Dmitri Semenov
The link
http://theasis.net/RgV/RV_asura.pdf
to my paper that presents a new attempt to elicit meaning of asura, asurya, asuratva as used in Rigveda.
I would like to hear your critique of it.
Best,
Dmitri.
Dev B
Dev
--
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.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
eg
Can you elaborate further. Since I have copied and pasted, the diacritical marks are misplaced. Please forgive for that.
Olga Sokolova
Nagaraj Paturi
rniyengar
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Kalicharan Tuvij
नमस्ते,
सुर is the keyword here. If the close relationship between (उ, फ, and व) is acknowledged, we can compare the meanings of the following words:
स्वर = vowel, musical note, etc
स्फुर = vibration, etc
So, सुर then technically mean: “A harmonious (musical) frequency (vibration)”
A deity (“a frequency of the universe” of sorts) is, therefore, called a सुर if the deity is in harmony (or, in communication) with other deities. सुर word implies the pre-existence of सुरगण.
असुर, irrespective of whether it came before सुर or not, then means:
“An out-of-harmony frequency”
The असुर foreshadows everything else. The same deity that is normally a सुर may opt to be an असुर at his/her own time and place of choosing (mostly to the benefit of the भक्त).
Please note that सुर, असुर are not restricted to deities, and an असुर deity is still different from a पुरुष deity (that is technically a composite deity).
Dmitri Semenov
I translate asuraghna as "slaying asuras" --- in line with basic meaning of dhatu han.
so 7.13.1ab will be rendered as:
To Agni, all-enlightening, giving dhii-s,
to slaying asuras, ye do bring forth an expression of thought, a vision.
It is mentioned in the paragraph you quoted in attempt to elicit how asura Agni slays other asuras. Since asuraghna and asurahaa occur only three times without direct indication how asura (either Indra or Agni) slays other asuras, one might use co-occuring characterization as a reasonable guess. In 7.13.1ab it is dhiya.mdhaa, and jyotis in 10.170.2cd while in the third case 6.22.4cd there are questions only and not a statement. Thus the guess about asura-killing weapon being dhii and jyotis or something close to these two.
Best,
Dmitri.
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.
--
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.
Dmitri Semenov
rak.sas is another subtle concept in Rigveda.
First, there are ra'k.sas (for example, 9.53.1b, 9.97.10c, 7.104.13c, 9.110.12b) and
rak.sa's (for example 9.63.29a, 9.71.1b, 9.104.6b) which seem to mean different though closely related things.
If one considers psychological plane of interpretation (as was formulated by Shri Aurobindo) then it is possible to avoid
apparent contradiction between the meaning "protect", "guard" of the dhatu rak.s and quite negative connotations of both ra'k.sas and rak.sa's
by giving core meaning different from "demon" but having "demon" sense as an external projection of the psychological meaning.
But this topic is outside of the scope the asura paper.
Best,
Dmitri.
On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 12:42:38 PM UTC-6, Dev Bhattacharyya wrote:
Hi DmitriExcellent analysis. I wish there was a way to conclude it.I like the way you describe Deva and Asura as 'one' in an inconceivable dimensional world.Sarasvati's wrath is a clear metaphor.While Asuras is one thing, the other is Rakshash.'rAkshas' is a demon and 'rAksh' is protection. The root word is the same.It is hard to comprehend a demonic idea with protection.There will probably be a thousand explanations to it, but it is hard to convince.Best
Dev
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Dmitri Semenov <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Vidvā́ṃsas,
The link
http://theasis.net/RgV/RV_asura.pdf
to my paper that presents a new attempt to elicit meaning of asura, asurya, asuratva as used in Rigveda.
I would like to hear your critique of it.
Best,
Dmitri.
--
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.
Dmitri Semenov
I would not venture to give any opinion on Brahmarishi Mayan, but would like to mention that there is apparent shift in meaning of the word "asura" from Rigveda to later texts.
It would be very difficult to assign anything simple and negative to asura as "demon" in Rigveda --- Indra, Agni, Soma --- are all both asuras and devas.
More on the changes in meaning of asura in derivatives can be found, for example, in Hale's book which is available online:
https://books.google.com/books?id=wN6dz2UZkw4C&pg=PA170&dq=Hale+asura+in&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_MjHkpXTAhWH1IMKHd5-DhQQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=Hale%20asura%20in&f=false
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.
--
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.
Dmitri Semenov
It is an interesting, though requiring new assumptions, take on the topic.
It creates new puzzles. For example, if "asura" = an out-of-harmony frequency
And the same deity that is normally a सुर may opt to be an असुर at his/her own time and place of choosing,
why would Adityas protect, guard their asurya? (2.27.4c), why every asurya was granted by devas to Indra in order for him to kill V.rtra? (6.20.2)
Best,
Dmit
Kalicharan Tuvij
Dear Dmit,
सुर, असुर are not absolutes.
why would Adityas protect, guard their asurya? (2.27.4c)
They protect their असुर्यs in order to protect their respective भक्तs (विश्वस्य भुवनस्य गोपाः), otherwise being (absolute) सुरs would mean forfeiting (rather than merely inter-communicating) their individualities. This contradistinction is brought out in 2.27.4c.
This corresponds well with Hale (italics mine):
An असुर seems to have been a lord or leader (देवता) chosen (worshipped) by his people (भक्तs) who maintained his authority by their continuing to support and follow (as in sects) him.
Yet, the mechanism through which a deity gets transformed into an असुर is- by the सुरगण forfeiting (for a span of time and space) their असुर्यs to the deity. This is what is being described in 6.20.2 when इन्द्र tramples वृत्र down.
राक्षसs are powers that protect the communication portals (through which deities communicate).
V Subrahmanian
--
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.
Subodh Bhat
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
उज्ज्वल राजपूत
प्रजापतिः पुरा सृष्ट्वा अपः सलिलसंभवः ।
तासां गोपायने सत्त्वानसृजत्पद्मसंभवः ॥
ते सत्त्वाः सत्त्वकर्तारं विनीतवदुपस्थिताः ।
किं कुर्म इति भाषन्तः क्षुत्पिपासाभयार्दिताः ॥
प्रजापतिस्तु तान्याह सत्त्वानि प्रहसन्निव ।
आभाष्य वाचा यत्नेन रक्षध्वमिति मानदः ॥
रक्षाम इति तत्रान्यैर्यक्षामेति तथापरैः ।
भुङ्क्षिताभुङ्क्षितैरुक्तस्ततस्तानाह भूतकृत् ॥
रक्षाम इति यैरुक्तं राक्षसास्ते भवन्तु वः ।
यक्षाम इति यैरुक्तं ते वै यक्षा भवन्तु वः॥
सोमवार, 10 अप्रैल 2017 को 6:29:44 अपर UTC+5:30 को, Dmitri Semenov ने लिखा:
V Subrahmanian
रक्षन्ति राक्षसा अपः। यथा ज्ञायते वाल्मीकीयरामायणे उत्तरकाण्डे अगस्त्यस्य कथनेन।
प्रजापतिः पुरा सृष्ट्वा अपः सलिलसंभवः ।
तासां गोपायने सत्त्वानसृजत्पद्मसंभवः ॥
ते सत्त्वाः सत्त्वकर्तारं विनीतवदुपस्थिताः ।
किं कुर्म इति भाषन्तः क्षुत्पिपासाभयार्दिताः ॥
प्रजापतिस्तु तान्याह सत्त्वानि प्रहसन्निव ।
आभाष्य वाचा यत्नेन रक्षध्वमिति मानदः ॥
रक्षाम इति तत्रान्यैर्यक्षामेति तथापरैः ।
भुङ्क्षिताभुङ्क्षितैरुक्तस्ततस्तानाह भूतकृत् ॥
रक्षाम इति यैरुक्तं राक्षसास्ते भवन्तु वः ।
यक्षाम इति यैरुक्तं ते वै यक्षा भवन्तु वः॥
Dmitri Semenov
For example:
RV 5.10
tváṃ no agne adbʰuta krátvā dákṣasya maṃhánā |
tvé asuryàmā́ruhatkrāṇā́ mitró ná yajñíyaḥ || 2||
RV 1.168
sātírná vó'mavatī svàrvatī tveṣā́ vípākā marutaḥ pípiṣvatī |
bʰadrā́ vo rātíḥ pṛṇató ná dákṣiṇā pṛtʰujráyī asuryèva jáñjatī || 7||
RV 2.35
imáṃ svasmai hṛdá ā́ sútaṣṭaṃ mántraṃ vocema kuvídasya védat |
apā́ṃ nápādasuryàsya mahnā́ víśvānyaryó bʰúvanā jajāna || 2||
etc.
Dr BVK Sastry
Namaste
Ishavasya Upanishad is an integral part of Shukla Yajur Veda - Vajasaneyi Madhyandina – Shakkhaa. Why expect, seek or force the Rig-Veda ‘ Samhitaa (Mantra) portion used term and meanings , context on the Shukla Yajur Veda - Vajasaneyi Madhyandina – Shakkhaa text and context ?
This is a self introspection question. This needs attention before sitting on purpose of talking judgmental, making comparison, evaluation and remarking judgment over the text- interpretations of different periods and the effort of ‘ long gone authors and commentators’, and the propriety of the same.
In this background,
A) On < Dmitri Semenov: Meanings given by Sri Madhvacharya seem to be difficult to apply to Rigveda. > : Respecting Academic freedom and Free thinking of Scholars, the remark is an expectation out of bound and ‘good pedagogy’.
B) On < Dmitri Semenov : Sri Madhvacharya in his Bhashya gives two meanings to the word asurya loka as > : What is wrong in Acharya giving two ‘Valid, grammatically justifiable, contextually interpreted meanings’ to the term? Many Samskruth terms , as in all world languages, carry a plurality of meaning association, from which the contextual selection is made for interpretation ?
Which one of the ‘ Indian Native Traditional Teachers taught this kind of approach to engage ‘Vedartha – Upansiaht Bhashyaartha’ studies? To the serious and sincere scholars of west ?
My Notes Shared: While other threads are hot on ‘ Discovering Bharateeyataaa’ and infusing it in to ‘ Indian Universities’, here is a classic example on what needs to be done as a ‘ prior home work’ to rectify the fragmented thinking on ‘Vedartha Chintana’ in relation to ‘ Bharateeya Tattva Shaastra Vichara Vimarsha’.
Here is the specific case on how one ‘ looks and overlooks’ the basic tenets of understanding and interpreting the (i) Language terms of the text (ii) Context (iii) linguistic processes and (iv) forces the text interpretation using language tools to suit the predefined stands of philosophy at a later period.
I do not say that is wrong ! As an academic exercise, it is good ( like Closed door Gymnastics before the Competition and show down).
This kind of discussion rests on use of texts –transaltion resources –teachings which come in (i) a historically framed, perspective and presentation without recourse to the PRACTICE (ii) a contemporary re-narration of the ancient text ( believed to be Time-Transcendent) made by a historical persona of Great repute and Master of Tradition , whose purpose was to present and align the Universal thinking to the needs of contemporary society and context. That is the greatness of Acharyas who picked the Veda Vyasa Chintana in writing the commentaries in three different periods . This is totally different from the ‘class room centric cerebral churnings of Veda – Upanishad as Philosophies Views for personal likes and dislikes’.
In this post : According to traditional schools, Vedas are ‘ Darshana’ :: Time Transcendent; At least some five millennium separated from Acharyas time. Rushi’s of Vedas have no compulsion to make ‘ Philosophical alignment ( eka – Vaakayataa / Eka Sutrataa intra Vedas( as ‘ samhita –brahmana- aaranyaka- Upanishad), Across the Vedas ( as Trayee ) , Across different texts of Prasthana Traya ( Upanishads, Gita, Brahma Sutra) ; Even less compulsion on Veda re-narratives as Ramayana, Mahabharata, Purana, Bhagavata, ); This self- imposed conditionality for ‘Vedartha Chintana’ is from later commentators and Acharyas. So they do resort to the Language Tools to achieve their goals. This presents a scenario of language tools application differently to achieve the desired goal of ‘Eka Vakayataa – Ekaarthataa’. Why is this such a criticality ? This is for ‘Sanatana Dharma Samagra chintana and Abhyasa’ :: Swa-Dharma –Swa Karma goals.
- For Traditionalists : The Language of Vedas is ‘Darshana’ – Ateendriya – Alaukika – Apaurusheya’ :: In simple terms, not bound by history and society constraints. Then what one understands in such a ‘ document’ is ones ‘ Vision –interpretation’. Different Acharyas – Different Interpretation.
- For Indologists : The text is a multi-layered ‘out of India, Tribal literature’ from which Philosophy is forcibly drawn
- For Shaastra scholars, the Language Tool is ‘ Panini; the guideline is Vednata by their Acharya ; Even if this constraint means violation of the Shadnaga Veda chintana + Veda –Vishishta Pada- Prayoga chintana + Vioaltion of Nirukta guidelines !
- For Translators, the authority is colonial writers who use the ‘ Latin –Greek Classical language standards
Coming to ‘ Novel Interpretations presented as ‘ Alternative’ : This jugglery can be done to interpret any word in any way ( sarve shabdaah sarva-artha vaachakaah) using the ‘ varna-maalaa’ ! So, how would Vaishnavas explain ‘ Bali, Vibheeshana , Prahlada’ as ‘ Asura –Deities’ worshipping ‘ Parama- Purusha deity Narayana) and how would they differ from the Saivite (rudramasha ) deities like ‘ Baana, Ravana’ ? who were killed by ‘ Parama- Purusha deity Narayana in Avataras ? OR accommodating ‘ Buddhavataara Hari’ as ‘ Purusha Devataa :: Human Deity ? Therefore, one needs to present a consistent ‘Shaastra –Pramana’ before making such ‘ imagined Alternatives of Conveniences in explaining the Language Terms’. The criticality of ‘Yoga –Approach to understand Samskruth Terms’ may be explored here. (The extract below is from Kalicharan Tuvvi: )
सुर is the keyword here. If the close relationship between (उ, फ, and व) is acknowledged, we can compare the meanings of the following words:स्वर = vowel, musical note, etc
स्फुर = vibration, etc . So, सुर then technically mean: “A harmonious (musical) frequency (vibration)”. A deity (“a frequency of the universe” of sorts) is, therefore, called a सुर if the deity is in harmony (or, in communication) with other deities. सुर word implies the pre-existence of सुरगण. असुर, irrespective of whether it came before सुर or not, then means: “An out-of-harmony frequency” The असुर foreshadows everything else. The same deity that is normally a सुर may opt to be an असुर at his/her own time and place of choosing (mostly to the benefit of the भक्त). Please note that सुर, असुर are not restricted to deities, and an असुर deity is still different from a पुरुष deity (that is technically a composite deity).
Look forward for learned scholars to help in resolving these issues, discussed repeatedly in this and many other forums.
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
Dmitri Semenov
Thank you for such long and erudite post.
Many issues you brought up are expanding greatly the scope of the present topic, so I will not touch upon them for lack of knowledge on my part,
but will follow the discussion with great interest.
Several concrete points:
1. You wrote:
B) On < Dmitri Semenov : Sri Madhvacharya in his Bhashya gives two meanings to the word asurya loka as > : What is wrong in Acharya giving two ‘Valid, grammatically justifiable, contextually interpreted meanings’ to the term? Many Samskruth terms , as in all world languages, carry a plurality of meaning association, from which the contextual selection is made for interpretation ?
I didn't bring up "Sri Madhvacharya in his Bhashya gives two meanings to the word asurya loka as..." --- that was a point made by Subodh Bhat.
As you pointed out "Many Samskruth terms , as in all world languages, carry a plurality of meaning association." --- the paper of this topic concerns itself only with meanings that are present in Rigveda.
2. When you say, "As an academic exercise,..", I totally agree.
This is an academic exercise to see what meanings of "asura" and its derivatives can be elicited from the text of Rigveda only.
3. There is, however, one point on which I strongly disagree:
"This jugglery can be done to interpret any word in any way ( sarve shabdaah sarva-artha vaachakaah) using the ‘ varna-maalaa’ !"
The said jugglery might be possible if a word occurs very few times, or if one assumes a license to assign as many meanings to a word as desired.
If there are 100+ occurrences in a variety of contexts in such corpus as Rigveda then the text itself imposes a lot of constraints on possible word meanings.
The text does matter. If one comes up with a novel meaning of, say, "asura", it might be easy to pluck out of the corpus supporting statements and ignore contradicting statements.
That's where the principle that you formulated (if I understood you correctly) as achieving 'the goal Eka Vakayataa – Ekaarthataa’ helps by raising
the important question "How many of all occurrences does this meaning fits?".
The said goal might be unattainable because any natural language has multiplicity of meanings, but it shall be helpful to make the effort to come as close to the goal as the text allows.
If one attempts to get to >90-95% of cases, the said "jugglery" becomes very difficult indeed.
The presented paper is an exercise in finding out what constraints on "asura" and its derivatives are imposed by the text of Rigveda,
and proposes a meaning that fits more than 90% of occurrences. Nothing more. Could there be other meanings that fit?
Most probably, yes.
Best,
Dmitri.
Dr BVK Sastry
Namaste Dmitri Semenov
Thanks for the compliment and specific responses. The nuances you have touched, need a response note; for furthering the studies here with clarity.
This is where the yogaaartha approach to decode Samskruth term meanings (= yoga way of Samskruth studies, beyond the conversation mode, classical language construction and even the ‘ Ekaarthataa –Ekavakyataa’ constraints needs to be explored. This method of Samskruth studies, known as ‘Shadanga Veda Adhyayana / Vedanga Vyakarana / Samskrutham as Vak- yoga’ is as old as ‘Patanjali and goes back to Rig-Veda’. This is used by All the Acharyas, of course with their own judgement.
A) On < the paper of this topic concerns itself only with meanings that are present in Rigveda ; …. This is an academic exercise to see what meanings of "asura" and its derivatives can be elicited from the text of Rigveda only > : You are making clear about the frame in which the ‘ term meaning : Asura’ is academically discussed within the ‘ predefined frame, as ‘Rigveda’. This establishes the reference point for the argument ‘ < The Text Does Matter ’ >. This is not the point of divergence in the understanding. It is about the Language tools used to validate the meaning and the very definition of the ‘Text’. Can a linguistically layered structure of ‘Vedic Text’ like Rigveda’ be constructed as ‘ Samhitaa – Brahmana – Aaranyaka – Upanishad’ ? And hypothesize that ‘ term-meanings change in these layers’ ? and beyond these layers ? Can a later text and construction from Gita be used to explain the meaning of a Vedic term ?
On such points, there seems to be an irreconcilable divide and ‘ Emotions-Ego Combined Wall of Separation’ between the traditional schools and post colonial modern researchers flares up in discussions.
Instead of addressing the issues raised and pedagogy –academics , the ego-emotions have flared on ‘ Who Speaks – Why- From where’ ! While majority of Indian traditional schools rely for the ‘Text –authenticity’ on the editions prepared by the Colonial Scholars ( with their scholarly edits; and this includes the Rigveda –Bhashya by Sayanacharya, edited by Max Muller), the next critical point on ‘ Language Tools –Pedagogy’ has not been clearly addressed. I am tempted to reproduce the bias of Max Muller in discretionary editing and printing of the Sayana Bhashya, which probably has been overlooked ( / pushed below the carpet-? ) by the ‘ traditional scholars’ for over two centuries! The net outcome being : The available ‘text’ and ‘ Meanings associated with the terms there in’ carry an indelible, inseparable color coating through the commentaries. See Max Mullers comments at https://archieve.org/stream/rigvedasanhitasa06kenn#page/n37/mode/2up/search/Sayana
This is where the ‘ Ekavakayataa – Ekarthataa ’ of commentators constructions play a significant authoritative role in facilitating the ‘Text Study’ ( if not for the judgement).
The colonial scholars usage of Samskrutha Language Tools to understand Vedas , in this sense, is totally different from the way the traditional schools and commentators work with. Coming to the specific, the current discussion, the word ‘asuryaa’ from the text ‘ Ishaavasya upanishad’ would have to be bounded by the meaning associated to ‘ Isha’. Do we see any uniformity and concurrence on this term-meaning? Either in tradition ( Isha = Parabrahma or Ishwara or Maheswara or Purusha or MahaVishnu Narayana) , or Colonial writings ( Isha = God - ? Spirit – Divine – Consciousness – One Principle? ?). Taking each view, for independent exploration, the meaning of the word ‘asuryaa, loka, andham tamah, Reaching such spaces and existential dimensions by the living beings violating a norm of life set for this earth and locale’ - changes. And lo! Here is the mother seed of the opinions coming out as ‘Vedic Philosophy’. On which Ego-Emotions flare’.
B) On < It is not possible by means of "jugglery" to interpret any word in any way if one follows a set of rules. > : The key is < IF ONE FOLLOWS A SET OF RULES> . Who sets and concurs these rules ? and Compliance to it ?
C) On < The said goal might be unattainable because any natural language has multiplicity of meanings, but it shall be helpful to make the effort to come as close to the goal as the text allows. > : Traditional schools have followed the ‘Yoga-Bhashaa’ ( = Sacred Spiritual Linguistics) approach ; Post Colonial Scholars have used Social language and Classical language approach. ‘Yoga-Samskrutham’ pedagogy and approach comes independent of these two approaches. The reconciliation between the pedagogies of Classical, Social and Culture –colored Samskruth studies is a work that needs to be done. For this work, meeting of minds and scholars is an important pre-requisite ; needing resources beyond the ‘ small workshops’ . If ‘Vedic studies have an international relevance and criticality’, then the support schemes are also to be on the same scale. The benefit of right understanding of Vedas for Indians is getting a clarity on the history and mystery of their primary resources; and for all of the world, the yoga-wisdom of Samskruth language.
Regards
BVK Sastry
From:
bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Dmitri Semenov
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:46 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} asura and its
derivatives in Rigveda
Dear Dr. BVK Sastry,
--
Mārcis Gasūns
and
Mārcis Gasūns
So it's asu-ra, and not a-sura.So sura is not the keyword, it's a ghost-word, that's how I see it.
Marcis
V Subrahmanian
तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ ३ ॥
Marcis
--
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.
Kalicharan Tuvij
नमस्ते,
This is in reply to multiple questions raised on the असुर = “An out-of-harmony frequency” etymology.
Yes I do believe this meaning is entirely consistent (across the breadth of श्रुति, शास्त्र and history); though the deeper point raised by आप्त Dr Sastry is regarding the consistency (एकवाक्यता) – or the prerequisite of it – of Veda itself.
My submission is: the Veda is not only consistent but also “vastly superior” in terms of information density.
The question is: how do Indian scholars from diverse backgrounds and sects go about fruitfully discussing शास्त्र matters with each other? “How do the असुरs teach themselves to communicate with each other like सुरs?”
****************
Not long ago in BVP I had discussed the परिमाण rule:
one शब्द of Veda = one वाक्य of Upanishat = one आख्यान of Itihas
(No one raised an objection to this rule then and there; and this is not the thread for it – anyone is free to start a separate thread.)
In the present context:
A word, e.g., असुर cannot be weighed directly against the word असुर occurring in Upanishats or directly against the word असुर occurring in Puranas/ Itihas-s. Transformations have to be applied first.
This transformation is necessary not because of any historicity involved, but because the परिमाण is on purpose designed to be-
at word level in Veda, at sentence level in Upanishat, and at paragraph level in Itihas.
Understanding this simple fact, and we have -
Bali (in Ramayana) was an असुर (not असुर deity), Prahlada was a दस्यु, Ravana a राक्षस – if the words be taken at Vedic परिमाण.
And there are many पुरुष deities apart from Shri Vishnu. Shri Agni is one, for example, and a Vedic reference quoted earlier in this thread describes how he – being the composite that he is – is the source of असुर्यत्वs of many other non-पुरुष deities. Lord Prajapati is another पुरुष deity and another reference in this thread describes him possessing of असुरs as well as others.
*********************
The etymology:
The (उ, फ, व) – relationship is entirely based on the consistency of Sanskrit sounds – as discussed in my thread “The specifics of Sanskrit Varnamala” in BVP. Any questions should be directed to that particular thread (or a new thread).
Therein I broadly supported Dr Joshi’s Varnavaada approach, and tried to show how indeed Sanskrit words at शब्द level bear a strong relationship to its constituent अक्षरs. (but need further transformations at वाक्य and आख्यान levels)
This means असुर can be arrived at from सुर or असु or सु and so on.
e.g., असु = असुर minus र
Now, the deity behind र is Lord Indra (knowledge based on योग), and र most often at mundane level translates as: “personality”. That is, असु is “असुर minus personality”, i.e. a “discordant vibration without a personality”. So असु can mean प्राण without any reference to a person that inhabits it (or that the person is already deceased).
I stop here, but not without stating that a proper understanding of असुर can cast lights on very important epochs of Indian and the world history – and the ongoing deep influences thereof in the world of today.
KT
Dr BVK Sastry
Namaste
1. Too many issues with pretzel-noodle constructions in the response and pointers to multiple directions !
2. The net outcome from this series of posts is the need to revisit the basic issue, without Ego-Emotions flares, which may be stated as a Summing up- Summary Thematic problem:
As on date, Do we have a stock on Theories and Resources used /useful to understand the Meaning and Purpose of Vedic Terms, Texts and Constructions ?
Stated in Samskrutham: Veda –Shabdaanaam Artha - Tatpraya- Viniyoga Vishaye sama-kaaleena- sthiti-gati –Jijnyasa
One thing I am clear is the following: The Yoga approach to decode Samskrutha Shabdaartha ( Vak-Yoga-Samskrutha Paddhati) with its continuity of roots in Patanajli, Yaska as Shadanga Vedanga Adhyayana paddahti, a pedagogy used by Sayana for explaining Karma Kanda Veda viniyoga for yaajnika professionals / a pedagogy used by Acharya Madhva for explaining the ‘ Mantra – Yoga –Vedanta for Bhagavad-Bhakti yoga corrections in society, went underground in India, at least a century before the colonial scholars started the Vedic texts translation and Sanskrit -Bible project in India. Without an understanding of these language resources, and other wise motivated colonial scholars used the Abrahamic Religion model, language tools of Classical Latin and Greek with constructs drawn from Western Theocracy- Philosophy framework to construct ‘Hinduism out of Vedas ( Sanatana Dharma resources). This loss of Yoga-Samskrutham from Vedas and substitution of it by ‘Sanskrit –Classical language model’ is at the root of the current academic challenge in explaining Vedas and terms of Veda.
My good friend Dr. Yadu has been right in focusing on the ‘Viniyoga’ – Application Benefit – Utility function issue, which in traditional parlance is called ‘ Prayoga- Prayojana’.
Dr. Joshi is consistently pushing the issue of Varna-Vada and history of Mahabharath beyond India, which has a bearing on the ‘asura –rule and rulers’.
3 Reasoning for this :
Kalicharan Tuvi’s post refers to many issues:
(A-1) Any proposed etymology for a given word needs to find evidence for consistency ( if not continuity) across a plurality of disciplines. Am I to understand the proposed model of etymology has been tested across a wide range of texts < श्रुति, शास्त्र and history > for consistency and continuity ? OR is this one more ‘ Vaada / Mata’ on ‘ Shabda-Artha – Taatparya Nirnaya –paddhati’ ?
(A-2) On < “How do the असुरs teach themselves to communicate with each other like सुरs?” > Reframe the question and take it back to early resources : How did the Vedic Teacher (Prajapati) teach the same ‘Veda’ to Devas and Asuras ( Indra and Virochana) ? How did Hanuman see ‘ Veda chanting Asuras at Lanka ? And what was the common need for devas and asuras to learn the same discipline from the common tradition, to fight against each other ? What was the source method before the < intra-group learning custom pedagogy? ? Did Asuras introduce the passages that denigrated their own tradition and defeat ? OR Deva’s played a trick here ? , Granted that some how it happened, what compelled Maharshi Vyasa to put all these as ‘ compiled document for future generations welfare ?? A biographical instinct OR wisdom of Vedas for Welfare of World ? This is the challenge that Historic approach to Veda has not answered so far !
(A-3) The same deliberation needs to be done on < परिमाण rule: one शब्द of Veda = one वाक्य of Upanishat = one आख्यान of Itihas > . IF it is considered that this is a derivative of the Jaimini Sutra guidance on ‘ Sameness of meaning for Vedic words, as used in the world’, then there is some thing seriously wrong in understanding the ‘ Karma-Kanda Paddhati’ and further linking this to ‘ Uttara –meemaamsaa :: Vedanta traditions / which come with Acharya flavors. If one needs to go by your ‘ Parimana’ approach for word meanings, either Nirukta sampradaya is to be compromised ( which is violation of Shadanga approach, proposing a multiplanar meaning approach ; derivation from Trivrut karana guidance/ Kosha samkramana approach of Upanishads; and Acharya Madhva presents this multiplanar approach of ‘ parama mukhya vrutti ) ; OR ‘ meemaamsaa – Karma Kanda practicals are to be compromised ( which says use the mantra with the sound similarity ( like Sham-No) for yajna related to Shani Graha, even if the mantra meaning is totally different; the primacy being the sound-structure similarity of Vedic word needed for Prayoga; the key is Vedic word as Mantra for efficiency of materialization and results).
(A-4) On what is this special distinction between Vaishnava and Saiva Asuras < Bali (in Ramayana) was an असुर (not असुर deity), Prahlada was a दस्यु, Ravana a राक्षस – if the words be taken at Vedic परिमाण > ? Is this the deep rooted colonial error of understanding Vedas as ‘ Hinduism boxed in Saiva- Vaishnava –Shakata devotion Religion model ?
(A-4) On < The (उ, फ, व) – relationship is entirely based on the consistency of Sanskrit sounds – as discussed in my thread “The specifics of Sanskrit Varnamala” in BVP. …..Therein I broadly supported Dr Joshi’s Varnavaada approach….. Sanskrit words at शब्द level bear a strong relationship to its constituent अक्षरs. (but need further transformations at वाक्य and आख्यान levels) > Joshis Varna Vada, The specifics of Sanskrit Varna-maalaa’, I am aware of the key issues. This issue can be taken up separately ! It is too slippery a ground to address here !
(A-5) If you think that < असुर can be arrived at from सुर or असु or सु and so on. > what is this <so – on?? > What prevents any one from splitting the word as < as- ura> and take the meaning of ‘ura’- as chest and make their own theories ! The logic coming out as ‘ Heart is the place where meditation is conducted and prana is present…?? How does one decide what is the key word ? using what - Mayrhofer-KEWA1-(A-Th)-1956.pdf in German OR Nirukta Or your new theory ? … On the same breath how does one separate the ‘ Ghost Word / Ghost Varna- Akshara in texts like ‘ tesurAh,helayO helayo..’ < So it's asu-ra, and not a-sura.So sura is not the keyword, it's a ghost-word, that's how I see it. >
I look forward for scholars inputs on the above points. It is sure easy to ask a question OR even say ‘ Only this way’. That is not answering the ‘ Why so’ ? questions, or, Why this way and not the other way’ ? It takes time and studies to grasp the vastness of implications and passing of inheritance to next generation for ‘ Veda based Identity –practices’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
From:
bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Kalicharan Tuvij
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:24 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} asura and its
derivatives in Rigveda
नमस्ते,
This is in reply to multiple questions raised on the असुर = “An out-of-harmony frequency” etymology.
Yes I do believe this meaning is entirely consistent (across the breadth of श्रुति, शास्त्र and history); though the deeper point raised by आप्त Dr Sastry is regarding the consistency (एकवाक्यता) – or the prerequisite of it – of Veda itself.
My submission is: the Veda is not only consistent but also “vastly superior” in terms of information density.
The question is: how do Indian scholars from diverse backgrounds and sects go about fruitfully discussing शास्त्र matters with each other? “How do the असुरs teach themselves to communicate with each other like सुरs?”
****************
Not long ago in BVP I had discussed the परिमाण rule:
one शब्द of Veda = one वाक्य of Upanishat = one आख्यान of Itihas (No one raised an objection to this rule then and there; and this is not the thread for it – anyone is free to start a separate thread.)
In the present context:
A word, e.g., असुर cannot be weighed directly against the word असुर occurring in Upanishats or directly against the word असुर occurring in Puranas/ Itihas-s. Transformations have to be applied first.
This transformation is necessary not because of any historicity involved, but because the परिमाण is on purpose designed to be-
at word level in Veda, at sentence level in Upanishat, and at paragraph level in Itihas.
Understanding this simple fact, and we have -
Bali (in Ramayana) was an असुर (not असुर deity), Prahlada was a दस्यु, Ravana a राक्षस – if the words be taken at Vedic परिमाण.
And there are many पुरुष deities apart from Shri Vishnu. Shri Agni is one, for example, and a Vedic reference quoted earlier in this thread describes how he – being the composite that he is – is the source of असुर्यत्वs of many other non-पुरुष deities. Lord Prajapati is another पुरुष deity and another reference in this thread describes him possessing of असुरs as well as others.
*********************
The etymology:
The (उ, फ, व) – relationship is entirely based on the consistency of Sanskrit sounds – as discussed in my thread “The specifics of Sanskrit Varnamala” in BVP. Any questions should be directed to that particular thread (or a new thread).
Therein I broadly supported Dr Joshi’s Varnavaada approach, and tried to show how indeed Sanskrit words at शब्द level bear a strong relationship to its constituent अक्षरs. (but need further transformations at वाक्य and आख्यान levels). This means असुर can be arrived at from सुर or असु or सु and so on.
e.g., असु = असुर minus र
Now, the deity behind र is Lord Indra (knowledge based on योग), and र most often at mundane level translates as: “personality”. That is, असु is “असुर minus personality”, i.e. a “discordant vibration without a personality”. So असु can mean प्राण without any reference to a person that inhabits it (or that the person is already deceased).
I stop here, but not without stating that a proper understanding of असुर can cast lights on very important epochs of Indian and the world history – and the ongoing deep influences thereof in the world of today.
KT
--
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.
V Subrahmanian
Dmitri Semenov
What (derivational) meaning do you assign to -ra in this case? Is it particular to the case of asu-ra or can be applied to other words like adhvara, "subhra, samudra, citra, etc. ?
Given Shankara's taake on asuryaa.h, what would be connected meaning for asura, asuratva?
Best, Dmitri.
Dmitri Semenov
Nirukta 10.34 (if I understand it correctly) derives asuratva from asu derived in turn from dhatu as.
So, the derivation of asura as asu-ra seems to originate with Nirukta.
Dmitri Semenov
Are principles/explanations of "yogaaartha approach to decode Samskruth term meanings" written somewhere? I would like to know more about the approach.
>>B) On < It is not possible by means of "jugglery" to interpret any word in any way if one follows a set of rules. > : The key is < IF ONE FOLLOWS A SET OF RULES> . Who sets and concurs these rules ? and Compliance to it ?
Some other rules can be derived from previous failed attempts, for example,
the text of Rigveda shall not be changed in any way and shall be assumed to be correct in all ak.sara-s;
etymology shall be used as a heuristic to arrive at a meaning, but cannot be used as a proof;
one shall avoid assigning a meaning to a word that is used in one instance only;
etc.
It would be good to have an accepted set of such rules, but since none widely used exists, every researcher seems to abide by his/her own set, which is unfortunate.
Dr. P. Ramanujan
--
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 MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V Subrahmanian
Dear V Subrahmanian,
What (derivational) meaning do you assign to -ra in this case? Is it particular to the case of asu-ra or can be applied to other words like adhvara, "subhra, samudra, citra, etc. ?
Given Shankara's take on asuryaa.h, what would be connected meaning for asura, asuratva?
Best, Dmitri.
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 5:55:21 AM UTC-6, V Subrahmanian wrote:In the Īśāvāsya Upaniṣat occurs this mantra:असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसा वृताः ।
तांस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ ३ ॥There the word 'asuryāḥ' is commented upon by Shankara thus:असुर्याः परमात्मभावमद्वयमपेक्ष्य देवादयोऽप्यसुराः । तेषां च स्वभूता लोका असुर्याः नाम ।This appears to be in tune with the explanation: asuṣu ramante...those who revel in objects of the sense organs. Thereby, even the gods, etc. (who revel in sense objects in svarga) are also asu-rāḥ. The purport is: the Supreme Brahman which according to Shankara's advaita does not afford any sense of duality of enjoyer-enjoyed, alone is free of the nature of asu-ra - asuṣu ramaṇam. All other states are never free of experiencer-experienced and hence 'asu-ra' states only.It is also to be noted that all 'asu-ra' is productive of sin. For example, the deva-s who have landed in svarga, have gone there only by action that is known as 'puṇya prada'. They have not committed sinful actions and landed in svarga. Hence their svarga bhoga is not a result of pāpa. Yet, since there is the involvement of experiencing sense objects through sense organs, the term 'asu-ra' applies to them as well. That is the purport.regardssubrahmanian.v
--
Dr BVK Sastry
Namaste Dmitri
(Pardon me for a little extended response, (partly emotional outpour) which I believe is needed to clarify the issue raised by you.
To call the Kings new clothes for what they are, one needs to provide a little plain talk).
1. Thanks for acknowledging the current scenario and course correction needed on ‘ Understanding the Rule based frame work in interpreting terms in Veda: < It would be good to have an accepted set of such rules, but since none widely used exists, every researcher seems to abide by his/her own set, which is unfortunate. > .
The Shadanga Vedanga Paddahti was the widely used set of rules and standard, to study and practice Vedas; still a live tradition in some parts of India , albeit ‘ gasping for last breath’ due to the ‘ academic onslaught on native Vedic traditions and challenges of scholars livelihood’. Government exchequer has no priority to spend the ‘ public tax resources’ to save this ‘ last vestiges of a bygone era, if it does not usher in the power and meet the political agendas.
2A) On < "yogaaartha approach to decode Samskruth term meanings" > I am finalizing my research writing to a publication and workshops. It is primarily a voyage of discovery on how ‘ Indian Traditions studied – taught –understood - used and applied ‘Vedas’ in two / multiple streams, all coming under one main umbrella name as ‘Vyasa Tradition’ .
This system, known as ‘Shadanga Vedanga’ pedagogy ( unified Sacred Linguistic tradition to study and apply Vedas for Human welfare, the main utility function of Vedas ’) was the ‘ immune system’ which guarded Vedas. The metaphor well known on this reads ‘ Chandah padau tu vedasya…’.
2B) < Yogaartha approach to decode Samskrutham > is both a discovery and an effort for reconstruction of Vedic tradition, anchoring the details provided by Patanajli in Mahabhashya and Yaska in Nirukta; combining it with the Vedic textual clues on ‘Vak’ and its yoga. This is the foundation of ‘Shadanga Vedanga sampradaya’, which currently seems to suffer multiple sclerosis in India as well as ‘Academics of Orient, Far Eastern studies and Sanskrit’. In traditional terms, this means there is a ‘ vi-pra-yukta-taa ( as the opposite of Sam-prukta, the word from Kalidasa: Vagarthaviva Sampruktau) . The Yoga pedagogy needed to understand Samskrutham and ‘Vedic Terms’ is broken distorted, diluted, displaced, substituted and damaged.
2C) The colonial model of Vedic studies as ‘religion of a historic period, using the lens of Abrahamic Theology, Evangelical motivation, use of inappropriate language modeling and tools of Greco-Latin languages, the design and desire to beat down the ‘ Arya- Thought ( politically and strategically) – All this combined with the might of empire, empowered the scholars of west to push their aggression on ‘ Vedic pundits’ to inflict the multiple sclerosis on Veda- Pedagogy and Practice. The echoing of west as ‘Oriental thought still has a greater momentum in Post Independence India Vedic and Samskruth studies.
The net result is < the ‘Vedic messages’ encoded in the Rigveda-Mantra –Sukta - Terms are not being properly transmitted across generations > . On the contrary, they are being ‘ post-mortem analyzed using incompatible language analytics and tools. This is the deep rooted hermeneutic error, which seems to have been pushed below the carpet in Vedic studies; and over coated with the statement that ‘Academics engages only with history and not the mystic dimension of language! ‘ For a list of diverse types of hermeneutic errors (given in the Biblical studies context; but extendable to Vedic studies with same tenor, please see: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/study/HermeneuticalErrors.pdf )
It is an internal break down in post colonial period and aggravated by the social dynamics and new order of society, which can ‘read Vedas only through translation, as a religion document of a historic society, sacerdotal in belief and migrating to India’.
2D) How then to reconstruct the Shadanga Vedanga Paddahti ? The Vyasa Sampradaya of Vedartha –Tatparya Nirnaya comes in multiple streams, and all these need to be unified (Yukta/ Yoga) to understand : The traditional streams are : (a) Poorvameemaamsaa ( called the Karma Kanda, by Jaimini, the disciple of Vyasa ) (b) Uttarameemaamsaa (called the Brahma Kanda, by Vyasa, associated with Brahma Sutra / Vedanta Darshana / Shaareeraka meemaamsaa sampradaya) (c) Other Rishi Sampradayas which are associated with the Applications of Veda in four streams of Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharva veda and Vastu Veda , where each ‘ Applied Veda Tradition is a school of Rishi’s . For example- Ayurveda has multiple rishis and Devatas starting with Dhanvantari, Bharatas Natya shastra is a social model of Vedic Yajnas. The 64 vidyas and Kalas, the plurality of works on Tantra, Puranas, Aagama, Dharma Shaastras are documents which have deep intertwined structure and purpose. Same is the case with Ramayana and Mahabharata, which have a plurality of narrations by purpose and audience. They are not just stories told to different audience of different societies.
2E) All these works have used totally , mainly or largely ‘ Samskrutham’ as the Language of the Text ( whether conforming to Panini – Or other wise; whether they use the ‘Vedas’ fully or in part.) to present different facets of Yoga as ‘Anu-shaasanam’ = custom prescription for specific needs and contexts. Example: The same word like Purusha –Prakruti, Deva –Asura give a plurality of meanings in different texts and contexts, because the ‘YOGA- APPLICATION and UTILITY ( = Prayoga –Vini-yoga) of Vak ( Articulated Text) is different.
This intricacy and integrity of Text gets violated in the Translations and inappropriate’ Language pedagogic models used for Samskruth studies’.
What does it matter if Samskruth has no historicity, but just written yesterday as a ‘Research work, Finding out the rule base of the language that runs across texts of several millennia? Does it impact the standard and quality of Language ? Absolutely Not ! The challenge here is understanding the Time-Transparency and Time-Transcendent nature of Samskrutham, bestowed through the Yoga –processes given in Vyakarana (as Vedanga); making the Langauge to become ‘ Mantra ( by efficacy and not limited to belief). On the same count, if Panini organized a language tradition of texts prior to him and later writers took pride in following it, what is wrong ? This ‘ Language Standard Continuity’ was ‘doubted - disbelieved’ and displaced by post colonial period scholars in Vedic studies. This forking point is the hard line of divide in formulating the study of Samskrutham, as it ought to be called ( See MW dictionary Notes in Introduction) which has been made to take the new shape as ‘Sanskrit’, a classical / dead /dying language!
I have used the word ‘ Multiple sclerosis’, which is a medical term, and may need an explanation for general readers. I am concluding this response with the explanation of this term.
What is Multiple Sclerosis? (http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Definition-of-MS ) Multiple sclerosis (MS) involves an immune-mediated process in which an abnormal response of the body’s immune system is directed against the central nervous system (CNS), which is made up of the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves. The exact antigen — or target that the immune cells are sensitized to attack — remains unknown, which is why MS is considered by many experts to be "immune-mediated" rather than "autoimmune."
Within the CNS, the immune system attacks myelin — the fatty substance that surrounds and insulates the nerve fibers — as well as the nerve fibers themselves.
The damaged myelin forms scar tissue (sclerosis), which gives the disease its name.
When any part of the myelin sheath or nerve fiber is damaged or destroyed, nerve impulses traveling to and from the brain and spinal cord are distorted or interrupted, producing a wide variety of symptoms.
The disease is thought to be triggered in a genetically susceptible individual by a combination of one or more environmental factors.
People with MS typically experience one of four disease courses, which can be mild, moderate or severe.
Effect of Multiple sclerosis? (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37556.php) Also known as MS, is a chronic disease that attacks the central nervous system, (brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves). In severe cases, the patient becomes paralyzed or blind while in milder cases, there may be numbness in the limbs. The cause of MS is unknown; however, with multiple sclerosis, the central nervous system (CNS) is attacked by the individual's own immune system. That is why MS is believed to be an autoimmune disease. Nerve fibers are surrounded by myelin, which protects them. Myelin also helps the nerves conduct electrical signals quickly and efficiently. The myelin of a patient with MS disappears in multiple areas. This leaves a scar (sclerosis). Multiple sclerosis means "scar tissue in multiple areas." The areas where there is either not enough or no myelin are called plaques or lesions. As the lesions get worse, the nerve fiber can break or become damaged. When a nerve fiber has less myelin, the electrical impulses received from the brain do not flow smoothly to the target nerve - when there is no myelin, the nerve fibers cannot conduct the electrical impulses at all. Because of this, the messages from the brain to the muscles cannot be transmitted.
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
From:
bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Dmitri Semenov
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:23 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} asura and its
derivatives in Rigveda
Dear Dr. BVK Sastry,
--
Dmitri Semenov
Thank you for the explanation.
asura = one who revels in indriya viśaya.
asuratva = asuśu (asuviṣayeṣu) ramaṇatvam.
I am puzzled: how Soma or Agni can revel in indriya viśaya?
Or, for Soma and Agni asura has somewhat different meaning?
Best,
Dmitri.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Dmitri Semenov
I hope to read your work on yogaartha approach sooner rather than later.
Best,
Dmitri.
V Subrahmanian
Dear V Subrahmanian,
Thank you for the explanation.
asura = one who revels in indriya viśaya.
asuratva = asuśu (asuviṣayeṣu) ramaṇatvam.
I am puzzled: how Soma or Agni can revel in indriya viśaya?
Is there in post-Rigveda texts/traditions an explanation or some hints how that could be?