija Mantra 

    Bija mantras are of many types again:

    i. Monosyllabic - This monosyllabic is constituted in different ways:

       * One consonant+a vowel

       * One Consonant+ a vowel+ one consonant

       * Two are more (Even 10 consonants as a cluster) + Only one vowel at the end and so on.

ii. Multi syllabic

II) Bija+Nama Mantra 

     Bija+ Nama Mantra begins with one or more bija varnas + the name of deity often in Dative Case ending with any of the Shat pallavas : Namah/svasti/svaahaa/

svadhaa/ vashat/vaushat depending on the purposes of Sadhaka. 

III) Maalaa mantra and 

A Maalaa mantra is such a one which is composed of more than 104 syllables. It can be and mixture of Bija Aksharas, Names and epithets and purpose of the mantra being included in it.. 

IV) Sloka Mantras 

i. These are in sloka form being composed in popular metres. 

Some times these Mantras are in single sloka form or Ashtaka form or stora form with many number of slokas or  even in Dandaka Form. 

ii. Even Bija Mantra, Bija+Nama Mantra and Maalaa Mnatra are metrical. But those metres are not so popular and do not have foot division. 

iii. Mantras in Epic form: Entire Ramayana or Mahabharata or Bhagavata or Bhagavadgita or Makrandeya Purana etc are also called Mantras in Pauranic tradition.

In all the above instances Mantra is considered as means to please the Upasya Daivatam. 

3. A special consideration in Sakteya Sampradaya: 

In Sakteya a Mantra is considred as the subtlest form of  the Upasya God or Goddess.

According to Sakteya A God or Goddess according to the level of Sadhaka can be in three forms:

i. In human form (Sthula Rupa)  ii. In Yantra form  (Mediocre form) iii. In Mantra Form. (Sukshma Rupa) 

Here Mantra is not merely a means it is the Deity by itself.

This is in brief about the Mantras and their relation with Bijas. 

Regards,

Prof. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: N.R.Joshi <gira...@juno.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 4:12 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

--
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.

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste

 

1. Beeja-Mantra, is a word  where the word  ‘beeja’ is  qualifying the following word ‘Mantra’.   Thus ‘ beeja-mantra’ is a special advanced category of ‘Mantra’.

 

2.  Beeja-Mantra , as a special advanced category of ‘Mantra’ may or may not carry the  ‘embedding’ approach !

 

3. ‘Beeja-Mantra’ can be a  < a VarNa, a syllable or more than one syllable >  depending upon the ‘Teaching of Mantra-Yoga as a Custom instruction’ ( = ‘Upadesha’ which covers the sounds instruction and method of using it  as ‘ upaasanaa’.   Example : ‘ Gam’  is the suggested beeja-mantra for  ‘Ganesha- Mantra’.

 

These are not text material, printed as public material to be circulated  on cyber space.  Neither are they  ‘ mumbo jumbo gullible saffron –cloth wrapped mystic’.   These are ‘ Science of Mystic  exploring the ‘ relation between Thought and Word :: The way Consciousness functions and directionally  flows from abstract to a concrete, as a  part of conscious human intention and action (Vivakshitaartha vachana).

 

  And for the immediate next question  that you may shoot  :  How does Beeja-mantra and Mantra differ from  ordinary speech? And should this only be  Sanskrit ? -  Unless one learns and practices per initiation the ‘ Yoga way of learning-practicing Samskrutham: The Vak-Yoga, which is the Vedic expression for Samskrutham, it is difficult to explain further. Unless one gets inducted to this area of ‘Sacred Spiritual Linguistics = Vedanga Vyakarana Paddhati,  the yoga-specific meaning of words : -  Swaadhyaya ( badly translated as Scripture studies   ), Mantra (badly translated as sounds of mystic nature ), Japa (badly translated as muttering sounds and names with a rosary bead count  )   Paaraayna (badly translated as  scripture-reading ), Praarthanaa (badly translated as  - wishful prayer request  ) Archanaa (badly translated as – faith worship  ) Poojaa (badly translated as external mode of worship with counted names muttering – Ashtottara ,Sahasranaama poojaa  )  .  The bad translation has lead to ‘ infructuous practice benefits and incorrect debate on these Yoga-Words of Samskrutham.

 

4.  And on < Who invented Beeja mantras from a given Stotra like Saptashati.  >  The process of  ‘Beeja-Mantra’ visioning ( = Mantra-Darshana)  is not called ‘ invention or discovery’ in the language of material science. The process is called ‘Darshana’- Visioning, like a scientist who could ‘vision-postulate an atom , while studying the tangible matter’.    Stotras come up as  ‘Mantra –Beeja mantra –packaged for safe practice’. The ‘Mantras ( and  beeja-mantras’) are personal experiential vision  of Natures reality through the practice of appropriate Yoga. Would they be hallucinating of sounds  ? Well, Try it out.

 

The ‘ exit of  academic studies of Documents and Traditions of Samskrutham ’ from this ‘Yoga-path aka ‘Vedangataa’ – is the point of divergence between the ‘Traditional schools and Modern academicians.  Modern academicians  mount the ‘ lens of Human history and  Comparative Religion – Scripture – Faith Practice’ over the traditional approach of   ‘  Darshana – Mantra – Yajna –Yoga -  Itihaasa –Puraana – Rishi -Devataa’  model for study –interpretation and  practice of  ‘VEDA’.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of N.R.Joshi
Sent: Monday, 15 August, 2016 6:43 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

 

Aug 15, 2016

[Nivedita Rout]

Namaste!

The form of Bija-mantra of Tantric tradition is originated from the stobhas of the Samaveda. 

Articles in The book called "Understanding of Mantras" which is a collection of articles on on understanding of Mantras are useful in this context. Specially of Frits Staal's Vedic Mantras though the author has expressed the stobhas are meaningless syllables!

Regards,

nibedita 

---

From: N.R.Joshi <gira...@juno.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:12 AM

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste BVK

I agree with your statement,

>>>
the traditional approach of   ‘  Darshana – Mantra – Yajna –Yoga -  Itihaasa –Puraana – Rishi -Devataa’  model for study –interpretation and  practice of  ‘VEDA’.

<<<

Here one needs to aks why was this our ancestors may have recommended all of the above to be practiced as,"viniyoga", which I is not just, WHAT TO DO? and HOW TO DO, BUT ALSO WHY TO TO DO ?

Shaunaks clearly tells us that anyone reciting the vadika R^icha & suukta without knowing Chanda, devataa, R^iShi and viniyoga is mahaa paapi.

I have not seen any commentary of R^igveda that explicitly specifies the "VINIYOGA" aspects.

Why do you think the traditional scholars not paid any attention to this, has always puzzled me?

IMHO -  All knowledge is for the living ans has to be utilized when one is alive.  No matter how great the philosophy may be IT IS NO VALUE TO ME AFTER  I AM DEAD.  As you may recall, this was the conclusion of my book on GaNesha.

Best Rgds

Yadu

---

From: BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 9:29 PM
Subject: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

We always hear about Beeja mantras.

In what way Beeja mantra is different from mantra?

Is Beeja mantra embedded in a mantra?

Can beeja mantra be a VarNa, a syllable or more than one syllable?

Who invented Beeja mantras from a given Stotra like Saptashati. This is one example I am quoting.

Do Beeja mantras have meanings?  

                                                           -- Vidvan N.R.Joshi

We were discussing तन्त्रम् (शाकिनी, डाकिनी ..., मपञ्चकम् etc) during 2010 or so.

’ मन्त्रब्राह्मणयोः वेदनामधेयम् ’ ( आपस्तंबपरि. सूत्रम्) - here the term ब्राह्मण includes  आरण्यकम् and उपनिषत् ।

मन्त्र is for जप - तज्जपः तदर्थभावनम् ( योगसूत्रम्) ।

ब्रह्मणभाग prescribes विधि ।

The complete Vedic literature is अपौरुषेय - there is no room for discussion .

बीजमन्त्रs are पौरुषेय and are  not embedded in वैदिकमन्त्रs .

Thru examples you will come to know  their  form .

They do not have any meaning .

Let us take up परशुरामकल्पसूत्रम्  and discuss the matter  --

(Gaekwad's Oriental Series , Volume XXII, परशुरामकल्पसूत्रम् , Part 1,रामेश्वरक्रुतवृत्तिसहितम् , Ed . A Mahadeva Sastri , Baroda central Library,1923)

The book in question is authored by none other than परशुराम । The वृत्तिकार , रामेश्वर is not an ordinary scholar - he mastered all दर्शनs , especially पूर्वमीमांसा ,

and व्याकरणम् । In order to defend his interpretation , he quotes profusely from पू मी on every page .

The अवतारिका of the first सूत्रम् - अथातो दीक्षां व्याख्यास्यामः , says that - Parasurama , with a kind heart in the आधुनिकेषु मन्दमतिषु , श्रीशिवनिर्मितान्यसंख्यानि तन्त्राणि पर्यालोच्य ... तुरीयपुरुषर्थसाधनं लघुम् अध्वानं दर्शयन् प्रतिजानीते -

(तुरीयपुरुषार्थः = मोक्षः)

So the purpose of तन्त्रम् is मोक्ष for non-intellectuals .

At the outset Ramesvara quotes तन्त्रवार्तिकम् , सूतसंहिता, अग्निपुराणम्-

तन्त्रदीक्षामनुप्रप्ताः लोभोपहतचेतसा ।

त्यक्त्वा वैदिकमध्वानं तेन दह्यामहे वयम् ॥

पद्मपुराणम् -

ये च पाषण्डिनो लोके तान्त्रिका नास्तिकाश्च ये ।

तैर्दुष्प्रापमिदं तीर्थम् ...

etc that prohibited  तन्त्रम् and tries to defend by quoting from भागवतम् , महाभरतम् , अध्यात्मरामायणम् etc . --

यच्च श्रुतिपथगलितनामिति सूतगीतावचनं तत्रत्यं तन्त्रप्दं तन्त्रविशेषपरम् - तच्च तन्त्रं शैवागम इति प्रसिद्धम् , दक्षिणदेशे च भाषया जङ्गम इति प्रसिद्धैरनुष्ठितम् ।

Obviously , Ramesvara  tried to strongly defend his cult by misinterpreting सूतसंहिता ।

What is highly exasperating is Ramesvara's - वेदस्य पौरुषेयत्वसमर्थनम् ।

’साक्षरा विपरीताश्चेत् राक्षसा एव केवलम् ’

Following the Vedic sentences - अग्नीषोमीयं पशुमालभेत , सुराग्रहा गृह्यन्ते - मपञ्चकम् is okay - argues Ramesvara .

He also sets aside तन्त्रप्रामाण्यखण्डनम् of Bhattojidikshita and takes the support of Samkaracarya , who authored प्रपञ्चसारतन्त्र .

Some सूत्रs --

वर्णात्मका नित्याः शब्दाः 1-7

मन्त्राणां अचिन्त्यशक्तिता 1-8

सम्प्रदायविश्वासाभ्यां सर्वसिद्धिः 1-9

विश्वासभूयिष्ठं प्रामाण्यम् 1-10

अथो वाचं ब्लूं झौमिति जूं स इति चोक्त्वा अमृते अमृतोद्भवे अमृतेश्वरि अमृतवर्षिणि अमृतं स्रावय स्वाहेति चतुर्थो मन्त्रः 1-29

..... प्रणवः क्रों भ्रों क्रौं झौं छ्रौं ज्रौं स्वाहा इति भेरुण्डा ... 4-9

Similar material and discussion will be there in कुलार्णव , रहस्यार्णव, देवीयामिळ , परमानन्दतन्त्र ,गणेश्वरसंहिता , योगिनीतन्त्र , त्रिपुरार्णव , कामकलाविलास , कुमारितन्त्र , शिवरहस्य etc .

What about ओम्कार / प्रणव before मन्त्रs ?

It is त्रितारी for them --

सर्वेषां मन्त्राणमादौ त्रितारीसंयोगः । त्रितारी वाङ्मायाकमलाः 3-8

Their प्राणायाम is also different .

Feel free - this is an ocean .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvparishat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of N.R.Joshi

Sent: Monday, 15 August, 2016 6:43 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {

भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

 

Aug 15, 2016

 Respected scholars, Namaskar!

 

We always hear about Beeja mantras.

In what way Beeja mantra is different from mantra?

Is Beeja mantra embedded in a mantra?

Can beeja mantra be a VarNa, a syllable or more than one syllable?

Who invented Beeja mantras from a given Stotra like Saptashati. This is one example I am quoting.

Do Beeja mantras have meanings?  Thanks in advance. N.R.Joshi

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Prof Korada

If we accept "मन्त्र is for जप - तज्जपः तदर्थभावनम् ( योगसूत्रम्) ।"

Then how can one say "They do not have any meaning" ?

I have also aware of statement, "mantraartha mantracaitanya.m yo na jaanaati saadhakaH |shatalakshaprajapto.api tasya mantro na sidhyati ||

(specific reference for this citation will be appreciated)

Thank you in advance

Best Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

From: Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvparishat@googlegroup s.com] On Behalf Of N.R.Joshi

Sent: Monday, 15 August, 2016 6:43 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {

भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

 

Aug 15, 2016

 Respected scholars, Namaskar!

 

We always hear about Beeja mantras.

In what way Beeja mantra is different from mantra?

Is Beeja mantra embedded in a mantra?

Can beeja mantra be a VarNa, a syllable or more than one syllable?

Who invented Beeja mantras from a given Stotra like Saptashati. This is one example I am quoting.

Do Beeja mantras have meanings?  Thanks in advance. N.R.Joshi

--
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+unsubscribe@googleg roups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
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.

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste

 

The Samskruth  word ‘Artha’   has multiple meanings in the technical concept of Yoga. The appropriate meaning needs to be applied in understanding the Yoga-Sutra under discussion. As Professor  Korada aptly commented < Feel free - this is an ocean .>

 

Meanings of word ‘Tat’ and  ‘Artha’:

 

‘Tat’, occurs two times in the sutra. Once as an independent pointer; Second as a pointer inside a compound.

Artha – Meaning  as in ‘ Word –Meaning’ where Meaning is listed in the dictionary and known in worldly usage  (Vyavahara)

 

Sutra -Meaning : Complexity and Diversity

 

Based on this, the understanding of the sutra needs to go beyond the simplistic reading –translations. 

 

The  explanation beyond Translation of the Sutra  would be more meaningful and purposive for contemplation, aligned to the tradition, if it is understood  in parts and whole,   as part assembly and  total final  expression.  We had a similar discussion on a different thread about  how Gayatri mantra is taught in sections of  one line, half and full modes.  This model of analysis is called ‘Yoga-Vibhaga’ in the grammar technicality of understanding the ‘Sutra’.

 

Why  do we  have to  resort to this technical model of analysis ? Because ‘Sutra’ is not a straight sentence of usage. It is a ‘Technical Formula- Which Generates ( Sooh – Praani prasavae) +  and ‘ Guards its internal consistency (= Root – Traing Paalane)  +  and ‘Sutra’- Which binds end to end and supports like string sustaining the continuity of garland and yet supporting the pearls which it strings through’.

 

-          ‘ That (= Tat)  is JAPA ( =Japah)’.  The connection of ‘Tat’  in the schema of Yoga-Sutra needs to be understood by the teaching tradition.

 

-          ‘Japa ( = Japah) is defined technically as ‘ Tat-Artha-Bhaavanam’.   ‘That – Artha-Bhavanam’  . It is a three part technical compound where the meaning of each component needs to be learnt from ‘Teaching –Practicing Tradition’.  

 

To what does the Second ‘ Tat’ refer  to – inside the Sutra and in the context of the chapter and the entire text ?  What is Artha-bhavanam ?  -where ‘Artha’ can be (i)  ‘ Literal, Designated  or Derived Meaning , (ii)  Purpose ,(iii)   Wealth (= Sampath), (iv)  instrument of exploration (= Saadhana)’.   Seeking (Artha) will have to have  a Purpose, enough to motivate the seeker. Saying needs to have  a meaning (Artha) for communication, which must outreach and be understandable by the listener-recipient. In Seeking, ARTHA runs by Purpose and Design.  In Saying , ARTHA runs by convention.   IF ‘Yoga’ is ‘ an internal seeking of what is inside, different from saying it out,   then there is no need to deliberate on the ‘ worldly meaning’ which needs a dictionary or ‘ lexical  explanation’.  In this sense, ‘ Japa’ has no (Worldly)  meaning.

 

For the quote from Sahunaka on < mantraartha- mantra chaitanya>, it is an inner seeking and use of words in a ‘ JAPA’ yoga mode for awakening the ‘ seeing – engagement with inner energy’. For this purpose, the seeker needs to  have a grasp of the purpose; and not the worldly meaning of the ‘ vocabulary used’.  But if the same ‘Mantra-Japa’ is being used for < pedagogy of  training  a Yogi>, then  the teacher has to understand the design and purpose . The teacher cannot take shelter under the ‘ I don’t know Artha’  excuse, as ‘ Artha is not needed’.  It is a different context and a responsibility.  First one is application. Later one is design-training.

 

-          The word ‘Bhaavanam’ coming from the root ‘ Bhoo –Sattaayaam’ after a number of technical processes carries its own flavors and layers of meaning. 

 

-          With this, the total purport ( =Taatparya-Artha) of Given Patanjali Sutra will yield several meaningful instructions ( = anushaasanam)  that defines and dictates the practice of ‘ Japa’ ; and ‘ Japa’ is just one of the many technicalities of Yoga !  Therefore , JAPA  needs further contextualized customized instruction in  different lanes of Yoga. For example the usage – ‘  Japa-Tapa’ where Japa is a lead to Tapas, the practice of ‘ Japa’ will have different instructions compared to ‘ mantra-japa’ or ‘ japa- homa-tarpana’  where a different instruction and practice comes in to operation .

 

In short,  if ‘Yoga-Sutras’ used the vocabulary of Samskrutham, it would be logical to expect a pedagogic decoding of the Sutra using the Yoga-Technicality of Samskruth Language.

The Yoga-Technicality of Samskruth Language comes as a study tradition of Samskrutham, in the frame of ‘ Vak-Yoga’- The Yoga way of Studying and Applying Samskrutham for practice i.e.vinoyoga of Samskrutham.

 

This   ‘Vak-Yoga’ pedagogy of Samskrutham, is foundational to all formats of Samskruth usage – be it  Vedic (=Chandas),  literary ( = Kaavya) ,  Conversational (= Vyavahara Saamajika Bhashaa).  This may be understood as a  ‘ Proto- Samskrutham’ postulate of Tradition; which differs from the ‘Proto-Concept of Social historic Languages’ championed by the modern linguists.    

The Scholars applying   <  Social –usage of language  model featuring  deterioration and degradation of  language by social usage > to do the postmortem of ‘ languages covered by the grammar of Panini’ postulate that Prakrits are the mother of Sanskrit, through a process of ‘ social class  intentional constructions for suppression and oppression of masses’. The PIE theory emerges as the blue eyed boys wearing suits in university as the linguistic  theory on Sanskrit (Paniniyan literary artificial language) which is post Vedic (Chandas) language .

 

The Scholars applying   <  Spiritual  –usage of language  model featuring   refinement (= Samskara)  and up gradation  of  language ( to uplift human speech to Divine :: Maanushee to Daivee) by  VINI-YOGA = Applied  usage > to perform  the TAPAS - YAJNA – MANTRA –JAPA  of  using  languages covered by the grammar of Panini’ postulate that  Prakrits are grand children  of Samskrutham , through a process of ‘ Yoga   intentional constructions for universal  welfare  and unfolding the sacred potential of all Humans ’. The ‘ Yoga-Samskrutham /  Vak-Yoga’  theory surfaces  from the ‘ Vaidika’s wearing   tuft and thread ,  sagging skin and eye-brow scholars, half-naked teachers  at the guru-kuls, as the linguistic theory  on Sanskrit (Bhashaa), which is covered  as a   40% part of  Vedanga  Samskrutha- Vyakaranam (leaving rest 60% to Praatishaakhyas and other five technical disciplines)  .

 

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:54 AM, 'Dr. Yadu Moharir' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

If we accept "मन्त्र is for जप - तज्जपः तदर्थभावनम् ( योगसूत्रम्) ।" 

Then how can one say "They do not have any meaning" ?

                                           -- Vidvan Dr Yadu Moharir

Please do  ' read between the lines ' .

बीजमन्त्रs do not have any meaning - then what to think ?

Let us discuss the matter threadbare --

what is the problem ?

There are thousands of मन्त्रs across the four Vedas . पूर्वमीमांसा is the system that deals with the definition etc of Vedic sentences .

The Vedic exegeses of मीमांसा ( the word पूर्व refers to the earlier parts of Veda, which propose कर्म) are the top authority in deciding the scope , range and semantics   of any given stretch of language , both in वेद and लोक ।

वेदमन्त्रs are अपौरुषेय and have been there since time immemorial - अनादि ।

Some centuries age some scholars floated a system called तन्त्रम् ( having many dimensions) and compiled कल्पसूत्रम् that helps in the procedure of invented rites , which are अवैदिक ।

In order to achieve authority for such cults scholars , who are well versed in वेदाः , वेदाङ्गानि , दर्शनानि , पुराणानि etc started writing commentaries on the texts of तन्त्रम् ।

Often these commentaries go awry and one can see abuse of Indian Philosophical Systems , including Veda itself.

Since people prefer easy ways of achieving things and do not want to be bounden by restrictions at all levels these cults attracted many common as well as educated people.

During different intervals these works on तन्त्र were refuted but total eradication was not possible.

Even Nagesa , in लघुमञ्जूषा , due to the influence of तन्त्रम् , says - सृष्टि starts from बिन्दु - Samkaracarya solved the question of विगानम् in सूत्रभाष्यम् ।

प्रत्यभिज्ञादर्शनम् ( लोचनकर्ता is a propagator) holds - since Panini  ruled - स्वतन्त्रः कर्ता , शिव creates the creatures irrespective of their कर्म !

The founders and propagators of तन्त्रम् had invented some entities called बीजमन्त्रs . We do not know what it means and what the समास is. 

They are not bothered about the impending पाणिनिविरोध or जैमिनिविरोध ।

Let us take up the question of - whether these बीजमन्त्रs fall under the definition of Jaimini / Kumarila --

पूर्वमीमांसादर्शनम् - मन्त्रलक्षणाधिकरणम्  (शाबरभाष्यम्, तन्त्रवार्तिकम्) --

तच्चोदकेषु मन्त्राख्या 1-1-7-32

how to decide as to whether a sentence or text can be called a मन्त्र or not ?

-- if the sentence / text in question is popular among those who learnt Veda as मन्त्र  then that can be considered as a मन्त्र ।

We come across diversified मन्त्रs in वेद --

1. ending with असि - मेदो’सि etc

2.ending in त्वा - इषेत्वोर्जेत्वा

3.ending in आशीः - आयुर्दा असि

4. ending in स्तुत्यन्त - अग्निर्मूर्धा दिवः ककुत् 

also स्तुतिमन्त्र, प्रलापमन्त्र, प्रैषमन्त्र etc.

So it is difficult to offer a definition that covers all such मन्त्रस्s . So following वैदिकसमाख्या -- " प्रयोगकाले अर्थस्मारकाः मन्त्राः  ", and their remarks such as - मन्त्रानधीमहे , मन्त्रानध्यापयामः , मन्त्रा वर्तन्ते etc , it is decided that such and such a popularity is the definition of मन्त्रs.

It is simply impossible to take up all entities on earth and offer definitions - same is the case with मन्त्रs also --

ऋषयो’पि  हि लक्ष्याणां नान्तं यान्ति पृथक्त्वशः ।

लक्षणेन  तु  सिद्धानाम् अन्तं यान्ति विपश्चितः ॥   Kumarila

Therefore , since we do not find any meaning assigned to बीजाक्षरs / बीजमन्त्रs , we cannot consider them as मन्त्रs at all .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Prof Korada

Thanks for clarification and pointing out to read between the lines. Your post always provide ample BONUS information to enhance my understanding,  So - "THANK YOU".

Dr Yadu

---

From: Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:12 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Mantra and Beeja mantra

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaya Prakash]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Then I do have one more query what does these letters try to tell औषट्,  वौषट्,  वषट् etc..

In each vedica yajna this is told at the end. What is the significance ?

[sadasivamurty rani]

This was once well discussed topic in BVP. The same members who  so far  have participated in the present discussion had participated that time also. (My answer can be seen Ref. On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 7:59 AM, )

The Six Namah, Svasti, Svaaha, Svadhaa, Vashat and Vaushat are called Mantra Pallavas in the Mantra Sastra. These are suffixed at the end of the Mantra for attaining different results from the Japa Vidhi. 

"Namah" is a pallava used just to offer salutation to the God or Goddess being worshiped with that Mantra. 

"Svasti" is suffixed for while aspiring peace through that Mantra.

"Svaaha" is a pallava used while offering Ghee or any other oblations to the Sacrificial Fire.

"Svadha" is always used in the Pitru Karmas while offering to Visvedevas.

"Vashat" and "Vaushat" are used while offering oblations in Yajna intending to certain Gods.

Besides these there is another PALLAVA  or PRATYAYA which is used as a Maraka Pratyaya (A Pallava used intending to kill a person through reciting a particular Mantra with this Pallava). That Pallava is "PHAT". 

 The purpose of these Mantra Pallavas can be known with more details from Mantra Sastra granthas. 

Prof. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Jaya Prakash <jayaprak...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gira...@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:25 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Mantra and Beeja mantra

--

[Jaya Prakash]

Hari Om,

Today I got one link ( http://sanskritdocuments.org/sanskritupload/mantraaurmAtRikArahasyaAvasthi.pdf ) In this pdf some Beja mantras definition is been given.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 4:14:11 AM UTC+5:30, N.R.Joshi wrote:

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

नमस्ते ।

PART 1
###########

Recently I wrote about what I called the "परिमाण" thumb rule of Sanskrit, that is,
Word of Veda = Sentence of Upanishads = para of Puranas

What was meant by परिमाण here?
Measure. Invariant. Intent. Meaning.

That is, a शब्द in Veda has the परिमाण, a sentence in Upanishads has the परिमाण, and a para of Purana has the परिमाण. परिमाण is an invariant quantity, just like energy in physics (more on this to follow).

Not long ago I had mentioned the following equivalence relation observed in Sanskrit:
word ~ curve
sentence ~ surface
para ~ volume

Now, as we know,
Curve's परिमाण is known as: length
Surface's परिमाण similarly is area
Volume's परिमाण obviously is volume.

So we get the following relation:
शब्द ~ length
वाक्य ~ area
अनुच्छेद (para) ~ volume

PART 2
###########

This isn't finished yet. I had also mentioned:
Phoneme (वर्ण) ~ point

The inevitable question is, then,
What is the परिमाण of point?
Answer: देवता.

What is देवता?
देवता simply is.

As an example, let us consider the following analogies (meant purely as an illustration):

Worldly people need the full context of paragraph to grasp the परिमाण, whereas intelligent ones only need a carefully conveyed sentence, sutra, or even a formula.

And then the truly spiritual ones only need the correct address, the शब्द (शब्द ~ curve ~ a path, as I had mentioned earlier).
The realised one, simply, sees and knows - no need for even the address or the path.

A close example is from the narrow field of material science where Physicists (भगशास्त्रीs) have been exhibiting the same pattern in the last century. In their standard procedures, an entity is first simply declared, as in, "let us know it as Φ", etc. For example, "let us know electromagnetism as Φ at this point", or "electron is Φ at this point"' etc.

And then the other परिमाणs of the Φ are calculated: the length one, the area one, and the volume one. With the progressive observance of each परिमाण, our Φ come closer to the observed mundane reality around us.

PART 3 (concluding)
###########

In my thread "Specifics of संस्कृत वर्णमाला" in BVP, the unusual pattern of the संस्कृत वर्णमाला was shown to have daivika generators.

That is, each संस्कृत वर्ण was considered a direct invocation (knowingly/ unknowingly) of some देवता, and therefore could be correctly called बीज/ाक्षर मन्त्र; the देवता him/herself being the परिमाण of the वर्ण or "अक्षर".



Thank you.
KT

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Quote

So we get the following relation:
शब्द ~ length
वाक्य ~ area
अनुच्छेद (para) ~ volume

Unquote

May it is better this way:

शब्द ~ rooted, but has multidirectional potency
वाक्य ~ gives direction
अनुच्छेद (para) ~ gives details / explanation

Regards,
skb

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Surendra Mohan Mishra]

Great synthesis indeed !

शब्दः - वाक़्यं - महावाक्यं - ग्रन्थः 

The beginning ought to be अशब्दः the position of दक्षिणामूर्ति and his illustrious disciples.

The normal Grammarian's view ' न सो'स्ति प्रत्ययो लोके ' has to be reconsidered. I am told that Pandit Rameshwar Jha of Kashi held such a view regarding निर्विकल्पक state before emergence of word, within the grammatical thinking. Scholars can shed more light on this. Regards.

--

*****
Surendramohan Mishra
Dept of Sanskrit,Pali & Prakrit
Faculty of Indic Studies,Kurukshetra University
KURUKSHETRA-136 119,Haryana,INDIA
Tel : (Off.)01744 238410(extn.)2504
(Mob.)098960 86579;(Res.)01744-238567
Blogs : http://surendrashastram.blogspot.com
            http://surendra-shaastram.blogspot.com

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Venerated Surendra Mohan Mishraji may not be unaware of

द्वावुपादानशब्दॆषु शब्दौ शब्दविदॊ विदुः /

एकॊ निमित्तं शब्दानाम् अपरॊऽर्थॆ प्रयुज्यतॆ // वाक्य_१।४४ //

 It is  that described as अपरॊऽर्थॆ प्रयुज्यतॆ  that is kept in mind in न सो'स्ति प्रत्ययो लोके .

"The beginning ought to be अशब्दः"

It is this "अशब्दः' that is described as एकॊ निमित्तं शब्दानाम्.

Just an obedient smaaraNam.  

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Surendra Mohan Mishra]

नमांसि। अनुगृहीतो'स्मि आचार्यनागराजवर्यैः। 

As I know this is the obvious view of the Grammarians. What I wrote was my reaction to the posting on 'parimaana'. Something of the Nyaya tradition was also in my mind relating to 'savikalpaka' and 'nirvikalpaka'. The logicians are of the view that knowledge precedes verbalization.

In Grammar as I understand up to Pas'yantii all is invariably S'abda/Vaak. 'Eko nimittam s'abdaanaam' - here the 'nimitta' = 'sphota' is again 's'abda' and not 'as'abda' ! One can call it 'as'abda' only in relation to the articulated word 'vaikharii'. Again 'sphota' is associated with 'madhyama' and not with 'pas'yantii' !  

Nagesha admits Paraa Vaak as the foundation. S'abda Brahma- the eternal verbum refers to 'sphota' which is an outcome of 'madhyamaa vaak'. I may kindly be enlightened. Regards. SMM

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This verse may express the idea more clearly:

अजस्रवृत्तिर् यः शब्दः सूक्ष्मत्वान् नॊपलभ्यतॆ /

व्यजनाद् वायुर् इव स स्वनिमित्तात् प्रतीयतॆ // वाक्य_१।१२० //

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

श्रद्धेय SMM-ji & SB-ji,

Thank you for the comments.

Re: शब्द ~ curve

The equivalence शब्द ~ curve is more than useful; just as a curve is a progression of points through space-time, शब्द likewise is a progression of वर्णs through linguistic space-time. There are implications.

शब्द, therefore, carries the stamp of the linguistic space-time. This principle was used by Shrikant Talageri in demonstrating the posterity of Avesta vis-à-vis RgVeda, with the added assumption that there is a strong correlation between the linguistic space-time and the historical space-time. He, in my opinion, is therefore one of the most important Vaidika scholars of our times; 'Vaidika', since he underpinned the importance of the परिमाण of शब्द (to good use within the context of his historical linguistics), the शब्द that is Veda.

Sanskrit is देवभाषा since it consciously, and separately, brings out various परिमाणs - belonging to the अक्षर, शब्द, वाक्य & काव्य levels - in their respective, carefully earmarked, places. The world later came to know these "places" as Veda, Upanishads, Puranas, etc.

The परिमाण rule, more than anything else, throws light upon the art of reading Sanskrit texts. For example, there was a query earlier on BVP (by Sh. Sudip Halder):

"The fire-ordeal of Sita in the Valmiki Ramayana is it an interpolation?"

Answer: no, it is not interpolation. The परिमाण of रामायण is designed to be measured at the "volume level". This can be confusing, especially to scholars who are accustomed to measuring the परिमाण at the वाक्य level, if not at the शब्द level.

This means, in रामायण the परिमाण isn't at the शब्द or the वाक्य. "Fire-ordeal" measures out, at the काव्य level into "some kind of test of trust" be it "walking on burning coal" or something else, doesn't matter.

As long as the volume level परिमाण is maintained it is alright. A seer, like Tulsidas, measures, writes down a genuine रामायण, all once again.

Another (a little more tricky) example:

In Valmiki Ramayana, Sita is explicitly said to be Shri Lakshmi's manifestation. However, the परिमाण from the very same Ramayana reveals her to be the manifestation of (the very best of) the भू देवीs.

परिमाण is specific to Sanskrit, because among mortal texts and mortal languages-

either the परिमाण is all mixed up,

or there is no परिमाण at all.

The परिमाण is a consciously acknowledged principle of Sanskrit, and therefore is not anything new at all, as evidenced by a lot of parallels, documented and discussed in parts in specific commentaries, e.g. on speech-generation by भर्तृहरि, on dhvani-parimANas by आनन्दवर्धन, and so on and on.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Typo:

Kindly read

..demonstrating the posterity of Avesta vis-à-vis RgVed..

As

..demonstrating the posteriority of Avesta vis-à-vis RgVed..