confusion

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear All, Jokes and sarcasm apart, my questions are the same as the ones raised  by Sri Pandurangi-ji. To elucidate a little more : Are we confusing ourselves when we use the word "Vedic" ? Possibly, it is getting mixed up in the mind of traditional scholars and their followers. The mix up is with the word "Vaidika" in Sanskrit. The Sanskrit word "Vaidika" is often used to refer to whatever comes in the long tradition that starts with the Veda-s, till perhaps recent times. However, the English word "Vedic" is often used to refer to whatever obtains in the corpus of the Veda-s -  limiting, that is, to the 4 Veda-s, which encompasses their samhitA-s, brAhmaNa-s,  AraNyaka-s, and the upanis"ad-s; and just nothing more. So the question boils down to this : if I find some scientific idea in, say, BhAgavata PurANa, am I to identify it as Vaidika, or Vedic, or both, or neither ?  Now let us say, the encyclopaediac work S'iva-tattva-ratnAkara, a rather recent work, has high regard for the Veda-s. Are we to designate it as Vedic or not ? Swamiji Bharati Krishna Tirtha has brought out some mathematical formulae. He was a very devout Vedic scholar. Should we call the mathematics presented by the Swamiji as Vedic or not ? Or even circumscribing the problem to a smaller compass, let us say Mr. X specialises in the Bhagavad GItA. The GItA holds a high place in the mind of Vedic scholars; the GItA no doubt reveres the Veda-s. Now, suppose Mr. Y says Mr X is a Vedic scholar, shall we say laks"aNayA Mr. Y is right (even if  Mr. X knows hardly anything of the Veda-s) ? Is Y right ? Or wrong ? And why ? And again, even the word "science" can spell some confusions. So do we find Science Congresses allotting slot for political science too or not ? Why ? Unless we refine technical terms so as to be able to define them properly and fully, I think we will be running into difficulties. And worse, if a person raises an academic question, it is taken as personal, as it were ! How shall we solve this ? It would be ideal, of course, if those who answer these questions have a fairly good knowledge of both the fields. namAmsi. KSKannan Bangalore

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

>So the question boils down to this : if I find some scientific idea in, say, BhAgavata PurANa, am I to identify it as Vaidika, or Vedic, or both, or neither ?

षड्दर्शनानि वैदिकानीति वैदिको धर्म इति, वैदिकं ज्ञानं विज्ञानं च "वैदिकं" समीचीनं ।
"योगो ज्ञानं तथा साङ्ख्यं विद्या शिल्पादि कर्म च ।
 वेदा शास्त्राणि विज्ञानं एतत् सर्वं जनार्दनात् ।।
तत्तु वासुदेवाख्यं परम् ब्रह्म शास्त्रयोनिरीति सूत्रितं तेन यत् भूतं यच्च भव्यं ज्ञानं  सर्वं
सूचितं भवितुं युक्तं ।
सनातनो हि वैदिको धर्म: अखिलपुरुशार्थसाधक:, शते पञ्चाशत् इव
कथमिव न युज्यते आधुनिकस्यापि ज्ञानस्य वदिकत्वं?
To state that Jagadiishvara is sarvajna, but not that he knows
everything modern sciences contain; not that He does not know
anything too, would be too naive. Rather foolish.
The extant Veda corpus is only part of the forgotten bulk.
वेदो नाम अनन्त शब्द राशि: certainly ought to have knowledge
of everything. "य: सर्वज्ञ: सर्ववित् यस्य ज्ञानमयं तप:" cannot go wrong.

A reference from Niruktam is annotated in English as follows:
"Seers have direct intuitive insight into deity. They, by oral instruction
handed down the hymns to later generation who were destitute of the
direct intuitive insight. The latter generations, in power of oral communication,
compiled this work, the Veda and auxiliary Vedic treatises, in order to comprehend their meaning.(Niru.1-20)"
The intolerable medium English is not mine. It is by a Director and Ph.D Guide.
Thank God, the Text in Samskrutam is given at the bottom, as follows:
साक्षात्कृत धर्माणो ऋषयो बभूवु: । उपदेशायज्लायन्तो 'वरे बिल्मग्रहणायेमं ग्रन्थं
समाम्नासिषु:। वेदं वेदाङ्गानि च।(Nighantu ?1-20)
However, the quotation suggests what the Rishis capable of, how the Oral tradition
came to vogue and how Grantha tradition became a necessity.
Elsewhere the same author has provided the classification of Darshana Kala,
Karna-parampara  Kala and Grantha Kala to point out the 'degeneration' of spiritual power of direct intuition.
जयतु वैदिको धर्म:। वैदिकं ज्ञानं।

 

2011/1/8 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear Sir, I think the confusion has been compounded by the usage of the word vijn"Ana also. I do not know who started to use this word for what is called "science." Nothing but chaos, unrestricted and unadulterated, has been unleashed the day we began to use mistranslations - of some of the  commonly used English words into Sanskrit. Two examples occur to me immediately. Planet was translated as graha. Now when we recite AdityAdi- grahAs sarve ... even a school-goer tends to laugh at it saying : after all science has taught us that the Sun is a star, and an ordinary star at that; it is no planet at all; all this then must be superstition ! The mischief is caused by the mistranslation. No mistranslation matches this one in the amount of confusion and havoc it has created, and continues to create : somebody translated religion into dharma; and all hell was let loose !! If the very essence of all that India stood for is dharma, today's youth is regularly  bombarded with "the ideal of dharma-nirapeks"atA" (for secularism) from not only politicians but also the "intellectuals." I do not think that we can ever set ourselves free from the damage caused by these misrenderings. Are we to think that Lord Krishna wanted to impart modern science to Arjuna on the battle field when He said jn"Anam te'ham savijn"anam idam vaks"yAmy as'es"ataH (bhagavad-gItA 7.2) ? Yet another dimension to confusion has been added by our intellectual myopia, or better, our enormous inferiority complex. We think that the greatest thing in the world is science as it obtains today, whatever be the denotation or connotation. We are so eager to convince everyone on earth that we too had science - preferably whatever has been discovered most recently, and to be shown in the most ancient text preferably; and tomorrow, if today's theory is disproved, we will be so eager to prove that that also was there already. The ready tool is already there:  the dhAtu-pATha is rich enough; as if it is not sufficient, we also hear vardhate dhAtugaNaH. Apart from anekArthA hi dhAtavaH.  We also know that the dhAtu-pATha did not give the meanings of sopasarga-dhAtu-s. We know karotinA sarva-dhAtvarthAnuvAdaH kriyate. New meanings can be created in abundance out of old words. And there is nobody to punish if mistranslations are set afloat or popularised. Anything goes !! The essence is this : we must be careful in what we speak. We are warned that if we vitiate speech, we reserve a place for ourselves in hell, the one for stealing everything ! : arthA vai vAci niyatAH     vAN'mUlA vAci mis'ritAH / yo vai tAm stenayed vAcam     sa sarva-steya-kRn naraH // -says nArada-smRti 2.205. And, on the other hand, whosoever explicates speech aright, is considered sacred  : yas' ca vyAkurute vAcam     yas' ca mImamsate'dhvaram/ tAv ubhau puNya-karmANau     pan'kti-pAvana-pAvanau  !!// I would be grateful to the scholars of the Parishat if they point out any mistakes in the words/ideas in this response of mine. KSKannan Bangalore --- On Sun, 1/9/11, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

>Are we to think that Lord Krishna wanted to impart modern science
to Arjuna on the battle field when He said

jn"Anam te'ham savijn"anam
idam vaks"yAmy as'es"ataH
(bhagavad-gItA 7.2) ?

Certainly NOT.

>Nothing but chaos, unrestricted and unadulterated, has been unleashed
the day we began to use mistranslations - of some of the  commonly used English words into Sanskrit.

What is required is, like STOP PRESS, we have to STOP MIND from
the traffic/export and import of English words/terms from the domain of
modern science to Vaidika/Samskrutam contexts and vise versa
without defining the purpose, requirement and context.

What I meant was that all inclusive knowledge(sarva vidya) ought to necessarily
encompass every branch of disciplines.

One of the major issues is that of PARIBHASHA.
And PRAKRIYA.is another. VINIYOGA and PRAYOGA
follow.

This is not easy. Leave alone translations and back translations.
We have to take up, for example, the Six Darshanas, one by one
to gather/compile experimentable areas. Let this be done in Samskrutam.

As all the Six Darshanas are traditionally Vaidika Darshanas,
either the primary or the secondary sources provide the textual
references from the Vedas.

What are the relevant tools, linguistic exercises apart, required to
pursue the pariikshanam in the specific area delimited?

Besides in vitro and in vivo is there a third way/means?
Like the yogipratyaksham.

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2011-01-08, at 3:23 PM, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma wrote:

A reference from Niruktam is annotated in English as follows:
"Seers have direct intuitive insight into deity. They, by oral instruction
handed down the hymns to later generation who were destitute of the
direct intuitive insight. The latter generations, in power of oral communication,
compiled this work, the Veda and auxiliary Vedic treatises, in order to comprehend their meaning.(Niru.1-20)"
The intolerable medium English is not mine. It is by a Director and Ph.D Guide.

May I draw attention to a different view of Vedaapauru.seyatva and different understandings of the specified Nirukta passage that are discussed in: 

Aklujkar, Ashok. 2009. "Veda revelation according to Bhart®-hari." In Bhart®hari: Language, Thought and Reality, pp. 1-97. (ed) Chaturvedi, Mithilesh. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

a.a.

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

Thank you so much,
Sri Ashok Aklujkar.

2011/1/9 Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

--

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear Colleagues, It seems that some exchanges had taken place off the list between the correspondents Dr. Aklujkar and Dr. Sharma. I have no access to those. It is difficult for me to guess from the letters as they appear who is saying what. Still, the given translation of the extremely important Nirukta passage struck my notice. The actual passage occurring in N.1.20 runs as follows.   साक्षात्कृतधर्माण ऋषयो बभूवुः, तेऽवरेभ्योऽसाक्षात्कृतधर्मभ्य उपदेशेन मन्त्रान् सम्प्रादुर् ,उपदेशाय ग्लायन्तोऽवरे बिल्मग्रहणायेमं ग्रन्थं समाम्नासिषुर्वेदं च वेदाङ्गानि च। sākṣātkr̥tadharmāṇa r̥ṣayō babhūvuḥ, tē 'varebhyo 'sākṣātkr̥tadharmabhya upadēśēna mantrān samprādur, upadeśāya glāyanto 'vare bilmagrahaṇāyēmaṁ granthaṁ samāmnāsiṣur vēdaṁ ca vēdāṅgāni ca| How can dharma be translated as ‘deity’ instead of ‘duty’? Secondly, there is no evidence in the passage of Yāska having any idea of the Vedas as apauruṣeya. The  r̥ṣis had direct vision of dharman and not of the Vedas. So it is dharman that is apauruṣeya according to Yāska.  Yāska differentiates between dharman and Veda. As for the latter he does not speak of the r̥ṣis having had any vision of them. On the contrary he mentions the Vedas and Vedangas as granthas that had been uttered together ie orally composed: granthaṁ samāmnāsiṣur vēdaṁ ca vēdāṅgāni ca. If samāmnāsiṣur meant ‘had vision of’, the Vedāngas too have to be counted as apauruṣeya.   I encountered objection from traditional scholars when I often put forward this view point of mine. But the points raised by me go unanswered. The apauruṣeyatva of the Vedas is a Mīmāṃsaka idea not accepted in Prācīna-Nyāya or Sāṃkhya. Best wishes for all Dipak Bhattacharya

--- On Sun, 9/1/11, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com>

[swa...@asianetindia.com]

Hello,
There have had heated exchanges between the Naiyayikas and Mimamsakas
on Vedaapaurusheyataa. The statement "Vidhireva tavad garbha iva
srutikumaryah pumyoge manam" of the Nayayikas is famous. Sri Narayana
Guru the leader of Kerala renaissance has said: "Vedaapaurusheyataa
means that we do not exactly know who the composers of the hymns
were".The hymns are real since they have come down to us.
Paurusheyataaa and Apaurusheyataa are arguments respectively of
materialists and idealists the confrontation between whom will continue.
K.Maheswaran Nair
Trivandrum

socio
Quoting Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>:

> Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).
>
> --
> अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
> ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
> तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
>
>

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear Shri Nair, I thank you for the valuable piece of information. Was the opponent of apaurusheyatva in Kerala a Navya Naiyaayika? Such opposition disappeared from Navya Naiyaayikas of Bengal, perhaps from the seventeenth century.  But I have heard of at least one nineteenth century Navya-Naiyaayika in Bengal who hjad preserved the original characteristics of the Naiyaayikas without surrendering to the then current trend of Vaishnavism and Vedanta. He followed Jadgadisha (not Gadaadhara!), was an uncompromising dvaitvaadin and perhaps, had a Saiva diikshaa. His views about apaurusheytva is not known to me. But I may enquire. If I can I shall write his biography sometime later. Best wishes for all DB --- On Sun, 9/1/11, swa...@asianetindia.com <swa...@asianetindia.com> wrote:

--अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।

[subrahmanyam korada]

Namo vidvadbhyah

It may be noted that everything is not said clearly in  S'Astras .

For example  Yaska did not say that Vedas are Apauru.seya - does it mean that he said - Pauru.seya ?

SamAmnAya.h samAmnAta.h - is Niruktam  - by whom ? YAska does not mention the name of any KartA .

Rather in line with MImAmsA -- VedApauru.seyatvAdhikara.nam (1-8) -- he employed the term 'SamAmnAya' , exclusively used to denote Veda -- mnA = abhyAse (bhvAdi)  --

tadbhUtAnAm kriyArthena samAmnAya.h arthasya tannimittatvAt (Jaimini 1-8-25)

AmnAyasya kriyArthatvAt Anarthakyam atadarthAnAm (ArthavAdAdhikara.nam , 1-2-1)

PUrvpak.sa.h --

vedAmscaike sannikar.sam puru.sAkhyA.h - 27

anityadars'anAcca -- 28

SiddhAnta.h --

uktam tu s'abdapUrvatvam - 29 ( it has come thru uninterrupted 'gurus'.syaparamparA')

AkhyA pravacanAt - 30 ( KA.thakam , kAlApakam , PaippalAdam etc. are due to 'specialization')


It is established in MImAmsA that Vedas are Apauru.seya .

PA.nini says the folowing --

tena proktam , tittirivaratantukha.n.dikokhAccha.n (4-3-101,102 ) chandobrAhma.nAni ca tadvi.sayA.n ( 4-2-66) , d.r.s.tam sAma (4-2-7) --
here 'proktam'  means 'prakar.se.na uktam ' but not 'k.rtam' -- for 'k.rtam' it is coveed by 'k.rte granthe' (4-3-116) -- taittirIya.h , vAravantIya.h  (kAlApakam etc)., vasi.s.thena d.r.s.tam  vAsi.s.tham sAma .

In BrahmasUtras , while commenting on ' s'AstrayonitvAt ' (1-1-3) S'ankarAcArya offers the following BhA.syam --

mahata.h .rgvedAde.h s'Astrasya anekavidyAsthAnopab.rmhitasya pradIpavat sarvArthAvadyotina.h sarvajnakalpasya yoni.h kAra.nam brahma , na hi Id.rs'asya s'Astrasya .rgvedAdilak.sa.nasya sarvajnagu.nAnvitasya sarvajnadanyata.h sambhavo'sti .... asya mahato bhUtasya ni:s'vasitametad
yad.rgveda.h ( B.rhadAra.nyakopani.sad 2-4-10) .

In NyAyadars'nam the following SUtras are there --

mantrAyurvedaprAmA.nyavacca  tatprAmA.nyam , AptaprAmA.nyAt (2-1-68)

NyAyabha.syam --
manvantarayugAntare.su ca atItAnAgate.su sampradAyAbhyAsaprayogAviccheda iti vedAnAm nityatvam
AptaprAmA.nAcca prAmA.nyam , laukike.su s'abde'su ca etat samAnyam iti .

If Veda , according to Ak.sapAda , was 'Pauru.seya'  then why such a SUtra and why to show difference between Veda and Laukika ?

PrasannapadA on NyAyabhA.syam --

tatra sargAdau parames'vara.h tadanantaram .r.syAdayo vedavAkyAni upadis'anti , te ca AptA.h pramA.nabhUtA.h  ..... yathA kenacit svayam nirmAya vakyam idam vedavAkyamityukte tasyApi vedavAkyatvanirdhAra.nArtham Apte.su pras'no bhavati ...

Vais'e.sikadars'anam -- Pras'asapAdabhA.syam (Gu.nanirUpa.ne Ar.sajnAnanirUpa.nam) --

AmnAyavidhAt.R.nAm .r.sI.nAm atItAnAgatavartamAne.su atIndriye.su arthe.su dharmadi.su granthopanibaddhe.su cAtmamanaso.h samyogAt dharmavis'e.sAcca yat prAtibham yathArthanivedanam jnAnam utpadyate tad Ar.samityAcak.sate .

I do not understand as to how one can refute B.rhadAra.nyaka and other Bha.syas and simply remark
- Veda is  Pauru.seya .

Some NaiyAyikas (Vais'e.sikas ? ) might have supported  the VAda  and such comments are not to be taken as authoritatively . Please note that the same scholars perform Sandhyavandaanm etc. with Mantras.

Since time immemorial people have been using Vedamantras (grahajapa etc) - why ?

Such kind of  comments would geneate doubts in the minds of those (including foreigners) who hold Vedas high in their minds .

dhanyo'smi

2011/1/9 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Dr. Nair: Your words reverberated and resonated with the chords of my thinking:

"Paurusheyataaa and Apaurusheyataa are arguments respectively of materialists and idealists the confrontation between whom will continue."

Here, I would like to pose a question to all the scholars on this list and dwell upon the words of Chief justice at US Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger when he took the oath of office.  He said, " If you ask the question, who is responsible the n the answer must be I am, you are, we are ..." In the light of this my question for all is whether the disagreements have helped the case for any one, except for establishing the sanctification of ego for having participated in a clever debate? IMO - Unless we look at the the why our ancestors wanted knowledge to be handed over to future generation it will never get resolved.  In Veda as all of you know that it was termed as "viniyoga". I look at this as the application or utility. shaunaka clesarly establishes the importance of viniyoga: aviditvaa R^iShiM chha.ndo devataaM yogameva ca | yo.adhyaapayejjapedvapi paapiyaajjaayate tusaH || Meaning: Any one who recites "Veda mantra" without knowing the R^ishi, chhanda, devataa and viniyoga is a paaii (sinner). Personally speaking, many of us over 60 are on an exit ramp and that is why we need to do what may help future generations rather than just sticking to the tradition, just for sticking to it?  Yes, tradition is absolutely important but can we look for the benefit associated beyond personal satisfaction. My apologies, if further discussion on "viniyoga" is beyond the scope of this list. Best regards, Dr. Yadu

[Ganesh R]

Dear Prof. K.S.Kannan Sir,


I am very happy that you have entered in to this debate at the right time. I have nothing but my sincere appreciation for your insightful mail. I hope that our scholars agree with it in total and save the respect and dignity of both Sanskrit heritage and modern scientific spirit.

regards

ganesh

[S. Kalyanaraman]

So, Kannan ji, what are the Samskrtam synonyms for 'science' -- just in case this word has to be used in deliberations?

kalyan

2011/1/9 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[S. Kalyanaraman]

Dhanyavaadaah, Ashok ji.

Is it possible to get an e-text version of your paper?

I remember reading somewhere that science is also अपौरुषेय

-- that is laws or eternal truths which stand on their own merit, without any intermediation of a पुरुष  Just as laws of gravity or relativity existed even before Newton or Einstein expounded 

them.

namaskaram. kalyanaraman 

2011/1/9 Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

--

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear All, I am happy that Dr. Ganesh has responded. For those of you who may not know, Dr Ganesh has a strong scientific/technical background : he has taught at an Engineering College, and has researched at IISc (Indian Institute of Science), a premier science research centre of India. He is also counted among the top Sanskrit poets/scholars of the country; he is also a polyglot. His avadhAna abilities have few matches. I must remind the readers that my apprehensions were only regarding undefined and indiscriminate use of the word Vedic. Promiscuous usages engender unwarranted expectations, and, lead, inevitably, to confusions and deep disappointments later. Disquieting consequences can be averted by resorting to sharpened definitions. I am acutely aware, on the other hand, let me categorically state,  how our own mathematicians/doctors of yore by far excelled their counterparts elsewhere. And just by way of evidence, I may refer you to my own article written a few years ago, entitled "On Conferencing," in which I made an analysis of the outstanding merits of sambhUya-sambhAs"A and tadvidya-sambhAs"A as set forth in Ayurvedic texts. KSKannan Bangalore --- On Sun, 1/9/11, Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sampath Kannan]

Kalyanaraman-ji, I thought the scholarly members of the parishat will deliberate on this question of importance. The question has, however, come back to me. But I am sure the more knowledgeable members will contribute better and more fulfilling answers. As far as I know : s'Astra was a general word used for anything technical. We must perhaps work out where the sets/fields of (the scope/aims of) Science and S'Astra overlap, and where not (with respect even to their denotations as well as connotations). If these are somehow formalised, and presented as a caveat at the outset, some confusion at least can be avoided. I cannot immediately think of a better solution. praNAma-s KSKannan Bangalore --- On Sun, 1/9/11, S. Kalyanaraman <kaly...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ganesh R]

@Dear Prof. kannan Sir,

Many thanks for your generous introduction of mine. As I woe much to your kind and friendly gestures since many years, this is not new to me too!
 I think we have to use the generic word saastra for any science and specify the particular branch with proper names like bhautasastra, sasyasastra, rasaayanasastra etc. In the famed Amarakosa, we have of course the word vijnaanam (shilpa-saastrayoh) which can also be used both in the sense of science and technology. Even the word tantra has a broad connotation and is seen as  a way, logic, application etc. Vijnaanam is taken as that knowledge  which is confirmed by experience (ref. to Sankara-bhaashyam on the gita: Jnaanam vijnaana-sahitam). Hence there is nothing fundamentally wrong in using such words as Indian equivalents for science and technology. For that matter, no word, eastern or western in origin is "safe" and absolute. The mechanism of yoga and rudhi are too well known to you of course. But it is the viveka or the sense discrimination of we the users is very important. This can only work when we have a dispassionate and  sincere mind to seek the truth. As abhinavagupta opines in his Lochana, all these words or classifications are too relative and yet practically workable, we have to cautiously adhere to nirvishesha-anubhava alone.

regards

ganesh

2011/1/10 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[Sampath Kannan]

>nothing fundamentally wrong in using such words as Indian equivalents >for science and technology.

Indeed, no two languages can have exact lexical or semantic equivalents. Yet people often forget that the semantics of the word vijnAna is not  conterminous with that of the word science. Even a word like samskRti has come to have today, more or less the same connotations of culture (even as in goonda culture etc.)! Thus the Western anthropologist will have  elbowed out the native sense successfully! The tragedy is that the beauty/significance of the sense  of these words in their natural and original settings is gradually affected, blurred and eroded eventually, and the clarity/force of the primary text itself gets lost/forgotten ! KSKannan Bangalore

--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

>the beauty/significance of the sense of these words
> in their natural and original settings

What else could be the natural and original settings
than the living atmosphere without any value conflict
of any sort(like compliance to keep and please
and give company to those who do not value the values
and the practices required by the values)?

When the very Veda Mantras are used to tailor 'jokes'
how can there be efficacy when such persons take them
up for viniyoga?

Vak-shuddhi, Chitta-shuddhi and vichara-shuddhi are
essential for Mantra Siddhi. Even 'harmless' jokes using
Veda Mantras, Names of Acharyas, Guru-Parampara
betray ignorance and shraddha.

2011/1/11 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[S. Kalyanaraman]

Kannan ji,

Thanks. Yes, शास्त्र is certainly a synonym of science. 

शास्त्रसिद्ध a. established by sacred authority. वेदान्तशास्त्र, न्यायशास्त्र, तर्कशास्त्र, अलंकारशास्त्र In compounds such as these, the use seems to get associated with 'sacredness'. 

In the western idiom of 'science', the tendency is to move away from 'sacredness' to 'materialism'.

Can the use of शास्त्र be as restrictive as 'science' even when the word is applicable to both social and physical sciences? Would it be appropriate to translate chemistry as रसायन शास्त्र ?

धन्यवादाः

kalyanaraman

2011/1/10 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[S. Kalyanaraman]

We are arguing about science as veda or science vs veda. The implication is that the two terms are NOT synonyms because veda and jnaana are intertwined in the semantic evolution in Indian languages, including samskrtam. 

What is the धातु पाठ  for शास्त्र ?

science 

c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr.science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base*skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed(v.)). Modern sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Gk. episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but sciencesometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. Main modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions ... concerning any subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=science

Is this like saying: तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय 

k

I agree with Kannan ji. Vi-jnaana is a lot more than 'science'.

2011/1/11 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[Dr.BVK Sastry]

Namaste

'Vedanta -vijnana-Sunishcitaarthah' - is a veda mantra chanted
repeatedly in words, followed less in spirit !
Along with 'Vijnana', another word of confusion is 'vishva-vidyaa-
nilaya' used for University !

In the context of Confusion', my question is : Do we want to transmit
this confusion as a 'heritage trait' or 'transmit the best of current
period integral understanding to the next generations' ? The approach
to arrive at the meaning of the vedic words, when in doubt or in the
normal course are discussed in a focused way in works of 'Veda
lakshana' .Many pathashaalas may not be equipped to follow this system
of teaching even in India; Further down, the loss of teaching of
Vedanga- especially the Shikshaa or articulation-purity ( ucchaarana
shuddhi /Varna-svara shuddhi) and Pratishakhya - for at least four /
five branches of veda is another important factor to be noticed. When
these things are distorted , the 'Gopaaya maam Shevadhishte aham asmi'
promise of veda can not be unilaterally invoked andconclude -'of what
use is Veda?"

1. The prolonged discussion brings to the forefront the foundation
questions, which only a competent body of Educators (Acahryas) in a
properly established educational Institution (-like the proposed
University of Samskrutham) can work and establish, at least
contemporary information consolidation. We are not in the period of
Singular monlilithic 'Sarvajna-Sarvavit' authorities of knowledge in
all disciplines - of long lineage like Vyasa Bhagavan to Sayana /
Madhvacharya. So team work and forum are essential: The questions are
the like of :

a) What makes a 'Shabda' a 'Vaidika (- veda bhavah)- / - Vedic ( -
veda sambandhi , vedasya idam , related to veda / Veda ( samskrutha
shabda with -ic as an affix from English?!)- Patanjali's statement :
Vedaat no vaidikaah , lokaat no laukikaah. So what is Veda and Loka ?
If western view is followed, this distinction is one founded on
history and leads to the usage: during vedic period and in vedic
society !
If Shaastra paddahti is followed, then 'Vedic period' has no meaning
or only has a meaning in the back drop of Mahapralaya - time scale of
billions of years; and explanation of meaning stability leads to a
challenge; and Jaiminiya schools may get upset in making the 'viniyoga
of mantras' in rituals!.


b) Granting that some how a mechanism is developed to separate the
cateogry /genus /jati' of the laukika-vaidika shabdas, how are the
association of meaning to be made ?- Atha gaurityatra kah shabdah ?
If the word 'Go' occurs in veda and loka, can the same meaning be
extended ? (- Tadashihsyam samjnaa pramanatvaat!)

Possibilities of errors ?

c) Assuming that the branched dictionary tradition like Nirukta and
Kosha and their long etymological tradition comes up, what preventive
steps are taken in guarding the purity of traditions and cross
discipline usage of words - including the bhashyas, which are taken
as unquestionable authority ? (Personal matter of trust needs to be
respectfully kept outside the debate. I have great respect for all
acharya traditions; and I know this could be very sensitive leading to
emotionally charged responses)

d) When post 1700 the entire oriental schools started writing the
comparative linguistics / dictionaries and Samskrutham tradition was
burdend with Maxmuller- Monier Williams-Macdonell Teamed writings,
what is the response of the traditional schools - ? Ah they dont
know ! Only we know what the tration is ! The result is 200 years and
the voice of tradition is more broken and brittle! The teams of native
scholars take pride in endorsing the Roth's resources from Germany to
be used for Vedic studies ; and Government of India considers it s a
great privelge to fund it and support it. So where is the 'army of
veda-word-guards' = vaidika-shada -rakshaka', which in tenth century
were driven away by nata-vita-gayaka teams ?

d) In post independence /post Desktop publishing / web resource era,
what is still being circulated is the ' Monier Willimas Dictionary'
in its several avatars! And is being extensively used for research (-
is it lame-blind collboration or blind leading blind to light ?
logic). Dr.Korada, Ganesh , Kannan, Jagannatha and many others - are
pointing to the right ends. But where do i see any response from any
of the 'Academia of Orient' who are engaged in the PIE ? Or the
'final deployment of veda for welfare in rituals' ( yajnena yajnam
ayajanta devaah) ?

e) When 'Veda' decoding is in such state, what to speak of 'Vedanga'
and within that the 'Jyotisha' deabte ? Or the Upa-veda - issues in
'Ayurveda' Or the 'Yoga-Tantra as Veda-Darshana Sadhana' ?

f) Only when this much of 'In-House work' is done, does the issue of
'Translation /Translation methodology comes in to the larger debate.
Whether it is from Samskrutham to any of the social languages of the
world /English or other way round, the translation methodology has
always been a challenge.

I request that the individual threads here may help in converging to
an action plan for the intended goal.

Regards
BVK Sastry

[rniyengar]

Dear All,
That there is confusion is clear. But I am worried because the
discussions are not structured. I do wish the heat that is getting
generated will eventually show some light to at least a few
individuals. Precise definitions like in Nyaaya are important in
science (by this I mean exact sciences such as physics/mathematics/
astronomy... not political science!). The second feature invariably
related with science is "measurement or quantification". As is known
in the early stages of (western) scientific development these were
weak but as of now these are taken for granted. This can also be
called "rigour" in arguments, proofs, measurements, observations,
writing, presentation of scientific books etc. since we are arguing in
English, IMO the words "Vedic" and "Vaidika" should be discriminated.
This would solve some difficulties. For example: as already pointed
out by Prof.Kannan, The work of Swami BK Tirtha is Vaidika GaNitam but
certainly not "Vedic Mathematics".
If some one likes to distill some scientific information that surely
would be contained in them Vedas have to be "analysed" in the above
spirit. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranykas and the Upanishads have to be
sifted and analysed separately. The objections in some orthodox
circles to include AtharvaNa along with the other Trayee have to be
threadbare discussed. What comes out of such investigation will be
valid within the ambit of "modern science". I feel “Vaidikas” as a
community of intellectuals left out the initiative of doing this work
to Westerners. At present we can only repent. Not that every one
should approach Vedas in this fashion only. But for those who like to
find in the Vedas "science as understood today" I find no other way.
Argument of "apaurusheyatva" is weak as is well known to the Vaidika
tradition. The best that one can logically say is that the "Aanupurvi"
is fixed from time immemorial and we may not know the persons ( not
just their names; some of which in the RV are notional and same as the
devata) who for the very first time saw them or composed them. This
would force one to accept that creation has no beginning. This
interestingly can be a good scientific theory (not yet verifiable) and
I feel Vaidika tradition through the PuraNas has very well developed
this concept. The four Yugas, Manvantaras, Kalpas etc are such
theories only; none of them historical or as connected with humans in
India in an archaeologically verifiable Aanupuurvi. This helped the
Siddhantic astronomers to express irrational numbers as fractions of
high accuracy. This theory is again Vaidika but not Vedic, but I do
not see any reason why it can not be called a scientific hypothesis.
As is known Carl Sagan and others like him have praised this concept
of time. If Sri Mukund and others like him find inspiration by
studying the “Vedas” it should not be surprising. [These happen due to
mental and psychological forces working at deeper levels of
consciousness which are the prime playing fields of the Upanishads the
Veda-ends. These are real but not necessarily reproducible, verifiable
much less provable by known scientific methods on which I don’t like
to digress.]
The above can be reduced to a historical statement that the Vedic
corpus is not completely available to us today. Scientific approach
demands we better find the reasons for this. That once upon a time the
Vedic knowledge/practices had stopped or got seriously disturbed is
mentioned in the Mahabharata. Ground evidences are available for a
natural disaster of tremendous proportion having occurred in NW India.
Today this remains only as a distorted memory of the drying up of
River Sarasvati. The Vedic texts received by the post-disaster people
are the ones available to us in a concrete form. We are grateful to
our ancestors for having preserved these against severe odds. But such
a knowledge base need not look totally consistent due to long gaps in
time and space. I strongly feel any discussion on the Vedas without
accepting that the four parts may belong to different periods in time
and nurtured by different groups of people will be futile. I am aware
some persons try to telescope all Vedic texts and even the Itihasas
into one big mass of PramaaNas and enforce their arguments. This will
hold attraction in religious gatherings, due to cultural and social
coherence. But this will not work in “Science”.
Non-recognition of the above points leads to accepting mere
“Paramparaa/sampradaaya” as pramaaNa. This results in distortions in
practicing, teaching, interpreting, understanding or deriving
inspiration from the Vedas. I should point out here that observing
UttarayaaNa is a Vedic practice. It was also a correct Vaidika know-
how in the PuraaNas, but got degenerated into mere letters without
spirit in the medieval Smriti (Vaidika in some sense) books and at
present many ‘vaidikas’ (of unquestioned sincerity) observe it on the
wrong day. The PramaaNa for this is neither Pratyaksha, nor Anumaana
not at all Upamaana but some kind of Aapta-vaakya(?)which is certainly
not Vedic. I raised this question already once but none wrote a
rejoinder.

kind regards

RN Iyengar



On Jan 11, 5:42 am, Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...

>
> >nothing fundamentally wrong in using such words as Indian equivalents >for science and technology.
>
> Indeed, no two languages can have exact lexical or semantic equivalents.
>
> Yet people often forget that the semantics of the word vijnAna is not  conterminous with that of the word science. Even a word like samskRti has come to have today, more or less the same connotations of culture (even as in goonda culture etc.)! Thus the Western anthropologist will have  elbowed out the native sense successfully!
>
> The tragedy is that the beauty/significance of the sense  of these words in their natural and original settings is gradually
>  affected, blurred and eroded eventually, and the clarity/force of the primary text itself gets lost/forgotten !
>
> KSKannan
> Bangalore
>

> --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Ganesh R <avadhanigan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: Ganesh R <avadhanigan...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} confusion
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011, 10:59 PM
>
> @Dear Prof. kannan Sir,
>
> Many thanks for your generous introduction of mine. As I woe much to your kind and friendly gestures since many years, this is not new to me too!
>  I think we have to use the generic word saastra for any science and specify the particular branch with proper names like bhautasastra, sasyasastra, rasaayanasastra etc. In the famed
>  Amarakosa, we have of course the word vijnaanam (shilpa-saastrayoh) which can also be used both in the
>  sense of science and technology. Even the word tantra has a broad connotation and is seen as  a way, logic, application etc. Vijnaanam is taken as that knowledge  which is confirmed by experience (ref. to Sankara-bhaashyam on the gita: Jnaanam vijnaana-sahitam). Hence there is nothing fundamentally wrong in using such words as Indian equivalents for science and technology. For that matter, no word, eastern or western in origin is "safe" and absolute. The mechanism of yoga and rudhi are too well known to you of course. But it is the viveka or the sense discrimination of we the users is very important. This can only work when we have a dispassionate and  sincere mind to seek the truth. As abhinavagupta opines in his Lochana, all these words or classifications are too relative and yet practically workable, we have to cautiously adhere to nirvishesha-anubhava alone.
>
> regards
>
> ganesh
>

> 2011/1/10 Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com>

>
> Kalyanaraman-ji,
>
> I thought the scholarly members of the parishat will deliberate on this question of importance. The question has, however, come back to me. But
>
> I am sure the more knowledgeable members will contribute better and more fulfilling answers.
>
> As far as I know : s'Astra was a general word used for anything technical. We must perhaps work out where the sets/fields of (the scope/aims of) Science and S'Astra overlap, and where not (with respect even to their denotations as well as connotations). If these are somehow formalised, and presented as a caveat at the outset, some confusion at least can be avoided. I cannot immediately think of a better solution.
>
> praNAma-s
> KSKannan
> Bangalore
>
> ---

>  On Sun, 1/9/11, S. Kalyanaraman <kalya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalya...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} confusion
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
>
> Date: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 7:22 AM
>
> So, Kannan ji, what are the Samskrtam synonyms for 'science' -- just in case this word has to be used in deliberations?
>
> kalyan
>

> 2011/1/9 Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com>

> --- On Sun, 1/9/11, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramakrishn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> read more »

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear Dr. Ramakrishna Sharma-ji I am all for a revitalisation of the great values of our rich tradition, and I admire your earnest efforts in that direction. However, the joke that was cracked was actually a retort and a rejoinder, if in a lighter vein, to  a gross misinterpretation of a  particular Vedic text.  That was when someone interpreted vRs"abho roravIti as actually referring to the existence of tractors in Vedic times, as the sound is similar. Do you think it is good to encourage such interpretations ? Does the sanctity or greatness of the Veda depend on such weird and wily misexplications ? And look at the inferiority complex of the fellow for whom the Veda was worthless literature if it did not say such things ! And more importantly, does the Veda have nothing to say on its own ? Ought one to secure the Veda a place by tagging it with some fancy items and trivial things ? Don't the Veda-s bewail and bemoan that it is such people that deal them a harsh blow ? : bibhety alpa-s'rutAd vedaH mAm ayam praharis"yati !! - was  said ages ago - when the interpretations afloat/proposed were by no means as absurd as these of our own times ! May the Lord inspire our intellect to grasp the true spirit of the Veda-s !! Regards KSKannan

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

Dear Sri Kannan,

Kind of you to put the pUrvaapara of the context.
My Guru never used to allow any joke of any sort
even on characters of Sri Ramayanam and Sri Mahabharatam.

He used to mention that पण्डितलक्षणम्  is दोषदर्शनं.
That is very much needed in the context of the topics
under discussion.

The BVP Group will be duly acknowledged for whatever
is drawn from the discussions and incorporated in the presentation of
Keynote Documentary for the Conference, under preparation.

Let there be more light than smoke and heat in and through
the manthanam taking place here.

Dhanyo'smi.

2011/1/11 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[S. Kalyanaraman]

Fine expose by aareni ji.

Though RN Iyengar avoids getting into the scientific method in detail, I have to add this caveat.

See the seminal article, 'Science as falsification' by Karl Popper.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Some excerpts: 

"I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudoscience—or from "metaphysics"—by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method — that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation — on horoscopes and on biographies.

"...It was the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, "What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton's theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?

"...One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability,or testability."

In summary, what we have to agree on is the bharatiya theory of knowledge and bharatiya method of research, instead of relying upon marxist materialism leading to thesis-antithesis-synthesis as a framework for exploring traditional knowledge systems. Revisiting तंत्रयुक्ति, may perhaps throw light using the heat. See for e.g.: W.K.Lele, 1981, The doctrine of the tantrayukti-s: Methodology of theoretico-scientific treatises in Sanskrit, Chaukhamba Surabharati Pratishthan, Varanasi. Of course, we have to start with theory of language in Bharatiya tradition, e.g. भाषा परिच्छेद

namaskaram. kalyanaraman

2011/1/11 rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com>

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Dear List: Can scholars provide clarification from the perspective of 'Kha-gola jyotisha' - Atmospheric realted weather forecasting astronomy' which is a apart of Varahamihiras work ! Thanks, Best Rgds, Dr. Yadu --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Dr.BVK Sastry <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rniyengar]

Dear Kalyanaraman,
Thanks for your response and elaboration. You are right; I did not
want to get into details. I was just putting down my thoughts for my
own clarification! As I see BVP is not a serious group of scientists.
My own purpose here is to receive useful information from scholars
particularly on subjects like MImAmsa, VyaakaraNa, NavyanyAya whch are
Great Subjects by any standards. When relation between Science and
the Vedas or Shastras are taken up I find we (Indians/Hindus)
including members here are coloured more by religion rather than by
the innate thought processes of the texts. This shows up mainly in the
form of following dogmas:

1) Ancient texts are sacred or holy. They should not be discussed
other than in the way my sampradaya or MaTha or denominational Guru
prescribes.

2) All knowledge (past, present, future) is contained in the Vedas.

3) I may not know what that stupendous Vedic knowledge is; but our
ancients knew this.

4) A corollary to the above is; Sanskrit texts written become more and
more sacred as they get older. It follows a 13th Century text (if its
date is known) should be more (religiously) revealing/sacred than one
written in 17th Century.

I am not very articulate in expressing my thoughts! But the above is
my present personal picture that I can share with you. I find in
recent years much of Sanskrit scholarship in India is caught in a time
warp of the above kind. Since no serious original Shastric/Vedic work
has originated in the last 100 years (My ignorance may be tolerated,
corrected and excused) and hence arguments in discussions tend to be
defensive bordering on the offensive.
But I wonder whether Shastraic discourse was like this before Raja Ram
Mohun Roy killed Sanskrit medium education in this country with the
help of the British. My own short but sweet experience in the Mysore
Sanskrit Pathashala during 1950’s was totally different. I can frankly
say I have carried more questioning spirit from my teachers there (who
had no English education) rather than from my school and college
education.

When it comes to the scientific method to which you have referred I
think it is universal. The results of the method may be different
depending on the starting axioms. Please see the point (2) above. It
is more an axiom than a dogma. If this is expanded as it appears to
have been done in the Upanishads, the Yoga and Vedanta darshanas it
leads to approximately: ‘knowing that knowledge there is nothing else
to be known’. This is the Spiritual knowledge of ‘existential unity of
the universe’ or in short ‘mysticism’. While this is very real,
fantastic and deeply satisfying to the knowledge seeker, in what sense
can this be compared with modern western science? Indeed why it should
be compared and for what purpose? When a western scientist in serach
of fundamental knowledge gets a dim perception of the self-similarity
of the BrahmaaNDa and the PiNDaaNDa he exclaims about the Vedic
Rishis. This naturally resonates a tender chord in the average Hindu
heart! Nothing more than that.

Naiyyayikas did recognize “alaukika pratyaksha” but no serious
investigation has happened on this (to the best of my knowledge)
within the tradition. So when “Vedic Science” is mentioned I feel
uncomfortable and I try to distinguish between ‘scientific
information’ like ancient astronomical observations and ‘scientific
thoughts’ (or scientific naturalism) which has lead to rituals,
religion and practices, which is cultural and not always
‘scientific’ (like the current UttaraayaNa TarpaNa)

Planet vs Graha: I read with interest your question. But ancient
Indian ‘astronomers’ used the phrase ‘pancha-taara-graha’ to indicate
the ‘five planets’ (see aaryabhatiya). The word ‘graha’ indicates
originality in the observations and the ‘scientific naturalism’ that
is at the root of both Hindu astronomy and religion. [ Planet means a
wanderer. This wandering would be known only relative to the fixed
stars when they were grasped or occulted]. ‘taara-graha’ is ‘star-
grasper or star seizer or star holder’. This in modern terminology is
occultation of stars. Hence there is nothing wrong in the name
‘Graha’. Moon, Rahu and Comets also occult the stars. Hence they are
also Grahas, but only for religious purposes. Siddhantic astronomers
did not need Rahu as ‘graha’ for their scientific work. They used the
better word ‘Paata’ for the nodes. The present day confusion with
chhaaya-grahas is the creation of astrologers. There seems to have
been a theory in ancient times that Sun seizes moon or moon enters Sun
on amaavaasya (Candramaa amaavaasyaam
aadityamanupravis'ati....aadityaadvai candramaa jaayate|| Aitareya
Bra. 40.5). In this sense sun also could be called a ‘graha’. The nava-
graha concept in a finished religious form first appears in the
Atharva-veda-parishishta. However, Ketu quite correctly was the Comet
and not the descending lunar node as it is explained by Hindu
astrologers on the popular TV shows!(Compare also: Nilakantha's well
regarded but astronomically wrong commentary on the MBh.)

regards

RN Iyengar

On Jan 11, 3:17 pm, "S. Kalyanaraman" <kalya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fine expose by aareni ji....
>
> read more »

>
> Though RN Iyengar avoids getting into the scientific method in detail, I
> have to add this caveat.
>

> See the seminal article, 'Science as falsification' by Karl Popper.http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

>
> Some excerpts:
>
> "I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that
> science is distinguished from pseudoscience—or from "metaphysics"—by

> its *empirical
> method*, which is essentially *inductive*, proceeding from observation or

> experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated
> my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and
> a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method — that is to say, a method
> which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does
> not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by
> astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on
> observation — on horoscopes and on biographies.
> "...It was the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more
> dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history,
> psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious
> about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the
> simple form, "What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual
> psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton's
> theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?
>

> "...One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of *the scientific
> status of a theory is its* *falsifiability*, *or refutability*,*or
> testability*."

>
> In summary, what we have to agree on is the bharatiya theory of knowledge
> and bharatiya method of research, instead of relying upon marxist
> materialism leading to thesis-antithesis-synthesis as a framework for
> exploring traditional knowledge systems. Revisiting तंत्रयुक्ति, may perhaps

> throw light using the heat. See for e.g.: W.K.Lele, 1981, *The doctrine of

> the tantrayukti-s: Methodology of theoretico-scientific treatises in

> Sanskrit*, Chaukhamba Surabharati Pratishthan, Varanasi. Of course, we have

> to start with theory of language in Bharatiya tradition, e.g. भाषा परिच्छेद
>
> namaskaram. kalyanaraman
>

> 2011/1/11 rniyengar <narayana.iyen...@gmail.com>

> > we the- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rniyengar]

Dear KR,
A small but significant correction. Rahu is 'graha' because he
captures Sun and moon, not stars. He is not a taaraa-graha. Sorry for
the mistake.
RNI

> > > just their names; some of which in the RV- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear  All, What I intended to say was that grahatva and planet-tva (if I could arrogate to myself a syncretic coinage of a new vocable, though not exactly a valid neologism) must be related somewhat like bhUtatva and mUrtatva - to draw an analogy from elementary tarkas'Astra : they have much in common, but each has unshared element(s)/property(ies)/aspect(s). The content or semantic load of graha, in other words, is not the same as that of planet: after all, the two words were conceived by different men of different backgrounds/samskAra-s with different ideas in mind - & for different purposes. This is what is meant by lack of lexical equivalence across languages: there is no Sanskrit word for cousin nor an English word for kUkuda. Vocables are largely culture-specific. We err when we make facile equations. Regards, KSKannan Bangalore --- On Sat, 1/15/11, rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} confusion

[Ganesh R]

Dear Dr.miyengar,

I am very happy with your observations and  nothing needs to be spared  to appreciate and accept them. May I remind you that on that day when we met for the Jain University program, I had expressed similar opinion.

regards

ganesh

2011/1/15 Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>

[rniyengar]

Dear Dr.Ganesh,
Thanks. The Jain University meeting with contributions from your
goodself and others was personally satisfying. We are still in the
process of putting together a small group of dedicated persons to
focus on some particular aspects of our ancient history and culture.
The concept is emotionally very appealing but challenging in
practice!

best regards

RN Iyengar

On Jan 16, 7:24 am, Ganesh R <avadhanigan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Dr.miyengar,...
>
> read more »

>
> I am very happy with your observations and  nothing needs to be spared  to
> appreciate and accept them. May I remind you that on that day when we met
> for the Jain University program, I had expressed similar opinion.
>
> regards
>
> ganesh
>

> 2011/1/15 Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com>

>
>
>
> > Dear  All,
>
> > What I intended to say was that
> > grahatva and planet-tva (if I could arrogate to myself
> > a syncretic coinage of a new vocable,
> > though not exactly a valid neologism)
> > must be related somewhat like bhUtatva and mUrtatva -
> > to draw an analogy from elementary tarkas'Astra :
> > they have much in common, but each has unshared
> > element(s)/property(ies)/aspect(s).
>
> > The content or semantic load of graha, in other words,
> > is not the same as that of planet: after all,
> > the two words were conceived by different men
> > of different backgrounds/samskAra-s
> > with different ideas in mind - & for different purposes.
> > This is what is meant by lack of lexical equivalence across languages:
> > there is no Sanskrit word for cousin
> > nor an English word for kUkuda.
>
> > Vocables are largely culture-specific.
> > We err when we make facile equations.
>
> > Regards,
> > KSKannan
> > Bangalore
>

> > --- On *Sat, 1/15/11, rniyengar <narayana.iyen...@gmail.com>* wrote:

>
> > From: rniyengar <narayana.iyen...@gmail.com>
>
> > Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} confusion
> > To: "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 2:27 PM
>
> > Dear KR,
> > A small but significant correction. Rahu is 'graha' because he
> > captures Sun and moon, not stars. He is not a taaraa-graha. Sorry for
> > the mistake.
> > RNI
>

> > On Jan 15, 12:57 pm, rniyengar <narayana.iyen...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=narayana.iyen...@gmail.com>>

> > > On Jan 11, 3:17 pm, "S. Kalyanaraman" <kalya...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=kalya...@gmail.com>>

> > > > to start with- Hide quoted text -