Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Manuscripts and survival of Indic Knowledge Base

[ajit.gargeshwari]

My previous message went only to nityanandaji. May be they are writing the manuscripts to gain punya. I agree digitising of manuscripts and making them accessible to all should be the priority. Archives give free and permanent storage. What's the use of digitising and keeping it on the library computer and if they don't back up periodically the data may be even lost. We must create awareness that digitising is not enough universal knowledge should be made available to all. There us no cost involved in dumping scanned manuscripts whoever scans them to archives.org.

Ajit Gargeshwari

On May 31, 2016 12:35 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 07:02:42 UTC+5:30, rniyengar wrote:

There is so much noise made about  Sanskrit and Science, history, mathematics.......& what not by MHRD, political parties and others. But many good things go unnoticed and unreported in this vast country with myriad cultures. Still, occasionally it is heartening to know that some people are actually practicing what they preach. I found this article interesting.

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/jain-mumbai-melting-pot-with-thousands-of-manuscripts-left-to-be-rewritten-it-is-a-race-against-time-2814374/

RNI

 

It is a good thing to preserve manuscripts, but the idea of rewriting manuscripts in an age where computing and digital printing are commonplace is anachronistic. If reproduction of manuscripts as hard copies is indeed required, why not digitize the manuscripts and print ten copies using digital printing at a fraction of the effort? The time spent in rewriting 6,500 manuscripts could be better used to digitize and proofread many more.

 

“Bhojane boasts of rewriting three sheets, 11.5 cm cross 5.5 cm, everyday [sic].”

 

Is it really the best use of the skills of a 73-year old skilled ‘writer’ to rewrite all but three sheets in a day? How many words would the three sheets have? 

 

“What we are writing today will last for at least 500 years. The machine-printed books, on the other hand, won’t even last 50 years.”

 

Except that 200, 500, or even more copies of the machine printed books can be reprinted any time for distributions. What use are single copies of rewritten manuscripts locked in a library today when all manuscripts are being digitized and made freely available?

 

PS: The single word “everyday” is an adjective, while the two words “every day” form an adverbial phrase. In the quoted sentence, an adverb is needed and hence it should be “every day.” 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्��

[Srinidhi V]

Without discounting the obvious benefits of the digitisation (and/or
printing digital hard copies if needed), the परम्परा of "literally"
writing an ancient text cannot be brushed away by looking at the
quantity of sheets written. It is important to retain the लेखनपरम्परा
even if it appears anachronistic for the purposes of बीजरक्षा. Also,
the influence of the आदर and नैरन्तर्य shown by these "skilled
writers" (लिपिकारs) on sustaining the energy and spirit of the
tradition they are re-scribing, is HUGE.

I am sure others in this thread did not undermine any of these but
were emphasising the need to use an efficient method, without
completely replacing the original idea.

Of course, the perspective of पुण्य, mentioned by Ajit-ji cannot be
ignored either:

गाङ्गमङ्गलतरङ्गभङ्गदप्रान्तसुश्रिहरिवेश्मकृत्समः।
यद्गतैकतमवर्णलेखकः सत्यतीर्थ इह भाष्यमालिखत् ।। इति श्रीमध्वविजये।

Regards,
Srinidhi

> "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.

[Bijoy Misra]

Manual hard copy reproduction on high quality weather-proof material is a part of monastic tradition that is 

steeped in world culture.   To my mind, it has been a function of preservation of manuscripts in its developmental

mode for archival purpose.  There are two points.  The first is if the hard copy is a necessary product

for knowledge delivery.  The second is if a librarian should think of shelf life more than the availability of the material.

The topic to ponder is when does material become a treasure and how does one preserve a "treasure." 

Should a material be found a thousand years from now for whatever purpose?  It is a relevant debate.

[rniyengar]

Yes. I agree that this is a point for debate. When I read the news item I was wondering for myself, what could have been the reaction of intellectuals in ancient India when writing had become the order of the day (say 100 BC-100 AD) to  the oral tradition of transferring texts, particularly the Vedas. Some might have felt scripting them, as indeed it was done, was sufficient. Fortunately, the feeling of sacredness (that is a type of religiosity) associated with Vedas (even if their original meaning  was not widely understood) prevailed to continue  the archaic-chhandasic (आर्ष छान्दस) practices. [As an aside: आर्ष is a very respectable word, but छान्दस is to make fun of people who are too slow]. I for one appreciate the devotion of the people who are rewriting the manuscripts. They are not only earning their livelihood through hard work but also deriving a sense of satisfaction  for contributing to a larger cause, which is for the promoters; their religion and culture.

Thanks

RNI

[Mamata Dash]

With respest to the vidvans, I may say that, whether we have any idea, that how many texts have been published. If you will take survey of the manuscripts repositories, you will find may be 20% of the texts are in print and rest are yet to see the light. If we put that much of effort to bring out these texts may be critically edited or just reproduction of the text, it will be saved. Of course there are texts like Abhijnana Sakuntalam or Kumarasambhavam, which have number of editions, but we are not exploring the commentaries on these texts. we are just happy with a Com. of Mallinatha. 

Ofcourse the likhana parampara is to be maintaned, but should we not take the advantage of the modern facilities ? 

Already we have lost so many texts. Now it is high time now the vidvans should think of publishing the unpublished texts rather coping the printed text on the palm leaves. All these days the Jain texts were preserved in the paper format. 

with regards to all, 

Mamata Dash (Mishra)

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

We must ask all manuscript libraries to digitise all their manuscript and upload them to archives.If they don't want to give them free we create a manuscript store similar to JSTOR At least scholars will know what's available. This will be the next phase to cataloging. Perhaps people with power in manuscript libraries should seriously consider options.Will they ever or will they wait for the originals to get destroyed or be happy in making them inaccessible or accessible to a privileged few who get access at a great cost and effort.

[Mamata Dash]

With respect to all, I must ask the scholars whether they are able to access the manuscripts of their subject preserved in the respective libraries. Sir/Madam the scholars have to wait  for days just to see the manuscripts. We must have a rule or law for this. The custodians feel that it is their property.  

[ajit.gargeshwari]

Yes they feel one its their personal property and second they feel they are doing a favour third they feel Indians don't need them but foreigners do need them Law will not help as the custodians of the manuscripts need not be facilitators for research.

[dhaval patel]

My last legal effort has not succeded in court of law under RTI act.

For people interested in the matter, see https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38109129/

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:54 PM, rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 I for one appreciate the devotion of the people who are rewriting the manuscripts. They are not only earning their livelihood through hard work but also deriving a sense of satisfaction  for contributing to a larger cause, which is for the promoters; their religion and culture.

It may be observed from the article:

//Interestingly, these men, wearing traditional white robes and colourful turbans are either Maharashtrian or North Indian Brahmins, and not Jains.//

So, the 'puṇya' aspect is out of the question in this endeavor.  Earning a livelihood, which, like many avocations, can also give the byproduct of job-satisfaction.  

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

[Pranava Kumar Vasishta G V]

In the context of this thread, I felt it is apt to point to what Vint Cerf, a Turing Award (equivalent to Nobel in Computer Science) Winner, hailed as 'Father of the Internet', and calls himself 'Chief Internet Evangelist' says about 'digital vellum':

http://www.businessinsider.in/Father-of-the-internet-If-we-dont-move-now-we-risk-losing-all-the-data-weve-created-in-the-21st-century/articleshow/46316326.cms

https://www.cmu.edu/silicon-valley/news-events/dls/2015/cerf-news.html

The digital technology has not as yet provided a long-lasting method for preserving information for over centuries. The 'vellum' on which many Latin texts were written which still survive for 2000 years are inspiration for the 'Digital vellum' project.

The reason for parampara bija-raksha is even more fundamental in the light of the limits of the new technologies.

Best Wishes,
Pranav

[उदयनः (Udayana)]

Namaste 

Ewantarhi Dhawal patel Mahodayena anyaha maargaha aashrayaneeyaha....

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:29 PM, dhaval patel <drdhav...@gmail.com> wrote:

My last legal effort has not succeded in court of law under RTI act.

For people interested in the matter, see https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38109129/

--

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.

--

Udayana Hegde | PS To Vice Chancellor 

Research Assistant | Karnataka Samskrit University |

Pampa Mahakavi Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore - 560 018

Mobile: +9194810 26366 | E Mail : udayan...@gmail.com |
http://www.ksu.ac.in

[Ashok Aklujkar]

> On May 31, 2016, at 6:24 AM, rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fortunately, the feeling of sacredness (that is a type of religiosity) associated with Vedas (even if their original meaning was not widely understood) prevailed to continue the archaic-chhandasic (आर्ष छान्दस) practices. [As an aside: आर्ष is a very respectable word, but छान्दस is to make fun of people who are too slow].

This use of chāndasa probably came from chandas meaning ‘will, whimsy/whimsey’. We seem to have a homophonic situation here.

a.a.

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On May 31, 2016, at 10:56 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, the ‘puṇya’ aspect is out of the question in this endeavour.  

Not necessarily. We also have the phenomenon of transfer of merit. I would not be surprised if the project started because a scholarly Jain monk (like the late Jinavijaya-muni, Punyavijaya-muni and Jambūvijaya-muni,or like the currently active Vijaya-śīla-candra-sūri) mentioned to a rich Jain devotee that survival of mss through their copying needed to be arranged urgently and the devotee agreed to fund the project because copying mss and preserving them is considered to be s a meritorius act. At least a part of the merit acquired by the scribes could naturally have been thought to go to the patron of the project (very much like the merit of sacrifice going to both the Brahmin priest and the Yajamāna). 

a.a.

[V Subrahmanian]

Is there any textual authority for the above conclusion?  For, in the Brahma sutra bhashya for 3.4.44,45 and 46, I understand that the conclusion is that since the priest is commissioned (by payment) by the Yajamana (Swamin), the fruit of the chanting (upasana) goes to the latter and not to the priest even though he does the upasana (on behalf of the yajamana). Here are the relevant pages:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_38253.php

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_38254.php

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_38255.php

Even though the above case is of upasana, I think the idea involved is same. 

I am open to correction, though.

warm regards

subrahmanian.v 

a.a.

[Bvk sastry]

On Prof. Bijoy Mishras observation

< The topic to ponder is when does material become a treasure and how does one preserve a "treasure."
Should a material be found a thousand years from now for whatever purpose? It is a relevant debate.>

If this may be articulated differently, who will make an investment on a ' manuscript of tradition' and why?

For a museum model art- collector, the media of manuscript, its antiquity and rarity is the ' treasure-possession value'. Example: Mona-lisa art scroll, dead see scrolls, palm leaf on which sarvamoolagrantha was scribed.

For an Education institution, the treasure is matter on the media ! Teachers to teach the subject matter are dispensable people!

For a seeker, the ' treasure' is the vision in the matter- language. Neither the media or antiquity bothers. It does not matter whether mahabharata was written with an iron stylus or a broken tusk! The message is critical.

The profound issue in Mishra jis post is drawing attention to the need of balancing investments in digital document archiving with education- research teaching content in the media. And that has greater relevance to Vedas, which preferred a totally non- material media of voice to survive!

Regards

BVK Sastry



BVK Sastry
Yoga-Samskrutham University
Sent from my iPhone

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Dr. V. Subrahmanian,

You have asked a very pertinent question. At present, I do not have the time needed to find an explicit statement that says, ‘Although X performs the necessary action(s), Y gets the fruit/credit of the action(s).’ However, the very passage you cite speaks of such a transfer (from prayojya kartṛ to prayojaka kartṛ, so to say). In law, too, the inciting agent cannot free himself/herself from the consequences of the incited action by saying “I did not do it myself/personally.” What applies on the pāpa karma side should apply also on the puṇya karma side. 

Although I cannot cite a directly applicable source that generally specifies ‘who gets how much’, I have the impression that the Smṛtis do contain statements dividing guilt and credit between two or more parties. If you do not take dadate too literally, even the Śākuntala line tapaḥ ṣaḍ-bhāgam akṣayyaṃ dadaty āraṇyakā hi naḥ implies the principle I have appealed to. 

Transfer of karman in dhārmika traditions has seemed contradictory to several scholars, especially the Western ones, but I am not sure that it is entirely missing in the religion traditions. 

Pl google with “transfer of karma” for several Internet discussions. 

The issue has bearing on the doctrine of divine grace as well.

a.a.

[K S Kannan]

There is this well known verse:

kartā kārayitā caiva

    prerakaś c'anumodakaḥ /

sukṛte duṣkṛte caiva

    catvāras sama-bhāginaḥ //

The doer, the sponsor, the promoter, and the endorser 

- all the four have their share, 

in acts of merit as well as demerit.

As to the word sama, "equal",

it may mean exactly equal, or in due proportion, 

depending upon the context.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

In the ancient text, Sivadharma, 12: 123 (still unpublished) we find this passage according to which the person who imparts the dharma, he who facilitates ? such imparting of dharma, the performer of the dharma, he who makes him perform (aides in his performance?) and he who protects such dharma and the performer--all these five persons--get equal fruit.

उपदेष्टानुमन्ता च कर्ता कारयिता च यः ।

                कृतानुपालकश्चैव पञ्च तुल्यफलाः स्मृताः  ।

Another passage, Ibid. 12: 126ab: दातुरप्यधिकं पुण्यं तद्दत्तं योऽनुपालयेत्  ।
clearly sates that the person who protects (any donatio or endowment )gets more puNya than the donor himself.

Thus another passage, 12: 127
                       

तस्मादुपदिशेद्धर्मं स्वयं वापि समाचरेत्  ।

कारयेदनुमन्येत कृतमन्यश्च पालयेत्  ।

advises one to perform any of the five acts mentioned in the aforementioned passage.

In this connection one is reminded of the ancient Pasupata concept and practice according to which the Pasupata follower behaving in a demeaning way in public and thereby inviting the public censure, gets the puNya of the individual (s) who censures him, which is transfer of merit from one person to another.


Ganesan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:17 AM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is this well known verse:

kartā kārayitā caiva

    prerakaś c'anumodakaḥ /

sukṛte duṣkṛte caiva

    catvāras sama-bhāginaḥ //

The doer, the sponsor, the promoter, and the endorser 

- all the four have their share, 

in acts of merit as well as demerit.

Sir, this is a genuine case but the present Jain case is where the copyists are employed for the purpose. They cannot be put in any of the categories above. 

I am also reminded of the famous story of Vālmiki where Narada asks him to ask his familiy members whether they would share the sin arising out of his indulgence in dacoity. They say they will not share his sin; they are there only to enjoy the means he provides for their survival.  This is a case where the family is not willfully encouraging the sinful act. 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

[K S Kannan]

​If that is the case, the question

"Won't hired killers partake of sin?"

would be answered in the negative!

Even law holds them guilty.

Their crime is even graver​.

Merits can accrue the same way sins ensue.

Working for money is a mundane, secondary, aspect.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

​If that is the case, the question

"Won't hired killers partake of sin?"

would be answered in the negative!

Even law holds them guilty.

Their crime is even graver​.

That is because both the hirer and the hired know very well that killing is a criminal offence. Even in the shāstraic sense it is incumbent upon everyone to be aware of 'mā himsyāt sarvā bhūtāni'.    

Merits can accrue the same way sins ensue.

Working for money is a mundane, secondary, aspect.

Actually only because one is hired to perform an upāsana on behalf of the yajamāna it is ruled that the phalam goes to the former and not the latter. If it were not for the fact that certain karma-s are possible only by employing others, this question about who is the real doer (the hirer or the hired) and who really gets the phalam would not be discussed: Brahmasutra bhashya 3.4.44-46:

फलं हि श्रूयते — ‘वर्षति हास्मै वर्षयति ह य एतदेवं विद्वान्वृष्टौ पञ्चविधꣳ सामोपास्ते’ (छा. उ. २-३-२) इत्यादि ; तच्च स्वामिगामि न्याय्यम्, [It is but reasonable to hold that the phalam goes to the yajamāna.]

परार्थत्वादृत्विजः अन्यत्र वचनात् फलसम्बन्धानुपपत्तेः ॥ ४५ ॥ [Since the Rtvik works for the sake of the yajamāna, unless stated otherwise, the phalam cannot be connected to the former.]

ऋत्विक्कर्तृकस्य विज्ञानस्य यजमानगामि फलं दर्शयति । [The shruti says that the phalam of the upasana performed by the Rtvik goes to the yajamāna.]

[V Subrahmanian]

A correction:

In the sentence:  //Actually only because one is hired to perform an upāsana on behalf of the yajamāna it is ruled that the phalam goes to the former and not the latter.//

The former-latter is to be changed to read: 'goes to the latter and not the former'.

The error is regretted.

subrahmanian.v

[K S Kannan]

I am only trying to extend the logic in your opening sentence:

If it is the case that 

since both know it is an evil act, sin accrues to both;

can it not be the case that

if both know an act to be meritorious, merit accrues to both?

May I also know whether the reasoning set forth by you is your own, 

or one explicitly stated in the śāstra-s - 

as, for example, made clear in your subsequent passages?

Would be thankful for a reply.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:07 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am only trying to extend the logic in your opening sentence:

If it is the case that 

since both know it is an evil act, sin accrues to both;

can it not be the case that

if both know an act to be meritorious, merit accrues to both?

May I also know whether the reasoning set forth by you is your own, 

or one explicitly stated in the śāstra-s - 

as, for example, made clear in your subsequent passages?

Would be thankful for a reply.

Sir,  I have based my  replies only on the sutra bhashya passages I have cited. I thought since punyam is in the field of adṛṣṭa, it would be correct to seek a shāstra pramāṇa and not merely decide on yukti, and hence alone referred to the Brahma sutra bhashya of Shankara: 3.4.44,45,46.  

warm regards

[Jaya Prakash]

Hari OM,

Hello Subramanian ji,

कल्पन्ते हास्मै लोका ऊर्ध्वाश्चावृत्ताश्च य एतदेवं विद्वांल्लोकेषु पञ्चविधं सामोपास्ते ॥ छा. उ. २-२-३ ॥

भाष्यम्

उपासनफलं — कल्पन्ते समर्था भवन्ति ह अस्मै लोका ऊर्ध्वाश्च आवृत्ताश्च, गत्यागतिविशिष्टा भोग्यत्वेन व्यवतिष्ठन्त इत्यर्थः । य एतदेवं विद्वान् लोकेषु पञ्चविधं समस्तं साधु सामेत्युपास्ते इति सर्वत्र योजना पञ्चविधे सप्तविधे च ॥

वर्षति हास्मै वर्षयति ह य एतदेवं विद्वान्वृष्टौ पञ्चविधं सामोपास्ते ॥ छा. उ. २-३-२ ॥

भाष्यम्

फलमुपासनस्य — वर्षति ह अस्मै इच्छातः । तथा वर्षयति ह असत्यामपि वृष्टौ । य एतदित्यादि पूर्ववत् ॥

Brahmasutra bhashya 3.4.44-46:स्वाम्यधिकरणम्

स्वामिनः फलश्रुतेरित्यात्रेयः ॥ ४४ ॥

भाष्यम्

अङ्गेषूपासनेषु संशयः — किं तानि यजमानकर्माणि आहोस्वित् ऋत्विक्कर्माणीति । किं तावत्प्राप्तम् ? यजमानकर्माणीति । कुतः ? फलश्रुतेः ; फलं हि श्रूयते — ‘वर्षति हास्मै वर्षयति ह य एतदेवं विद्वान्वृष्टौ पञ्चविध सामोपास्ते’ (छा. उ. २ । ३ । २) इत्यादि ; तच्च स्वामिगामि न्याय्यम् , तस्य साङ्गे प्रयोगेऽधिकृतत्वात् , अधिकृताधिकारत्वाच्च एवंजातीयकस्य ; फलं च कर्तरि उपासनानां श्रूयते — ‘वर्षत्यस्मै य उपास्ते’ इत्यादि । ननु ऋत्विजोऽपि फलं दृष्टम् ‘आत्मने वा यजमानाय वा यं कामं कामयते तमागायति’ (बृ. उ. १ । ३ । २८) इति — न, तस्य वाचनिकत्वात् । तस्मात् स्वामिन एव फलवत्सु उपासनेषु कर्तृत्वम् — इत्यात्रेय आचार्यो मन्यते ॥ ४४ ॥

आर्त्विज्यमित्यौडुलोमिस्तस्मै हि परिक्रीयते ॥ ४५ ॥

भाष्यम्

नैतदस्ति — स्वामिकर्माण्युपासनानीति ; ऋत्विक्कर्माण्येतानि स्युः — इत्यौडुलोमिराचार्यो मन्यते । किं कारणम् ? तस्मै हि साङ्गाय कर्मणे यजमानेन ऋत्विक् परिक्रीयते ; तत्प्रयोगान्तःपातीनि च उद्गीथाद्युपासनानि अधिकृताधिकारत्वात् ; तस्मात् गोदोहनादिनियमवदेव ऋत्विग्भिर्निर्वर्त्येरन् ; तथा च ‘तꣳ ह बको दाल्भ्यो विदाञ्चकार । स ह नैमिशीयानामुद्गाता बभूव’ (छा. उ. १ । २ । १३) इत्युद्गातृकर्तृकतां विज्ञानस्य दर्शयति । यत्तूक्तं कर्त्राश्रयं फलं श्रूयत इति — नैष दोषः, परार्थत्वादृत्विजः अन्यत्र वचनात् फलसम्बन्धानुपपत्तेः ॥ ४५ ॥

श्रुतेश्च ॥ ४६ ॥

‘यां वै काञ्चन यज्ञ ऋत्विज आशिषमाशासत इति यजमानायैव तामाशासत इति होवाच’ इति, ‘तस्मादु हैवंविदुद्गाता ब्रूयात्कं’ (छा. उ. १ । ७ । ८)‘ते काममागायानि’ (छा. उ. १ । ७ । ९) इति च ऋत्विक्कर्तृकस्य विज्ञानस्य यजमानगामि फलं दर्शयति । तस्मात् अङ्गोपासनानामृत्विक्कर्मत्वसिद्धिः ॥ ४६ ॥

Thanks.

[Jsr Prasad]

This thread is about 8 months old and not active. However, the स्वामिगामिन्याय्यम् from स्वाम्यधिकरणम् has already been mentioned by Subramanian Ji.