Regarding the religious marks of purva mimamsakas

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is a question on the religious habits of purva mimamsakas of the very olden days, older than the period of Shankaracharya. The period of Kumarila Bhatta and his predecessors. What was their mark on the forehead? Was there any requirement in the shaastra (their shaastra, veda) about this requirement? Did they perform all their karma-s like sandhya, yajnas, etc. with nothing on the forehead and other parts of their body? Was there any requirement of arpana of the karma to any higher deity, like what we do in the present day: krishnarpanamastu/shivarpanamastu/narayanayeti samarpayami, etc. Is there any reference for these in the purvamimamsa texts? The question may be extended to naiyayikas, vaisheshikas, sankhyas, patanjalas too. [I avoided composing this in Sanskrit so that many people can participate in this discussion, if it gets initiated.]

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Kalyan K]

The mimamsakas did not believe in Ishwara, so I would be very surprised if they had any concept like krishnarpanamastu etc. Early samkhya is also atheistic, so same goes for that school.

As far as I know, neither do early images of Vishnu show any naamam, nor do early images of Shiva show any vibhuti, on the forehead. These practices are probably later developments, perhaps driven by sectarian considerations. Even in the case of Shankara, no one really knows whether he donned any religious marks.

[Ravi Kumar]

Hari Om

To my mind, Indian marks fall under two broad categories: religious, and classificational. 

Tripundra of the saivites, urdhva pundra of the vaishnavites, dot/dash of the saktas come under religious marks. These have their individual sampradaya variations.

The other category of marks is interesting. These serve not only to identify the religious affiliation of the adherent but also declare the station or situation of the wearer. For ex, the number of threads in the yajnopavita indicate ashrama (as also the way one ties a dhoti/pancha), the sindoor/bindi of women or the lack thereof indicate marital status (with the toe rings as well), the shikha of the dwija and the tilak of the kshatriya indicates caste, type of rosary identifies an upasaka, and so on.

There is a third sub-category that suggests itself to me: the yogi's marks. While broadly falling under religious marks, the yogis have their own tradition in this respect. For ex, the Nath sampradaya yogis are called kanphata (split-eared) from their initiation ritual, the aghoris, descendants of pasupata yogis, have their rudraksha-bearing, ash-besmeared bodies, and of course, the relatively modern tridandis and ekadandis etc are well-known. Some avadhutas in the old scriptures are shown as naked with nothing to identify them (the digambara tradition of the very old Jaina dharma has parallels here)

Along with Sri Subrahmanian, I am also interested in hearing from scholars here about the marks of mimamsakas, naiyayikas and sankhyas. These three are agnostic traditions, or at least not religious in the bhakti sense. I suppose for these traditions there must not be much scope for marks.

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

Our vedic teacher used to say that it was urdhvapundra (shuddha jala / mrittika) first.  The bhasma dhAraNa is after agni-kArya.  

Generally, the vedic scholars belonging to Godavari / Krishna belt, apply urdhvapundra either with gopichandana / tulasi mrittika / shuddha jala and commence sandhya.  After arghya, they apply bhasma and do resume again.  This is what I follow.  I apply urdhvapundra with gopichandana. 

There is no scriptural reference for tilaka-dhAraNa (kumkuma) in shruti / smriti and has has crept in from shAkta sampradAya.  

rgs,

sriram

[ajit.gargeshwari]

On Friday, 6 July 2018 12:23:44 UTC+5:30, V Subrahmanian wrote:

[shankara]

Subbuji,

You might find useful the book on 'Tilaka, Hindu marks on the forehead' by Priyabala Shah and a manuscript on Gopichandanopanishad. The book by Priyabala Shah is not available online. I hope someoen from BVP might be able to help you.

Indic Manuscripts Collection: Ms. Coll. 390, Item 1106 - Gopīcandanopaniṣad

Indic Manuscripts Collection: Ms. Coll. 390, Item 1106 - Gopīcandanopan...

regards
shankara

On Friday, 6 July, 2018, 12:23:47 PM IST, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is a question on the religious habits of purva mimamsakas of the very olden days, older than the period of Shankaracharya. The period of Kumarila Bhatta and his predecessors. What was their mark on the forehead? Was there any requirement in the shaastra (their shaastra, veda) about this requirement? Did they perform all their karma-s like sandhya, yajnas, etc. with nothing on the forehead and other parts of their body? Was there any requirement of arpana of the karma to any higher deity, like what we do in the present day: krishnarpanamastu/ shivarpanamastu/narayanayeti samarpayami, etc. Is there any reference for these in the purvamimamsa texts? The question may be extended to naiyayikas, vaisheshikas, sankhyas, patanjalas too. [I avoided composing this in Sanskrit so that many people can participate in this discussion, if it gets initiated.]

regards

subrahmanian.v

--
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.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:17 PM, 'shankara' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Subbuji,

You might find useful the book on 'Tilaka, Hindu marks on the forehead' by Priyabala Shah and a manuscript on Gopichandanopanishad. The book by Priyabala Shah is not available online. I hope someoen from BVP might be able to help you.

Indic Manuscripts Collection: Ms. Coll. 390, Item 1106 - Gopīcandanopaniṣad

Thanks Shankara ji, for the Gopichandanopanishat reference. https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/gopIchandanopaniShat.html?lang=sa

Here is a citation from the Vasudevopanishat, which talks of the method, etc. of gopichandana:

Upanishad-Brahma Yogin, an Advaitin commentator of all the 108 Upanishads says while commenting on the above Upanishad:

What is very interesting is that one of the Bṛhajjābālopaniṣad passages:

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/brihajjabala.html?lang=sa

 धिग्भस्मरहितं भालं धिग्ग्राममशिवालयम् ।

धिगनीशार्चनं जन्म धिग्विद्यामशिवाश्रयाम् ॥ १६॥

[Fie upon the forehead devoid of bhasma, fie on the village devoid of a Shiva temple, a life without worshiping Shiva is wasted and that knowledge not based on Shiva tattva is useless.]

 cited by the above commentator: ‘dhik bhasmarahitam p(b)hālam’ [‘fie upon the forehead that is devoid of bhasma’] is stated in Tamil by the ancient poetess Avvayyār. Her words are extremely popular among the Tamil-speaking population: nīṛillā neṭri pāzh  [நீறில்லா நெற்றிபாழ்]

http://www.tamilvu.org/slet/l6140/l6140son.jsp?subid=3320

வாழ்க்கை மாண்பு ஐந்து

 

24.  நீறில்லா நெற்றிபாழ் நெய்யில்லா உண்டிபாழ்     ஆறில்லா ஊருக் கழகுபாழ்-மாறில்     உடன்பிறப் பில்லா உடம்புபாழ் பாழே     மடக்கொடி யில்லா மனை. (பதவுரை) நீறு இல்லா நெற்றி பாழ் - விபூதியில்லாத நெற்றி பாழாகும்; நெய் இல்லா உண்டி பாழ் - நெய்யில்லாத உணவு பாழாகும்; ஆறு இல்லா ஊருக்கு அழகு பாழ் - நதியில்லாத ஊருக்கு அழகு பாழாகும், மாறு இல் உடன்பிறப்பு இல்லா உடம்பு பாழ் - மாறுபடாத சகோதரர் இல்லாத உடம்பு பாழாகும்; மடக்கொடி இல்லா மனை பாழே - (இல்லறத்திற்குத்தக்க) மனைவியில்லாத வீடு பாழேயாகும். திருநீற்றினாலே நெற்றியும், நெய்யினாலே உணவும், நதியினாலே ஊரும், துணைவராலே உடம்பும், மனைவியினாலே வீடும் சிறப்படையும் எ - ம். (24)

  

My original question was aimed at knowing whether the Purvamimamsakas of the earliest period, who are admitted to follow a particular philosophy, did don anything on their forehead and other parts of the body. 

warm regards

subbu

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I encountered an interesting fact of religious marks at the Sringeri Matha at Kalady. There was a man sitting in the administrative office there with chandana made sandal colour religious marks which look close/similar to the Maadhva/ Vaishnava religious marks  all over the visible upper portion of his body. But some significant Maadhva marks were missing. I asked him and the people around about his Vedanta s'aakhaa affiliation. I was told by the people around that he was a local Keralite person subscribing to S'ankara philosophy only. The religious marks, they explained, were pre-S'ankara tradition. Many Keralaite Brahmin families, they said, continue the same religious marks irrespective of their Vedanta s'aakhaa affiliation. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Venkata Sriram]

Exactly Nagaraj garu...this is what our vedic teacher conveyed. It is urdhvapundra and resembles U mark. and has nothing to do with one's philosophical affiliations

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote: 

   

The mimamsakas did not believe in Ishwara, so I would be very surprised if they had any concept like krishnarpanamastu etc. Early samkhya is also atheistic, so same goes for that school.

As far as I know, neither do early images of Vishnu show any naamam, nor do early images of Shiva show any vibhuti, on the forehead.

Are there any authentic photographs of 'early' images of Vishnu, Shiva, etc.?  Similar images of humans, depicting Brahmanas, too will be interesting to examine for their marks.  

 

These practices are probably later developments, perhaps driven by sectarian considerations. Even in the case of Shankara, no one really knows whether he donned any religious marks. 

By the time of Shankara we had all the major Puranas like Shiva Purana and Vishnu purana which he has cited in the VSN Bhashya. In the Brahma sutra and Upanishad bhashyas Shankara talks about temple, worship, archana with flowers, etc. So the popular worship as a practice was there well established. In the works of Shaiva Nayanmars who flourished just before and during the time of Shankara we read accounts of Brahmins being agnihotris, vedic scholars, worshipers of Shiva, with bhasma dharana, etc. Sureshwara says Shankara is from Atri gotra.  We can reasonably assume caste marks were in use in Shankara's family.  Also there are Upanishads that talk of what kind of bhasma is to be used by which Ashrama.  

There are injunctions in the smriti texts like 'religious karma performed without the marks on the forehead do not give fruit, etc.'  My question was on this aspect too:  whether  purva mimamsakas  adhered to such injunctions and if yes, what kind of marks did they don.

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Kalyan K]

//I was told by the people around that he was a local Keralite person subscribing to S'ankara philosophy only. The religious marks, they explained, were pre-S'ankara tradition. Many Keralaite Brahmin families, they said, continue the same religious marks irrespective of their Vedanta s'aakhaa affiliation. //


This is interesting Paturiji. Since Shankara was a Keralite brahmin and these religious marks are supposedly pre-Shankara, can we then allow the possibility that Shankara might have actually donned these symbols (some form of Urdhvapundra according to Sriramji)?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, Sri Kalyan-ji, 

There is a great possibility. 

But the present iconised figure of Sankara with three horizontal white Vibhuti marks on the forehead and other parts of the body is also due to our great pride of India Raja Ravi Varma Chitra ttirunal Maharaj , a Keralite only. 

Probably he was having the Sankaracharyas of mathas in mind.

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

 //I was told by the people around that he was a local Keralite person subscribing to S'ankara philosophy only. The religious marks, they explained, were pre-S'ankara tradition. Many Keralaite Brahmin families, they said, continue the same religious marks irrespective of their Vedanta s'aakhaa affiliation. //


This is interesting Paturiji. Since Shankara was a Keralite brahmin and these religious marks are supposedly pre-Shankara, can we then allow the possibility that Shankara might have actually donned these symbols (some form of Urdhvapundra according to Sriramji)?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

//Are there any authentic photographs of 'early' images of Vishnu, Shiva, etc.? Similar images of humans, depicting Brahmanas, too will be interesting to examine for their marks.//

I am talking of sculptures. You can google them. Here are pictures of nara and nArAyaNa for instance, without any naamam-

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=nara+narayana&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia8uicvYzcAhXWfX0KHeArB2YQ_AUIEigC&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=4#imgrc=NDzMLSi59LwlFM:


Regarding Shankara, in the book "Life and thought of Shankaracharya" written by Govind Chandra Pande, on page 92, the author translates a verse of Padmapada (an immediate disciple of Shankara) on Shankara. According to the verse, Shankara did not don the bhasma. See point no. 7 in the following link -


https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAiyujUqTwYC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=life+and+thought+of+śaṅkarācārya+bhutim&source=bl&ots=v4Oypdbs8U&sig=Ccccj4nJKN4nlq_1bg-QcDPux8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWltvJvozcAhVOWH0KHaWjBuUQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=life%20and%20thought%20of%20śaṅkarācārya%20bhutim&f=false

[V Subrahmanian]

There are many, perhaps all, Nambudiris who are bhasma dharins. See contemporary Nambutiris: 

https://www.gettyimages.in/photos/namboothiri?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=namboothiri

regards

subrahmanian.v

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, Sri Kalyan-ji, 

There is a great possibility. 

But the present iconised figure of Sankara with three horizontal white Vibhuti marks on the forehead and other parts of the body is also due to our great pride of India Raja Ravi Varma Chitra ttirunal Maharaj , a Keralite only. 

Probably he was having the Sankaracharyas of mathas in mind.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Are there any authentic photographs of 'early' images of Vishnu, Shiva, etc.?  Similar images of humans, depicting Brahmanas, too will be interesting to examine for their marks.//

Regarding Shankara, in the book "Life and thought of Shankaracharya" written by Govind Chandra Pande, on page 92, the author translates a verse of Padmapada (an immediate disciple of Shankara) on Shankara. According to the verse, Shankara did not don the bhasma. See point no. 7 in the following link -


https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAiyujUqTwYC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=life+and+thought+of+śaṅkarācārya+bhutim&source=bl&ots=v4Oypdbs8U&sig=Ccccj4nJKN4nlq_1bg-QcDPux8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWltvJvozcAhVOWH0KHaWjBuUQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=life%20and%20thought%20of%20śaṅkarācārya%20bhutim&f=false

In the above translation the author says that Padmapada uses double entendre and ended up using both the 'entendres' to Shankaracharya.  

There are two Sanskrit commentaries to the Panchapadika and here are the portions for that verse of Padmapada, particularly the word  'nirastabhutim':

1. RujuvivaraNam

 For “nirastabhUtim”, the explanation given is “bhasmarahitaM nirastaishvaryaṃ  vA” (bhasmarahitam means without ashes, nirastaishvaryam means without wealth). Thus the RujuvivaraNam is
saying that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma  OR he is without wealth.  This commentator is not categorically stating 'Shankara was without bhasma' because he is considering another alternative meaning: 'nirastaishvaryam vA' = OR he is without the wealth / vibhuti of Lord Shiva'.  The BG 10 chapter is called 'vibhuti yoga' which is a description, a sample, of the glories of Brahman. 

2. tattvadIpanam

This one says - "prasiddha Shankara vilakshaNam paramahamsa parAyaNam ShankarAchAryam namAmi....". The commentary then goes on ....
“vailakshaṇyamAha...."

Thus the commentator is clearly differentiating the prasiddha Shankara (Shiva) from (Adi) Shankaracharya.

For bhUtih, the commentator says -

 bhUtiḥ -- bhasitam (ashes), tadanuliptagAtraḥ saḥ (sah here refers to prasiddha Shankara or Shiva) । ayaṃ (this refers to Adi Shankara) tvaiSvaryalakshaNabhUtividhuraH” ( अयं (शंकराचार्यः)  तु ऐश्वर्यलक्षणभूतिविदुरः)

First he gives the meaning for the word 'bhūti' of the verse to apply to Shiva: bhūtiḥ=bhasitam. Then he says: tadanuliptāgāraḥ = Shiva is the one whose body is smeared with bhasma. Then the vailakshanya is brought out: Shankara, on the other hand, is devoid of the bhūti that is aishvarya.  Nowhere does this mean that the commentator is holding that 'Shankaracharya is without bhasma.'    

Even taking the 'Shankara did not smear ashes' of G.C.Pande and the Rujuvivaranam's first alternative of 'bhasmarahitam', the meaning does not amount to 'absolutely no bhasma'. For there is an admitted method of Vyakarana as brought out here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/be9dl2fzYEY    By Vidwan Sri Subrahmanyam Korada:

सतः अविवक्षा -- अनुदरा कन्या (  it means a girl with slender waist)     'anudaraa kanyaa' means literally: 'a damsel with no waist'.  But this is impossible.  What is intended by that expression is: a girl with a slender waist (as opposed to an obese one).  Similarly, when it is said 'did not smear ashes', the context being the comparison of Shankara with Lord Shiva, it is only meant that 'not the way Lord Shiva is: with his whole body smeared with ashes'  and not 'no ashes at all.'   

There are many examples for such usage.  One is the famous Sri Venkateswara Suprabhatam line: श्रीवैकुण्ठविरक्ताय स्वामिपुष्करिणीतटे | रमया रममाणाय वेंकटेशाय मंगलम्' [It literally means: Glory to Venkatesha who having despised and renounced vaikuntha has taken up abode in the swami pushakarini pond and in union with Lakshmi.  But this will not be the absolute state of affairs for the author does not really mean that Narayana has despised and vacated Vaikuntha.  Such a situation is unimaginable for the school to which the author belongs.  Hence it is only a glorification of the Tirupati kshetram and the Lord presiding there.]    

Thus, the verse of Padmapada does not constitute the authority to decide on what Shankara wore as marks, or what he did not.     

regards

[Kalyan K]

//In the above translation the author says that Padmapada uses double entendre and ended up using both the 'entendres' to Shankaracharya.//


The verse of Padmapada is a double entendre on (Adi) Shankara. Each phrase has two meanings or interpretations.

1. One meaning contrasts (Adi) Shankara from (the well-known God) Shiva (who is also called as Shankara).

2. The other meaning applies to (Adi) Shankara by himself.

Both meanings are applied to (Adi) Shankara.

So let us examine the verse.

A) namAmi -

I bow to

B) abhogi parivAra sampadam -

Meaning 1. (Contrast with Lord Shiva) one who does not have rich entourage of snakes (Shiva is accompanied by snakes and Adi Shankara is not)

Meaning 2. (Directly applicable to Adi Shankara) one who is surrounded by people who have no desire for enjoyments

C) nirasta bhUtim -

Meaning 1. (Contrast with Lord Shiva)

One who does not smear ashes on his body (Shiva dons ashes on his body. Adi Shankara does not don ashes on his body).

Meaning 2. (Directly applicable to Adi Shankara)

One who is devoid of wealth (bhUti) or one who conquered existence (bhUti)

D) anumArdha vigraham -

Meaning 1. (Contrast with Lord Shiva)

One who does not have Uma (Parvati) as other half

Meaning 2. (Directly applicable to Adi Shankara)

One who has logical inference

E) Anugram -

Meaning 1. (Contrast with Lord Shiva)

one who is not Ugra (another name of Lord Shiva)

Meaning 2. (Directly applicable to Adi Shankara)

One who is not fierce

F) unmRdita kAla lAnchanam -

Meaning 1. (Contrast with Lord Shiva)

One who does not have the black mark on the throat

Meaning 2. (Directly applicable to Adi Shankara)

One who has conquered time

G) vinA vinAyakam -

Meaning 1. (Contrast with Lord Shiva)

One who is without Ganesa/Vinayaka

Meaning 2. (Directly applicable to Adi Shankara)

One who defeated the Buddhists

H) apUrva Sankaram -

(I bow to the) New Shankara (who has been contrasted with the well-known Shankara, or Lord Shiva).


// For “nirastabhUtim”, the explanation given is “bhasmarahitaM nirastaishvaryaṃ vA” (bhasmarahitam means without ashes, nirastaishvaryam means without wealth). Thus the RujuvivaraNam is
saying that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma OR he is without wealth. This commentator is not categorically stating 'Shankara was without bhasma' because he is considering another alternative meaning: 'nirastaishvaryam vA' = OR he is without the wealth / vibhuti of Lord Shiva'.//

The author of Rujuvivaranam is giving two meanings because it is double entendre. Both meanings- without ashes or without wealth are equally applicable to (Adi) Shankara.


//This one says - "prasiddha Shankara vilakshaNam paramahamsa parAyaNam ShankarAchAryam namAmi....". The commentary then goes on ....

“vailakshaṇyamAha...."

Thus the commentator is clearly differentiating the prasiddha Shankara (Shiva) from (Adi) Shankaracharya.

For bhUtih, the commentator says -

bhUtiḥ -- bhasitam (ashes), tadanuliptagAtraḥ saḥ (sah here refers to prasiddha Shankara or Shiva) । ayaṃ (this refers to Adi Shankara) tvaiSvaryalakshaNabhUtividhuraH” ( अयं (शंकराचार्यः) तु ऐश्वर्यलक्षणभूतिविदुरः)

First he gives the meaning for the word 'bhūti' of the verse to apply to Shiva: bhūtiḥ=bhasitam. Then he says: tadanuliptāgāraḥ = Shiva is the one whose body is smeared with bhasma. Then the vailakshanya is brought out: Shankara, on the other hand, is devoid of the bhūti that is aishvarya. Nowhere does this mean that the commentator is holding that 'Shankaracharya is without bhasma.' //


Please note here the author has explicitly stated in the beginning that (Adi) Shankara is being differentiated from prasiddha Shankara (Lord Shiva). Hence, it is already implied that Adi Shankara does not don ashes in addition to not being wealthy. As explained above, each phrase has 2 meanings.

//Similarly, when it is said 'did not smear ashes', the context being the comparison of Shankara with Lord Shiva, it is only meant that 'not the way Lord Shiva is: with his whole body smeared with ashes' and not 'no ashes at all.'//

With all due respect, this is pure speculation. When we have direct statement that Adi Shankara did not don ashes, there is no reason to speculate.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

// For “nirastabhUtim”, the explanation given is “bhasmarahitaM nirastaishvaryaṃ  vA” (bhasmarahitam means without ashes, nirastaishvaryam means without wealth). Thus the RujuvivaraNam is
saying that (Adi) Shankara did not don the bhasma  OR he is without wealth.  This commentator is not categorically stating 'Shankara was without bhasma' because he is considering another alternative meaning: 'nirastaishvaryam vA' = OR he is without the wealth / vibhuti of Lord Shiva'.//

The author of Rujuvivaranam is giving two meanings because it is double entendre. Both meanings- without ashes or without wealth are equally applicable to (Adi) Shankara.


//This one says - "prasiddha Shankara vilakshaNam paramahamsa parAyaNam ShankarAchAryam namAmi....". The commentary then goes on ....
“vailakshaṇyamAha...."

Thus the commentator is clearly differentiating the prasiddha Shankara (Shiva) from (Adi) Shankaracharya.

For bhUtih, the commentator says -

 bhUtiḥ -- bhasitam (ashes), tadanuliptagAtraḥ saḥ (sah here refers to prasiddha Shankara or Shiva) । ayaṃ (this refers to Adi Shankara) tvaiSvaryalakshaNabhUtividhuraH” ( अयं (शंकराचार्यः)  तु ऐश्वर्यलक्षणभूतिविदुरः)

First he gives the meaning for the word 'bhūti' of the verse to apply to Shiva: bhūtiḥ=bhasitam. Then he says: tadanuliptāgāraḥ = Shiva is the one whose body is smeared with bhasma. Then the vailakshanya is brought out: Shankara, on the other hand, is devoid of the bhūti that is aishvarya.  Nowhere does this mean that the commentator is holding that 'Shankaracharya is without bhasma.' //


Please note here the author has explicitly stated in the beginning that (Adi) Shankara is being differentiated from prasiddha Shankara (Lord Shiva). Hence, it is already implied that Adi Shankara does not don ashes in addition to not being wealthy. As explained above, each phrase has 2 meanings.

True. He is differentiating Shankara Acharya from the prasiddha Shankara, Shiva. This does not imply that the Acharya does not don ashes. The commentary Tattvadipanam only says: This Shankara, Acharya, on the other hand (this is the contrast), is devoid of the wealth-vibhuti. The tattvadeepanam does not either say or imply that Shankara did not don ashes. The Rujuvivaranam gives one meaning as 'without ashes' and another, devoid of wealth. 

//Similarly, when it is said 'did not smear ashes', the context being the comparison of Shankara with Lord Shiva, it is only meant that 'not the way Lord Shiva is: with his whole body smeared with ashes'  and not 'no ashes at all.'//

With all due respect, this is pure speculation. When we have direct statement that Adi Shankara did not don ashes, there is no reason to speculate.   

There is reason to speculate since the commentator is not on equal status with Padmapada, who alone has seen Shankara. The commentator can only speculate on this matter. That is why the further, natural meaning, 'not the way Lord Shiva is smeared with ashes' is offered to save the commentary. On philosophical issues one can say that the commentator brings out the heart of the original author but not on the physical appearance of Shankara Acharya.    

[Kalyan K]

//He is differentiating Shankara Acharya from the prasiddha Shankara, Shiva. This does not imply that the Acharya does not don ashes. The commentary Tattvadipanam only says: This Shankara, Acharya, on the other hand (this is the contrast), is devoid of the wealth-vibhuti. The tattvadeepanam does not either say or imply that Shankara did not don ashes.//


It is well known that Lord Shiva dons ashes. The author is saying that the purpose of this verse is to differentiate (Adi) Shankara from Lord Shiva, who is the prasiddha Shankara. If both of them donned ashes, there is no differentiation in this aspect. Therefore, it is implied that in contrast to Lord Shiva, (Adi) Shankara did not don ashes. This is my understanding. If you disagree, that is fine.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 Vidwan V Subrahmanian ----

1. habits of purva mimamsakas of the very olden days, older than the period of Shankaracharya. The period of Kumarila Bhatta and his predecessors. What was their mark on the forehead? Was there any requirement in the shaastra (their shaastra, veda) about this requirement?

-------

अनुलेप after स्नान  has been there in the tradition  since time immemorial - this is applicable to all. 

Patanjali records this custom (धार्मिक , not religious ) in महाभाष्यम् - प्रत्याहाराह्निकम् - ऋलृक् --

( the context is that - ' लृतक ’  is an अपशब्द , but when used in अनुकरणम् ,it is a साधुशब्द and व्याकरणम् has to deal with it)

>यस्तु खल्वेवमसौ ब्राह्मणं हन्ति - एवमसौ सुरां पिबति - इति तस्य अनुकुर्वन् स्नातानुलिप्तः माल्यगुणकण्ठः कदलीस्तंभं छिन्द्यात् - पयो वा पिबेत् , 

न स मन्ये पतितः स्यात्<

स्नातश्च असौ अनुलिप्तश्च - स्नातानुलिप्तः

कैयटः --

स्नातानुलिप्त इति - स्वस्थचित्तत्वं दर्शयति । अस्वस्थेन हि चित्तेन अकार्यं क्रियते (Nagesa explains आस्तिकत्वे सत्यपि अस्वस्थेन चित्तेन अकार्यं क्रियते)

So why to apply तीर्थमृत्तिका / गोमयभस्म on the forehead ? Simply to suggest that one is स्वस्थचित्त ।

(अग्निकार्यभस्म is applied as तिलकम् at the end of अग्निकार्यम् , also in the middle - तेजस्वी भूयासम्.....)

Simiarly तिलकम् is also there since time immemorial -- कस्तूरीतिलकं ललाटफलके ...।

2.  Did they perform all their karma-s like sandhya, yajnas, etc. with nothing on the forehead and other parts of their body? 

------

विभूति on the forehead etc is not prescribed for सन्ध्या etc. -- सन्ध्यां मनसा ध्यायेत् (श्रुतिः) , अहरहः सन्ध्यामुपासीत (स्मृतिः) ।

It is the time that is important .

One would perform अघमर्षणस्नानम् etc and applies लेपनम् ।

The लेपनम् is applied on other parts of the body also ( I tell people that the विभूति tells you as to what is going to remain 

once the body turns into a 'remain' .

Since one has to take bath thrice a day (पक्षे क्षौरं त्रिभिः स्नानं पञ्चभिर्दन्तधावनम्) , one would apply चन्दनम् (refer to आयुर्वेद) on the forehead and other parts after मध्याह्नस्नानम् ।

3. Was there any requirement of arpana of the karma to any higher deity, like what we do in the present day: krishnarpanamastu/shivarpanamastu/narayanayeti samarpayami, etc. Is there any reference for these in the purvamimamsa texts? The question may be extended to naiyayikas, vaisheshikas, sankhyas, patanjalas too. 

------

There is a chapter called आत्मवाद in श्लोकवार्तिकम्, wherein Kumarila takes up the discussion between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya quoted by Sabarasvamy - विज्ञानघन एव एतेभ्यः भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुप्रविशति ; अविनाशी वा अरे अयमात्मा .... and explains the cryptic meaning .

At the end Kumarila suggests  ’ वेदान्तनिषेवणम् ’ for details --

इत्याह नास्तिक्यनिराकरिष्णुः आत्मास्तितां  भाष्यकृदत्र युक्त्या ।

दृढत्वमेतद्विषयश्च बोधः प्रयाति वेदान्तनिषेवणेन ॥

Parthasarathimisra of न्यायरत्नाकर explains --

नित्यात्मसत्तामात्रेणैव वेदप्रामाण्यसिद्धेः तन्मात्रमिह प्रतिपादितम् । दार्ढ्यार्थिभिस्तु वेदान्तविहितेष्वेव श्रवणमनननिधिध्यासनादिषु यतितव्यमिति।

(निधिध्यासनम् in वेदान्त is ध्यानम् in योगानुशासनम्)

So पूर्वमीमांसकs , नैयायिकs etc  also follow the same पन्थाः - सर्वमपि कर्म ईश्वरार्पणबुद्ध्या करणीयम् - so there will be no कर्मफलम्

left and मोक्ष  will be handy .

Especially , one(मोक्षार्थी )  should say ’सर्वं परमेश्वरार्पणम् अस्तु ’ at the end of all काम्यकर्मs .

Also keep in mind that the topic ' विग्रहादिपञ्चकम् ’ is brought up by neither जैमिनि nor उपवर्ष but by Sabarasvamy and latter

पूर्वमीमांसकs refuted it .

Also there is the guideline in गीता ---

सर्वधर्मान् परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज । अहं त्वा मोक्षयिष्यामि

शांकरभाष्यम् --

धर्मान् अधर्मांश्च , नैष्कर्म्यस्य विवक्षितत्वात् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

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

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//He is differentiating Shankara Acharya from the prasiddha Shankara, Shiva. This does not imply that the Acharya does not don ashes. The commentary Tattvadipanam only says: This Shankara, Acharya, on the other hand (this is the contrast), is devoid of the wealth-vibhuti. The tattvadeepanam does not either say or imply that Shankara did not don ashes.//


It is well known that Lord Shiva dons ashes. The author is saying that the purpose of this verse is to differentiate (Adi) Shankara from Lord Shiva, who is the prasiddha Shankara. If both of them donned ashes, there is no differentiation in this aspect. Therefore, it is implied that in contrast to Lord Shiva, (Adi) Shankara did not don ashes. This is my understanding. If you disagree, that is fine.

[Dr.C.S.R. Prabhu]

Very well said Korada garu!

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

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

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

[V Subrahmanian]

Many Thanks Sri Korada ji, for the valuable inputs. Anulepanam I think is admitted by Purva Mimamsakas too as the bhasma of the agnihotra is considered sacred.  Even non-Advaitins like Vaishnavas who practice agnihotra, agnikarya (samidhaadhaanam), etc. take a pinch of the bhasma and do anulepanam.  They may not call it bhasmadhaaranam.  

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

 A person from  North India provided some images from a book by his father. These images are copied here:

[The last verse is from Parasharopapuranam]

regards

subrahmanian.v