Apourusheya.....................

[Sampath Kumar]

Shell we call "Surya Siddhanta" as apourusheya?

www.jaimini.org Good Luck SK { सॊऽहं हंसः परमहंसः సోsహం హంసః పరమహంసః}     ​

 

​             

​

 Sent with Mailtrack

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Obviously, no. 

But what is the context?

Was there any mention that way anywhere? 

--
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.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Sampath Kumar]

No...som on said -as one commentator wrote as Surya siddhanta as apourusheya...

but i don't know... who wrote

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Except Veda, no other verbal text is apaurusheya. 

[Hari Parshad Das]

In the preface to the Marathi book named "bharatiya jyotish shastra" by Shankar Balkrishna Dixit, there was an opinion of someone named C.P. Vaidya in the preface. I am attaching that opinion to this message of mine.

He says that Surya Siddhanta is not apaurusheya.

This was written on 20 October 1931 in Mumbai.

I have highlighted the relevant section in red. If you have difficulties understanding the Marathi, please let me know and i will translate.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

[Rajendra Gupta]

Namaste.

I am a retired scientist and science teacher with interest in Sanskrit and Indology. I am grateful to the moderators of this group for being very kind to admit even an outsider like me. I have only a preliminary introduction to Sanskrit. Therefore, I beg forgiveness of all the vidvAn on this platform before commenting on this crucial concept of Hindu philosophy. 

 

In this age of science, no book, howsoever sacred,  shoulds be considered as 'apouruSeya'  if 'apouruSheya'  means 1. not coming from man, 2. authorless, 3. of divine origin, 4. divine revelation. However, if we considered the meaning of 'apouruSeya' as 1. superhuman work, 2. work of extraordinary person(s), 3. not by one person; then the Veda, Surya Siddhanta and some other classics are indeed 'apouruSeya', e.g. it is undisputed that the Veda were created by many RSi or extraordinary persons and have come to us through the Sruti and Vachan parampara. 

Best regards

Rajendra Gupta 

_________

डा॰ राजेंद्र गुप्ता, 16 /32 प्रथम तल, राजेंद्र नगर, नई दिल्ली - 110060; फ़ोन: (मोबाईल) + 91 9212204551
Dr. Rajendra Gupta, 16/32 First Floor, Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi-110060; Phone: Mobile: + 91 9212204551

Blog: DNA of Words शब्दों का डीएनए  http://dnaofwords.blogspot.com/

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Rajendra Guptaji,

1. The concept of apourushEyatva of the Vedas is not incompatible with or contradicting to the idea of rishis of the category of brahmarshi 'Saw' / 'Heard' the Vedas.

2.  The word s'riti here refers to the idea of being 'heard' by the brahmarshi of the Veda mantra, not that it is passed on from generation to generation through hearing.  

3. These words should not be taken in a literal sense or in the meaning that occurs to an uniformed or untrained hearer of them. 

4. For example, there are words like 'impersonal' in various modern fields. They can be understood in the intended sense only by the persons trained in the concerned fields.

5. Among them, the one that comes closest to the concept of apourushEyatva of the Vedas is the theory of impersonality in English literary criticism. It has several different versions. Articulating one among them, it has been said that the poet is considered not to be the creator of the poem, but to be the midwife performing the delivery of the poem. 

6. You might want to read Prof. Aklujkar's article on Bhartrihari's explanation for the Veda's apourusheyatva. 

 

[Rajendra Gupta]

Many thanks Prof Paturi. I will certainly read the article suggested by you. 

Best regards

Rajendra Gupta 

_________

डा॰ राजेंद्र गुप्ता, 16 /32 प्रथम तल, राजेंद्र नगर, नई दिल्ली - 110060; फ़ोन: (मोबाईल) + 91 9212204551
Dr. Rajendra Gupta, 16/32 First Floor, Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi-110060; Phone: Mobile: + 91 9212204551

Blog: DNA of Words शब्दों का डीएनए  http://dnaofwords.blogspot.com/

[Nagaraj Paturi]

sorry for the pramaada

s'ruti not s'riti

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Aklujkar wrote in one of the old threads;

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

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

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The old thread is here you may have to carefully pick the points required by you wading through the thread.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Exact words of Northrop Frye whose theory of impersonality of a poem, I had in mind are:

"As with other products of divine activity, the father of a poem is much more difficult to identify than the mother. That the mother is always nature, the realm of the objective considered as a field of communication, no serious criticism can ever deny. But as long as the father of a poem is assumed to be the poet himself, we have once again failed to distinguish literature from discursive verbal structures. The discursive writer writes as an act of conscious will, and that conscious will, along with the symbolic system he employs for it, is set over against the body of things he is describing. But the poet, who writes creatively rather than deliberately, is not the father of his poem; he is at best a midwife, or, more accurately still, the womb of Mother Nature herself: her privates he, so to speak. The fact that revision is possible, that a poet can make changes in a poem not because he likes them better but because they are better, shows clearly that the poet has to give birth to the poem as it passes through his mind. He is responsible for delivering it in as uninjured a state as possible, and if the poem is alive, it is equally anxious to be rid of him, and screams to be cut loose from all the navel-strings and feeding-tubes of his ego."

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Rajendra Gupta <rajen...@gmail.com> wrote:

In this age of science, no book, howsoever sacred,  shoulds be considered as 'apouruSeya'  if 'apouruSheya'  means 1. not coming from man, 2. authorless, 3. of divine origin, 4. divine revelation.

​This is a technical word used by mImAMsaka-s(both pUrva and uttara), and it means that 'veda-s are not pronounced independent of pronunciation of similar ​word-construction'. Nothing more than that.

BTW, 

1. On what basis could we say that 'veda-s are 'coming' from man'? What is the meaning of 'coming' here? If I destroy all logic used to prove the 'coming from men, it will be enough to say that they are not coming from men. That's what mImAMsaka-s do.

2. Any difference between first and second options?

3. Divine origin is accepted by 'tArkika-s and vedantin-s'. How the divine is proved, is another topic.

4. Divine revelation to some RiShis. Possible, but needs to prove divine source of knowledge and existence of proof to know relation of means and results(in this case - revelation of veda-s). Again, supported by tArkika-s and vedantin-s.

However, if we considered the meaning of 'apouruSeya' as 1. superhuman work, 2. work of extraordinary person(s), 3. not by one person; then the Veda, Surya Siddhanta and some other classics are indeed 'apouruSeya', e.g. it is undisputed that the Veda were created by many RSi or extraordinary persons and have come to us through the Sruti and Vachan parampara. 

​If you try to prove that RShi-s created it, then the question will be_

1. Do you think that veda-s are songs of people who were superstitious and feared everything and hence propitiated?

2. If not, what is the purpose of veda-s? Nothing? Or something apart from propitiating 'imagined GODs'?

If by any chance you think that they are useless songs, etc. then the whole talk of apauruSheyatva becomes useless at this stage. First vaidika-s have to spend some time to prove that they are not useless words.

Anyway, If you click 'advaita-l apaurusheyatva' the link and read some threads on Advaita-l, you may have some clear idea about objections and supports of apauruSheyatva.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Rihis were not Mantra Karatas but Mantra Drashatas. What is the difference between creation and spontaneous out pour of poetry. Is revelation same as composition. What is meant by divine. What is meant by non divine. What is the difference between revelation and composition. Is revelation equivalent to belief. What’s verbal testimony. Is it an experience which cannot be communicated but hints about how to experience such experience. Does experience mean one persons subjective belief. Can experience be objectified. Does experience means revelation. If answers to these questions which given by various great scholars of the past and present keeping the Indian thought development in mind be given by scholars then a possible answer can be arrived. Each word is technical in its own way. Answers may lead to further questions which leads to further answers till all questions are resolved is it possible?

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The article by Prof. Ashok Aklujkar was shared by him in this thread.

Sharing the same again here.

--

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]

The verses of Vakyapadiyam that are taken up for discussion in this article are:

अनादिम् अव्यवच्छिन्नां श्रुतिम् आहुर् अकर्तृकाम् /

शिष्टैर् निबध्यमाना तु न व्यवच्छिद्यतॆ स्मृतिः // वाक्य_१।१७२ //

अविभागाद् विवृत्तानाम् अभिख्या स्वप्नवच् छ्रुतौ /

भावतत्त्वं तु विज्ञाय लिङ्गॆभ्यॊ विहिता स्मृतिः // वाक्य_१।१७३ //

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

The mImAmsakas do indeed make it a point to stress the drashTrtva as opposed to kartrtva of the Rshis, but there are other dArSanika ideas of apaurusheyatva that are different. 

Besides, there is a well known and often recited SAnti mantra where the Rshis are described three times as mantrakRt, so we should be aware of that.

namo vAce yA codita yA cAnudita ... ... nama Rshibhyo mantra-kRdbhyo mantra-patibhyo mA mAm Rshayo mantra-krto mantra-patayaH parAdur mAham RshIn mantra-kRto mantra-patIn parAdAm ...

Regards,

Vidyasankar

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thanks, Vidyasankar, for pointing out that there are alternative views in the tradition that calls the Ṛṣis mantrakṛt.  This is not only found in the post Vedic works like Kālidāsa's Raghuvaṃśa (cf. apy agraṇīr mantrakṛtām ṛṣīṇām kuśāgrabuddhe kuśalī gurus te), but one sees this view in the earliest portions of the Ṛgveda.  The Ṛṣis are referred to as Kāru "maker, creator", and the process of creating a mantra described using the verb kṛ - (saktum iva titaunā punanto yatra dhīrā manasā vācam akrata I atrā sakhāyaḥ sakhyāni jānate bhadraiṣām lakṣmīr nihitādhi vāci II (RV 10.71.2)).  While ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts (cf. Puruṣasūkta: tasmād yajñāt sarvahuta ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñire / chandāṃsi jajñire tasmād yajus tasmād ajāyata),the particular view of the Vedas as Apauruṣeya is one of the alternative views that develops in Mīmāṃsā, while the Īśvarakartṛkatva is defended by traditions like Nyāya.  Both of these alternatives are different ways of answering attacks on the Vedas by Buddhists and Jains, who in their arguments highlight the man-made nature of the Vedas (Pali: isayo mantānaṃ kattāro = Skt. ṛṣayaḥ mantrāṇām kartāraḥ), and that these Ṛṣis were ignorant and should not be followed as spiritual guides (cf. Tevijja Sutta, Tripiṭaka).  Simultaneously, the Buddhists attacked the notion of Īśvara.  Different Hindu traditions came up with alternative defenses of the Veda against these attacks.  The Apauruṣeyatva view of the Mīmāṃsā removes the authorship from the Ṛṣis, but does not defend the Īśvarakartṛkatva of the Vedas.  On the other hand, traditions like Nyāya offered a reasoned defense of Īśvara (cf. Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali) and argued for Īśvarakartṛkatva of the Vedas.  These two traditions followed entirely different ways of justifying the Prāmāṇya of the Vedas.  The Mīmāṃsā proposing the svataḥprāmāṇya view, while the Naiyāyikas basing the Prāmāṇya of the Vedas on the Prāmāṇya of Īśvara. I am attaching here a recent dissertation dealing with the history of the Buddhist-Mīmāṃsā debates on this issue.  May provide some useful reading and references to literature.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Indeed, Prof. Deshpande. I am of the opinion that even the uttara mImAMsA view of veda prAmANya and apaurusheyatva is a lot more elastic than and not completely indebted to the pUrva SAstra. This is clear from the two different interpretations that Sankara bhagavatpAda gives to the third sUtra, SAstrayonitvAt.

महत ऋग्वेदादेः शास्त्रस्य अनेकविद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्थावद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म ।

अथवा यथोक्तमृग्वेदादिशास्त्रं योनिः कारणं प्रमाणमस्य ब्रह्मणो यथावत्स्वरूपाधिगमे । 

Only the second interpretation, taking SAstrayoni as a bahuvrIhi and prefaced with an athavA, would fit in completely with the mImAMsaka view of apaurusheyatva. Under the first interpretation, SAstrayoni is a tatpurusha and if brahman is to be described as the yoni of RgvedAdi SAstra, that is closer to the nyAya position, albeit coupled with a svataH-pramANya view. advaita vedAntins hold that brahman is nirguNa and not a purusha, so there is a different flavor of apaurusheyatva as compared to pUrva mImAMsA. And this more nyAya like approach to SAstra would be especially strengthened for non-advaita vedAntins who insist that brahman is always necessarily saguNa, i.e. ISvara. 

Namaskaras,

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Prof. Deshpande, you agreed that " ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts". Thus "Both of these alternatives (which) are different ways of answering attacks on the Vedas by Buddhists and Jains, who in their arguments highlight the man-made nature of the Vedas (Pali: isayo mantānaṃ kattāro = Skt. ṛṣayaḥ mantrāṇām kartāraḥ), and that these Ṛṣis were ignorant and should not be followed as spiritual guides (cf. Tevijja Sutta, Tripiṭaka). " (word in parantheses added by me), should be seen , not as invented answers by the answering schools but as their invoking of the already available material as answers. 

2. AadaraNIya Vidyasankarji, can one say that the word(s) mantrakr̥t etc. found in the Veda mantras carry the meaning which is in contrast with the meaning of the mantra drashṭā ? 

or one needs to do a samanvaya of the expression mantrakr̥t /mantrakartā in consonance with the idea of mantradrashṭā to go with the ēkavākyatā of the different expressions in the s'ruti?

I think 

 the main point of concern in using either word mantrakartā or mantradrashṭā is whether we attribute the 'meaning' of the mantra to be 'meant by' = intended by- the mantrakartā / mantradrashṭā or not. Can we see any āchārya of the āstika paramparā , while quoting any s'rutivaakya for praamaaṇya, quoting the name of the r̥ṣi and saying, 'this is the intention of the r̥ṣi of the mantra or this is the upadēśa of the r̥ṣi of the mantra' ? or do they invariably say this IS THERE in śruti and hence is pramāṇa ? 

 

--

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.

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

तैत्तिरीयारण्यके स्वाध्यायब्राह्मणे

अजान् ह वै पृश्ञीँस्तपस्यमानान् ब्रह्म स्वयम्भ्वभ्यानर्षत् त ऋषयोऽभवन् तदृषीणामृषित्वं

इति स्पष्टमुद्घुष्टमस्ति ।

यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्य स्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वामिति च श्रुतिर्जागर्ति ।

अतः पौरुषेयप्रयत्नादिकमन्तरा ब्रह्मप्रेरणया निःसृता वाक् अपौरुषेयवाच्या स्यादिति भाति ।

द्रष्टव्यः - श्रीमद्भागवते ध्रुवस्तुतौ -

योऽन्तः प्रविश्य मम वाचमिमां प्रसुप्तां सञ्जीवयत्यखिलशक्तिधरः स्वधाम्ना ।

अन्यांश्च हस्तचरणश्रवणत्वगादीन् प्राणान् नमो भगवते पुरुषाय तुभ्यम् (तस्मै) ॥ 

 

रामानुजः

On February 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Prof. Deshpande, you agreed that "  ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts". Thus " Both of these alternatives (which) are different ways of answering attacks on the Vedas by Buddhists and Jains, who in their arguments highlight the man-made nature of the Vedas (Pali: isayo mantānaṃ kattāro = Skt. ṛṣayaḥ mantrāṇām kartāraḥ), and that these Ṛṣis were ignorant and should not be followed as spiritual guides (cf. Tevijja Sutta, Tripiṭaka). " (word in parantheses added by me), should be seen , not as invented answers by the answering schools but as their invoking of the already available material as answers. 

 

 

2. AadaraNIya Vidyasankarji, can one say that the word(s) mantrakr̥t etc. found in the Veda mantras carry the meaning which is in contrast with the meaning of the mantra drashṭā ? 

 

or one needs to do a samanvaya of the expression mantrakr̥t /mantrakartā in consonance with the idea of mantradrashṭā to go with the ēkavākyatā of the different expressions in the s'ruti?

 

I think 

 

 the main point of concern in using either word mantrakartā or mantradrashṭā is whether we attribute the 'meaning' of the mantra to be 'meant by' = intended by- the mantrakartā / mantradrashṭā or not. Can we see any āchārya of the āstika paramparā , while quoting any s'rutivaakya for praamaaṇya, quoting the name of the r̥ṣi and saying, 'this is the intention of the r̥ṣi of the mantra or this is the upadēśa of the r̥ṣi of the mantra' ? or do they invariably say this IS THERE in śruti and hence is pramāṇa ? 

 

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, Prof. Deshpande. I am of the opinion that even the uttara mImAMsA view of veda prAmANya and apaurusheyatva is a lot more elastic than and not completely indebted to the pUrva SAstra. This is clear from the two different interpretations that Sankara bhagavatpAda gives to the third sUtra, SAstrayonitvAt.

 

महत   ऋग्वेदादेः   शास्त्रस्य   अनेकविद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्थावद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म ।

 

अथवा   यथोक्तमृग्वेदादिशास्त्रं   योनिः कारणं प्रमाणमस्य ब्रह्मणो यथावत्स्वरूपाधिगमे । 

Only the second interpretation, taking SAstrayoni as a bahuvrIhi and prefaced with an athavA, would fit in completely with the mImAMsaka view of apaurusheyatva. Under the first interpretation, SAstrayoni is a tatpurusha and if brahman is to be described as the yoni of RgvedAdi SAstra, that is closer to the nyAya position, albeit coupled with a svataH-pramANya view. advaita vedAntins hold that brahman is nirguNa and not a purusha, so there is a different flavor of apaurusheyatva as compared to pUrva mImAMsA. And this more nyAya like approach to SAstra would be especially strengthened for non-advaita vedAntins who insist that brahman is always necessarily saguNa, i.e. ISvara. 

 

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

                    

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-5, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

Thanks, Vidyasankar, for pointing out that there are alternative views in the tradition that calls the Ṛṣis mantrakṛt.  This is not only found in the post Vedic works like Kālidāsa's Raghuvaṃśa (cf. apy agraṇīr mantrakṛtām ṛṣīṇām kuśāgrabuddhe kuśalī gurus te), but one sees this view in the earliest portions of the Ṛgveda.  The Ṛṣis are referred to as Kāru "maker, creator", and the process of creating a mantra described using the verb kṛ - ( saktum iva titaunā punanto  yatra dhīrā manasā vācam akrata  I atrā sakhāyaḥ sakhyāni jānate bhadraiṣām lakṣmīr nihitādhi vāci II (RV 10.71.2)).  While ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts (cf. Puruṣasūkta: tasmād yajñāt sarvahuta ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñire / chandāṃsi jajñire tasmād yajus tasmād ajāyata),the particular view of the Vedas as Apauruṣeya is one of the alternative views that develops in Mīmāṃsā, 

 

--

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

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

To post to this group, send email to

bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

 

--

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

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

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

मनुश्च - युगान्तेऽन्तर्हितान् वेदान् सेतिहासान् महर्षयः ।

लेभिरे तपसा पूर्वमनुज्ञाताः स्वयम्भुवा ॥ इति

 

रामानुजः
On February 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Prof. Deshpande, you agreed that "  ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts". Thus " Both of these alternatives (which) are different ways of answering attacks on the Vedas by Buddhists and Jains, who in their arguments highlight the man-made nature of the Vedas (Pali: isayo mantānaṃ kattāro = Skt. ṛṣayaḥ mantrāṇām kartāraḥ), and that these Ṛṣis were ignorant and should not be followed as spiritual guides (cf. Tevijja Sutta, Tripiṭaka). " (word in parantheses added by me), should be seen , not as invented answers by the answering schools but as their invoking of the already available material as answers. 

 

 

2. AadaraNIya Vidyasankarji, can one say that the word(s) mantrakr̥t etc. found in the Veda mantras carry the meaning which is in contrast with the meaning of the mantra drashṭā ? 

 

or one needs to do a samanvaya of the expression mantrakr̥t /mantrakartā in consonance with the idea of mantradrashṭā to go with the ēkavākyatā of the different expressions in the s'ruti?

 

I think 

 

 the main point of concern in using either word mantrakartā or mantradrashṭā is whether we attribute the 'meaning' of the mantra to be 'meant by' = intended by- the mantrakartā / mantradrashṭā or not. Can we see any āchārya of the āstika paramparā , while quoting any s'rutivaakya for praamaaṇya, quoting the name of the r̥ṣi and saying, 'this is the intention of the r̥ṣi of the mantra or this is the upadēśa of the r̥ṣi of the mantra' ? or do they invariably say this IS THERE in śruti and hence is pramāṇa ? 

 

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, Prof. Deshpande. I am of the opinion that even the uttara mImAMsA view of veda prAmANya and apaurusheyatva is a lot more elastic than and not completely indebted to the pUrva SAstra. This is clear from the two different interpretations that Sankara bhagavatpAda gives to the third sUtra, SAstrayonitvAt.

 

महत   ऋग्वेदादेः   शास्त्रस्य   अनेकविद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्थावद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म ।

 

अथवा   यथोक्तमृग्वेदादिशास्त्रं   योनिः कारणं प्रमाणमस्य ब्रह्मणो यथावत्स्वरूपाधिगमे । 

Only the second interpretation, taking SAstrayoni as a bahuvrIhi and prefaced with an athavA, would fit in completely with the mImAMsaka view of apaurusheyatva. Under the first interpretation, SAstrayoni is a tatpurusha and if brahman is to be described as the yoni of RgvedAdi SAstra, that is closer to the nyAya position, albeit coupled with a svataH-pramANya view. advaita vedAntins hold that brahman is nirguNa and not a purusha, so there is a different flavor of apaurusheyatva as compared to pUrva mImAMsA. And this more nyAya like approach to SAstra would be especially strengthened for non-advaita vedAntins who insist that brahman is always necessarily saguNa, i.e. ISvara. 

 

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

                    

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-5, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

Thanks, Vidyasankar, for pointing out that there are alternative views in the tradition that calls the Ṛṣis mantrakṛt.  This is not only found in the post Vedic works like Kālidāsa's Raghuvaṃśa (cf. apy agraṇīr mantrakṛtām ṛṣīṇām kuśāgrabuddhe kuśalī gurus te), but one sees this view in the earliest portions of the Ṛgveda.  The Ṛṣis are referred to as Kāru "maker, creator", and the process of creating a mantra described using the verb kṛ - ( saktum iva titaunā punanto  yatra dhīrā manasā vācam akrata  I atrā sakhāyaḥ sakhyāni jānate bhadraiṣām lakṣmīr nihitādhi vāci II (RV 10.71.2)).  While ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts (cf. Puruṣasūkta: tasmād yajñāt sarvahuta ṛcaḥ sāmāni jajñire / chandāṃsi jajñire tasmād yajus tasmād ajāyata),the particular view of the Vedas as Apauruṣeya is one of the alternative views that develops in Mīmāṃsā, 

 

--

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

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

To post to this group, send email to

bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

 

--

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

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

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

or one needs to do a samanvaya of the expression mantrakr̥t /mantrakartā in consonance with the idea of mantradrashṭā to go with the ēkavākyatā of the different expressions in the s'ruti?

 

I think 

 

 the main point of concern in using either word mantrakartā or mantradrashṭā is whether we attribute the 'meaning' of the mantra to be 'meant by' = intended by- the mantrakartā / mantradrashṭā or not. Can we see any āchārya of the āstika paramparā , while quoting any s'rutivaakya for praamaaṇya, quoting the name of the r̥ṣi and saying, 'this is the intention of the r̥ṣi of the mantra or this is the upadēśa of the r̥ṣi of the mantra' ? or do they invariably say this IS THERE in śruti and hence is pramāṇa ? 

 

 

वस्तुतः वेदनित्यत्वस्थापनानन्तरमेव वेदापौरुषेयत्वस्थापनात् नित्यत्वे सति वेदानां पौरुषेयत्वशङ्कैव नोदियादित्यपि बोध्यम् ।

ब्रह्मसूत्रे

अत एव च नित्यत्वं, समाननामरूपत्वादावृत्तावप्यविरोधो दर्शनात्स्मृतेश्च

इति सूत्राभ्यामेतत् सिद्धान्तितम् ।

रामानुजः

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Dr Ramanujan for all the references. 

--

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]

Let me just take a completely modern approach to the issue here in this post:

1.  I quoted the modern theory from English literary criticism called The Theory of Impersonality of Poetry. The theorist quoted by me, Prof. Northrop Frye, a highly celebrated literary critic from Princeton University , famous for his book "Anatomy of Criticism", is saying that any poem has to be considered not as a creation by the poet. Poet is just a medium. It is Mother Nature which is giving birth to the poem through the medium of the poet. I am not talking about merits or demerits of the theory. I am just asking if this theorist is ever considered a superstitious person for considering poetry not to be the creation of the poet? This theory is critiqued. But is it not critiqued not on account of its being 'religious' or 'superstitious'? That just is my point. Why do people jump into the attributions of 'religiosity', 'superstition' etc. only when it comes to things that are Indian, particularly ancient Indian, more particularly things like Veda and bring points like 'not suited to 21st century' etc. ? 

2. In poetry, 'conscious poet' is a bad word because ideal poetry composition is sought to be an unconscious process. For that matter , all art is considered to be produced (in its best form), only when the artist produces it by being in a trans, by being in an unconscious state. It is this experience of being unconscious or in trans which makes the poet, for that matter, any artist to feel that the art or the poem came out through him/her, not authored by him/her. It is not uncommon to compare this state of bhāvukatva of artists or poets to that of sages, r̥ṣis. Then how is it wrong to consider the r̥śis of the Veda mantras to have been in an extremely deeper state of alaukika experience during the emergence of the mantras through them and how is it weird to have an impersonality view about the relationship between the mantra and its r̥śi?

3. To relate dream to the psychoanalytical entity/idea/state/level of unconscious was done by Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. What is interesting is Bhatrihari brings the analogy of dream to the state of experience of the r̥ṣis during the emergence of the Veda mantras through them. 

अविभागाद् विवृत्तानाम् अभिख्या स्वप्नवच् छ्रुतौ /

................................................................. वाक्य_१।१७३ //

What is additionally interesting is that Bhartrihari uses the word avibhāga used by him in this context of Veda mantra darśana experience , while discussing dream too. 

प्रविभागॆ यथा कर्ता तया कार्यॆ प्रवर्ततॆ /

अविभागॆ तथा सैव कार्यत्वॆनावतिष्ठतॆ // वाक्य_१।१३९ //

Language which is kartā in a pravibhāga state (of mind) , turns out to be the kārya in an avibhāga state (of mind)    commentaries translate the avibhāga here as dream state. Thus it can be seen that avibhāga that bhhartrihari uses during the description of Veda mantra darśana too has got to do with an unconscious state of experience but deeper than and above the level of dream or poetry-emerging state of experience. 

4. View of Impersonality of the  Veda thus can be seen to be understandable in terms of the experience of the r̥ṣi during the emergence of the mantra through him. 

  

[Madhav Deshpande]

Yes, Paturi-ji, that is what I have stated.  The ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas occur alongside the Mantrakṛt/kāru characterization of the Ṛṣis in earlier texts.  However, the formally argued doctrine of apauruṣeyatva in Mīmāṃsā and the Īśvarakartṛkatva doctrine in Nyāya occur explicitly to counter the attacks by the Buddhists.  Most of the Sūtras of the Six Āstika Darshanas contain sections countering the claims of the Buddhists.  Further, post-Sūtra authors like Śabara, Kumārila, Udayana and others in these traditions are explicitly engaged in disputation with the Buddhists like Dignāga, Dharmakīrti and Bhāviveka, and the Buddhists are explicitly engaged in countering the arguments offered by Mīmāṃsakas and Naiyāyikas in this regard.  It is the mutual en-counters, in Pūrvapakṣa-Uttarapakṣa style, between these traditions that lead to specific formulations and re-formulations by successive generations of defenders on all sides.  In the pre-Sūtra literature, we do have scattered ideas that don't always convey the same point of view, but these pre-Sūtra ideas do indeed contribute to the lines of arguments as they develop in the later times.  I see these arguments and positions as historically evolving, rather than a fixed continuity of the ancient ideas.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 if we considered the meaning of 'apouruSeya' as 1. superhuman work, 2. work of extraordinary person(s), 3. not by one person; then the Veda, Surya Siddhanta and some other classics are indeed 'apouruSeya', e.g. it is undisputed that the Veda were created by many RSi or extraordinary persons and have come to us through the Sruti and Vachan parampara. 

                          ------- Vidvan Rajendra Gupta

How and where did you get these meanings ?

वेदानाम् अपौरुषेयत्वम् ----

व्याकरणम् - पूर्वमीमांसा - वेदान्तः - न्यायः - वैशेषिकम् - भारतम् -  उपनिषत्

व्याकरणम् --

What is the meaning of अपौरुषेयः --

पुर अग्रगमने (तुदादिः)  - ’ पुरः कुषन् ’ (उणादिः) - पुरुषः - ’ ञ्नित्यादिर्नित्यम् ’ आद्युदात्तः ।

’ सर्वपुरुषाभ्यां णढञौ ’ (पा 5-1-10)

पुरुषात् वधे (वार्तिकम्) 

अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते - पुरुषाद्वध इति । पुरुषात् वध - विकार - समूह - तेनकृते - ष्विति वक्तव्यम् । पौरुषेयो वधः । पौरुषेयो विकारः । पौरुषेयः समूहः । तेन कृतं पौरुषेयम् ।

( पुरुष + ढञ् = पौरुषेयम् , ’ ञ्नित्यादिर्नित्यम् ’ - आद्युदात्तस्वरः )

Here Panini did not mean the पुरुष of सांख्यम् etc --

Kaiyata -- पुरुषश्च लोकप्रसिद्धः पाण्यादियुक्तः इह गृह्यते । न तु सांख्यादिशास्त्रप्रसिद्धः , तत्र प्रत्ययस्यादर्शनात् ।

Therefore , अपौरुषेयम् means - not done / authored by a person / human being .

Under तेन प्रोक्तम् ( पा 4-3-101) - Patanjali says -वेदs are not authored , rather they are नित्य् ---

तेन प्रोक्तम् 

प्रोक्तग्रहणम् अनर्थकम् (वा)  ग्रन्थे च दर्शनात् (वा) 

भाष्यम् --

 छन्दो’र्थं तर्हीदं वक्तव्यम् । न हि छन्दांसि क्रियन्ते , नित्यानि छन्दांसि ।

कर्तुः अस्मरणात् तेषामित्यर्थः -- कैयटः

छ्न्दो’र्थमिति चेत्तुल्यम् (वा)

भाष्यम् --

छन्दो’र्थमिति चेत् तुल्यमेतद्भवति । ग्रामे ग्रामे कालकं कालापकं च प्रोच्यते त्त्र अदर्शनात् । न च तत्र प्रत्ययो दृश्यते ।

ग्रन्थे च दर्शनात् । यत दृश्यते ग्रन्थः सः, तत्र ’कृते ग्रान्थे’ इत्येव सिद्धम् ।

ननु चोक्तम् - न हि छन्दांसि क्रियन्ते नित्यानि छन्दांसि इति ।

यद्यपि अर्थो नित्यः , या त्वसौ वर्णानुपूर्वी सा अनित्या । तद्भेदाच्चैतद्भवति - काठकम् कालापकम् मौदकम् पैप्पलादकम् इति ।

Kaiyata explains --

महाप्रलयादिषु व्र्णानुपूर्वीविनाशे पुनरुत्पद्य ऋषयः संस्कारातिशयात् वेदार्थं स्मृत्वा शब्दरचनां  

विदधतीत्यर्थः ।

नागेशः -- काठकेत्यादि । अर्थैक्ये’पि आनुपूर्वीभेदादेव काठककालापकादिव्यवहार इति भावः।

This is what is meant by - मन्त्रकृत् ( नमो वाचे या चोदिता .... नमो मन्त्रकृद्भ्यः ) ।

 A caution - we have to be careful in interpretation --

दृष्टं साम  ( पा सू  4-2-7) ) does not mean - the साम seen by वसिष्ठ etc.

Kaiyata - कलिना दृष्टमिति । यस्य साम्नो विशिष्टकार्यविषये विनियोगो ज्ञानातिशयसंपत्त्याकलिना अज्ञायि तत्तेन दृष्टमित्युच्यते ।

वाक्यपदीयम् -- 

ज्ञानमस्मद्विशिष्टानां सर्वं सर्वेन्द्रियं विदुः ( नेदानीम् .... उपनिषत्) ।

At the end of every महाप्रलय ( not acceptable to पूर्वमीमांसकs - यः कल्पः स कल्पपूर्वः / न कदापि अनीदृशं जगत्) - the Vedas disappear and the sages with their तपश्शक्ति and योगिप्रत्यक्षम् , would discern the वेदमन्त्रs and propagate the same - and the Mantras are named after them - मन्त्रकृतः / मन्त्रद्रष्टारः -- 

प्रतिमन्वन्तरं चैषा श्रुतिरन्या विधीयते ।

वेदान्तः ---

अत एव च नित्यत्वम् ( ब्र सू 1-3-29)

शाङ्करभाष्यम् --

स्वतन्त्रस्य कर्तुः अस्मरणादिभिः स्थिते वेदस्य नित्यत्वे देवादिव्यक्तिप्रभवाभ्युपगमेन तस्य विरोधम् आशङ्क्य अतः प्रभवात् इति परिहृत्य इदानीं तदेव वेदनित्यत्वं द्रढयति  - अत एव च नित्यत्वम् इति । अत एव नियताकृतेः देवादेः जगतः वेदशब्दप्रभवत्वात् वेदशब्दनित्यत्वमपि प्रत्येतव्यम् ।

तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः --

यज्ञेन वाचः पदवीयमायन् तामन्वविन्दन् ऋषिषु प्रविष्टाम् ( ऋग्वेदः 10-71-3) इति स्थितामेव वाचम् अनुविन्नां दर्शयति . वेदव्यासश्चैवं स्मरति --

युगान्ते’र्हितान् वेदान् सेतिहासान् महर्षयः ।

लेभिरे तपसा पूर्वम् अनुज्ञातः स्वयंभुवा ॥इति  -- महाभारतम् - शान्ति 210-19

Veda itself clearly says --

अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितम् एतद्यद् ऋद्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदॊsथर्वाङ्गिरसः ( बृहदा. उप 2-4-10)

पूर्वमीमांसा --

1-1-7-27 -- वेदांश्चैके सन्निकर्षं पुरुषाख्याः पू प सू

Some scholars argued that Vedas are written as there are names such as कठ , कलाप etc

28 -- अनित्यदर्शनाच्च पू प सू

In Veda there is proof to show that it is non-eternal - there are names of some people like - बबर , son of  प्रावाहणि , खुसुरविन्द son of उद्दालक , who are mortal.

29 उक्तं तु शब्दपूर्वत्वम्   सि सू

It is already stated that वेद has got अध्ययनपूर्वकत्वम् । There has been uninterrupted chain of गुरुशिष्यपरम्परा - nobody who has independently recited Veda.

30 आख्या प्रवचनात्  सि सू 

काठक , कालापक etc संज्ञs due to specialization .

वैशेषिकम् --

1-1-3 -- तद्वचनात् आम्नायस्य प्रामाण्यम्

Since धर्म is defined clearly Veda is an authority .

9-2-13 -  आर्षं सिद्धदर्शन च धर्मेभ्यः

Due to performance of धर्म ordained by Veda ऋषिs got the perfect knowledge of पदार्थs .

न्यायदर्शनम् --

मन्त्रायुर्वेदप्रामाण्यवच्च तत्प्रामाण्यम् - आप्तप्रामाण्यात् 1-1-68

शब्द - दीप - ज्ञानानां स्वतः प्रामाण्यम् - इति स्पष्टं लघुमञ्जूषायाम् । नैयायिकानां परतः प्रामाण्यम् तु अनवस्थादोषजुष्टत्वात् हेयमेव ।

Refer to my book - Pramanas in Indian Philosophy (online).

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 

[Bijoy Misra]

We had a meeting on the topic yesterday to understand the neuroscience of creativity.

It seems that we have to think of a "creative memory" separate from the "learning memory"

that we normally utilize.  It is the debate between the subjective view and the objective view.

When we say "objective", it is not a "view", it becomes a "vision".  The question comes

how the "vision" is created.  Can yoga become a tool for it or does it become a pure out-of-body

event?  It is possible that the local memory locks out for the period.  We will look for more

analytic literature on the topic.  I will report in course of time.     

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Deshpande,

My immediately previous post has no reference to your posts in this thread. 

I was trying to respond to the learned scholar Dr Rajendra Guptaji by informing him that there are many ways of looking at the concept of impersonality within modern studies too which interestingly match with the ancient Indian approaches like that of Bhartrihari in Vakyapadiyam. 

Thought some other members too might be interested. 

Yes, there was a post of me earlier in this thread with  mantrakartaa = mantradrashTaa. My point there was that all those who countered the Buddhist arguments were invoking an /the older view from Vedic texts themselves. Dr P. Ramanujanji too provided more evidences for that being an older view. You expressed  your awareness of that being an older view already. 

[K S Kannan]

Was this considered above ? : Br. Up 2.4.10 & 4.5.11, MU 6.32

etasya mahato bhūtasya niścvasitam etad yad ṛgvedo .....

[K S Kannan]

Also TB 2.8.8.5

yām ṛṣayo mantra-kṛto manīṣiṇah

anvaicchan devās tapasā śrameṇa

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Prof. Koradaji,

Great explanation on Apaurusheya. Will you kindly permit me to take an example? When Vaishampayana asked his pupil Yajnavalkya to forget what he learnt from the former, Yajnavalkya prayed to Lord Sun and received the knowledge of  the Shukla Yajurvada, which is an apaurusheya text. It will be kind of you if you take this example to explain how does  the definition of Apaauruheya fit into the calling of the Shukla Yajurveda as Apaurusheya.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:56:10 PM UTC-5, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

1. Prof. Deshpande, you agreed that " ideas of impersonal origin of the Vedas are sporadically found in early Vedic texts". Thus "Both of these alternatives (which) are different ways of answering attacks on the Vedas by Buddhists and Jains, who in their arguments highlight the man-made nature of the Vedas (Pali: isayo mantānaṃ kattāro = Skt. ṛṣayaḥ mantrāṇām kartāraḥ), and that these Ṛṣis were ignorant and should not be followed as spiritual guides (cf. Tevijja Sutta, Tripiṭaka). " (word in parantheses added by me), should be seen , not as invented answers by the answering schools but as their invoking of the already available material as answers. 

2. AadaraNIya Vidyasankarji, can one say that the word(s) mantrakr̥t etc. found in the Veda mantras carry the meaning which is in contrast with the meaning of the mantra drashṭā ? 

or one needs to do a samanvaya of the expression mantrakr̥t /mantrakartā in consonance with the idea of mantradrashṭā to go with the ēkavākyatā of the different expressions in the s'ruti?

Dear Prof. Paturi,

I just wanted to point out that (a) we cannot legitimately say that Rshis are never described as mantra-kartAraH and (b) the vedAnta position on apaurusheyatva is actually different from the pUrvamImAMsA position on it.

The exact interpretative strategies on how to understand kartRtva and drashTRtva will depend on various other factors. The nyAya school doesn't set out to interpret Sruti in as much detail and focus as the mImAMsA-s, but I would imagine that a naiyyAyika's understanding of the term mantra-kRt would depend heavily on his view of Sabda and ISvara, and will thus be nuanced differently from how the pUrva-mImAMsaka handles this issue. Also, in today's context, for a defender of Sruti against opposing views to mount a sound defense, she will have to substantiate afresh the ēkavākyatā in the first place.

Beyond stating the above, I am stepping into territory where I should not speak much, but listen more to wiser and more experienced vidvAns! 

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

              

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I have an elementary question in this context is apourusheya invented to counter Buddhists attacks or had the term need to be the explained outside Buddhist context as has been attempted

Sorry for the rude interjection.

--

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

how does  the definition of Apaauruheya fit into the calling of the Shukla Yajurveda as Apaurusheya ---

                                  

                             ---- Vidvan Suneel Bhattacarya

The original Veda is not authored by a पुरुष । Veda may be transferred from a गुरु / आचार्य to शिष्य -- a ऋषि may get it from a देवता and so on and so forth.

The 11 विकारs of वेद , viz पद , क्रम , जट, घन etc are पौरुषेय -- 

न लक्षणेन पदकारा अनुवर्त्याः , पदकारैः नाम लक्षणम् अनुवर्त्यम् - महाभाष्यम् ।

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 

--

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

is apourusheya invented to counter Buddhists attacks or had the term need to be the explained outside Buddhist context as has been attempted

                                       --- Vidvan Ajit Gargeshwari

Whether you take those who accept प्रलय , viz वेदान्त , व्याकरण etc or those who do not accept प्रलय , ie the मीमांसा , same is the case --

the tradition has been there since time immemorial . The Buddhists have arrived just recently . We have taken प्रलय(s) .

The अपौरुषेयवाद may be used against Buddhists .

Also it may be noted that there was / were   मीमांसा /s - 

काशकृत्सिना प्रोक्ता मीमांसा - काशकृत्स्ना --- महाभाष्यम् ।

It is not invented - check my response - महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितम् .... this is said by वेद itself .

When we trust योगिन्s like Panini , Patanjali , Susruta etc and they are proved to be right in terms of शब्दसाधुत्वम्, योग , Plastic Surgery etc  we do trust other things also which are said by them .

Just take an example -- even scholars say that योगाभ्यास is useful in improving / maintaining physical health - anybody who questions this is considered as a fool.

Now the fact is that चरकम् and सुश्रुतम् are meant for physical health , whereas योग is meant for 'mental health' - चित्तशुद्धि । 

We do not come across any treatment for the शरीरम् (body) in योगानुशासनम् ।

Then can anyone brush aside the claim of crores of people that योग  is useful for physical health ?

No , but the fact is that improvement in physical health is just a minor benefit of योग - the actual benefits of योग are very great and many .

So

गतानुगतिको लोको न लोकः पारमार्थिकः ।

गङ्गासैकतलिङ्गेन नष्टं ताम्रभाजनम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Whatever you have answered is beside the point. Thank you for having answered

Regards

Ajt Gargeshwari

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.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Thank you Prof. Koradaji. As always you have said it nicely.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Vidvan Prof Subhramanyaji,
Will then the अपौरषेयं come under अकृत अभ्यागमं category? A small doubt.
Aurobind Padiyath

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Do you mean अकृताभ्यागमम् - - न कृतम् किन्तु प्राप्तम् ? -- I rather think it can be , because Patanjali says - छन्दांसि न क्रियन्ते , नित्यानि छन्दांसि  (प्राप्तानीति शेषः) ।

’ अभ्यागमः ’  is used in the sense of प्राप्ति --

का त्वं शुभे कस्य परिग्रहो वा

किं वा मदभ्यागमकारणं ते ।

आचक्ष्व मत्वा वशिनां रघूणां

मनः परस्त्रीविमुखप्रवृत्ति ॥  ( रघुवंशः - 16)

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 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I just began to access the net. 

> Also, in today's context, for a defender of Sruti against opposing views to mount a sound defense, she will have to substantiate afresh the ēkavākyatā in the first place.

It was not and is not as a defender of S'ruti. 

It was based on the reasoning that a person or a school arguing for vēdaprāmāṇya can not do that without arguing for ēkavākyatā of Veda. Let us take a naiyāyika, mīmāmsaka or vēdāntin. A scholar belonging to any one of these schools believes in vēdaprāmāṇya. That person has to inevitably, imminently believe in ēkavākyatā of Veda, because, otherwise the opponent can counter him saying which of the mutually inconsistent vākyas are you saying is pramāṇa?  By the same reasoning he is bound to believe in mantrakartā = mantradraṣṭā . Thus even if I were, hypothetically,  not to be an āstika, I have to make a statement that "an āstika believes in mantrakartā = mantradraṣṭā as part of his understanding that there is ēkavākyatā in Veda, which (this understanding) is required for his being an āstika" 

--

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.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

धन्योऽस्मि

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:30 Subrahmanyam Korada, <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Do you mean अकृताभ्यागमम् - - न कृतम् किन्तु प्राप्तम् ? -- I rather think it can be , because Patanjali says - छन्दांसि न क्रियन्ते , नित्यानि छन्दांसि  (प्राप्तानीति शेषः) ।

’ अभ्यागमः ’  is used in the sense of प्राप्ति --

का त्वं शुभे कस्य परिग्रहो वा

किं वा मदभ्यागमकारणं ते ।

आचक्ष्व मत्वा वशिनां रघूणां

मनः परस्त्रीविमुखप्रवृत्ति ॥  ( रघुवंशः - 16)

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 Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <aurobind...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vidvan Prof Subhramanyaji,
Will then the अपौरषेयं come under अकृत अभ्यागमं category? A small doubt.
Aurobind Padiyath

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

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

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/ixklvY7xtfU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.

--

Aurobind

[Durga Prasada Rao Chilakamarthi]

              वेदानामपौरुषेयत्वविषये

  अत्र  ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यव्याख्यानावसरे  रत्नप्रभाकारै: शास्त्रयोनित्वाधिकरणे जगत्कारणत्वेन अनुमितं ब्रह्मण: सर्वज्ञत्वं  वेदहेतुत्वेनापि प्रदर्शितम् || अपि च वेदानां नित्यत्वे ब्रह्मण: शास्त्रयोनित्वं नास्तीति , ब्रह्मण: वेदकर्तृकत्वे तेषामपौरुषेयत्वमेव न घटते इति शङ्कायां – यत्र ह्यर्थज्ञानपूर्वकं  वाक्यज्ञानं वाक्य सृष्टौ कारणं तत्र पौरुषेयता, अत्र च परमेश्वर: स्वकृत पूर्वकल्पीयक्रमवन्तं वेदराशिं तदर्थांश्च युगपज्जानन्न्नेव करोतीति न  वेदस्य पौरुषेयता इति वेदानामपौरुषेयत्वं साधितम् ||  

मया एवं संभाव्यते यद्भगवद्गीतायां

वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्य: वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेवचाहम्

इत्यत्र ‘वेदवित्’ इति पदेन परमेश्वर: वेदवेत्ता एव, न कर्ता इत्यपि ज्ञातुं शक्यते ||          

 

Best Regards
Durga Prasada Rao Chilakamarthi

https://www.facebook.com/ChilakamarthiDurgaPrasadaRao/

https://www.youtube.com/c/DurgaPrasadaRaoChilakamarthi

http://telugu.pratilipi.com/dr-chilakamarthi-durga-prasada-rao