शशशृङ्गम्

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

This is just to exhibit how different people understand a single thing due to their शास्त्रवासना ।

In व्याकरणम्   it is बौद्धार्थ only - अर्थवदधातुः अप्रत्ययः प्रातिपदिकम् ( पा सू ) ।

घटं कुरु  means बुद्धिस्थं घटं बाह्यस्थं कुरु

There is difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the न्यायसूत्रम् - बुद्धिसिद्धं तु तदसत् ।

Kapila in his सांख्यसूत्रम्  offers नृशृङ्गम् as an example

----

धन्यो’स्मि

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

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

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks for the nice graphic presentation of the practical application of the bold assertion:

न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते । 

अनुविद्धमिव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन गम्यते । ।

'अत्यन्तासत्यपि ह्यर्थे ज्ञानं शब्दः करोति हि'||

With regards

2013/1/5 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

--
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
 
 

[narayanan er]

Here are a few exerts from regarding शशशृङ्गम् from a Buddhist Canon: बौद्धन्यायाचार्यश्रीरत्नकीर्तिपादविरचितम् उदयनिराकरणम्।
निर्विशेषं हि सामान्यं भवेच्छशविषाणवत्।
निर्विशेषणकर्तृत्वं भवेद्वन्ध्यासुतासमम्॥  (प्रथमोऽध्यायः।)
शिरसोऽवयवा निम्ना वृद्धिकाठिन्यवर्जिताः।
शशशृंगादिरूपेण सोऽत्यन्ताभाव इष्यते॥  (द्वितीयोऽध्यायः।)
यादृश्यभाववादेन तादृशीवासनावशात्।
बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते तत्र नान्योऽस्याप्रतीतता॥ (द्वितीयोऽध्यायः।)
Here is link: http://dsbc.uwest.edu/node/6008

---

From: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} शशशृङ्गम्

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

The graphic representation is from my new book - Pramanas in Indian Philosophy , which I just finished during Sabbatical .

The line quoted by Vidvan Bhat , अत्यन्तासत्यपि ह्यर्थे ज्ञानं शब्दः करोति हि - is ascribed to Sriharsa - खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम् by many , including Nagesa (Manjusa) and the commentary thereupon - कला ।

The fact is that the line is from श्लोकवार्तिकम् (चोदनासूत्रम्- 6) -

अत्यन्तासत्यपि ज्ञानमर्थे शब्दः करोति हि ।

तेनोत्सर्गे स्थिते तस्य दोषाभावात् प्रमाणता ॥

न्यायरत्नाकरः पार्थसारथिमिश्रस्य -

ज्ञानोत्पादहेतुत्वं प्रामाण्यहेतुः , सति तस्मिन् प्रामाण्यस्यौत्सर्गिकत्वात् शब्दश्चात्यन्तासत्यपि शशविषाणादौ ज्ञानमुत्पादयति । तदिह चोदनाया धर्मज्ञानजनकत्वात् उत्सर्गतः प्राप्तं प्रामाण्यम् अपवादभूतदोषाभावात् अनपोदितं भवति ।

(अपोद्यते बाध्यते अनेन इति अपवादः)

Sriharsa quotes the line in two places - अद्वैते प्रमाणविचारः ( परि 1) and भावलक्षणखण्डनम् (परि 4) .

In the first instance - Sriharsa replaces the second leg of the verse --

अत्यन्तासत्यपि ज्ञानमर्थे  शब्दः करोति हि ।

अबाधात्तु प्रमामत्र स्वतः प्रामाण्यनिश्चलाम् ॥

The context is also different - ब्रह्मणः पदार्थत्वमपि न केवलं वाक्यार्थत्वम् -  Sriharsa wants to prove - also it is स्वतःप्रामाण्यम् , i.e. परतः प्रामाण्यम् of Naiyayikasis is refuted .

प्रमाबाध्या प्रमाह्यत्र   ह्यतः प्रामाण्यनिश्चयः - पाठान्तरम् in कला।

Earlier to Kumarila , Hari in Brahmakanda (130) of Vakyapadiyam discusses this aspect -

अत्यन्तमतथाभूते निमित्ते श्रुत्युपाश्रयात् ।

दृश्य्ते’लातचक्रादौ वस्त्वाकारनिरूपणा ॥

Samkaracarya in तैत्तिरीयोपनिशद्भाष्यम्  offers this popular verse -

मृगतृष्णांभसि स्नातः शशशृङ्गधनुर्धरः ।

एष वन्ध्यासुतो याति खपुष्पकृतशेखरः \\

Patanjali discussed these aspects under  स्त्रियाम् (पा  4-1-3)

धन्यो’स्मि

2013/1/5 narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>

[V Subrahmanian]

2013/1/5 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

Thanks for the nice graphic presentation of the practical application of the bold assertion:

न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते । 

अनुविद्धमिव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन गम्यते । ।

'अत्यन्तासत्यपि ह्यर्थे ज्ञानं शब्दः करोति हि'||

' शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्पः’ इति यद्योगमताभिमतमद्वैतिनामपि तत्सम्मतमेव यद्यपि स्वमताभिमततुच्छत्वं  न हीयेत ।  शशशृङ्गादितुच्छवस्तुज्ञापकशब्दश्रवणेन किञ्चिज्ज्ञानविशेषं जायत एव अथापि तद्वस्तु मृग्यमाणे नोपलभ्यते प्रतिपादनार्थम् । शशः शृङ्गं चेति शब्दावुभौ प्रत्येकं ज्ञानं जनयतः परन्तु मिलित्वा वस्तुशून्यत्वमप्यभ्युपगम्यते ।
इदमेव तुच्छमित्यभिधीयते, प्रमाणाजन्यमिति च । 

अपि च श्रीसुब्रह्मण्यकोरडा महोदययैः यदुदाहृतं नूतनपत्रे -

Earlier to Kumarila , Hari in Brahmakanda (130) of Vakyapadiyam discusses this aspect -

अत्यन्तमतथाभूते निमित्ते श्रुत्युपाश्रयात् ।

दृश्य्ते’लातचक्रादौ वस्त्वाकारनिरूपणा ॥

 इति, तत्राहं ज्ञातुमिच्छामि -

गौडपादैः माण्डूक्यकारिकासु चतुर्थप्रकरणमलातशान्तिप्रकरणमिति निर्दिष्टम्, तत्र अलातदृष्टान्त उपादीयते । वाक्यपदीयं ततोऽपि प्राक्तनं वा इति । तथा दृष्टान्तोऽयं श्रीमद्भागवतेऽपि स्वीकृतो दृश्यते -

ईक्षेत विभ्रममिदं मनसो विलासं
दृष्टं विनष्टमतिलोलमलातचक्रम् ।
विज्ञानमेकमुरुधेव विभाति माया
स्वप्नस्त्रिधा गुणविसर्गकृतो विकल्पः ॥३४॥( श्रीमद्भागवत एकादशस्कन्धे उद्धवगीता ८.३४)

भागवतादपि प्राक्तनग्रन्तेषु अलातचक्रदृष्टान्तो वर्तते किम् ?

भवदीयः
सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

अलातम् / अलातचक्रम्

न्यायसूत्रम् (3-2-60) -

अलातचक्रदर्शनवत् तदुपलब्धिराशुसंचारात् 

(क्रियाणां न यौगपद्यम् आशुसंचारात् मनसः , तस्मात् न मनसो बहुत्वापत्तिः)

महाभाष्यम् (लटः शत्रुशानचावप्रथमासमानाधिकरणे 3-2-124)) -

भवति वै प्रत्यक्षादपि अनुमानबलीयस्त्वम् । तद्यथा अलातचक्रं प्रत्यक्षं दृश्यते , अनुमानाच्च गम्यते ’नैतदस्ति’ इति ।

वाक्यपदीयम् (वाक्यकाण्डः 291) -

स्पर्शप्रबन्धो हस्तेन यथा चक्रस्य सन्ततः।

न तथालातचक्रस्य विच्छिन्नं स्पृश्यते हि तत् ॥

गौडपादीयकारिकाः(माण्डूक्योपनिषत् - अथर्व .) - अलातशान्तिः - 49,50)

अलाते स्पन्दमाने वै नाभासा अन्यतोभुवः।

न  ततो’न्यत्र  निस्पन्दान्नालातं प्रविशन्ति ते ॥

न निर्गता अलातात्ते द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः।

विज्ञाने’पि तथैव स्युराभासस्याविशेषतः॥

(किंच तस्मिन्नेवालाते स्पन्दमाने ऋजुवक्राद्याभासाः ... - शांकरभाष्यम्)

As is evident अलातम् / अलातचक्रम्  is employed for different purposes by almost all Darsanakaras .

It is difficult to fix the chronology for obvious reasons . I may be guided .

Such examples have been coming since time immemorial .

धन्यो’स्मि

2013/1/6 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

[Anand Hudli]

Much more than ShashashRinga , it is the concept of sadasadvilakShaNa or anirvachanIya that is the source of confusion for schools other than advaita vedAnta.
A review of the various theories of "khyAti" makes for interesting reading.

Anand

[rniyengar]

Dear Scholars,
What Prof. Korada has described about अलातम् is intriguing. I am not
asking any philosophical question. This basically appears to be a
natural fire perhaps a spinning meteor or Ulkaa. Remedial rites for
utpaata are mentioned in several places. But curiously enough AV
Parishishta names an Upanishat of the Atharva-veda of the name
"alātaśānti". Please see the text reproduced below.

(AVParis_49,4.10) tatra pañcadaśopaniṣado bhavanti/ muṇḍakā/
praśnakā/ brahmavidyā/ kṣurikā/
cūlikā/ atharvaśiraḥ/ atharvaśikhā/ garbhopaniṣat/ mahopaniṣat/
brahmopaniṣat/ prāṇāgnihotram/
māṇḍūkyam/ vaitathyam/ advaitam/ alātaśāntiś ceti ||

In the list and text of 108 Upanishats published in 1900 by Siddhanti
Shivashankara Sastri I could not find an Upanishat named "alātaśānti".
Can some one confirm the existence of "alātaśānti Upanishat" and give
some details.

regards

RN Iyengar

On Jan 8, 5:40 am, subrahmanyam korada <korad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
>
> अलातम् / अलातचक्रम्
>

> *न्यायसूत्रम् (3-2-60) -*

>
> अलातचक्रदर्शनवत् तदुपलब्धिराशुसंचारात्
>
> (क्रियाणां न यौगपद्यम् आशुसंचारात् मनसः , तस्मात् न मनसो बहुत्वापत्तिः)
>

> *महाभाष्यम् (लटः शत्रुशानचावप्रथमासमानाधिकरणे 3-2-124)) -*

>
> भवति वै प्रत्यक्षादपि अनुमानबलीयस्त्वम् । तद्यथा अलातचक्रं प्रत्यक्षं
> दृश्यते , अनुमानाच्च गम्यते ’नैतदस्ति’ इति ।
>

> *वाक्यपदीयम् (वाक्यकाण्डः 291) -*

>
> स्पर्शप्रबन्धो हस्तेन यथा चक्रस्य सन्ततः।
> न तथालातचक्रस्य विच्छिन्नं स्पृश्यते हि तत् ॥
>

> *गौडपादीयकारिकाः(माण्डूक्योपनिषत् - अथर्व .) - अलातशान्तिः - 49,50)*

>
> अलाते स्पन्दमाने वै नाभासा अन्यतोभुवः।
> न  ततो’न्यत्र  निस्पन्दान्नालातं प्रविशन्ति ते ॥
>
> न निर्गता अलातात्ते द्रव्यत्वाभावयोगतः।
> विज्ञाने’पि तथैव स्युराभासस्याविशेषतः॥
>
> (किंच तस्मिन्नेवालाते स्पन्दमाने ऋजुवक्राद्याभासाः ... - शांकरभाष्यम्)
>
> As is evident अलातम् / अलातचक्रम्  is employed for different purposes by
> almost all Darsanakaras .
>
> It is difficult to fix the chronology for obvious reasons . I may be guided
> .
>
> Such examples have been coming since time immemorial .
>
> धन्यो’स्मि
>

> 2013/1/6 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahman...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2013/1/5 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbha...@gmail.com>

>
> > Thanks for the nice graphic presentation of the practical application of
> >> the bold assertion:
>
> >> न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते ।
> >> अनुविद्धमिव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन गम्यते । ।
>
> >> 'अत्यन्तासत्यपि ह्यर्थे ज्ञानं शब्दः करोति हि'||
>
> > ' शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्पः’ इति यद्योगमताभिमतमद्वैतिनामपि
> > तत्सम्मतमेव यद्यपि स्वमताभिमततुच्छत्वं  न हीयेत ।
> > शशशृङ्गादितुच्छवस्तुज्ञापकशब्दश्रवणेन किञ्चिज्ज्ञानविशेषं जायत एव अथापि
> > तद्वस्तु मृग्यमाणे नोपलभ्यते प्रतिपादनार्थम् । शशः शृङ्गं चेति शब्दावुभौ
> > प्रत्येकं ज्ञानं जनयतः परन्तु मिलित्वा वस्तुशून्यत्वमप्यभ्युपगम्यते ।
> > इदमेव तुच्छमित्यभिधीयते, प्रमाणाजन्यमिति च ।
>
> > अपि च श्रीसुब्रह्मण्यकोरडा महोदययैः यदुदाहृतं नूतनपत्रे -
>
> > Earlier to Kumarila , Hari in Brahmakanda (130) of Vakyapadiyam discusses
> > this aspect -
>
> > अत्यन्तमतथाभूते निमित्ते श्रुत्युपाश्रयात् ।

> > दृश्य्ते*’लातचक्रादौ* वस्त्वाकारनिरूपणा ॥

>
> >  इति, तत्राहं ज्ञातुमिच्छामि -
>
> > गौडपादैः माण्डूक्यकारिकासु चतुर्थप्रकरणमलातशान्तिप्रकरणमिति निर्दिष्टम्,
> > तत्र अलातदृष्टान्त उपादीयते । वाक्यपदीयं ततोऽपि प्राक्तनं वा इति । तथा
> > दृष्टान्तोऽयं श्रीमद्भागवतेऽपि स्वीकृतो दृश्यते -
>
> > ईक्षेत विभ्रममिदं मनसो विलासं

> > दृष्टं *विनष्टमतिलोलमलातचक्रम् *।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The classification of topics of माण्डूक्य कारिका with Bhashya has got these names. The first is upanishad text only and the rest कारिका-s with Shankara Bhashya.

Chapter I – आगम प्रकरण Agama Prakaran (Chapter on Vedic Texts)

Chapter II – वैतथ्य प्रकरण Vaitathya Prakaran (Chapter on Unreality)

Chapter III – अद्वैत प्रकरण Advaita Prakaran (Chapter on Non-duality)

Chapter IV – अलातशान्ति प्रकरण Alaatashaanti Prakaran (Chapter on Quenching the Firebrand)

This corresponds to the last section in the list as independent Upanishats

māṇḍūkyam | vaitathyam | advaitam | alātaśāntiś ceti ||

The same may hold good with the others also. But others are treated as independent Upanishads. in other collections. Further comments are solicited. This is just an observation made from this site on Vedanta:

This is the text of Mandukyopanishat as the I section:

http://shiva.iiit.ac.in/SabdaSaarasvataSarvasvam/index.php/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A1%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D

The above classification is found in this site:

https://sites.google.com/site/allaboutvedanta/upanishad/mandukya-upanishad#Chap1

2013/1/8 rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com>

[Hnbhat B.R.]

What Prof. Korada has described about अलातम् is intriguing. I am not
asking any philosophical question.  This basically appears to be a
natural fire perhaps a spinning meteor or Ulkaa. Remedial rites for
utpaata are mentioned in several places.

It may be the case. It is not the natural fire. But the example is the burning wood अलात swung swiftly so that it forms a circle of fire, which is the basis of the illusion of अलातचक्र in the examples cited by Prof. Korada. "अलातमुल्मुकम्" is explained as दग्धकाष्ठ or just burning charcoal according to some commentaries on Amara along with अङ्गार. उल्मुक is different from उल्कापात falling of meteors and अलात is not used in the sense. अलातशान्ति in the context, means just like the illusion of the circle of fire stops when the swinging is stopped, the realization of truth Brahman naturally stops all the illusions created by the avidya. 

This just is my idea of the name of the topic अलातशान्ति प्रकरण. Vedantins will supply more information from the commentaries and sub commentaries for justifying the naming. And this is different from the Ulkapatashanti. Or in the broadest sense, both might have been used synonyms. 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 As to where the upanishat ends and the Karika begins, there is a significant difference of opinion among traditional and traditionalist scholars of modern times. (I doubt if traditional scholars of earlier times bothered too much about this.) Broadly speaking, among those holding allegiance to advaita vedAnta tradition, the prose sentences are considered to constitute the upanishat proper, while the verses are considered to be due to Gaudapada (and therefore not Sruti as such).

Dear Sri Vidyasankar,

I wish to point out that Sri Appayya Dikshitar, Sri Vidyaranya and Sri Madhusudana Saraswati have referred to certain (not all) of the verses contained in the Agama prakaraNam to be 'shruti' in their works.

[I have not inquired this aspect: whether these three Advaita Acharyas have anywhere stated that these passages are from the 'mAnDUkya shruti'.  It is again possible that those verses are indeed part of some other Upanishad that might be called 'minor' ones.] 

At the beginning of the first kArikA starting 'bahiShprajno vibhurvishvo...' we find the words 'atraite shlokaa bhavanti'  and the bhashyam words 'अत्रैतस्मिन्योक्तेऽर्थे एते श्लोका भवन्ति’.  For these words Anandagiri writes: आचार्यैर्माण्डूक्योपनिषदं पठित्वा तद्व्याख्यानश्लोकावतारणमत्रेत्यादिना कृतं तदत्रेत्यनूद्य भाष्यकारो व्याकरोति - एतस्मिन्नित्ति ।

From the above I think Anandagiri says: Shankaracharya, after having studied the Mandukyopanishad from His Acharyas, seeing that the vyAkhyAna shlokas (for the Upanishad) are being introduced by the words 'atra etc.', (in the text that Shankaracharya used for His study) refers  to that by repeating the word 'अत्र = एतस्मिन्यथोक्तेऽर्थे एते श्लोका भवन्ति.  


regards
subrahmanian.v
 

Within the dvaita tradition, however, it seems as if the entire AgamaprakaraNa chapter, inclusive of prose and verse, is considered Sruti. I'm not sure what the stances of other vedAnta schools are, if at all they have a specific one on this.

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

What Prof. Korada has described about अलातम् is intriguing. I am not
asking any philosophical question.  This basically appears to be a
natural fire perhaps a spinning meteor or Ulkaa. Remedial rites for
utpaata are mentioned in several places.

It may be the case. It is not the natural fire. But the example is the burning wood अलात swung swiftly so that it forms a circle of fire, which is the basis of the illusion of अलातचक्र in the examples cited by Prof. Korada. "अलातमुल्मुकम्" is explained as दग्धकाष्ठ or just burning charcoal according to some commentaries on Amara along with अङ्गार. उल्मुक is different from उल्कापात falling of meteors and अलात is not used in the sense. अलातशान्ति in the context, means just like the illusion of the circle of fire stops when the swinging is stopped, the realization of truth Brahman naturally stops all the illusions created by the avidya. 

Sir,

The above is the way the example is taken in the ShankarabhAShya for those kArikA-s that specify this example.  For the kArikA ऋजुवक्त्रादिकाभासमलातस्पन्दितं यथा । ग्रहणाग्रहणकाभासं विज्ञानस्पन्दितं तथा ॥  ४.४६  ॥ the Bhashyam says:

यथोक्तं परमार्थदर्शनं पपञ्चयिष्यन्नाह - यथा हि लोक ऋजुवक्रादिप्रकाराभासमलातस्पन्दितमुल्काचलनं तथा ग्रहणग्राहकाभासं विषयिविषयाभासमित्यर्थः । 

regards
subrahmanian.v

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:00:35 PM UTC+8, Anand Hudli wrote:

Much more than ShashashRinga , it is the concept of sadasadvilakShaNa or anirvachanIya that is the source of confusion for schools other than advaita vedAnta.

A sectarian opinion disguised as a universal fact. Please refrain from making such sweeping statements. Your school thinks schools are confused, but I need not remind you what other schools think of your school.

[Anand Hudli]

There is confusion in the sense the difference between alIka vastu and sadasadvilakshaNa vastu is not easily grasped. While alIka is never an object of cognition in a substratum, a sadasadvliakshaNa vastu is
at some point. A reading of polemic texts will make this clear. Please see http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/part11 for a formal description.

Anand

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

स्वीयरागद्वेषयोः प्रदर्शनं विहाय ख्यातिमधिकृत्य विचारे प्रवृत्तिरेव सत्यपक्षपातित्वख्यापनायालं स्यात् । अत एव उभयोरत्र द्वेषाधीनत्वं दृष्ट्वा विरतिरन्येषां न जायेत इति चिन्तयित्वैव किमपि प्रेषणीयम् । इति मे मतिः ।

 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:58:15 AM UTC+8, Anand Hudli wrote:

There is confusion in the

Effective communication tip 1: Please qualify your terse statements. Who is confused? Where is the confusion? According to whom this confusion exists?
 

sense the difference between alIka vastu and sadasadvilakshaNa vastu is not easily grasped.

Effective communication tip 2: If you use ITRANS, please use a Serif font which formats lowercase " L" different from the uppercase " I ". With a non-serif font, the reader cannot distinguish between allka =अल्ल्क, aIIka=अईईक, alIka=अलीक,  aIlka=अईल्क. Or please use Devanagari or IAST to be clear.
 

While alIka is never an object of cognition in a substratum, a sadasadvliakshaNa vastu is
at some point.

Refer effective communication tip 1.
 

A reading of polemic texts will make this clear.

Refer effective communication tip 1. Which polemic text(s) - अद्वैतसिद्धिः or शतदूषणी or सत्यार्थप्रकाश? Sorry I cannot read your mind and your posts are too terse to follow.
 

Please see http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/part11 for a formal description.

1. Hardly a reliable source.
2. I would have read the math had the formatting not put me off - call me old school but I prefer PS/PDF produced by LaTeX.
3. The is at best "sectarian math" based on sectarian assumptions. I don't need to remind you that frequentist statistics and Bayesian statistics both have formal descriptions and yet both schools differ so much from each other owing to their assumptions.
 
Thanks, Nityanand

[V Subrahmanian]

I have uploaded a few pages from the book 'jIvanmuktabhArati' published by the Sringeri Sharada Peetham in 2005.  It has an English translation too, with explanatory notes, in the same book. The English portion covering the five khyAtivAda-s (Theories of 'Error' according to the various schools of Indian Philosophy)  is in the scanned pages and members who are interested may read the same by using this URL: 

http://www.mediafire.com/?e5iabi0ip8z95q5

subrahmanian.v     

[Shrisha Rao]

El ene 8, 2013, a las 11:51 p.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Broadly speaking, among those holding allegiance to advaita vedAnta tradition, the prose sentences are considered to constitute the upanishat proper, while the verses are considered to be due to Gaudapada (and therefore not Sruti as such).
>
>
> Dear Sri Vidyasankar,
>
> I wish to point out that Sri Appayya Dikshitar, Sri Vidyaranya and Sri Madhusudana Saraswati have referred to certain (not all) of the verses contained in the Agama prakaraNam to be 'shruti' in their works.
>
> [I have not inquired this aspect: whether these three Advaita Acharyas have anywhere stated that these passages are from the 'mAnDUkya shruti'. It is again possible that those verses are indeed part of some other Upanishad that might be called 'minor' ones.]

Some renowned Advaitins of yore did refer to them as from the माण्डूक्य, such as

मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ।
इति माण्डूक्यशाखायां श्रुतिवाक्यमुदाहृतम् ॥

by Sāyaṇa (compare with विवेकचूडामणि ४०६), माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते in the जीवन्मुक्तिविवेक (also see the commentary by Acyutarāya Modaka), and इति माण्डूक्योपनिषदि by Appayya in the कल्पतरु-परिमळ (under S.BSB II-1-33). In fact I am not aware of any Advaitic reference earlier than the 17th century that unambiguously ascribes the आगम-प्रकरण verses to Gauḍapāda. However, modern Indologists (following some recent Advaitins) misunderstand the historical record, and hold that proper tradition is to ascribe the verses to Gauḍapāda and a modern incorrect view is to take them as श्रुति. Thus, Paul Hacker and others also differentiate between the fake Śankara of the VSN-भाष्य and the विवेकचूडामणि who considers the verses to be श्रुति, and the real one of the कारिका commentary and other works who (apparently) does not. Similarly, T.M.P. Mahadevan says that there were "probably" two Ānandagiris, distinguished in the same way. If this line of reasoning is right and Appaya is accepted, then Śankara's BSB must actually have been a collaboration between the real and the fake Śankaras, because both views can be supported therein!

> Within the dvaita tradition, however, it seems as if the entire AgamaprakaraNa chapter, inclusive of prose and verse, is considered Sruti. I'm not sure what the stances of other vedAnta schools are, if at all they have a specific one on this.

There is a difference of opinion in the विशिष्टाद्वैत tradition: the 12th-cent. Kūranārāyaṇa considers the verses to be part of the Upanishad (following Rāmānuja's use of श्रूयते in respect of अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुद्ध्यते), but the 17th-cent. Rangarāmānuja does not.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Anand Hudli]

In the words of MahamahopAdhyaya Ganganath Jha: Khandana-Advaitasiddhi-Citsukhi constitute the triple "hard nut" of the Neo-Vedantin, to the kernel whereof, in the language of the Pathashalas, the "beak of intelligence" finds it difficult to reach. (Preface to the Advaitasiddhi, Sri Satguru Publications, Second Edition 1990)
The definition of mithyAtva or anirvachanIyatva or sadasadvilakShaNatva, being an important topic of the second mentioned work is part of the "hard nut" that is referred to above. In general, difficulty in understanding something could result in confused understanding, and this is what I am referring to. I hope I have made myself clear.

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

   I request the moderators to take note of the mail of Mr. Mishra which is trying to browbeat Mr. Hudli. Mr. Mishra has been doing this for quite some time now.

   I don't know what place "effective communication tip"s have in a post of scholarly exchange. If he were really concerned about the communication of Mr. Hudli, he would have written a personal mail to him rather than insult him in this way on the forum. Or used it as a quibble to divert attention from the issue at hand.

   If Mr. Mishra is very concerned about effective communication of others, may he also take note of the communication bloopers which he himself commits by way of typos such as the one below:

"The is at best "sectarian math" based on sectarian assumptions."

  Has Mr. Mishra forgotten that the first effective communication tip is not to have typos in one's mails?

   It doesn't take an Einstein to know that we are all humans (i don't know about Mr. Mishra) and prone to errors and let us not play this holier than thou thing.

svasti,

            JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,

                                                             shrivathsa.

2013/1/9 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

--

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Just a suggestion -

शमदमादिसंपत्तिः is one of the prerequisites ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितुं ज्ञातुं च , न विपर्यये ।

This is what Gaudapada , Samkara and Anandagiri say --

स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु द्वैतिनो निश्चिता दृढम्।

परस्परं विरुद्ध्यन्ते तैरयं न विरुद्ध्यते । ( माण्डूक्यकारिका 3-17)

(he is a great scholar but calls it माण्डूक्यकारिका  rather than गौडपादकारिका )

इतश्च मिथ्यादर्शनं द्वैतिनां रागदोषादिदोषास्पदत्वात् , कथम् ? स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु स्वसिद्धान्तरचनानियमेषु कपिलकणादबुद्धार्हतादिदृष्ट्यनुसारिणो द्वैतिनो निश्चिताः। एवमेवैष नान्यथेति तत्र तत्रानुरक्ताः प्रतिपक्षं चात्मनः पश्यन्तः तं द्विषन्त इत्येवं रागद्वेषोपेताः स्वसिद्धान्तदर्शननिमित्तमेव परस्परमन्योन्यं विरुद्ध्यन्ते ।

तैः अन्योन्यविरोधिभिः अस्मदीयो’यं वैदिकः सर्वानन्यत्वात् आत्मैकत्वदर्शनपक्षः न विरुद्ध्यते , यथा स्वहस्तपादादिभिः एवं रागद्वेषादिदोषानास्पदत्वात् आत्मैकत्वबुद्धिरेव सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यहिप्रायः (शां भा)

यथा स्वकीयकरचरणादिभिराघाते कदाचिदाचरिते’पि द्वेषो न जायते , परबुद्ध्यभावात् तथा द्वैताभिमानिभिरुपद्रवे क्षुद्रे कृते’पि नाद्वैतिनः तेषु द्वेषो जायते , सर्वानन्यत्वात् परबुद्ध्यभावात् इत्यर्थः (आ गि) ।

Let us maintin सुहृद्भाव -- अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं .. वाचिकं तप उच्यते ।

एवं विप्रतिपन्नबुद्धिभ्यः आचार्यः सुहृद्भूत्वा अन्वाचष्टे - महाभाष्यम् ।

For a clear picture of अद्वैतसिद्धान्त , earlier to Samkara, pl refer to Vakyapadiyam , especially वाक्यकाण्ड and पदकाण्ड ।

The observation of Vidvan Ananda Hudli  is reasonable .

In the present case , i.e. शशशृङ्गम् , आनन्दपूर्णमुनीन्द्रः , the author of खण्डनफक्किका (comm) , differs with श्रीहर्ष --

ननु अद्वैतादिपदं गृहीतसङ्गतिकं स्वार्थं प्रत्याययति , किं वागृहीतसङ्गतिकम् ? .... न च तत्र सङ्गतिग्रहणम् , शशविषाणस्य सकलप्रमाणविकलत्वात् । अतो’गृहीतसङ्गतिकाद्वैतादिपदात् तदर्थप्रतीतिः न स्यादिति न शक्यं वक्तुमिति प्रौढवादः । 

वस्तुतस्तु पदार्थत्वं नेष्यते ब्रह्मणः , किन्तु वाक्यार्थत्वम्। वाक्यं वाचा   गृहीतसङ्गतिकमेव बोधयति ।

In the first परिच्छेद , सौगतब्रह्मवादिनोर्भेदः , Sriharsa offers his सिद्धान्त --

वस्तुतस्तु वयं सर्वप्रपञ्चसत्त्वासत्त्वव्यवस्थापननिवृत्ताः स्वतःसिद्धे चिदात्मनि ब्रह्मतत्त्वे केवले भारमवलम्ब्य चरितार्थाः सुखमास्महे ।

 ये तु  स्वपरिकल्पितसाधनदूषणव्यवस्थया विचारम् अवतार्य तत्त्वं निर्णेतुमिच्छन्ति तान् प्रति ब्रूमः - ’ न साध्वीयं भवतां विचारव्यवस्था , भवत्कल्पितव्यवस्थयैव व्याहतत्त्वात् ’ ।

अलातशान्तिः has got nothing to do with natural fire .

'उभयोः अग्रयोः अग्निविशिष्टः दण्डः अलातमित्युच्यते’ - this definition offered by the author of प्रसन्नपदा (comm on न्यायभाष्यम्) is not in line with traditional belief . When a

 stick , with fire on  either end, is rotated  there will be an illusory fire-wheel and the same is अलातम् / अलातचक्रम् ।

Bonus info - Sriharsa (शब्दलक्षणखण्डनम्)  refutes पदसंज्ञा of both Panini and Aksapada (कियदिदं रमणीयम् इति विद्वांसो विभावयन्तु ) --

सुप्तिङन्तं पदमिति केचित् , वर्णा विभक्त्यन्ताः पदमित्यन्ये । ....

अपशब्दे’पि पदलक्षणं गतमिति ।

तस्मात् पाणिनिना आचार्येण शब्दसिद्ध्यर्थे पदसंज्ञेयं रुत्वादिविद्ध्यनुरोधेन अपशब्ददशायामन्यैव कृता नदीसंज्ञावत् , न तु लौकिकपदव्यवहारसिद्ध्यर्थम् ।

साधुशब्दविशेषे ततश्च तस्यान्यदेव लक्षणं वाच्यम् ।

अन्यथा दाक्षीनन्दनोदीरितनदीसंज्ञाप्रत्यभिज्ञायां पाथः प्रार्थयमानः काननस्थलीमलीकाभिमानी भवानीहेत ।

(पाथः = जलम्)

धन्यो’स्मि

2013/1/9 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@lalitaalaalitah.com>

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Korada

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:22:50 AM UTC+8, korada wrote:

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Bonus info - Sriharsa (शब्दलक्षणखण्डनम्)  refutes पदसंज्ञा of both Panini and Aksapada (कियदिदं रमणीयम् इति विद्वांसो विभावयन्तु ) --

सुप्तिङन्तं पदमिति केचित् , वर्णा विभक्त्यन्ताः पदमित्यन्ये । ....

अपशब्दे’पि पदलक्षणं गतमिति ।

तस्मात् पाणिनिना आचार्येण शब्दसिद्ध्यर्थे पदसंज्ञेयं रुत्वादिविद्ध्यनुरोधेन अपशब्ददशायामन्यैव कृता नदीसंज्ञावत् , न तु लौकिकपदव्यवहारसिद्ध्यर्थम् ।

साधुशब्दविशेषे ततश्च तस्यान्यदेव लक्षणं वाच्यम् ।

अन्यथा दाक्षीनन्दनोदीरितनदीसंज्ञाप्रत्यभिज्ञायां पाथः प्रार्थयमानः काननस्थलीमलीकाभिमानी भवानीहेत ।

(पाथः = जलम्)

I may be missing something here, hence this question. Is श्रीहर्ष refuting Panini's definition or is he clarifying that in the Paninian system, पद, like नदी, is not an अन्वर्थ सञ्ज्ञा? To me it appears to be the latter. Please clarify.

The Paninian system has both अन्वर्थ सञ्ज्ञाs (like सङ्ख्या, अव्यय, सर्वनाम, बहु/द्वि/एकवचन, etc) and अनन्वर्थ सञ्ज्ञाs which include कृत्रिम सञ्ज्ञाs (घ, घु, भ, टि, etc) which Panini has coined for लाघव, and परम्परागत सञ्ज्ञाs (पद, अङ्ग, प्रातिपदिक, परस्मै/आत्मने पद, etc) which he has retained out of respect for older grammarians.

Panini has four defintions of पद, of which  सुप्तिङन्तम् is only the first -

1-4-14 सुप्तिङन्तं पदम्।
1-4-15 नः क्ये।
1-4-16 सिति च।
1-4-17 स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने।

The four rules prove that Panini does not consider पद as the linguistic concept of word (सुप्तिङन्तम्), but only as a name in the derivational process like any other सञ्ज्ञा. As Shakespeare says in Romeo and Juliet - What's in a name?. Panini's पद is more comprehensive than पद of the पदपाठ (three additional rules without which we would have many अनिष्ट forms), and even if all occurrences of "पद" in the Paninian system were replaced by some other कृत्रिम सञ्ज्ञा like भ, Paninian system would be still be as perfect as it is.

Therefore I do not think refutation of Panini's definition of पद makes any sense. It is a definition limited to Paninian system and is like mathematical notation adapted by an author for a book.

श्रीहर्ष's quote seems to suggest the same.

Thanks, Nityanand

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org> wrote:

El ene 8, 2013, a las 11:51 p.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

>
> [I have not inquired this aspect: whether these three Advaita Acharyas have anywhere stated that these passages are from the 'mAnDUkya shruti'.  It is again possible that those verses are indeed part of some other Upanishad that might be called 'minor' ones.]

Some renowned Advaitins of yore did refer to them as from the माण्डूक्य, such as

मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ।
इति माण्डूक्यशाखायां श्रुतिवाक्यमुदाहृतम् ॥

by Sāyaṇa (compare with विवेकचूडामणि ४०६), माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते in the जीवन्मुक्तिविवेक (also see the commentary by Acyutarāya Modaka), and इति माण्डूक्योपनिषदि by Appayya in the कल्पतरु-परिमळ (under S.BSB II-1-33).  In fact I am not aware of any Advaitic reference earlier than the 17th century that unambiguously ascribes the आगम-प्रकरण verses to Gauḍapāda.  

Thank you for presenting the above valuable references.  Some time ago I had occasion to prepare a paper on 'references to GaudapAda's kArikA-s in the shAnkara bhAShya-s (other than the kArikA/mAnDUkya bhAShyam)' which may be seen here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/files/Gaudapada%27s_Signature_in_Shankara\
_Bhashya.pdf

I am paraphrasing a few portions from there:

1. In the BSB (Brahmasutra bhashya) for 2.1.3.9 Shankara makes this observation:

   मायामात्रं ह्येतद्यत्परमात्मनोऽवस्थात्रयात्मनावभासनं रज्ज्वा इव सर्पादिभावेनेति । अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः 'अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते ।

   अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदाऽ (गौडपा. कारि. १.१६) इति ।'

2. In the BSB 1.4.4.14  Shankara concludes by citing this kArikA, among several other shruti passages:  
   

   मृदादिदृष्टान्तैश्च कार्यस्य कारणेनाभेदं वदितुं सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चः श्राव्यत इति गम्यते   ।

   तथाच संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा   ।

   उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन  । ।’

    (माण्डू. का. ३.१५) इति   ।

3. It can be noticed that the first cited kArikA is from the Agama prakaraNa. If it is a shruti vAkyam then the reference to the author of the cited passage as 'अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः' would not be in place as the Agama prakaraNa is not in the manner of a dialogue between an Acharya and a disciple even if it can be admitted, for argument's sake, to be a shruti passage. Thus this reference is clearly to GaudapAda, the author of the kArika-s of the AgamaprakaraNa.
   
4. In the second cited verse too, the reference to the author is made in a similar way as in the first: संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति ..

Shankara begins the Mandukya upanishad bhashya with this opening sentence:  ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानम् । वेदान्तार्थसारसंग्रहभूतमिदं प्रकरणचतुष्टयम् ओमित्येतदक्षरमित्याद्यारभ्यते । and further summarizes what these four prakaraNam-s are meant for: तत्र तावदोंकारनिर्णयाय प्रथमं प्रकरणं आगमप्रधानम् आत्मतत्त्वप्रतिपत्त्युपायभूतम् । यस्य द्वैतप्रपञ्चस्योपशमेऽद्वैतप्रतिपत्ती रज्ज्वां इव सर्पादिविकल्प उपशमे रज्जुतत्त्वप्रतिपत्तिस्तस्य द्वैतस्य हेतुतो वैतथ्यप्रतिपादनाय द्वितीयं प्रकरणम् । तथाद्वैतस्यापि वैतथ्यप्रसङ्गप्राप्तौ युक्तितस्तथात्वदर्शनाय तृतीयं प्रकरणम् । अद्वैतस्य तथात्वप्रतिपत्तिपक्षभूतानि यानि वादान्तराण्यवैदिकानि तेषम् अन्योन्यविरोधित्वादतथार्थत्वेन तदुपपत्तिभिरेव निराकरणाय चतुर्थं प्रकरणम् ।
http://vedantavichara.weebly.com/23102327235023462381235223252352233923502381.html 

And at the beginning of each prakaraNa Shankara again states the purpose, by even naming the prakaraNam as they are popularly known.  I do not think the other Acharyas Ramanuja and Madhwa have seen this text as a four-chaptered one as Shankara does even at the very beginning of the first chapter: प्रकरणचतुष्टयम् ओमित्येतदक्षरमित्याद्यारभ्यते. It appears to me that Shankara is seeing the first Chapter, Agama prakaraNam as consisting of the shruti and the kArikas, going by the BSB reference to 'sampradaya vits' while mentioning the kArika, of even the first chapter.  Thus there is no inconsistency as far as Shankara's bhashya-s are concerned. Shankara's opening words even give the impression that the four-chaptered text is not shruti at all but one based on the shruti-paramatAtparyam वेदान्तार्थसारसंग्रहभूतमिदं ... But tradition has held that the AgamaprakaraNam consists of the Upanishad and the explanatory kArika-s. 

As to the other cited Advaita Acharyas of the later centuries taking some verses of the Agama prakaraNam as shruti, some other explanation is required.  One such given by a scholar is: After Madhwacharya the AgmaprakaraNam came to be popular as shruti entirely.  This 'prachAra' was adopted by these Advaita Acharyas too when they cited passages from there.  But the Advaita tradition of teachers and teaching has not taken into cognizance these stray incidents.  They have stuck to the tradition of considering the AgamaprakaraNam as consisting of part shruti and part kArikA-s. 

regards
subrahmanian.v  
 

 

[Shrisha Rao]

El ene 10, 2013, a las 5:14 p.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

> • In the BSB (Brahmasutra bhashya) for 2.1.3.9 Shankara makes this observation:

> मायामात्रं ह्येतद्यत्परमात्मनोऽवस्थात्रयात्मनावभासनं रज्ज्वा इव सर्पादिभावेनेति । अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः 'अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते ।
>
> अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदाऽ (गौडपा. कारि. १.१६) इति ।'

B.N.K. Sharma suggests in one of his papers that the above can be parsed as मायामात्रं ह्येतद्यत्परमात्मनोऽवस्थात्रयात्मनावभासनं रज्ज्वा इव सर्पादिभावेनेत्यत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः । "अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते । अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदा" इति... The reference then is implicitly to another, later कारिका verse which unambiguously mentions the रज्जु-सर्प analogy, rather than to this आगम-प्रकरण verse which says nothing about it.

From what I have seen, there is nothing in the commentaries that rules out such a split.

> And at the beginning of each prakaraNa Shankara again states the purpose, by even naming the prakaraNam as they are popularly known.

However, it is worth noting that only of the first chapter does Śankara say आगममात्रं तत् -- though some texts now feature an unwarranted and puzzling interpolation (not noticed by Ānandagiri) right before this remark at the beginning of the second प्रकरण.

> As to the other cited Advaita Acharyas of the later centuries taking some verses of the Agama prakaraNam as shruti, some other explanation is required. One such given by a scholar is: After Madhwacharya the AgmaprakaraNam came to be popular as shruti entirely. This 'prachAra' was adopted by these Advaita Acharyas too when they cited passages from there. But the Advaita tradition of teachers and teaching has not taken into cognizance these stray incidents. They have stuck to the tradition of considering the AgamaprakaraNam as consisting of part shruti and part kArikA-s.

Such explanation does little justice to the facts: it suggests that stalwarts such as Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya were misled easily and/or went with the fashion of an adversarial proponent, and even reduces Appayya, a known bitter critic of Madhva, to his follower! Most of all, it ignores the reality of Śankara, Rāmānuja, Kūranārāyaṇa, etc., citing the verses as श्रुति well before Madhva.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org> wrote:

El ene 10, 2013, a las 5:14 p.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

>       • In the BSB (Brahmasutra bhashya) for 2.1.3.9 Shankara makes this observation:

> मायामात्रं ह्येतद्यत्परमात्मनोऽवस्थात्रयात्मनावभासनं रज्ज्वा इव सर्पादिभावेनेति । अत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः 'अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते ।> अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदाऽ (गौडपा. कारि. १.१६) इति ।'

B.N.K. Sharma suggests in one of his papers that the above can be parsed as मायामात्रं ह्येतद्यत्परमात्मनोऽवस्थात्रयात्मनावभासनं रज्ज्वा इव सर्पादिभावेनेत्यत्रोक्तं वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः । "अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते । अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदा" इति... 

Even this suggestion does not by default take away the intended meaning of the bhAShyam.  'इत्यत्र' is taken as अधिकरणसप्तमी by Sharma.  But nothing prevents one from taking the same इत्यत्र to mean विषयसम्प्तमी to give the comfortable reading: ....इत्यस्मिन्विषये / इत्यस्मिन्नर्थे उक्तं  वेदान्तार्थसंप्रदायविद्भिराचार्यैः ...

Moreover, when a verse that is readily available/identifiable here as from the Gaudapada kArikA to which Shankara Himself has commented, it is unreasonable to think of a supposed verse which is only in the wilderness. दृष्टे संभवति सति अदृष्टकल्पनमन्याय्यम् ।    
 

> And at the beginning of each prakaraNa Shankara again states the purpose, by even naming the prakaraNam as they are popularly known.

However, it is worth noting that only of the first chapter does Śankara say आगममात्रं तत् -- though some texts now feature an unwarranted and puzzling interpolation (not noticed by Ānandagiri) right before this remark at the beginning of the second प्रकरण.

I do not quite understand what you mean here. Is it the sentence '’ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते’ इत्युक्तम् । ’एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः । [आगममात्रम् तत् ] I find this (red) highlighted sentence in the Ashtekar, Poona, 1918 publication edited by Hari Raghunath Bhagavat B.A.  It is in the Anandashram edition too and in the Gorakhpur (Gita press) edition as well.

> As to the other cited Advaita Acharyas of the later centuries taking some verses of the Agama prakaraNam as shruti, some other explanation is required.  One such given by a scholar is: After Madhwacharya the AgmaprakaraNam came to be popular as shruti entirely.  This 'prachAra' was adopted by these Advaita Acharyas too when they cited passages from there.  But the Advaita tradition of teachers and teaching has not taken into cognizance these stray incidents.  They have stuck to the tradition of considering the AgamaprakaraNam as consisting of part shruti and part kArikA-s.

Such explanation does little justice to the facts: it suggests that stalwarts such as Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya were misled easily and/or went with the fashion of an adversarial proponent, and even reduces Appayya, a known bitter critic of Madhva, to his follower!  

Is it not too well known that Appayya, in the introduction to his चतुर्मतसारसङ्ग्रहः (a work on the template of the Brahmasutras) writes this verse:

आनन्दतीर्थमुनिलक्ष्मणदेशिकेन्द्रश्रीकण्ठयोगिपदवीरदवीयसीर्नः ।

आचार्यपादसरणिञ्च विविच्य बोद्धुं संगृह्यते मतचतुष्टयसारलेशम् ॥ 

He refers to Madhva, Ramanuja and SrikanTha with respectful suffixes.  His work, in tune with Madhva siddhAnta, is called here न्यायमुक्तावली - he writes:

आदावानन्दतीर्थीयामनुसृत्य मतस्थितिं
न्यायमुक्तावली रम्या विशदार्था विरच्यते ॥
While commencing the नयमयूखमालिका in keeping with Ramanuja's system, he writes:
...लक्ष्मणार्यहृदयानुसारिणी लिख्यते नयमयूखमालिका  (लक्ष्मणः = रामानुजः)

But the facts are sometimes bitter too.  I am not very competent to talk about this particular instance: It seems Appayya talks (favourably) about a 'saMkarSha-kANDa' going by the name of 'devatA kANDam' which was indeed fashioned out by the vishiShTAdvaitins but it has turned out to be a non-fact.  It is pointed out that even Madhusudana Saraswati, in the commentary to the verse 'त्रयी सांख्यं योगः...’ of the शिवमहिम्नस्तोत्रम् makes a mention of this without giving any detail. Also, it is well known that many Advaita Acharyas give their own interpretations, not always in tune with that of Shankara, to the shruti/gita passages.   
 

Most of all, it ignores the reality of Śankara, Rāmānuja, Kūranārāyaṇa, etc., citing the verses as श्रुति well before Madhva.

Where does Shankara cite the AgamaprakaraNa kArikA verses as shruti? 

Also, could you pl. provide me the full reference/sentence of // माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते in the जीवन्मुक्तिविवेक (also see the commentary by Acyutarāya Modaka),// that you mentioned in an earlier post?  In the JMV edition that I have (Adayar Library) there is a fine list of quotations in this book with references and page number in this edition.  It lists some six verses of the Gaudapada kArikA, two of them from the Agama prakaraNa.  But in all those places Vidyaranya has said 'Gaudapadacharya says..'.  Pl. also give what Modak says since I do not have that copy with me. 

Regards
subrahmanian.v

Shrisha Rao

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Vidvan Nityananda Misra --

'I may be missing something here, hence this question. Is श्रीहर्ष refuting Panini's definition or is he clarifying that in the Paninian system, पद, like नदी, is not an अन्वर्थ सञ्ज्ञा? To me it appears to be the latter. Please clarify. 

 It is a definition limited to Paninian system and is like mathematical notation adapted by an author for a book' ---

The following discussion is there in Mahabhasyam and commentaries thereupon , under- ’सुप्तिङन्तं पदम्’ --

’कृत्तद्धितसमासाश्च’ इत्यन्तग्रहणम् कर्तव्यम् । न कर्तव्यम् । अर्थवदिति वर्तते । कृत्तद्धितान्तं चैवार्थवत् , न केवला कृतस्तद्धिता वा । (भाष्यम्)

प्रदीपः - ननु यद्यर्थवत्ता लौकिकी आश्रीयते सा पदस्यैव न तु कृत्तद्धितान्तस्यापि ।

पदस्यैव लोके प्रयोगार्हत्वात् । .. न केवला इति - एवं तर्हि  अर्थवद्ग्रहणानुवृत्तिसामर्थ्यात् लौकिकार्थप्रत्यासन्नः अभिव्यक्ततरो यो’र्थः  प्रत्ययान्तेषु लक्ष्यते स आश्रीयते इति अदोषः ।

उद्योतः -

लौकिकी लोकविदिता । अत्र पक्षे अर्थव्द्ग्रहणात् तदन्तस्यापि न प्राप्नोतीति भावः । .... लौकिकार्थप्रत्यासन्न इति । लौकिकार्थकं यत्पदं तदर्थस्य प्रत्यासन्नः शास्त्रकृत्कल्पितस्वादिप्रकृतेरर्थः । तदाह - अभिव्यक्ततरः इति । .. प्रत्ययान्तेषु । सुबन्तेषु सुबर्थत्वा तस्याः।

Here this is the position - the term ’पदम् ’ is what it means in लोक (and Veda) - not only here but everywhere in the Sastram - 

पदस्य , पदात् , पदविधिः , पूर्वपदात् संज्ञायाम् , न पदान्त ... , बहुव्रीहौ प्रकृत्या पूर्वपदम् etc.

पद्यते गम्यते अर्थः अनेनेति पदम्  - अन्वर्थसंज्ञा and the same is taken by Panini .

If Padas like चैत्रः , पचति , are not taken as the base then the entire प्रक्रिया  will collapse .

Some grammarian may say राम सि , another राम सु  and so on but the Padam - रामः is the one that is used and therefore to be analysed by  पदशास्त्रम् ।

Panini preferred सुप् and तिङ्  and any Padam ending in either is called by the name पदम्  in  Sastram - in लोक also the same is referred to as Padam .

If it is replaced  by another संज्ञा  then there will be chaos .

नदी , भम् etc are different  -  they may denote something different  in लोक ।

नः क्ये ( नियमर्थो’यमारम्भः - भाष्यम् ) etc have got different purpose .

So one should make the distinction .

Here is खं खं खा --

....(वाक्यविषये ) दूषणानि सन्तु , पदपदार्थं तु चिन्तयामः ।... किञ्च ’देवदत्त + सु ’ इत्यपि पदं स्यात् । अथ अपशब्दो’यम् ... इति चेन्न । अत एव भवतो दोषः प्रसज्यते - अपशब्दे’पि पदलक्षणं गतमिति । .... 

खण्डनम्  - is the job taken up by Sriharsa and anything can be refuted by him - वैतण्डिकः ।

धन्यो’स्मि

--
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
 
 

[Shrisha Rao]

El ene 11, 2013, a las 1:00 a.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

> Moreover, when a verse that is readily available/identifiable here as from the Gaudapada kArikA to which Shankara Himself has commented, it is unreasonable to think of a supposed verse which is only in the wilderness. दृष्टे संभवति सति अदृष्टकल्पनमन्याय्यम् ।

Except that अनादिमायया सुप्तो says nothing about the rope-snake analogy which is what Śankara is explicitly attributing to the earlier source in this instance. It is quite proper to think that Śankara here is drawing attention to that as well as to the अनादिमायया सुप्तो verse. This type of implicit citation is seen in many other instances, e.g., with the usages आप्तकामश्रुतेः, सृष्टिश्रुतः, सर्वज्ञश्रुतेश्च (all under II-1-33).

> > And at the beginning of each prakaraNa Shankara again states the purpose, by even naming the prakaraNam as they are popularly known.
>
> However, it is worth noting that only of the first chapter does Śankara say आगममात्रं तत् -- though some texts now feature an unwarranted and puzzling interpolation (not noticed by Ānandagiri) right before this remark at the beginning of the second प्रकरण.
>
> I do not quite understand what you mean here. Is it the sentence '’ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते’ इत्युक्तम् । ’एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः । [आगममात्रम् तत् ] I find this (red) highlighted sentence in the Ashtekar, Poona, 1918 publication edited by Hari Raghunath Bhagavat B.A. It is in the Anandashram edition too and in the Gorakhpur (Gita press) edition as well.

The commentators do not seem to find it in their texts because they have said nothing about it.

> Is it not too well known that Appayya, in the introduction to his चतुर्मतसारसङ्ग्रहः (a work on the template of the Brahmasutras) writes this verse:
>
> आनन्दतीर्थमुनिलक्ष्मणदेशिकेन्द्रश्रीकण्ठयोगिपदवीरदवीयसीर्नः ।
> आचार्यपादसरणिञ्च विविच्य बोद्धुं संगृह्यते मतचतुष्टयसारलेशम् ॥
>
> He refers to Madhva, Ramanuja and SrikanTha with respectful suffixes. His work, in tune with Madhva siddhAnta, is called here न्यायमुक्तावली - he writes:
>
> आदावानन्दतीर्थीयामनुसृत्य मतस्थितिं
> न्यायमुक्तावली रम्या विशदार्था विरच्यते ॥
> While commencing the नयमयूखमालिका in keeping with Ramanuja's system, he writes:
> ...लक्ष्मणार्यहृदयानुसारिणी लिख्यते नयमयूखमालिका (लक्ष्मणः = रामानुजः)
>
>
> But the facts are sometimes bitter too. I am not very competent to talk about this particular instance: It seems Appayya talks (favourably) about a 'saMkarSha-kANDa' going by the name of 'devatA kANDam' which was indeed fashioned out by the vishiShTAdvaitins but it has turned out to be a non-fact.

So Appayya is a foolish ignoramus after all. I'm sold, but good luck convincing everyone else!

> Where does Shankara cite the AgamaprakaraNa kArikA verses as shruti?

I have already mentioned the विवेकचूडामणि in this regard.

> Also, could you pl. provide me the full reference/sentence of // माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते in the जीवन्मुक्तिविवेक (also see the commentary by Acyutarāya Modaka),// that you mentioned in an earlier post? In the JMV edition that I have (Adayar Library) there is a fine list of quotations in this book with references and page number in this edition. It lists some six verses of the Gaudapada kArikA, two of them from the Agama prakaraNa. But in all those places Vidyaranya has said 'Gaudapadacharya says..'. Pl. also give what Modak says since I do not have that copy with me.

The exact sequence is:

तदुक्तं गौडपादाचार्यैः --

"निगृहीतस्य मनसो निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः |
प्रचारः स तु विज्ञेयः सुषुप्त्यन्यो न चेतसः ॥

लीयते हि सुषुप्तौ तन्निगृहीतं न लीयते |
तदेव निर्भयं ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं समन्ततः ॥"

(अद्वैत प्रकरण ३४-३५) इति |

माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते --

"द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः |
बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥

स्वप्ननिद्रायुतावाद्यौ प्राज्ञस्त्वस्वप्ननिद्रया |
न निद्रां नैव च स्वप्नं तुर्ये पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः ॥

अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्नो निद्रा तत्त्वमजानतः |
विपर्यासे तयोः क्षीणे तुरीयं पदमश्नुते ॥" (आ. प्र. १३-१५)
इति ||

The 1930s Adyar Library edition of the JMV preserves this text correctly (with the editors helpfully supplying a footnote indicating their puzzlement), and I have seen the same in other printed editions. The 1978 Adyar Library edition however attempts to destroy the evidence, with their altered text reading:

तदुक्तं गौडपादाचार्यैः --

"निगृहीतस्य ..." इति |

"द्वैतस्याग्रहणं ..." इति च |

The phrase माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते is removed, and the second इति is changed to इति च.

The commentator Acyutarāya Modaka says उदाहृतमाण्डूक्यशाखीयश्लोकौ साम्प्रदायिकरीत्या विशदयति आद्यावित्यादिना in this regard, giving the lie to the alteration.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org> wrote:

In fact I am not aware of any Advaitic reference earlier than the 17th century that unambiguously ascribes the आगम-प्रकरण verses to Gauḍapāda. 

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

Sir,

श्रीमदनुभूतिस्वरूपाचार्याः (12th Century, post bhAmatI and earlier to the Kalpataru of Amalananda) the famed author of the work प्रकटार्थविवरणम् (and a number of works on Advaita) has authored a commentary on the माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम् as well.  At the beginning of this wok he says in the mangala shloka -

गौडपादीयभाष्यस्य टिप्पणं क्रियते स्फुटम् ।
चितोज्झितागमाख्यातृचित्तसन्तापशान्तये ॥ २ ॥

After a fairly elaborate commentary on the bhAShyam and the shruti and verses too in some cases, he remarks at the beginning of his gloss at the point where the mAnDUkya upanishat mantra ends (12th mantra) once for all and the remaining verses of the kArikA-s of the Agama prakaraNam commence (24, etc.) thus:

[There is a line अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति (as it appeared even when the first set of shlokas occurred at the end of the sixth mantra एष सर्वेश्वर... )  At that juncture Shankara's commentary to that line was: अत्रैतस्मिन्यथोक्तेऽर्थे एते श्लोका भवन्ति ।.  Here too, at the commencement of the 24th kArikA this अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति line occurs in the text and Shankara says: just पूर्ववत् (अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति). ]    anubhUtisvarUpAchArya says here:

पूर्ववदिति ।  यथा पूर्वश्रुत्यर्थप्रकाशिकाः श्लोका आचार्येण प्रणीतास्तथोत्तरेऽपि श्लोका इत्यर्थः ।

//Just as the earlier verses (of the kArikA) that elucidated the purport of the earlier shruti passages were composed by the AchArya (GaudapAda), so too the latter verses too (that elucidate the other remaining shruti passages) (are composed by GaudapAda).  That is the purport of Shankara's word ' पूर्ववत्'.//

In the above commentary this 12th century Acharya has stated beyond doubt that the entire verse-portion of the Agama prakaraNam is the composition of GaudapAda.

This commentary is printed along with the Anandagiri's in the publication of Mahesh Research Institute, Varanasi.  The volume is one containing eight upanishad commentaries with sub commentaries and edited by Dr.Mani Dravid SastriNaH.

Regards
subrahmanian.v 



 

[Shrisha Rao]

El ene 12, 2013, a las 12:57 a.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org> wrote:
>
> In fact I am not aware of any Advaitic reference earlier than the 17th century that unambiguously ascribes the आगम-प्रकरण verses to Gauḍapāda.

> श्रीमदनुभूतिस्वरूपाचार्याः (12th Century, post bhAmatI and earlier to the Kalpataru of Amalananda) the famed author of the work प्रकटार्थविवरणम् (and a number of works on Advaita) has authored a commentary on the माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम् as well.

Yes, I have seen this commentary albeit several years ago when I studied this whole issue.

> [There is a line अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति (as it appeared even when the first set of shlokas occurred at the end of the sixth mantra एष सर्वेश्वर... ) At that juncture Shankara's commentary to that line was: अत्रैतस्मिन्यथोक्तेऽर्थे एते श्लोका भवन्ति ।. Here too, at the commencement of the 24th kArikA this अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति line occurs in the text and Shankara says: just पूर्ववत् (अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति). ] anubhUtisvarUpAchArya says here:
>
> पूर्ववदिति । यथा पूर्वश्रुत्यर्थप्रकाशिकाः श्लोका आचार्येण प्रणीतास्तथोत्तरेऽपि श्लोका इत्यर्थः ।
>
> //Just as the earlier verses (of the kArikA) that elucidated the purport of the earlier shruti passages were composed by the AchArya (GaudapAda), so too the latter verses too (that elucidate the other remaining shruti passages) (are composed by GaudapAda). That is the purport of Shankara's word ' पूर्ववत्'.//
>
> In the above commentary this 12th century Acharya has stated beyond doubt that the entire verse-portion of the Agama prakaraNam is the composition of GaudapAda.

I'm afraid I don't see this as unambiguous; one has to read श्लोका आचार्येण प्रणीताः as meaning verses composed by Gauḍapāda, which is certainly a plausible interpretation but hardly a compelling one inasmuch as प्रणीता need not only mean "composed" -- it could also refer to something existing but brought forward, etc.

If I had to make a case for Gauḍapāda's authorship I would put forward Sureśvara's नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धि statement एवं गौदैर्द्राविडैर्नः पूज्यैरयमर्थः प्रभाशितः, as better evidence than the above (earlier, more highly regarded author too). However, neither is clearly stating that the verses were composed by Gauḍapāda (while a number of sources are clearly calling them as श्रुति), and this approach essentially comes down to saying that stalwarts like Vidyāraṇya, Appayya, and even Śankara and Rāmānuja were imbeciles who did not understand tradition. It also leads to problematic consequences like T.M.P. Mahadevan's "two Ānandagiris" theory.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

2013/1/11 Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>

El ene 11, 2013, a las 1:00 a.m., V Subrahmanian

> Also, could you pl. provide me the full reference/sentence of // माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते in the जीवन्मुक्तिविवेक (also see the commentary by Acyutarāya Modaka),// that you mentioned in an earlier post?  In the JMV edition that I have (Adayar Library) there is a fine list of quotations in this book with references and page number in this edition.  It lists some six verses of the Gaudapada kArikA, two of them from the Agama prakaraNa.  But in all those places Vidyaranya has said 'Gaudapadacharya says..'.  Pl. also give what Modak says since I do not have that copy with me.

The exact sequence is:

तदुक्तं गौडपादाचार्यैः --

"निगृहीतस्य मनसो निर्विकल्पस्य धीमतः |
प्रचारः स तु विज्ञेयः सुषुप्त्यन्यो न चेतसः ॥

लीयते हि सुषुप्तौ तन्निगृहीतं न लीयते |
तदेव निर्भयं ब्रह्म ज्ञानालोकं समन्ततः ॥"

(अद्वैत प्रकरण ३४-३५) इति |

माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते --

"द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः |
बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥

स्वप्ननिद्रायुतावाद्यौ प्राज्ञस्त्वस्वप्ननिद्रया |
न निद्रां नैव च स्वप्नं तुर्ये पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः ॥

अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्नो निद्रा तत्त्वमजानतः |
विपर्यासे तयोः क्षीणे तुरीयं पदमश्नुते ॥" (आ. प्र. १३-१५)
इति ||

If the numbering shown above  (आ. प्र. १३-१५) is considered, then this tallies with the GaudapAdakArikA in the Agama prakaraNa numbering.  These three verses are the kArikAs bearing those numbers 13, 14 and 15.  It is NOT the AgamaprakaraNa mantra numbering.  If these are intended to be shown as the Upanishad mantras then  they have to bear a numbering of a much higher value.  That is the reason I think the editors in 1978 corrected the text by removing the 'माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते' and showed these verses as तदुक्तं गौडपादाचार्यैः to be in tune with the Advaita Bhashya books published and available which is what a reader of JMV, who is most likely an Advaitin, will turn to for further consultations/verifications.  What I mean to say / point out is: the so-called 1930 edition is itself not free from errors and therefore cannot be held sacrosanct. The puzzlement is only because the number 13 - 15 is pertaining to the kArika counting and NOT the upanishad mantra counting.  If they had wanted to retain the  'माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते' in the new edition, they would have had to give a numbering to these 'mantras' as responsible editors.  Where can they get the numbering checked, with which source and determine the exact mantra-numbering for these verses and incorporate them in the 1978 edition?  Here, is for example, one such source which has considered the entire Agama prakarana as shruti: the Madhwa bhashya:

http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/shruti/manduka/mbtcomm.pdf

But then the problem, if this is consulted (which is very unlikely for an Advaitin), would be that there are four 'khanDas' (sections) and the numbering is 1.2....2.2 etc... Where will the editors be able to fit the said verses as shruti mantras? And how is it to be known for sure that such khaNDa classification is authentic? Have all those who treat the entire aa.pra. as shruti have this same numbering system in their readings? Where is such a source to be found which can be taken as reliable?  If it is said that the 1930 edition made a mistake regarding mentioning (आ. प्र. १३-१५) as the number, then one can well argue that the presence of  'माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते --' is also a mistake committed by some manual copier/editor/proof reader at some stage which cannot be ruled out.

regards
subrahmanian.v

  

The 1930s Adyar Library edition of the JMV preserves this text correctly (with the editors helpfully supplying a footnote indicating their puzzlement), and I have seen the same in other printed editions.  The 1978 Adyar Library edition however attempts to destroy the evidence, with their altered text reading:

तदुक्तं गौडपादाचार्यैः --

"निगृहीतस्य ..." इति |

"द्वैतस्याग्रहणं ..." इति च |

The phrase माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते is removed, and the second इति is changed to इति च.

The commentator Acyutarāya Modaka says उदाहृतमाण्डूक्यशाखीयश्लोकौ साम्प्रदायिकरीत्या विशदयति आद्यावित्यादिना in this regard, giving the lie to the alteration.

Modak has only commented based on the reading he has on hand.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Shrisha Rao]

El ene 12, 2013, a las 5:31 p.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió:

> If the numbering shown above (आ. प्र. १३-१५) is considered, then this tallies with the GaudapAdakArikA in the Agama prakaraNa numbering. These three verses are the kArikAs bearing those numbers 13, 14 and 15. It is NOT the AgamaprakaraNa mantra numbering. If these are intended to be shown as the Upanishad mantras then they have to bear a numbering of a much higher value. That is the reason I think the editors in 1978 corrected the text by removing the 'माण्डूक्यशाखायामपि श्रूयते' and showed these verses as तदुक्तं गौडपादाचार्यैः to be in tune with the

I'm sorry, but that has to be the most fatuous reasoning I have yet seen on this issue. The numbering is always a later feature that Vedantic authors (e.g., Vidyāraṇya) themselves do not bother with (classical manuscripts do not have such numbers, but recent printed editions frequently do). In this case I added them myself to show where the verses were in the current Advaitic rendering. One does not mutilate text for such specious reasons. Anyway, the evidence is out there and people are welcome to conclude as they wish; यस्य नास्ति स्वयं प्रज्ञा, etc.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org> wrote:

El ene 12, 2013, a las 12:57 a.m., V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> escribió: anubhUtisvarUpAchArya says here:

>
> पूर्ववदिति ।  यथा पूर्वश्रुत्यर्थप्रकाशिकाः श्लोका आचार्येण प्रणीतास्तथोत्तरेऽपि श्लोका इत्यर्थः ।
>
> //Just as the earlier verses (of the kArikA) that elucidated the purport of the earlier shruti passages were composed by the AchArya (GaudapAda), so too the latter verses too (that elucidate the other remaining shruti passages) (are composed by GaudapAda).  That is the purport of Shankara's word ' पूर्ववत्'.//
>
> In the above commentary this 12th century Acharya has stated beyond doubt that the entire verse-portion of the Agama prakaraNam is the composition of GaudapAda.

I'm afraid I don't see this as unambiguous; one has to read श्लोका आचार्येण प्रणीताः as meaning verses composed by Gauḍapāda, which is certainly a plausible interpretation but hardly a compelling one inasmuch as प्रणीता need not only mean "composed" -- it could also refer to something existing but brought forward, etc.

There is hardly any need to say 'the Acharya is bringing forward' in this context (तात्पर्याधीनत्वात् शब्दवृत्तेः), even if by any stretch of imagination प्रणीतं could mean that. If the prose portions and the verse portions are equally shruti, there is no need for the commentator to say only for the verse portions that are already existing as shruti to be 'brought forward' since they are all available here only in one text form.  Nor did Gaudapada or Shankara 'bring forward' those shloka-s. It could be said about the 'bringing out / manifesting' the shruti at the time of creation since it remained in avyaktAvasthA.    If these shlokas are hidden or available in some other work or at a distance then there is scope to say 'brought forward or brought out'.  The verses themselves are श्रुत्यर्थप्रकाशिकाः  By saying this the author is already differentiating them from the shruti.   Anyway, the evidence is out there and people are welcome to conclude as they wish; यस्य नास्ति स्वयं प्रज्ञा, etc.  

If I had to make a case for Gauḍapāda's authorship I would put forward Sureśvara's नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धि statement एवं गौदैर्द्राविडैर्नः पूज्यैरयमर्थः प्रभाषितः, as better evidence than the above (earlier, more highly regarded author too).  

But I would consider the अनुभूतिस्वरूपाचार्यः(rather than Sureshwara) to be unambiguous as this occurs in this AgamaprakaraNam itself where the word 'shlokAH' is used in the text itself (as retained in the Madhwa reading too).  For that matter even Chitsukhacharya, an equally prAchIna Acharya  has said in his 'भाष्यभावप्रकाशिका’ with reference to the shAnkaran quote in the BSB the kArikA verse 'मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः..’ which I cited earlier,  ’ इति गौडपादवचनात्’.  

Moreover there is no determined standard for what can be 'unambiguous'.  For धात्वर्थानामनेकत्वात्,शब्दानामनेकार्थवत्त्वात् .  Is it not precisely because of this there have been so many schools that have the 'same' Veda, sutra and Gita as the fundamental source-texts? What is 'unambiguously' the purport of the Veda for one is not so but something else alone is for some other one.  And a word that is unambiguous for one can still be ambiguous to another.  There can never be an agreement between two persons on an issue.    

 

However, neither is clearly stating that the verses were composed by Gauḍapāda (while a number of sources are clearly calling them as श्रुति), and this approach essentially comes down to saying that stalwarts like Vidyāraṇya, Appayya, and even Śankara and Rāmānuja were imbeciles who did not understand tradition.  

I think such a view will take one nowhere.  Over a hundred years ago Sri Narasimha Bharati SwaminaH of Sringeri undertook a project of collecting a number of texts, manuscripts, etc. and examined them and commissioned the Vani Vilas press at Srirangam to print Shankara's works.  The Bhashyam/kArikA for the Mandukya too is a part of this.  Since this is not in tune with the other commentators' reading of the mandukya shruti, can one say that this Acharya did not receive or understand the correct Vedic/Shankaran tradition? In fact such a question will arise even with respect to the prasthAnatraya source texts since the Acharya-s of the major schools do have different readings of these texts themselves.  Whose tradition can be admitted to be the pure/true/real/authentic one as against the others'? 
  
Regards,

  subrahmanian.v

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Korada

Apologies for the late reply as I was traveling, see my comments inline.

On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:45:10 AM UTC+8, korada wrote:

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Here this is the position - the term ’पदम् ’ is what it means in लोक (and Veda) - not only here but everywhere in the Sastram - 

पदस्य , पदात् , पदविधिः , पूर्वपदात् संज्ञायाम् , न पदान्त ... , बहुव्रीहौ प्रकृत्या पूर्वपदम् etc.

This is not completely true. पद is a परम्परागतसंज्ञा in the case of first defintion (1-4-14 सुप्तिङन्तं पदम्) only and a शास्त्रीयसंज्ञा in case of other three aphorisms (1-4-15 नः क्ये, 1-4-16 सिति च, 1-4-17 स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने). पद as the शास्त्रीयसंज्ञा is limited to Panini's system and is like specific mathematical notation which has no meaning outside Paninian system. In all the above mentioned Sutras pertaining to पद, any वर्णसमुदाय which satisfies one of the four definitions is intended. In fact many many a time an अङ्ग gets the पद noun in Paninian system. This is clear from forms where जश्त्व takes place by झलां जशोऽन्ते (8-2-39), a rule which operates at end of the पद, before the पदसंहिता between the अङ्ग and the सुप् takes place. An example of such form is षण्णाम् whose derivation is as follows

षष् -> ष्णान्ता षट् (1-1-24) -> षट् संज्ञा -> स्वौजसमौट्छष्टाभ्याम्भिस्ङेभ्याम्भ्यस्ङसिभ्याम्भ्यस्ङसोसाम्ङ्योस्सुप्‌ (4-1-2) -> षष् आम् -> स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने (1-4-17) -> पद संज्ञा of षष् -> झलां जशोऽन्ते (8-2-39) -> जश्त्व -> स्थानेऽन्तरतमः (1-1-50) -> डत्व -> षड् आम् -> षट्चतुर्भ्यश्च (7-1-55) -> नुट् आगम -> आद्यन्तौ टकितौ (1-1-46) -> आद्यागम -> षड् नुट् आम् -> षड् न् आम् -> ष्टुना ष्टुः (8-4-41) -> न पदान्ताट्टोरनाम् (8-4-42) -> अनाम्नवतिनगरीणामिति वाच्यम् (वार्त्तिक) -> षड् ण् आम् -> यरोऽनुनासिकेऽनुनासिको वा (8-4-45) -> प्रत्यये भाषायां नित्यम् (वार्त्तिक) -> षण् ण् आम् -> षण्णाम्

In the above process, it is the षष् (प्रातिपदिक अङ्ग) which gets the पदसंज्ञा. If this did not happen, we would not see forms like षण्णाम् or षट्सु. If you disagree with the above derivation, please provide the alternate solution.
 

पद्यते गम्यते अर्थः अनेनेति पदम्  - अन्वर्थसंज्ञा and the same is taken by Panini .

In Panini's system, अर्थ is not limited to a पद, even धातु, प्रत्यय and प्रातिपदिक  have meaning as is evident from Acharya's Sutra अर्थवदधातुरप्रत्ययः प्रातिपदिकम् (1-2-45). But धातु and प्रत्यय are not पद. प्रातिपदिक can be called a पद or a भ only in very specific conditions - one example given above. Therefore it is not an अन्वर्थसंज्ञा in the strict sense.
 

If Padas like चैत्रः , पचति , are not taken as the base then the entire प्रक्रिया  will collapse .

If you mean अङ्ग  by "base", then the above should read "are taken as the base", and not "are not taken as the base". चैत्रः and पचति are mostly not taken as the base. There are exceptions like पचतितराम् or पचतितमाम् where पचति is the base before the घ affixes (तरप्तमपौ घः 1-1-22). 
 

Panini preferred सुप् and तिङ्  and any Padam ending in either is called by the name पदम्  in  Sastram - in लोक also the same is referred to as Padam .

Paninian पद is different from the लौकिक पद and the two are not the same due to the शास्त्रीय restriction of पदसंज्ञा by the later aphorisms.
 

If it is replaced  by another संज्ञा  then there will be chaos .

Strongly disagree. Just like the synthetic noun भ, defined in यचि भम् (1-4-18) and used in rules like भस्य (6-4-129), did not lead to any chaos, any synthetic noun in place of पद would be just fine. If Panini said सुप्तिङन्तं फम् instead of सुप्तिङन्तं पदम् (1-4-14) and replaced occurrences of पद by फ in the other Sutras, e.g. समर्थः पदविधिः (2-1-1) into समर्थः फविधिः, et cetera, the end result will not change. A संज्ञा in Panini's system is like a token in lexical analysis of a regular language or variable name in progamming code - the end result is the same no matter what the token or variable name is. 

 

खण्डनम्  - is the job taken up by Sriharsa and anything can be refuted by him - वैतण्डिकः ।

No doubt he is a वैतण्डिकः but from the text you quoted, it appears to me Sriharsa is clarifying Panini's nomenclature rather than refuting it. Here is my attempt at translating the same - your quotes in red, my translation in italics. I fail to see any refutation in the quotes (I do not have the original text or context though). Please explain why you see it as a refutation.

सुप्तिङन्तं पदमिति केचित् , वर्णा विभक्त्यन्ताः पदमित्यन्ये। .... अपशब्देऽपि पदलक्षणं गतमिति। ...
As per some (Panini included), that which ends in a सुप् or तिप् is a पद. As per some others, syllables ending in a विभक्ति are a पद. ... Thus, even an अपशब्द has the characteristics of a पद.

तस्मात् पाणिनिना आचार्येण शब्दसिद्ध्यर्थे पदसंज्ञेयं रुत्वादिविद्ध्यनुरोधेन अपशब्ददशायामन्यैव कृता नदीसंज्ञावत् , न तु लौकिकपदव्यवहारसिद्ध्यर्थम् ।

Therefore, in the situation of an अपशब्द, Acharya Panini has coined this पदसंज्ञा in accordance with the rules like रुत्व, similar to other संज्ञाs like the नदीसंज्ञा, and not for the accomplishing the usage of पद in the world.

अन्यथा दाक्षीनन्दनोदीरितनदीसंज्ञाप्रत्यभिज्ञायां पाथः प्रार्थयमानः काननस्थलीमलीकाभिमानी भवानीहेत।

Otherwise while perceiving the नदीसंज्ञा uttered by the son of Dākṣī (Pāṇini), water being worshiped, a river-goddess in a forest area may be intended.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:53:06 PM UTC+8, Nityanand Misra wrote:

An example of such form is षण्णाम् whose derivation is as follows

A better example to show पदसंज्ञा or भसंज्ञा (or none of these) of the same प्रातिपदिक अङ्ग depending on the particular सुप् affix is the प्रातिपदिक राजन्

When there is भसंज्ञा, the अकार before न् gets elided by अल्लोपोऽनः (6-4-134). Example is राज्ञा.
राजन् टाप् -> अनुबन्धलोप -> राजन् आ -> यचि भम् [स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने] (1-4-18) -> भसंज्ञा of राजन् -> अल्लोपोऽनः [अङ्गस्य भस्य] (6-4-134) -> अलोप -> राज् न् आ -> स्तोः श्चुना श्चुः (8-4-40) -> श्चुत्व -> स्थानेऽन्तरतमः (1-1-50) -> ञत्व -> राज् ञ् आ -> राज्ञा

When there is पदसंज्ञा, न् gets elided by नलोपः प्रातिपदिकान्तस्य (8-2-7). Example is राजभ्याम्.
राजन् भ्याम् -> स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने [पदम्] (1-4-17) -> पदसंज्ञा of राजन् -> नलोपः प्रातिपदिकान्तस्य [पदस्य] (8-2-7) -> नलोप -> राज भ्याम् -> राजभ्याम्

When there is neither भसंज्ञा nor पदसंज्ञा, then none of the अलोप or नलोप कार्यs take place. Example is राजानौ.
राजन् औ -> सुडनपुंसकस्य [सर्वनामस्थानम्] (1-1-43) -> सर्वनामस्थान संज्ञा of औ -> सर्वनामस्थाने चासम्बुद्धौ [नोपधायाः दीर्घः] (6-4-8) -> उपधादीर्घ -> राजान् औ -> राजानौ

For पुंल्लिङ्ग and स्त्रीलिङ्ग प्रातिपदिकs with 21 forms in three वचनs and seven विभक्तिs, during the सुबन्तप्रक्रिया, the अङ्ग gets

1. भसंज्ञा in generation of 8 (नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्) or 9 forms (no नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्).
2. पदसंज्ञा in generation of 7 (no नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्) or 8 forms (नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्).
3. Neither भसंज्ञा nor पदसंज्ञा in generation of 5 forms.

For नपुंसकलिङ्ग प्रातिपदिकs with 21 forms, the अङ्ग gets

1. भसंज्ञा in generation of 10 (नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्) or 11 forms (no नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्).
2. पदसंज्ञा in generation of 8 (no नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्) or 9 forms (नुट्/सुट् आगम of आम्).
3. Neither भसंज्ञा nor पदसंज्ञा in generation of 2 forms.

Based on the above, one can say that number of पदसंज्ञाs due to स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने (1-4-17) is at least one-third of the number of पदसंज्ञाs due to the सुबन्त part of सुप्तिङन्तं पदम् (1-4-14). The latter number being infinite (infinitely many प्रातिपदिक times 21), the former is also infinite. This leads to the conclusion that the instances of पदसंज्ञाs due to स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने are infinite and so the Sutra cannot be ignored while making any universal comment on Paninian पद.

Nityanand