Khadadeva's remark on divinities talked about in the vedas

[Raghavendra]

Dear scholars,

I have recently come accross a significant remark of Khandadeva in his Bhatta Deepika which runs thus:-

[...atah kathamapi na vigrahadi sveekarah, kintu shabdamatram devataa. arthastu partipadikanurodhachha chetano va achetano va kashit sveekriyate na tu vigrahadiman.upasanadau param dhyanamatram mahartham tasyeti jaiminimata nishkarsha. mama tvevam vadato’pi vani dushyatiti tatra harismaranameva sharanam.....Devatadhikarana]

Here Khadadeva seems to be not happy with conclusions arrived at, by earlier mimasaka teachers on the question of whether or not to accept divinities talked about in the vedas. Khandadeva faithfully paraphareses the thought of mimamsakas and in the end he is taking shelter under Lord Hari for having talked about in his work what is contrary to the heart of the vedas. To me this is a significant statement as it comes from the pen of one of the authorities on the mimamsa scholium. Can someone throw light on this please,

Thanks / B.Raghavendra

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

[...अतः कथमपि न विग्रहादिस्वीकारः, किन्तु शब्दमात्रम् देवता. अर्थस्तु प्रातिपदिकानुरोधाच्चेतनो वा अचेतनो वा कश्चित् स्वीक्रियते न तु विग्रहादिमन्.उपासनादौ परं ध्यानमात्रम्…तस्येति जैमिनिमतनिष्कर्षः मम त्वेवम् वदतोपि वाणी दुष्यतीति तत्र हरिस्मरणमेव शरणम्.....] This is a quite well-known view of the मीमांसकs and was highlighted by D. P. Chattopadhyay in his Lokayata Darshan(1955 National Book Agency Calcutta) to show the atheism prevailing among the older मीमांसकs. Also see how Kumārila refutes the idea of सर्वज्ञ ईश्वर। खण्डदेव deviates from Kumārila's stance just as later Naiyāyikas and Vaiśeṣikas, originally Śaivas, became Vaiṣṇavas after the medieval saints. Best DB     --- On Fri, 26/11/10, Raghavendra <rv...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

-- अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

This view of the Mimaskas is also stated as puurvapaksha in the very first
chapter of the Mrigendraagama, one of the important Agama-s of the
Saivasiddhanta tradition. The commentator Narayanakantha who lived in Kashmir
(circa 9th century) and the sub-commentary on this composed by Aghorasivacharya
who lived in the 12th century in the Chola country develop this view and refute
it.
Ganesan

Dr. T. Ganesan
Senior Researcher in Saivasiddhanta
French Institute,
Pondicherry
gan...@ifpindia.org

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

VigrahAdi  --  PUrvamImAmsA  -  VedAnta (UttaamImAmsA) ---

There are a couple of Adhikara.nas in  PM and  UM  , such as CAmasa, BhUma , DevatA etc.
DevatAdhikara.nam is there in PM in  9-1-9 , whereas in UM it is there in 1-3-8 .

Whether Devas have got AdhikAra in BrahmavidyA or not is the question raised in UM .

Jaimini says 'no' , BAdarAya.na says 'yes'

MImAmsakas (6-1-5) say - na devAnAm  devatAntarAbhavAt (SabarasvAmy) - ye.sAm s'abda eva devatA te.sAmapyukto granthah (KumArila.h)  - Sabda only is DevatA and there is no any entity .

Kha.n.dadeva  in BhA.t.takaustubha , however establishes Vigrahatvam refuting the Prau.dhivAda of BhA.syakAra in DevatAdhikara.nam .

'Yasyai devatAyai havirg.rhItam syAttAm dhyAyet  va.sa.t kari.syan (Aitareya 3-8-1) -
taking such examples , SaankarAcArya vehemently refutes the claim of NireesvaramImAmsakas . Here is BhA.syam --

na ca s'abdamAtram arthasvarUpam sambhavati , s'abdArthayo.h  bhedAt ( here 'artha' means, not BauddhArtha but, the real 'vastu' ) .
ItihAsapurA.namapi vyAkhyAtena marge.na sambhavanmantrArthavAdamUlatvAt prabhavati devatAvigrahAdi sAdhayitum .

Yastu brUyAt idAnIntanAnAmiva pUrve.sAmapi nAsti devAdibhirvyavahartum sAmarthyam iti sa JAGADVAICITRYAM PRATI.SEDHET

bhavati hi asmAkam aprtyaksamapi cirantanAnAm pratyak.sam , tathA ca vyAsAdayo devAdibhih pratyaksam vyavaharanti iti smaryate .
Sankara takes up Dharma and Yoga as devices to have a Pratyaksa of Devatas .
The following are VigrahAdi enumerated by  UM -

vigrho havi.sam bhogah aisvaryam ca prasannatA I
phalapradAnamityetat pancakam vigrahAdikam II

MImAmsakas are not 'nAstikas' , but like SAmkhyas they are 'nirIsvaravAdins' .

The PAninisUtram - astinAstidi.s.tam matih (Taddhita - .thakpratyaya ) says - one who does not believe in the existence of 'paraloka' only is a 'nAstika' .

VigrahArAdhanam is acceptable to SAstras .

dhanyo'smi

2010/11/26 Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org>

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

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

अभिवन्द्य, 
"स्वल्पमप्यस्य त्रायते महतो भयात्"
Khudos to Sri Subrahmanyam Garu.
Only when the commentary(uttarapaksha! leading to final Siddhanta)
is digested, internalized and diligently practiced will it become
purusharthopayogi.
Else, mere vAcho viglApanam hi tat!
Dhanyo'smi.

 

2010/11/26 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

That puurvamiimaamsakas are not naastikas is true. But they are atheists, atheist means those who do not admit the existence of God. This is true of puurvamiimaamsaa. One of my most revered teachers the late lamentad Pattabhirama Shastri was out and out an aastika but he taught us that going by puurvamiimaamsaa 'ईश्वरस्य प्रयोजनं नास्ति' Best DB --- On Sat, 27/11/10, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ram Sharma]

   ShriiMRgendratantram(Vidyaapaada and Yogapaada) with the commentaryof of NaaraayaNakaNTha is available in Univ.of Pennsylvania library,as recorded by the late Prof MB Emeneau's A Union List of Printed Indic texts and Translations in American Libraries; S.No 3117 refers.
       Thanks and all best wishes to all of "us"
            Ram Karan Sharma

---

From: Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 4:38:17 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Khadadeva's remark on divinities talked about in the vedas

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2010-11-25, at 9:55 PM, B. Raghavendra wrote:

...  a significant remark of Khandadeva in his Bhatta Deepika ... mama tvevam vadato’pi vani dushyatiti tatra harismaranameva sharanam....... Khandadeva faithfully paraphareses the thought of mimamsakas and in the end he is taking shelter under Lord Hari for having talked about in his work what is contrary to the heart of the vedas. ... Can someone throw light on this please,

I agree with roughly the first part of the English sentence: "Khandadeva faithfully paraphareses the thought of mimamsakas and in the end he is taking shelter under Lord Hari for having talked about [it = he thought of mimamsakas] in his work ..." But I do not know how the part "what is contrary to the heart of the vedas" can be read in Kha.n.da-deva's statement. Probably this part is expressive of Mr. Raghavendra's own view. 

The conclusion arrived at by Kevalaananda Sarasvatii, compiler of the Miimaa.msaa-ko.sa, is noteworthy: na jaimininaa devataanaa.m niraasa.h k.rta.h (Vol. I, Prastaava, pp. 25-26).

The following article may be useful:

Clooney, Francis X. 1988: "Devataadhikara.na: the theological reconstruction of the gods in Miimaa.msaa and Vedaanta." Journal of Indian Philosophy 16:277-298.

Recently I have written the following articles bearing on the early history of the Miimaa.msaa. They do not discuss the devataa debate itself but indirectly suggest how the debate should be studied. 

1. 2009. "V.rtti and V.rttikaara in Raamaanuja's ;Srii-bhaa.sya." In Anantam Saastram, Indological and Linguistic Studies in Honour of Bertil Tikkanen, Studia Orientalia 108:  3-20. (ed) Karttunen, Klaus. Helsinki. A corrective to fn 4 and section 1.3 para 2 of this article is provided in article 3 below.

2. 2010? "Unity of the Miimaa.msaas: how historiography hides history." 

3. 2011? "Authorship of the Sa.mkar.sa-kaa.n.da." 

4. 2011? "Sa.mkar.sa-kaa.n.da: a Victim in Miimaa.msaa Madhyama-vyaayoga." 

Except for the first, the articles are in the press for different felicitation volumes. Hence I can give the publication particulars only after the volumes are published. 

The points I have made in the preceding articles which are closer to Mr. B. Raghavendra's query are the following: 

(a) Jaimini and Baadaraaya.na may not be voicing their personal views of devataa but the views which their hermeneutics require in order to be sound schemes or theories. To expand: If the Miimaa.msaa accepted ii;svara, he must be omniscient and the Veda must be his statements; otherwise there will not be much gain in making a place for him. Therefore, if the Ii;svara option is followed,  Miimaa.msaa will be essentially making a claim of the sort the prophetic traditions (Buddhists, Jains etc in ancient Indian context.) make: "The prophet P-1's statements are valid and offer infallible guidance, because he/she is omniscient.' The  Miimaa.msaa philosophy will become a philosophy of faith in a particular person. It is no wonder that the later  Miimaa.msakas attack sarvaj;natva and defend the practice of (methodically and consistently) deriving the right message from an unchangeable text beyond human history, namely the Veda. 

It is fallaciously and simplistically said or assumed that every ancient Indian philosopher expresses his personal faith or creed in his writings. This is a part of the other canard that India has no pure philosophy, only philosophy mixed with religion and that the Indian philosophers do not pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. From my own experience and after noticing cases like that of Vacaspati-mi;sra, I can easily accept what Prof. D. Bhattacharya has written, namely that when Pattabhirama Shastri taught Miimaa.msaa he did not teach it as a Hindu devoted to particular theism or to theism in general. As I recall, P.T. Raju has also said the same thing in one of his books about his pa.n.dita teachers. 

(b) The Sa.mkar.sa-kaa.n.da is authored by Kaa;sak.rtsna. It fits between the  (Puurva) Miimaa.msaa-suutra and the Brahma-suutra, but does not have so much concern with the devataas as to become a Devataa-kaa.n.da. 

In view of my article 2, Professor Clooney (Harvard University) could have changed some of his earlier views on the Miimaa.msaa and the place of devataas in it. I have not been in touch with him recently. He read a pre-publication draft of article 2 and accepted its conclusion. Unlike some other scholars, he does not mind saying that he has changed his view after reading new evidence or a new argument. Yet his old article mentioned above will be useful as an example of methodologically sophisticated thinking and precisely given bibliography. 

ashok aklujkar

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

!. why should  Kha.n.ddeva  go for Harismara.nam  while discussing  Jaimini etc ?

2. there will be svagranthavirodha leading to Veda - aprAmA.nya

The  general  belief of most of the scholars is that  - nowhere did Jaimini  refute  's'arIra to Devatas' .

MImAmsakas  argue that there is no need of DevatAprasAda (see VigrahAdi) , rather 'Karma' itself can  render the
'Phala' .
On the other hand S'abarasvAmy in his BhA.syam  in DevatAdhikara.nam said - there is no S'arIra to Devatas and
S'AbdasvarUpa only is DevatA . He did so in order to  achieve PrAdhAnyam and integrity to Karma .
Following this there has been a lot of reaction .

The author of  S'AstradIpikA , S'AlikanAthamis'ra (1100AD) , a  follower  of KumArila , had said this -

in case we accept VigrahAdi  to Devatas then  we also have to accept - their arrival on KarmabhUmi , consumption of Havis etc, , having T.rpti , anugraha , granting the Phala etc . Then  DevatA will  become important vis-a-vis Karmaphala .
The result will be that human beinings will become less and less interested in Karmas . Therefore , VigrahAdi to Devatas is acceptable but PhaladAt.rtvam and PrAdhanyam are not acceptable .

By and large it seems that the purport of SUtrakartA and otheer Nibandhakartas is that somehow or other a lot of S'raddhA in Karma has to be generated  to people  and nothing else .

It is just like -- vi.sam bhu'nk.sva , mA cAsya g.rhe bhu'nkthA.h -- consume poison , never dine in this person's house- it is TAtparyav.rtti to be taken , not AbhidhA . One need not consume poison .

Kha.n.dadeva also a follower of  KumArila and S'AlikanAtha . Therefore , in order to show that the non-acceptance of  VigrahAdi is not  the SiddhAnta  he went for ' Harismara.nam' .

It also amounts to refuting Mantras such as  - namassomAya ca rudrAya ca  .... namas's'ivAya ca s'ivatarAya ca . And obiviously it leads to Veda - aprAmA.nyam

KumArila's PrArthanA at the  outset of S'lokavArtikam runs like this -

vis'uddhajnAnadehAya trivedIdivyacak.su.se I
s'reya.hprAptinimittAya namassomArdhadhAri.ne II


Kha.n.dadeva  in BhA.t.tadIpikA --

vis'ves'varam namask.rtya kha.n.dadevasatAm mude I
tanute tatprasAdena samksiptam bhA.t.tadIpikAm II

VaiyAkara.nas  do not accept Var.nas but  assign meaning  to the same . MImAmsakas acept Var.nas but dicuss the meaning of Pada and Vakya only .

S'ankarAcArya ( in line with PUrvamImAmsa ) refutes Spho.ta (DevatAdhikara.nam) but the same is there in BhAgavata,
BhArata etc .


BAdarAya.na refutes Yoga (etena yogah pratyukt.h - BrahmasUtram - 2-1-3) but he did not mean to refute  the Upani.sad --

s'rotavyo mantavyo nididhAsitavya.h etc. . this is clear in S'ArIrakabhA.syam .

The Pancakos'Adhikara.nam in BrahmAnandavallI and Bh.rguvallI (TaittirIyopani.sad) is just an upAya and it ends up
in the siddhAnta -- brahma puccham prati.s.thA . So all five , viz Anna-prA.na-mano-vijnAna-Ananda , are not real .
 
Hari in VAkyapadIya (1-74 , 2-238)  says --

bhinnam dars'namAs'ritya vyavahAro'nugamyate I
tatra yanmukhyameke.sAm tatrAnye.sAm viparyaya.h II (viparyaya.h = opposite)

upAyA.h sik.sama.nAnAm  bAlAnAm apalAlanA.h I
asatye vartmani sthitvA tatassatyam samIhate II

One should try  to understand the SiddhAnta in the terse Texts of Indian Philosophy .

Finally one should perform Karmas to attain MAnasikas'uddhi  leading to Mok.sa .

dhanyo'smi

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Prof. Korada,

Although my post appears at the end of your post, yours is not a reaction to my post, I suppose.

I enjoy your posts. At places, however, I prefer to maintain the historical differences of schools (without thinking of them as totally settled or sealed) and not to synthesize their differences, using the umbrella of Vedanta. What is logically possible (the application of Gau.da-paada's 'tair aya.m na virudhyate' approach) is not always chronologically defensible.

ashok aklujkar

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

28 11 10 I agree with Professor Aklujkar. The tendency to try to make older views conform to later ones that have influenced the current critique is, however, very common in, and perhaps, peculiar to India. It has its brighter side too that has to be given due respect. Indian culture is synthetic and tries to accommodate every view. In effect this brings about sāṃmanasya; but one loses sight of history. I do not know how to remedy the fact that this is made in disregard of history. Best DB     --- On Sun, 28/11/10, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca> wrote:

From: Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Khadadeva's remark on divinities talked about in the vedas

[subrahmanyam korada]

Namo vidvadbhyah

Dear Prof Aklujkar

Yes , that's right . My posting , as is evident from the questions I noted at the top, was an answer
to Dr Raghavendra's two questions and there no room for any doubt .

In my first posting I quoted VedAnta and had shown  how the theory of VigrahAdi was
refuted across the Dars'anas , if taken historically .This is not to be taken  as synthesizing
differences . There is nothing wrong in taking up what is said by other schools .

It should not be construed as setled or sealed as it goes against the tenets of Indian Philosophy --
'abhiyuktatarai.h anyai.h anyathaivopapadyate' (VAkyapadIyam) . This is historically proved .

But today we do not have a KumAdrila or a S'Ankara .

The History, for most part , is not perfect  and it is subject to revision . One would say with available contents
and there is no othergo .

There are two ways --
1. take  the  school , that is being discussed ,only  and explain  the details .
2. give an overall picture , mostly the final one , taking the  total picture of  Indian Philosophy in a chronological order . .

Dr Raghavendra  asked  - 'to throw light on this' . So I did . It was in his latter post that he precisely put the two questions
If a question is asked , unless it is put secifically , it depends upon the perspective of the respondent to offer an answer .
When Dr Raghavendra quoted from BhA.t.tadIpika what does it mean ? He was well aware of the earlier texts and
wants further discussion , unless he makes it clear as to where the respondent should start . Generally speaking ,
in such postings it is difficult to estimate the questioner's level and most of the scholars do not go beyond the
School / System .
 Rather I strongly feel that this Forum should offer more than what is avilable in the texts , i.e.
a comparitive and comprehensive (as far as possible) picture  of things .

prajnA vivekam labhate bhinnairAgamadars'anai.hI
kiyadvA s'akyamunnetum svatarkamanudhAvatA ? (VAkyapadIyam - VAkyakA.n.da.h)

I am vindicated in my second posting as I stuck to the questions raised .

The picture in this regard is this - Jaimini did not say ' no vigrahAdi' .

 It was stated and elaborated by S'AbarasvAmy in his BhA.syam in DevatAdhikara.nam .

The latter commentators  explained the position but did not agree with S'abarasvAmy .

There are many instances where  Upavar.sav.rtti / S'AbarabhA.syam was  refuted by KumArila etc.

Also , we have to take KumArila's As'valAyanag.rhyaparis'is.tam etc. into consideration .

Also , without prejudice to any person (according to Adiparva of MahAbhAtata this is not wrong) one who regularly practises the Karmas ordained by Veda , i.e SvAdhyAya , SandhyAvandanam , PancamahAyajnas etc. can be an authority  as both theory and practice , which reached him thru avichinnaparamparA  are there .

Some teachers did not clearly give the position but simply said - no vigrahAdi according to MeemAmsakas , which is not the fact . It would have been better if they quoted S'AstradIpikA and BhA.t.tadIp9ikA etc. , who openly said
to the contrary .

A section of scholars kept on arguing that this is not the view of all MeemAmsakas - for example in Andhra
this has been there and I have printed evidence to this .

When we take the overall picture we may say . most of the scholars do not agree .

dhanyo'smi

2010/11/28 Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

ashok aklujkar

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhya.h

In my  second  posting there are two corrections -

in the third sentence  'on the other hand' should be replaced by ' in addition' .
it is PArthasArathimis'ra of S'AstradIpikA (1100) not S'AlikanAtha... .

I am really thankful to Prof Aklujkar in this regard .

(in nidhAnam , it is lyu.t by 'kara.nAdhikara.nayos'ca')

Dr Joshi

The questions you raised were discussed long ago in  NyAyadars'anam (2-1-62,63,64,68) --

1. vidhyarthavAdAnuvAdavacanaviniyogAt

2.vidhirvidhAyaka.h

3. stutirnindA parak.rti.h purAkalpa ityarthavAda.h

4. mantrAyurvedavacca tatprAmA.nyam - AptaprAmA.nyAt

please go thru the commentary - BhA.syam , PrasannapadA etc.

BhA.syam -- dra.st.rvakt.rsAmAmAnyAcca AnumAnam - ye eva AptA vedArthAnam dra.s.tAra.h pravaktAras'ca te eva Ayurvedaprabh.rtInAm ityAyurvedaprAmA.nyavad vedaprAmA.nyam anumAtavyam iti .

There has been an ' avicchinnaparamparA' on this AryAvarta that one can achieve Dharma thru perfect s'abdas and that'swhy the form of s'abdas  stands even today .

The Sabdas have got power , but should be pronounced in the prescribed fashion (S'ik.SA ,
VyAkara.nam etc.) and by a person who is not polluted by Asatyam , AsUyA etc .

Patanjali in Paspas'Ahnika says -- yAjne karma.ni tu nApabhA.sante sma etc. .

Vedic sabdas  are not totally different  --

1. S'AbarabhA.syam -- ya eva laukikA.h s'abdA.h ta eva vaidikA.h , ta eva te.sAm arthA.h .

2. MahAbha.syam  -- laukikAnAm vaidikAnam  ca  ( brAhma.navas'i.s.thanyAyena ubhayo.h upAdAnam - i.e. brAhma.nA AyAtA.h vas'i.s.topyAyAta.h) .

There is svara in Vedic s'abdas and the form (only)of certain s'adbdas is different -

kar.nebhi.h . devAsa.h etc.

There was  Vedic Grammar called PrAtis'AkhyA  for each Veda - why to come later    on ?

Where is Modern Linguistics ?

I sinceely appeal to scholars to give up the  myth of  Sanskrit having  emerged from  a
common proto type .
How can one depend upon a hypothesis  put forward by  ordinary people  and  neglect
the words of Yogis . This culture is totally different .

We do not blame these people because they were given 'durupades'a' .

Let one do a matching work  to - PA.nini , Sus'ruta , Patanjali etc

It is a waste of time to discuss  Indo Aryan Proto and  Aryans .

Hari clearly says -- daivy vAg vyavakIr.neyam as'aktai.h abhidhAt.rbhi.h .

dhanyo'smi

[Arun]

I had made the same remarks in my commentary on Sankhya
siddhanta-'ईश्वरस्य प्रयोजनं नास्ति'. There is unnecessary division of
Seshvara and Nirishvara sankhya. I had a long discussion with pandit
Dwarakanatha Shastri-greatest translator of Baudha texts. He was very
firm that Buddha (Siddhartha) was atheist. My interpretation was that
he was following verbal logic of Gautama, so he was called Gautama
Buddha. In that logic, discussion of God or Brahma is not needed, so
he did not say anything on that. But if Bauddha philosophy does not
believe in Atma, then what was taking birth in 100 lives of Buddha as
described in Jataka tells?-Arun

[Arun]

Comments on Mimansa and nyaya methods-Arun Kumar upadhyay, 09437034172
There is a famous story of six blind men who were wise and touched
different parts of elephant’s body. They gave 6 different versions of
same thing. That means that complete knowledge is possible by 6 angas
of Vedas and general view can be taken by 6 darśanas. However, under
guidance of Oxford where Boden chair had been set up for sole declared
purpose of destroying vedic culture, Oriental research Institute and
Asiatic Societies were set up. Presidency towns became centres of
mental slavery and Macaulay’s dream has been fulfilled that Indians
are Indians only in name-in mind they are British (slaves). Difficulty
of traditional paṇḍitas was that they did not know English. Difficulty
of present Sanskrit professors is that they do not know Sanskrit.
Among all 6 angas of Vedas, jyotiṣa is eye and without it, person is
really blind. Now they are not even touching the elephant. Instead of
learning jyotiṣa or other angas, people take pride of not knowing it.
India has become only country where ignorance is matter of pride.
Result is that all commentaries on Vedas are by scientists and
engineers-like Dr. Saligram Ramchandra Rao of NMHANS, Bangalore or Sri
R.L Kashyap (electrical engineer). Till 1952, mathematics professor
K.S. Shukla of Lucknow wrote commentaries on astronomy texts. Now it
is even beyond math professors as spherical astronomy is no longer in
syllabus and I had to write commentary on Siddhānta-darpaṇa in 1998-
after a gap of 46 years.
Meanings of words are explained in 4 stages, not by merely nyāya-
darśana.-
(1) Vyākaraṇa-formation of words from root verbs by suffix-prefix.
(2) Nyāya-verbal logic.
(3) Mīmānsā-forrnation of Pada and Vākya
(4) Vaiyāsika nyāya-link of meanings in 3 worlds-internal, physical
and cosmic.
There are 4 sources of words in Nirukta-Nāma, Ākhyāta, Upasarga,
Nipāta.
There are 7 samsthās which change meanings of words-
सर्वेषां तु स नामानि कर्माणि च पृथक् पृथक्। वेद शब्देभ्य एवादौ पृथक्
संस्थाश्च निर्ममे। (मनुस्मृति १/२१)
These are-3 world systems, geographical features, history of a place,
branch of science, system of script (or language).
Thus, there are 4x7 = 28 types of weaknesses (or strengths) stated in
sānkhya (sūtra 3/28, or Tattva-samāsa, 13). For 28 buddhi-vadhas,
there are 28 buddhas stated in Thūpa (Stūpa) vamśa.
Due to extreme pride in ignorance of Sanskrit or any anga of Vedas-
these are stated as songs of illiterate cowherds, philosophical
speculations, or ramblings in Vedānta. Some examples are given below
which indicate that the numerical measures. They cannot come from any
rambling-
(1)त्रीणि शता त्रीसहस्राण्यग्निं त्रिंशच्च देवा नव चा सपर्यन्। (ऋक्
३/९/९, १०/५२/६, य़जु ३३/७)
This is link between 2 measures of time and gives a basis of 33 crore
devas.
(2) क्षयं सम्वत्सराणां च मासानां च क्षयं तथा। (महाभारत, शान्ति पर्व
३०१/४६)
Which calendar system has loss of years now?
(3) Heat zone up to 100 diameters of sun-
शत योजने ह वा एष (आदित्यः) इतस्तपति । (कौषीतकि ब्राह्मण ८/३)
(4) Bright light up to 1000 diameters of sun-color there is copper-
red-
सहस्रं हैत आदित्यस्य रश्मयः (जैमिनीय उपनिषद् ब्राह्मण १/४४/५०)
असौ यस्ताम्रो अरुण उत बभ्रुः सुमङ्गलः।
ये चैनं रुद्रा अभितो दिक्षु श्रिताः सहस्रशोऽवैषां हेड ईमहे ॥(यजु
१६/६)
(5) Number of Lomagartta (cells) = Number of stars in galaxy
= number of galaxies in space = 1011.
Svedāyana is about 11,20,000 part of 1 second-for this time rain-drops
retain their shape-i.e. up to about 270 meters.
एभ्यो लोमगर्त्तेभ ऊर्ध्वानि ज्योतींष्यान्। तद्यानि ज्योतींषिः एतानि
तानि नक्षत्राणि। यावन्त्ये तानि नक्षत्राणि तावन्तो लोमगर्त्ताः। (शतपथ
ब्राह्मण १०/४/४/२)
पुरोषो वै सम्वत्सरः..॥१॥ दश वै सहस्राणाष्टौ च शतानि सम्वत्सरस्य
मुहूर्त्ताः। यावन्तो मुहूर्त्तास्तावन्ति पञ्चदशकृत्वः क्षिप्राणि।
यावन्ति क्षिप्राणि तावन्ति पञ्चदशकृत्वः एतर्हीणि। यावन्त्ये एतर्हीणि,
तावन्ति पञ्चदशकृत्वः इदानीनि। यावन्तीदानीनि, तावन्तः पञ्चदशकृत्वः
प्राणाः। यावन्तः प्राणाः, तावन्तोऽक्तनाः। यावन्तोऽनाः, तावन्तो
निमेषाः। यावन्तो निमेषाः, तावन्तो लोमगर्त्ताः। यावन्तो लोमगर्त्ताः,
तावन्ति स्वेदायनानि। यावन्ति स्वेदायनानि, तावन्त एते स्तोका वर्षन्ति।
(शतपथ ब्राह्मण १२/३/२/५)
(6) 15 zones of thousands, parallel of Brahma and Vāk, called Vāk-
artha-pratipatti by Kālidāsa (Raghuvamśa start).
सहस्रधा पञ्चदशान्युक्था, यावद् द्यावा पृथ्वी तावदित् तत्। सहस्रधा
महिमानः सहस्रं, यावद् ब्रह्म विष्ठति तावती वाक्॥ (ऋक् १०/११४/८)
(7) 3 zones of 1000’s by interaction of Indra and Viṣṇu-
उभा जिग्यथुर्न पराजयेथे न पराजिग्ये कतरा च नैनोः।
इन्द्रश्च विष्णुश्च यदपस्पृधेथां त्रेधा सहस्रं वितदै रयेथाम्।(ऋक्
६/६९/८)
(8) 1000 heads, axis and feet of Puruṣa-
सहस्रशीर्षा पुरुषः सहस्राक्षः सहस्रपात्। स भूमिं
सर्वतस्पृत्वात्यत्तिष्ठद्दशाङ्गुलम्॥१॥
(9) 3x7 samidhā, versions of existence or satya, viśvas-
सप्तास्यासन् परिधयस्त्रिः सप्त समिधः कृताः। देवा यद्यज्ञं तन्वाना
अबध्नन् पुरुषं पशुम्॥१५।। (यजु ३१/१,१५)
सतयव्रतं सत्यपरं त्रिसत्यं सतयस्य योनिं निहितं च सत्ये।
सत्यस्य सत्यं ऋत-सत्य नेत्रं, सत्यात्मकं त्वां शरणं प्रपन्नाः॥(भागवत
पुराण १०/२/२६)
येत्रिषप्ता परियन्ति विश्वाः (अथर्व १/१/१)
(10)8 chakras and 9 dvāras in man and world-
अष्टचक्रा नवद्वारा देवानां पूरयोध्या। तस्यां हिरण्ययं कोशः स्वर्गो
ज्योतिषावृतः॥ (अथर्व १०/२/३१)
(11) Divisions of Vāk in 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 1000 parts-
गौरीर्मिमाय सलिलानि तक्षत्येकपदी द्विपदी सा चतुष्पदी। अष्टापदीनवपदी
बभूवुषी सहस्राक्षरा परमे व्योमन्॥
(ऋक् १/१६४/४१, अथर्व ९/१०/२१, १३/१/४२, तैत्तिरीय ब्राह्मण २/४/६/११,
तैत्तिरीय आरण्यक १/९/४, निरुक्त ११/४०)
(12) 4+36 grahas, holding 12 rāśis as measure of yajña. Ṛk-sāma
combination. This division is number of chapters in śukla-uajurveda.
षट् त्रिंशाश्च चतुरः कल्पयन्तश्छन्दांसि च दधत आद्वादशम्।
यज्ञं विमाय कवयो मनीष ऋक् सामाभ्यां प्ररथं वर्तयन्ति।(ऋक् १०/११४/६)
(13) Cow of 100 Odanas-100 branches of yajurveda.
इन्द्रेण दत्ता प्रथमा शतौदना भ्रातृव्यघ्नी यजमानस्य गातुः। अथर्व
१०/७/१)
(14) Īṣā-daṇḍa of 18000 sun diameters, freedom from Amīvā (Amoeba)
i.e. infections, and from Yakśmā (tuberculosis)-
ॐ इ॒षे त्वो॑र्जे त्वा॑ वा॒यव॑ स्थ दे॒वो वः॑ सवि॒ता प्रार्प॑यतु
आप्या॑यध्व मघ्न्या॒ इन्द्रा॑य भा॒गं प्र॒जाव॑तीरनमी॒वा अ॑य॒क्ष्मा मा
व॑ स्तेन ई॑षत माघशँ॑सो ध्रुवा अ॒स्मिन् गोप॑तौ स्यात ब॒ह्वीर्यजमा॑नस्य
प॒शून्पा॑हि (वा. यजु १/१)
योजनानां सहस्राणि भास्करस्य रथो नव। ईषादण्डस्तथैवास्य द्विगुणो
मुनिसत्तम॥२॥
सार्धकोटिस्तथा सप्त नियुतान्यधिकानि वै। योजनानां तु तस्याक्षस्तत्र
चक्रं प्रतिष्ठितम्॥३॥
(विष्णु पुराण २/८/२-३)

On Nov 26, 10:55 am, "Raghavendra " <rv...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vdvadbhyah

I got the text of S’astradIpikA along with the commentary
MayUkhamallikA of SomanAtha . I also have MImAmsAnukrama.nikA of
Ma.n.danamis’ra .

I quote relevant portions --

"DharmA.nAm adevatAprayuktatvAdhikara.nam ---

JaiminisUtrA.ni ( 9-1-4-6,7,8,9 ) – devatA vA prayojayet atithivat
bhojanasya tadarthatvAt , ArthApattyAt, tatas’ca tena sambandha.h ,
api vA s’abdapUrvatvAt yajnakarma pradhAnam syAt gu.natve
devtAs’ruti.h , atithau tatpradhanatvamabhAva.h karma.ni syAt tasya
prItiprahAnatvAt .

DIpikA – (PUrvapak.sa.h)

Evam tAvatphaladAyitve’pi na devatAyAh prayojakatvam
svarUpe.netyuktam I idAnIm tu nAsyA.h phaladAyitvam nApi prAdhAnyam
iti pratipAdyate . ( comm. – kim devatArAdhanArtho yAga
utaphalArtha.h ? yadA phalArtha.h tadA kim devatAprasAdo dvAram uta
apUrvam iti cintyate ityartha.h) .

DIp - … tasmAt pradhanam yAgas’ca devatApUjA I sA ca loke
pUjyamAnArthA atithibhojanAdivat.

Ato devatArAdhanArtho yAga.h , sA cArAdhitA phalam ArAdhayitre
dadAtIti yuktam evam ca laukikaprasiddhapadArthasvabhAvo nAtikrAnto
bhavati ( comm. – pUjitasya phaladAt.rtvam gurvAdau d.r.s.tmiti
tadvadeva iti bhAva.h )

SiddhAnta.h --

Dip --- … evam prApte brUma.h -- yAgasyaiva padas’rutyA
phalasAdhanatocyate . … yadyapi devatA vigrahavatI parig.rhya
bhuktvA t.rpyati prasIdati ca tathApi yAgAdeva phalam , vigrahavatI
ca anityA

syAt . tathA ca nityavedavi.sayatvam na syAt . satyapi vigrahe
prav.rttasya havi.so devatayA bhoga.h

pratyak.saviruddho ‘ s’akyo ‘bhyupagantum . nacAbhunjAnA prasIdatIti yuktam .

yattu asyA yAgasAdhanadvArA phalanirv.rttyupayogitvam
tadabhiprAyAdeva devatAyA.h phaladAyitvavAda.h senApatinA grAmo
datta itivat . tattanmantrArthavAdetihAsapurA.ne.svapi devatAnAmapi
tapas’cara.nakratvnu.s.thAnabrahmAstrAdimantratas’ca
samIhitasiddhyanukIrtanAt karma.na eva phalam gamyate . mandadhiyastu
s’raddhAlava.h tAtparyamajAnAnA bhrAmyantu nAma. ( comm. –
sUtrArthastu devataiva sarvAn dharmAn prayojayet , bhojanasya
yAgasya idam havi.h devatA bhok.syate iti kriyamA.natvAt yAgasya
bhojanas’abdena nirdes’a.h .

MImAmsAnukrama.nikA – devatAvigraAdivAdyapi vinA karma.nA
phalasiddhim nAbhyupaiti I tasmAt ubhayavAdyabhimatam
yAgAdikarmaiva phalapradamavagantavyam I karma.nAm cApUrvameva
sAk.sat phalapradam ."

It may be noted that Ma.n.danamis'ra (who later became
Sures'varAcArya) , although a
MimAmsaka , supported Spho.tavAda and even authored a book called
'Spho.tasiddhi' .

In case some MImAmsakas argue that there is no VigrahAdi then what is
the fate of -
'sambhavAmi yuge yuge ' etc.
Jaimini was a disciple of BAdarAya.na , who authored MahAbhAratam ,
wherein it was described that KuntI had had a Dars'an of Indra, VAyu
etc .
RudrAbhi.sekam etc will be null and void .
In the quoted JaiminisUtra - 'atithibhojanam' is also significant .

That'swhy Harismara.nam .

regards

On 11/28/10, subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:
> namo vidvadbhya.h
>
> In my second posting there are two corrections -
>
> in the third sentence 'on the other hand' should be replaced by ' in
> addition' .
> it is PArthasArathimis'ra of S'AstradIpikA (1100) not S'AlikanAtha... .
>
> I am really thankful to Prof Aklujkar in this regard .
>
> (in nidhAnam , it is lyu.t by 'kara.nAdhikara.nayos'ca')
>
> Dr Joshi
>

> The questions you raised were discussed long ago in *NyAyadars'anam
> *(2-1-62,63,64,68)

> --
>
> 1. vidhyarthavAdAnuvAdavacanaviniyogAt
>
> 2.vidhirvidhAyaka.h
>
> 3. stutirnindA parak.rti.h purAkalpa ityarthavAda.h
>

> 4.* mantrAyurvedavacca tatprAmA.nyam* *- AptaprAmA.nyAt*
>
> please go thru the commentary - *BhA.syam , PrasannapadA etc.
> *
> *BhA.syam -- dra.st.rvakt.rsAmAmAnyAcca AnumAnam - ye eva AptA vedArthAnam

> dra.s.tAra.h pravaktAras'ca te eva Ayurvedaprabh.rtInAm
> ityAyurvedaprAmA.nyavad vedaprAmA.nyam anumAtavyam iti .

> *
> There has been an '* avicchinnaparamparA' *on this *AryAvarta that one can
> achieve Dharma* thru perfect s'abdas and that'swhy the form of s'abdas

> stands even today .
>
> The Sabdas have got power , but should be pronounced in the prescribed
> fashion (S'ik.SA ,
> VyAkara.nam etc.) and by a person who is not polluted by Asatyam , AsUyA
> etc
> .
>

> *Patanjali in Paspas'Ahnika* says -- *yAjne karma.ni tu nApabhA.sante sma
> etc.* .
>
> *Vedic sabdas* are not totally different --
>
> 1.* S'AbarabhA.syam -- ya eva laukikA.h s'abdA.h ta eva vaidikA.h , ta eva
> te.sAm arthA.h .*
>
> 2. *MahAbha.syam -- laukikAnAm vaidikAnam ca (

> brAhma.navas'i.s.thanyAyena ubhayo.h upAdAnam - i.e. brAhma.nA AyAtA.h
> vas'i.s.topyAyAta.h) .

> *
> *There is svara in Vedic s'abdas and the form (only)of certain s'adbdas is
> different *-
>
> *kar.nebhi.h . devAsa.h* etc.
>
> There was *Vedic Grammar called PrAtis'AkhyA for each Veda - why to come
> later on ?*

>
> Where is Modern Linguistics ?
>
> I sinceely appeal to scholars to give up the myth of Sanskrit having
> emerged from a
> common proto type .
> How can one depend upon a hypothesis put forward by ordinary people and
> neglect
> the words of Yogis . This culture is totally different .
>

> We do not blame these people because they were given *'durupades'a'* .
>
> *Let one do a matching work to - PA.nini , Sus'ruta , Patanjali etc*

>
> It is a waste of time to discuss Indo Aryan Proto and Aryans .
>

> Hari clearly says -- *daivy vAg vyavakIr.neyam as'aktai.h abhidhAt.rbhi.h
> *.