Anantaa vai vedaah

[Siva Senani Nori]

Recently there was a question on this. Given below are the relevant extracts from the Taittiriya Brahmana, SaayaNabhaashya, Bhattabhaaskarabhaashya. Here is a brief (and rough) English translation.
 
Long time back a sage called Bharadvaaja propitiated Indra and got three lifespans (of 100 years each) more. He used them to study Vedas by practising Brahmacharya and by staying with the Guru. At the end of it, as he lay unable to move, Indra asked him what he would do if he got a fourth lifespan. Bharadvaaja replied that he would continue to study the Vedas. Then in order to show the impossibility of that, Indra showed three mountains (here the commentators differ slightly) as Vedas, took three handfuls of mud from them and said "these are the three Vedas read by you, and those the mountains are what remain to be studied; the Vedas are endless". Indra then preached Bharadvaaja the Savitragni which gives the same result as knowing all the Vedas.
 
Another place where this matter is discussed is in the PaspaSaahnikam (a critical introduction or epilogue) of the VyaakaraNa Mahaabhaashyam of Patanjali. There, Patanjali says:
 
"Great is the range for the use of words -- earth with its seven island-continents, three worlds, four vedas with their angas and upanishads with manifold varieties, Yajurveda with 101 recensions, Saamaveda with 1000 recensions, Rigveda with 21 recensions and Atharvaveda with nine recensions, science of discussions, history, puraaNas and works on medicine." (p65, Vidyaratna P. S. Subrahmany Sastri; Lecutres on Patanjali's Mahabhashya, Vol. I, Annamalai University Sanskrit Series No. 9, Annamaali Nagar, 1944).
 
Regards
N. Siva Senani
 
मूलम् –तैत्तिरीयब्राह्मणे तृतीयेऽष्टके दशमे प्रपाठके एकादशतमेऽनुवाके पठ्यते। तच्च यथा।
 
... भरद्वाजो ह त्रिभिरायुर्भिर्ब्रह्मचर्यमुवास। तं ह जीर्णं स्थविरं शयानम्। इन्द्र उपव्रज्योवाच। भरद्वाज। यत्ते चतुर्थमायुर्दद्याम्। किमेनेन कुर्या इति। ब्रह्मचर्यमेवैनेन चरेयमिति होवाच ।। 3 ।।
 
तं ह त्रीन्गिरिरूपानविज्ञातानिव दर्शयाञ्चकार। तेषां हैकैकस्मान्मुष्टिमाददे। स होवाच। भरद्वाजेत्यामन्त्र्य। वेदा वा एते।अनन्ता वै वेदाः। एतद्वा एतैस्त्रिभिरायुर्भिरन्ववोचथाः। अथ तम् इतरदननूक्तमेव। एहीमं विद्धि। अयं वै सर्वविद्येति ।। 4 ।।
 
तस्मै हैतमग्निं सावित्रमुवाच। तं स विदित्वा। अमृतो भूत्वा। स्वर्गं लोकमियाय। आदित्यस्य सायुज्यम् इति।
 
श्रीमत्सायाणाचार्यविरचितभाष्यम्
 
पुरा कदाचिद्भरद्वाजाख्यो महर्षिः सर्वेषां वेदानामध्ययने कृतप्रयत्नं इन्द्रं _साद्य तत्प्रसादाच्छतसंवत्सरपरिमि-तानि त्रीणयायूंषि लब्ध्वा तैरायुर्भिर्ब्रह्मचर्यमुवास वेदाध्ययनमुद्दिश्य गुरुकुले वासं कृतवान्। शतत्रयस्यान्ते जीर्णशरीरं वृद्धमशक्तत्वेन शयानं तं भहद्वाजं प्रतीन्द्र उपेत्योवाच। यच्चतुर्थमायुस्तुभ्यं दद्यामेतेनाऽऽयुषा किं कुर्याः
कं पुरुषार्थं साधयसीति। स च वेदाध्ययनमेव करिष्यामीत्युवाच। ततः सर्ववेदाध्ययनकृतयत्नं तं भरद्वाजमुद्दिश्य सर्वाध्ययनस्याशक्यत्वं बोधयितुमृग्यजुःसामवेदानां त्रायाणां स्वकीययोगसामर्थ्येन पर्वता-कारत्वं सम्पाद्य गिरित्रयरूपान्पूर्वमविज्ञातानेव वेदानस्मै दर्शयामास। ततस्तेषां पर्वातानां मध्य एकैकस्मा-त्पर्वतान्मुष्टिना पांसूनाददे। आदायैवमुवाच --
हे भहद्वाज, एते त्रयः पर्वता वेदा एव। तत्रैकैकः पांसरेको वेदस्तस्मादनन्ता वेदास्तेषां मध्ये त्वमेतैस्त्रिभिरायुर्भिरेतन्मुष्टित्रयपरिमितं वेदजातं गुरूपदेशमन्वधीतवान् असि। अथानन्तरं तवेतरद्वेदजातमनधीतमेव। तस्मात्सर्वंवेदाध्ययनमशक्यमेव। यदि सर्वाध्ययनफलमपेक्षितं तर्ह्यागच्छेमं सावित्रमग्निं विद्धि ध्यानेनसाक्षात्कुरु।अयमेव सावित्रोऽग्निः
सर्ववेदविषया विद्येत्येवं बोधयित्वा तस्मै भरद्वाजायैतं सावित्रमाग्निं पूर्वोक्तप्रकारेणोवाच। ततः स भरद्वाजस्वं सावित्रमग्निं ध्यानेन स्वात्मतया साक्षात्कृत्य तदग्निरूपः स्वयममृतो देवो भूत्वा वर्तमानदेहादूर्ध्वं स्वर्गं प्राप्य तत्राऽऽदित्य-सायुज्यं प्राप्तवान्।
 
भट्टभास्कराचार्यकृतभाष्यम्
 
भरद्वाजइत्यादि।। त्रिभिरायुर्भिः पुरुषायुषस्य त्रिभिरंशैः ब्रह्मचर्यं ब्रह्म वेदः,  तदर्थं व्रतं ब्रह्मचर्यं,तन्निमित्तं गुरुकुले उवास ब्रह्मचर्यमेव वा गुरुकुलवासेन कृतवान् गुरुकुले स्थितो वेदानधिजगे। अथ जीर्णंजरां प्राप्तम्। औणादिको निप्रत्यः। स्थविरं स्थावरकल्पं शयानं निश्चेष्टं उपव्रज्य उपसङ्गम्य इन्द्र उवाच –हे भरद्वाज !यद्यहं
चतुर्थमप्यायुषोंऽशं तुभ्यं दद्यां किमनेन कालेन त्वं कुर्याः? इति।अथ भरद्वाज उवाच – ब्रह्मचर्यमेव एनेनप्यायुषा चरेयं नानधीत्यसर्वान् वेदान् ब्रह्मचर्याद्विरमेयमिति। अथ कृत्स्नवेदाध्ययनस्य अशक्यतां दर्शयितुं गिरिरूपान् प्रशस्तान् पर्वतान् वेदमयान्, प्रशंसायां रूपप्। त्रीन् त्रयीलक्षणानविज्ञातानिव अननुभूतपूर्वनिव स्थितान् तं भरद्वाजं दर्शयामास। ‘
अभिभवादिदृशोरात्मनेपद उपसङ्ख्यानम्’इति वयनाद्व्यत्ययेन भरद्वाजस्य कर्मत्वम्। अथेन्द्रस्तेषां वेदराशीनमेकदेशमेकैकस्माद्गिरेः मुष्टिना मुष्टिमात्रया आददे। आदाय च भरद्वाजेति भहद्वाजमवधानार्थमामन्त्र्य इन्द्र उवाच – एतेगिरिस्थानीया वेदराशयः। अनन्ताः खलु वेदाः, एतत्खलु मुष्टित्रयमात्रमेव एतैस्त्रिभिरायुर्भिः अन्ववोचथाः गुरूपदेशमनु अधीतवानसि। अथ
अनन्तरं तव इतरत् वेदजातं अननूक्तं अनधीतमेव। तस्मात्सर्वान् वेदान् कोऽध्येप्यते ? एहिसाधो ! इमं सावित्रं विद्धि, अयं हि सावित्रः सर्वविद्या सर्ववेदविद्याध्ययनपुण्यफलावाप्तिहेतुः, तस्मात्तत्किं वृथाश्रमेण ? इदमेव वेदितव्यमित्युक्त्वा तस्मै भरद्वाजाय सावित्रमुवाच। तमित्यादि गतम् ।।
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assist

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

साधुवादाः ।
तैत्तिरीयारण्यकभाष्यादिप्राप्त्या हर्षो मे महान् ।
*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@advaita-v

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Siva Senani garu, Shri Lalitaalaalita ji and all other friends

Thank you for your very meticulous effort in giving us these valuable
quotations from the mUlaM and the two bhAShyam-s.

The question was - is "anantA vai vedAH" (taittiriya brAhmaNam 3rd aShTakaM)
only a gunArthavAda or can it be taken literally. I know full well the
limitation of intellect in arriving at a final conclusion. But in favor of
"Vedas are infinite", the following points come up

1. The non-mention of "arthavAda" to refer to anantA vai vedAH ,
explicitly, in both sAyaNa bhAShya and bhattabhAskarAcArya-kRta bhAShya is
noteworthy.

2. And the phrases "tasmAt sarvavedAdhyayanam ashakyameva",
"kRtsna-vedAdhyayanasya ashakyatA" in the 2 bhAShyA-s would not have used
had there been even hypothetically a possibility (by bharadhvAja) of
mastering the entire Veda, large though the corpus may be.

3. In BS bhAShya on the shAstra-yonitvAt sUtra, we have (quoted already)
yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha vyAkaraNadi
pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH
kimuvaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH ...
"whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara, this
kaimUtika-nyAya is presented and in the next line in bhAShya, the word
'aprayatnena' precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or
'composed'.)
The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knowledge
which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not amounting to
freshly creating) the Vedas as we know them. (The word 'aprayatnena'
precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or 'composed'.) To
say that exactly the same finite set of mantras are manifested in every
kalpa while some other mantras are never "breathed" out and are permanently
resident in Ishvara, seems a little far-fetched.

4. It was suggested by Sri Shyamji that LYV seems to lend some credence to
this proposition that the names of Rishis like yAjnavalkya and King Janaka
are class appellations (like 'cow-ness' etc., it may be acceptable to look
at the different Janakas manifested in different kalpas to together
constitute a class possessing 'janakatvam') and different jIvas enact a
similar (not necessarily identical) script in each kalpa. That is why the
names of Rishis are sometimes different. (Here the example of shrI VyAsa an
AdhikArIka and apAntaratamas was quoted - although they belong to different
yuga-s in the same kalpa. But the idea of Rudra in one kalpa being Brahma in
another fits better as an example.) In this manner the non-return of those
who have attained jnAna in one kalpa is accounted for. The vacancy is filled
in another kalpa by another jIva. The possibility of a change in the name of
these adhikArika puruSa-s was also pointed out and this also gels with the
idea that "there is no need to insist on EXACTLY the same Veda mantras (to
the letter) repeating over and over again like a gramaphone record. Some of
the details at least, like the names of the particular jIva enacting the
role in a particular kalpa may be different from the name of the jIva
enacting the role in another kalpa." All such changes in the manifested
portion of the Veda does not affect the fact the sum total of the infinite
Veda which rests inseparable from Ishvara and that totality of the Veda is
unchanging and nitya.

The above ideas seem quite plausible, if only because there is no other way
to explain the first descent of the Veda mantras on to the Earth through the
pure minds of the mantra-dRShTAraH. It is my subjective opinion that their
total lack of ahamkAra and utter selflessness not to speak of mastery of
Yoga renders it useless to argue that "if the mantras were revealed in the
minds of some human being at some in time in history after the earth came
into being, the Vedas become paurusheya." Not necessarily.
If we insist that the Guru-Shishya karNa-paramparA did not 'start' at some
distant historical time, it is in obvious conflict with the evidence from
pratyakSha and anumAna that the Earth came in to being at some definite
point in time.

The overall interest in this question is not at all to do any historical
research. Rather, its because we ought not to rigidly hold on to any idea
which clashes with other pramANa-s in view of the need to maintain the
mutual non-contradiction between them - pramANAntara abAdhitatvam. To say
that the mantradRShTR mentioned in the Veda themselves were not those who
actually were the first to mediate the descent of these mantras on Earth
(since these mantras preceded history), but that there were others whose
names are unknown is also far-fetched but not disprovable.

Thank you everyone for your clarifications. I would be the first one to
admit that it may not be possible to arrive a definite conclusion which
satisfies everyone. But through such mantras like 'anantA vai VedAH', we
can, I believe arrive at some answer to satisfy ourselves at a subjective
level.

Raghav

P.S. Sri Shyam ji also quoted this translation presumably from
LYV,indicative of a gradual manifestation of the planet earth, life etc.,
The Yogi replied: "There was a time when for eleven thousand years, this
earth was one (nebulous) mass of dust filled with stones but without
mountains, trees or grass even appearing in it for a long time. In one
Chatur-Yuga (four yugas), this earth was one vast forest...."

In favor of the opposite idea that the Vedas are a fixed and finite set of
mantras which undergo no change from kalpa to kalpa, one could argue that
the intent in showing the muShTika and comparing them to the three hills,
itself amounts to arthavAda being intended merely to disincentivize
bhAradhvAja maharshi from pursuing further study. So 'anantAh' can be taken
by some as arthavAda. Also the example itself if taken literally, still
technically implies, only an enormous but finite relation between the
muShTika and the 3 hills, Besides the finite limit on the number of
recensions too is to be taken into account. Also what you wrote in the
previous mail that nAgeSabhatta's tIka on patanjali-mahAbhAshya in the
paspaSAhnikaM remarkably has several layers of meanings encapsulating all
the past interpretations and much of the future interpretations, conveyed
through just a few words, can if stretched somewhat, imply that even a
finite set of mantras can possibly encapsulate 'non-finite' knowledge, given
the special character of the vedic mantras. In modern information theory,
this would be captured by the word "infinitesmally small entropy.")



2011/8/25 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <***@gmail.com>

> साधुवादाः ।
> तैत्तिरीयारण्यकभाष्यादिप्राप्त्या हर्षो मे महान् ।
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listma

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 07:38, Raghav Kumar <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> The question was - is "anantA vai vedAH" (taittiriya brAhmaNam 3rd
> aShTakaM)
> only a gunArthavAda or can it be taken literally. I know full well the
> limitation of intellect in arriving at a final conclusion.


If you are not following a single school of thought, then you will never
reach a conclusion.
Moreover, सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ धाता यथापूर्वमकल्पयत् proves creation of specific
things (and not all) in same manner.


> But in favor of
> "Vedas are infinite", the following points come up
>
> 1. The non-mention of "arthavAda" to refer to anantA vai vedAH ,
> explicitly, in both sAyaNa bhAShya and bhattabhAskarAcArya-kRta bhAShya is
> noteworthy.
>

They don't tell that it's 'not an arthavAda' . So, it will prove it
arthavAda. This is according to your nyAya.
Not negating a thing doesn't prove a thing true. And, not all thing is
mentioned by commentators. There are limits. Otherwise after bhAShyam of
sha~Nkara there must not arise any doubt.


> 2. And the phrases "tasmAt sarvavedAdhyayanam ashakyameva",
> "kRtsna-vedAdhyayanasya ashakyatA" in the 2 bhAShyA-s would not have used
> had there been even hypothetically a possibility (by bharadhvAja) of
> mastering the entire Veda, large though the corpus may be.
>

Even if shAkhAs of three veda-s are numerous, it will be impossible for us
to study all shAkhA-s.
So, there is no need to accept their limitlessness. I've shown other
problems in original thread.


>
> 3. In BS bhAShya on the shAstra-yonitvAt sUtra, we have (quoted already)
> yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha vyAkaraNadi
> pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH
> kimuvaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH ...
> "whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
> particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
> the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
> what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara, this
> kaimUtika-nyAya is presented and in the next line in bhAShya, the word
> 'aprayatnena' precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or
> 'composed'.)
> The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
> noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knowledge
> which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not amounting to
> freshly creating) the Vedas as we know them. (The word 'aprayatnena'
> precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or 'composed'.)


See original thread.


> To
> say that exactly the same finite set of mantras are manifested in every
> kalpa while some other mantras are never "breathed" out and are permanently
> resident in Ishvara, seems a little far-fetched.
>

We say that whole veda is given to brahmA and he gives different shAkhA-s to
R^iShis.
We have never said that un-breathed veda-s even exist.


> 4. It was suggested by Sri Shyamji that LYV seems to lend some credence to
> this proposition that the names of Rishis like yAjnavalkya and King Janaka
> are class appellations (like 'cow-ness' etc., it may be acceptable to look
> at the different Janakas manifested in different kalpas to together
> constitute a class possessing 'janakatvam') and different jIvas enact a
> similar (not necessarily identical) script in each kalpa.


LYV uses stories to convey it's idea.
Moreover, janakatvam is not a jAtI, because manuShyatvam is enough to do all
work.

The possibility of a change in the name of
> these adhikArika puruSa-s was also pointed out and this also gels with the
> idea that "there is no need to insist on EXACTLY the same Veda mantras (to
> the letter) repeating over and over again like a gramaphone record.


How ?
Even now people repeat veda-s as 'gramophone record'. Any change in that is
not accepted.


> All such changes in the manifested
> portion of the Veda does not affect the fact the sum total of the infinite
> Veda which rests inseparable from Ishvara and that totality of the Veda is
> unchanging and nitya.
>

Any change in veda expects AyAsa. So, it will be pauruSheya.
Even if a portion is changed, the whole is changed.
Leave nityatvam. mImAMsakas accept that. But, a person talking Ishvara as
origin of veda must know that they are not nitya. Anyway they are made
pauruSheya by your assumptions.


>
> The above ideas seem quite plausible, if only because there is no other way
> to explain the first descent of the Veda mantras on to the Earth through
> the
> pure minds of the mantra-dRShTAraH.


mImAMsakas and vedAntins, both say that veda-s are coming from
anAdi-paramparA. No one accepts any R^iShi as starting point. If you think
so, you are not talking according to mImAMsA or vedAnta. I leave it on you
to resolve.


> It is my subjective opinion that their
> total lack of ahamkAra and utter selflessness not to speak of mastery of
> Yoga renders it useless to argue that "if the mantras were revealed in the
> minds of some human being at some in time in history after the earth came
> into being, the Vedas become paurusheya." Not necessarily.
> If we insist that the Guru-Shishya karNa-paramparA did not 'start' at some
> distant historical time, it is in obvious conflict with the evidence from
> pratyakSha and anumAna that the Earth came in to being at some definite
> point in time.
>

According to mImAMsakas, it didn't start at specific time.
Vedantin's accept their start at sR^iShTi or kalpArambha, etc.
We don't accept Darwin's theory or modern science's theory of creation.
If you accept then don't talk of veda-s as pramANa, apauruSheyatva, Ishvara,
etc. It will be impossible to prove.


>
> The overall interest in this question is not at all to do any historical
> research. Rather, its because we ought not to rigidly hold on to any idea
> which clashes with other pramANa-s in view of the need to maintain the
> mutual non-contradiction between them - pramANAntara abAdhitatvam.


I know it.
But, as you check every assumption of mImAMsaka-s, vedAntin-s, we expect you
to check every assumption of theories which you have borrowed from anywhere
else, including pratyakSha, anumAna, science, etc.


> To say
> that the mantradRShTR mentioned in the Veda themselves were not those who
> actually were the first to mediate the descent of these mantras on Earth
> (since these mantras preceded history), but that there were others whose
> names are unknown is also far-fetched but not disprovable.
>

You are free to accept them as real, but only after leaving apauruSheyatva,
Ishvara, dharma, etc.


>
> Thank you everyone for your clarifications. I would be the first one to
> admit that it may not be possible to arrive a definite conclusion which
> satisfies everyone.


That's because we lack study according to single school.
We also fail to check where we are mixing other theories without checking.


>
> P.S. Sri Shyam ji also quoted this translation presumably from
> LYV,indicative of a gradual manifestation of the planet earth, life etc.,
> The Yogi replied: "There was a time when for eleven thousand years, this
> earth was one (nebulous) mass of dust filled with stones but without
> mountains, trees or grass even appearing in it for a long time. In one
> Chatur-Yuga (four yugas), this earth was one vast forest...."
>

We never heard it from any purANa, etc.
LYV is not a pramANa as veda, purANa, etc.


>
> In favor of the opposite idea that the Vedas are a fixed and finite set of
> mantras which undergo no change from kalpa to kalpa, one could argue that
> the intent in showing the muShTika and comparing them to the three hills,
> itself amounts to arthavAda being intended merely to disincentivize
> bhAradhvAja maharshi from pursuing further study.


True.


> So 'anantAh' can be taken
> by some as arthavAda. Also the example itself if taken literally, still
> technically implies, only an enormous but finite relation between the
> muShTika and the 3 hills, Besides the finite limit on the number of
> recensions too is to be taken into account.


True.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@ad

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Namaste Siva Senani garu, Shri Lalitaalaalita ji and all other friends
>
> Thank you for your very meticulous effort in giving us these valuable
> quotations from the mUlaM and the two bhAShyam-s.
>
> The question was - is "anantA vai vedAH" (taittiriya brAhmaNam 3rd aShTakaM)
> only a gunArthavAda or can it be taken literally. I know full well the
> limitation of intellect in arriving at a final conclusion. But in favor of
> "Vedas are infinite", the following points come up
>

That's an interesting question.

The arthavAda is the praise that the knowledge of the sAvitracayanam
is equal to the knowledge of all the vedas, the arthavaada is not on
the "anantaa.h" characteristic of the vedas. The text says
"avi~jnaataan **iva* darshayaan cakaara". The parable is that the
mountain was so big and at such a distance, that it's size could not
be comprehended by the human intellect, although not "infinite" in the
mathematical sense of the word. Bhaaradvaaja with 75 years of study (3
lifetimes, 1 lifetime = 25 years) in comparison had mastered portions
in comparison to the large mountain, was 3 small lumps of mud. So as a
practical matter, the sentence can be taken literally.

There is an parallel adage in Tamil "kaRRatu kallaLavu, kallaatatu
malaiyaLavu", although not applied to the veda in particular.

Rama

[sriram]

Dear
I think you meant katrathu kaimannalavu,kallalathu ulagalavu.[What is learnt
is just a fistful of earth what is not learnt is a
mountain.]R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan" <rama.balasubramanian-***@public.gmane.org>
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Anantaa vai vedaah


> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00-***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>> Namaste Siva Senani garu, Shri Lalitaalaalita ji and all other friends
>>
>> Thank you for your very meticulous effort in giving us these valuable
>> quotations from the mUlaM and the two bhAShyam-s.
>>
>> The question was - is "anantA vai vedAH" (taittiriya brAhmaNam 3rd
>> aShTakaM)
>> only a gunArthavAda or can it be taken literally. I know full well the
>> limitation of intellect in arriving at a final conclusion. But in favor
>> of
>> "Vedas are infinite", the following points come up
>>
>
> That's an interesting question.
>
> The arthavAda is the praise that the knowledge of the sAvitracayanam
> is equal to the knowledge of all the vedas, the arthavaada is not on
> the "anantaa.h" characteristic of the vedas. The text says
> "avi~jnaataan **iva* darshayaan cakaara". The parable is that the
> mountain was so big and at such a distance, that it's size could not
> be comprehended by the human intellect, although not "infinite" in the
> mathematical sense of the word. Bhaaradvaaja with 75 years of study (3
> lifetimes, 1 lifetime = 25 years) in comparison had mastered portions
> in comparison to the large mountain, was 3 small lumps of mud. So as a
> practical matter, the sentence can be taken literally.
>
> There is an parallel adage in Tamil "kaRRatu kallaLavu, kallaatatu
> malaiyaLavu", although not applied to the veda in particular.
>
> Rama
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Raghav Kumar <***@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 3. In BS bhAShya on the shAstra-yonitvAt sUtra, we have (quoted already)
> yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha vyAkaraNadi
> pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH
> kimuvaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH ...
> "whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
> particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
> the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
> what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara, this
> kaimUtika-nyAya is presented and in the next line in bhAShya, the word
> 'aprayatnena' precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or
> 'composed'.)
> The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
> noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knowledge
> which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not amounting to
> freshly creating) the Vedas as we know them. (The word 'aprayatnena'
> precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or 'composed'.) To
> say that exactly the same finite set of mantras are manifested in every
> kalpa while some other mantras are never "breathed" out and are permanently
> resident in Ishvara, seems a little far-fetched.
>

The 'adhika tara' vijnAna in Ishwara need not be in the form of veda-mantras
alone. 'shruti-smRtee mamaivaajne' is a saying which means 'both the shruti
and the smRti are Ishwara's injunction/instruction/command'. It is also
said that Ishwara, through the Rshi-s 'caused', कारयामास, smRti-s to be
written. Even though the veda-s are the core-basis for the smRti-s, the
expansion/explanation/elucidation can be in terms of non-veda sentences.
So, there is nothing unreasonable in holding that the 'same' quantum of veda
mantra-s were brought out/revealed/breathed out in every kalpa. The
'adhika-tara' adjective is used only with reference to the 'vijnAna'. As
they say 'Nature will never reveal her secrets all at once', there is
virtually no limit to the secrets hidden, unexplored/undiscovered. Bhagavan
Himself says regarding nature/knowledge/vibhUti 'नान्तोऽस्ति मम दिव्यानां
विभूतीनाम्’ (Bh.G.10.40) Shankara comments:

न हि ईश्वरस्य सर्वात्मनः दिव्यानां विभूतीनाम् इयत्ता शक्या वक्तुं ज्ञातुं वा
केनचित्।
None can specify or know the limits of this vibhUti of Ishwara.

And this additional line of the commentary is especially relevant in the
present discussion:

एष तु उद्देशतः एकदेशेन प्रोक्तः विभूतेः विस्तरः मया। ।।10.40।।

What has been 'stated', revealed, breathed out, is only an 'ekadesha', an
undefined, yet finite, part, of the limitless.

So, the body of knowledge that has been revealed, at each kalpa/creation,
though limited, need not be thought of being 'incomplete'. For, the Veda
itself has taught the concept of and the method of acquiring, the
'essence/essential knowledge' - एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानम्’.

If Panini is capable of giving out his ideas in the form of sutras, the
encapsulated form, it goes without saying that he is in possession of the
fund of knowledge that exists behind/beneath those sutra-s. That is called
'vistaraArtha'.

Thus, even though Ishvara's knowledge is 'adhika-tara' in comparison to the
revealed veda/knowledge, there is no conflict with the traditional view
regarding the Veda, its apauruSheyatva, the revelation being 'the same as it
was in the previous creation-cycle', etc. Just because some shAkhA-s have
become lupta, lost, there is no real 'loss' for humanity in respect of the
essential knowledge. After all, the Upanishad itself says: ब्रह्मविद्या
सर्वविद्याप्रतिष्ठा’. There is never a situation where one is denied the
ways and means to brahmavidyA despite the loss of some shAkhA-s owing to
disuse.

It is pertinent to note some points made by the commentary
'bhAshyaratnaprabhaa' for the Br.Sutra शास्त्रयोनित्वात् -

वेदे हि सर्वार्थप्रकाशनशक्तिरुपलभ्यते, सा तदुपादानब्रह्मगतशक्रिपूर्विका
तद्गता वा, प्रकाशनशक्तिवत् ।....वेदोपादानत्वेन ब्रह्मणः
स्वसंबद्धाशेषार्थप्रकाशनसामर्थ्यरूपं सर्वसाक्षित्वं सिद्ध्यति ।
यद्वा.....चिन्मात्रः परमेश्वरः स्वकृतपूर्वकल्पीयक्रमसजातीयक्रमवन्तं वेदराशिं
तदर्थांश्च युगपज्जाननेव करोतीति न वेदस्य पौरुषेयता । ....*विस्तरः
शब्दाधिक्यम्, अनेनार्थतोऽल्पत्वं वदन् कर्तुर्ज्ञानस्य अर्थाधिक्यं
सूचयति.... *

Thank you Subhanu ji, for bringing up the verse *
अनन्तपारं किल* शब्दशास्त्रं स्वल्पं तथायुर्बहवश्च विघ्नाः ।
सारं ततो ग्राह्यमपास्य फल्गु हंसो यथा क्षीरमिवाम्बुमध्यात् ||
for while composing the above post I recalled this verse and wanted to
include it herein.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
li

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sri Subrahmanian ji, Rama ji and all other friends,
In trying to better understand "anantA vai vedAH", (the Vedas are
limitless), the following points/questions come up.

1. The word vedAH quite clearly refers to the "veda mantra-s" and not to the
shAkha-s (recensions) which are generally agreed to be a definite number.

2 The question is, does anantA mean "the Veda mantras are numerically
infinite (and accordingly encapsulate limitless knowledge)" or whether "a
fixed and finite number of Veda mantra-s alone exist which are faithfully
reproduced but still can enfold limitless knowledge"

To elaborate :let us take it that the mantra-s are finite in number, the
word anantA can possibly accounted for by taking it to mean that "analysis,
elucidation and cogitation (mImAmsA, vistAra, tapas ) based upon the
original veda mantras leads to an infinite multi-layered depth and also
breadth of knowledge (vij~nAna) enfolded in the Vedas which can thus be
gradually unfolded" ,.
(the unfoldment which takes place due to Ishvara - (IshvaraH .. kArayAmAsa)
- will naturally be termed 'paurusheya' - knowledge born of human
insight while the original mantras which enfold (encase) it are apaurusheya
- since in the Veda mantras the knowledge (shabdArtha-j~nAna) and the words
(shabda) are simultaneous.)
In the brahma sUtra-s, शास्त्रयोनित्वात (BSB 1.1.3) - "Brahman is
all-knowing because he is the manifester/source of the Vedas" is given as a
**complete and sufficient** reason for Brahman's All-knowledge
(सर्वज्ञत्वं). In the bhAShya on this sUtra, it is clear that the word
shAstra refers only to the Vedas and bhAShyakAra says that the Vedas have
the capacity to bring to light ALL objects (i.e., give us their
knowledge), saying
महत: ऋग्वेदादे: .... प्रदीपावत् सर्वार्थावद्योतिन: सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनि:
ब्रह्म
(Brahman is known as All-knowledge BECAUSE it is the source of the Vedas
which have the capacity to illuminate all objects, like even a lamp brings
to light all objects; the Vedas although 'acetana' themseles are thus no
less "all-knowledge" - they are termed सर्वज्ञकल्प: being pervaded by the
power of Ishvara)
Moreove, the sub-commentary also echoes this and says -
वेदे हि सर्वार्थप्रकाशनशक्तिरुपलभ्यते (bhAshya ratnaprabhA) (In the Vedas
lies the power to illuminate all (objects) that exists.), and after asking
whether Brahman's सर्वज्ञत्वं (omniscience) can be established purely on the
ground that He breathed out the Vedas or is there anything called
"knowledge not derivable from the Veda', in which case, just because He
breathed out the Vedas, we cannot rush to the conclusion that He is
omniscient, after asking this question, shrI govindAnanda indiates that "वेद
हेतुत्वेन ब्रह्मण: सर्वज्ञत्वं साधायति" , we conclude therefore that
"ALL knowledge, past, present, and future, (both known and unknown) lies
encapsulated (needs only mImAmsa and upadesha) or
atleast enfolded (additionally needs tapas), in the Veda mantras". (not to
speak of that brahman-knowledge which of beyond both.)
If we say, "No", and that there is other "secular" knowledge available in
this world, such as व्याकरणम् (grammar) logic etc., which has
no (in-principle)traceable connection to the Veda, and that such other
knowledge cannot be accordingly traced back to a Vedic source, then there is
a flawed hetu (reason) in saying that "Brahman is all-knowledge BECAUSE He
is the source of the Vedas." . The mere fact of the existence of any
non-vedic knowledge which can be derived independent of any elucidation by
tapas/cogitation/upadesa etc of the Veda would negate the possibility of
Ishvara's sarvaj~natvaM being premised on the all-knowledge that is the
Veda. But since, the hetu (reason) is not flawed we have to contend that
"All knowledge secular and sacred is enfolded in the Veda mantras. By
gradual unfoldment, knowledge of all objects can be revealed, right from
grammar and logic to the knowledge of the basis of all knowledge which is
advitIyam brahma."
Is this acceptable? Can't this be asserted even at the vyAvAhArika
(empirical) level without invoking the brahmAstra viz.,at the pAramArthika
(absolute) level of understanding/unfoldment brahma-vidyA is most certainly
sarva-vidyA pratiShThA ?

Om
Raghav

P.S. Here the Vedic "capacity to bring to light all objects". I take this to
mean the capacity to produce in the antaHkaraNa, under suitable
unfoldment,(mImAmsA), born of upadesha and most importantly tapas, ALL
possible types of pratyaya-s (corresponding to the respective objects of the
jagat (World) being brought to light during the mantra unfoldment process
.) In such an arrangement,the original mantras remain apaurusheya
(revealed) but the later unfoldment can well be called paurusheya (by human
insight meditating upon the Veda or its derivatives.).
Also, it goes without saying that the uniqueness (alaukikatA) of the Veda
rests not on its ability to replicate the knowledge derivable from other
pramANa-s, nyAya etc.; in such cases such vedic vAkya-s are
ofcourse anuvAdArthavAda (tautological). That is well-known. But the point
is that the Vedic mantras form the basis of ALL vishesha (particularized)
knowledge even at the vyAvahArika level. In other words, all laukika
vidyA-s (empirical knowledge) is merely a paurusheya (born of human insight)
unfoldment of Veda mantra-s. That is the contention being examined.





. On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:10 PM, V Subrahmanian
<***@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Raghav Kumar <***@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > 3. In BS bhAShya on the shAstra-yonitvAt sUtra, we have (quoted already)
> > yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha
> vyAkaraNadi
> > pANiNyAdeH jneyaikadeshArthamapi, sa tato'pi adhikataravijnAnaH
> > kimuvaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH ...
> > "whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
> > particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
> > the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
> > what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara,
> this
> > kaimUtika-nyAya is presented and in the next line in bhAShya, the word
> > 'aprayatnena' precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or
> > 'composed'.)
> > The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
> > noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knowledge
> > which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not amounting to
> > freshly creating) the Vedas as we know them. (The word 'aprayatnena'
> > precludes the extension of the analogy to mean 'created' or 'composed'.)
> To
> > say that exactly the same finite set of mantras are manifested in every
> > kalpa while some other mantras are never "breathed" out and are
> permanently
> > resident in Ishvara, seems a little far-fetched.
> >
>
> The 'adhika tara' vijnAna in Ishwara need not be in the form of
> veda-mantras
> alone. 'shruti-smRtee mamaivaajne' is a saying which means 'both the shruti
> and the smRti are Ishwara's injunction/instruction/command'. It is also
> said that Ishwara, through the Rshi-s 'caused', कारयामास, smRti-s to be
> written. Even though the veda-s are the core-basis for the smRti-s, the
> expansion/explanation/elucidation can be in terms of non-veda sentences.
> So, there is nothing unreasonable in holding that the 'same' quantum of
> veda
> mantra-s were brought out/revealed/breathed out in every kalpa. The
> 'adhika-tara' adjective is used only with reference to the 'vijnAna'. As
> they say 'Nature will never reveal her secrets all at once', there is
> virtually no limit to the secrets hidden, unexplored/undiscovered. Bhagavan
> Himself says regarding nature/knowledge/vibhUti 'नान्तोऽस्ति मम दिव्यानां
> विभूतीनाम्’ (Bh.G.10.40) Shankara comments:
>
> न हि ईश्वरस्य सर्वात्मनः दिव्यानां विभूतीनाम् इयत्ता शक्या वक्तुं ज्ञातुं
> वा
> केनचित्।
> None can specify or know the limits of this vibhUti of Ishwara.
>
> And this additional line of the commentary is especially relevant in the
> present discussion:
>
> एष तु उद्देशतः एकदेशेन प्रोक्तः विभूतेः विस्तरः मया। ।।10.40।।
>
> What has been 'stated', revealed, breathed out, is only an 'ekadesha', an
> undefined, yet finite, part, of the limitless.
>
> So, the body of knowledge that has been revealed, at each kalpa/creation,
> though limited, need not be thought of being 'incomplete'. For, the Veda
> itself has taught the concept of and the method of acquiring, the
> 'essence/essential knowledge' - एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानम्’.
>
> If Panini is capable of giving out his ideas in the form of sutras, the
> encapsulated form, it goes without saying that he is in possession of the
> fund of knowledge that exists behind/beneath those sutra-s. That is called
> 'vistaraArtha'.
>
> Thus, even though Ishvara's knowledge is 'adhika-tara' in comparison to the
> revealed veda/knowledge, there is no conflict with the traditional view
> regarding the Veda, its apauruSheyatva, the revelation being 'the same as
> it
> was in the previous creation-cycle', etc. Just because some shAkhA-s have
> become lupta, lost, there is no real 'loss' for humanity in respect of the
> essential knowledge. After all, the Upanishad itself says: ब्रह्मविद्या
> सर्वविद्याप्रतिष्ठा’. There is never a situation where one is denied the
> ways and means to brahmavidyA despite the loss of some shAkhA-s owing to
> disuse.
>
> It is pertinent to note some points made by the commentary
> 'bhAshyaratnaprabhaa' for the Br.Sutra शास्त्रयोनित्वात् -
>
> वेदे हि सर्वार्थप्रकाशनशक्तिरुपलभ्यते, सा तदुपादानब्रह्मगतशक्रिपूर्विका
> तद्गता वा, प्रकाशनशक्तिवत् ।....वेदोपादानत्वेन ब्रह्मणः
> स्वसंबद्धाशेषार्थप्रकाशनसामर्थ्यरूपं सर्वसाक्षित्वं सिद्ध्यति ।
> यद्वा.....चिन्मात्रः परमेश्वरः स्वकृतपूर्वकल्पीयक्रमसजातीयक्रमवन्तं
> वेदराशिं
> तदर्थांश्च युगपज्जाननेव करोतीति न वेदस्य पौरुषेयता । ....*विस्तरः
> शब्दाधिक्यम्, अनेनार्थतोऽल्पत्वं वदन् कर्तुर्ज्ञानस्य अर्थाधिक्यं
> सूचयति.... *
>
> Thank you Subhanu ji, for bringing up the verse *
> अनन्तपारं किल* शब्दशास्त्रं स्वल्पं तथायुर्बहवश्च विघ्नाः ।
> सारं ततो ग्राह्यमपास्य फल्गु हंसो यथा क्षीरमिवाम्बुमध्यात् ||
> for while composing the above post I recalled this verse and wanted to
> include it herein.
>
> Regards,
> subrahmanian.v
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I would suggest that apaurusheya-tva and ananta-tva are two independent attributes of
the veda and need not be clubbed together or intimately related to each other.

It is a given that the apaurusheya veda is revealed to human beings through the insight
of the Rshis. It is their special dRshTi, which qualifies them to be called mantra-drashTa,
which gives us the words of the veda as we know it. Even if our society degenerates to
such an extent that we have lost all but one mantra, and our collective memory is such
that we cannot even assert that we have lost a lot more, that one mantra that remains
within our horizon would be apaurusheya. Therefore, the number of mantra-s, known
or not known, finite or infinite, has no correlation with the fact of the "unauthoredness"
of the veda.

Within the veda itself, we have the upanishad texts, which tell us that sarvajnatva lies
in knowing the one Being (sat) that is indeed all this (idaM sarvam). The answer to the
question of all-encompassing jnAna lies not in asserting the infinitude of the veda, but
in asserting that it is possible to "know" and be that one Being.

> "All knowledge secular and sacred is enfolded in the Veda mantras. By
> gradual unfoldment, knowledge of all objects can be revealed, right from
> grammar and logic to the knowledge of the basis of all knowledge which is
> advitIyam brahma."
> Is this acceptable? Can't this be asserted even at the vyAvAhArika
> (empirical) level without invoking the brahmAstra viz.,at the pAramArthika
> (absolute) level of understanding/unfoldment brahma-vidyA is most certainly
> sarva-vidyA pratiShThA ?

That advitIya brahman is the basis of all knowledge itself leads you to the pAramArthika
level of discourse. Already in the upanishad itself, we see a distinction between what is
called veda and what is other (itihAsa-purANa, kalpa, anuvyAkhyAna, vyAkhyAna etc.)

In a general sense, the word veda, as a noun form related to the verb vid - "to know"
- can be seen as encapsulating every single element of human knowledge. In a different
day and age, perhaps this attitude would be unexceptionable. However, making assertions
about the unfolding of any and every kind of human knowledge from veda mantras, and
that too at a vyAvahArika level is fraught with problems, especially in contemporary times.
It should be seen as nothing more than arthavAda - stuti of knowledge in general. Given
the weakness of social and ideological support for the transmission tradition today,
combined with the motivation from multiple quarters to generate new texts aspiring to
be called veda, I would urge a huge note of caution about pressing this point.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> In a general sense, the word veda, as a noun form related to the verb vid -
> "to know"
> - can be seen as encapsulating every single element of human knowledge. In
> a different
> day and age, perhaps this attitude would be unexceptionable. However,
> making assertions
> about the unfolding of any and every kind of human knowledge from veda
> mantras, and
> that too at a vyAvahArika level is fraught with problems, especially in
> contemporary times.
> It should be seen as nothing more than arthavAda - stuti of knowledge in
> general. Given
> the weakness of social and ideological support for the transmission
> tradition today,
> combined with the motivation from multiple quarters to generate new texts
> aspiring to
> be called veda, I would urge a huge note of caution about pressing this
> point.
>
In times, when the second most popular yoga teacher is Shilpa Shetty (the
first being Baba Ramdev), it is not possible to agree that sarvajnatvam is
possible. It may be contradict one's personal experience but sarvajnatvam is
quite possible through yoga. Madhusudana quotes Patanjali Yoga Sutra to say
that one who realizes the difference between Purusha and Buddhi gains
rulership over all hings and knowledge of everything. Giving that up as
well, one attains liberation. There are different means of gaining different
knowledge including all given in P.Yo.Su.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm If you go to Kapilash and
cross over forests guarded by ferocious wolves, there are Siva Yogis who
live on fruits and mountain spring water. Folks like that may be able to
tell how experientially valid these claims of Patanjali are.

It is true that by knowing that One being, one knows everything because all
this is nothing but that. This however does not mean that there can be any
obstacle to particularized knowledge for a jnani who is free from all
limiting adjunctions. If there is an obstacle to any knowledge, phenomenal
or transcendental, then he is definitely different from Him who is That.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> In times, when the second most popular yoga teacher is Shilpa Shetty (the
> first being Baba Ramdev), it is not possible to agree that sarvajnatvam is
> possible. It may be contradict one's personal experience but sarvajnatvam is
> quite possible through yoga. Madhusudana quotes Patanjali Yoga Sutra to say
> that one who realizes the difference between Purusha and Buddhi gains
> rulership over all hings and knowledge of everything. Giving that up as
> well, one attains liberation. There are different means of gaining different
> knowledge including all given in P.Yo.Su.
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm If you go to Kapilash and
> cross over forests guarded by ferocious wolves, there are Siva Yogis who
> live on fruits and mountain spring water. Folks like that may be able to
> tell how experientially valid these claims of Patanjali are.

I am not referring to the possibility or otherwise of the existence of a sarvajna.
I am talking about the problems behind the notion that all human knowledge
is encapsulated in the veda mantra-s. I hope the distinction is clear. To amplify,
I am talking about the potential problems behind this, viz. wanting to go a step
further and "discover" new "veda" texts that cover everything: from things like
"Esorvedam" to aeronautical engineering and outer space exploration to genetics.

>
> It is true that by knowing that One being, one knows everything because all
> this is nothing but that. This however does not mean that there can be any
> obstacle to particularized knowledge for a jnani who is free from all
> limiting adjunctions. If there is an obstacle to any knowledge, phenomenal
> or transcendental, then he is definitely different from Him who is That.

The beauty of advaita vedAnta, which I can see is not appreciated well, is that
even when an obstacle to a particularized knowledge appears, he is still the same
as That in reality. He is, most definitely, NOT different from Him who is That.
If he is definitely, really different, nothing can make him That.

Vidyasankar

[Raghav Kumar]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> >I would suggest that apaurusheya-tva and ananta-tva are two independent
> attributes of
> >the veda and need not be clubbed together or intimately related to each
> other.
>

I agree.

....please see this summary. At the outset let me state that the whole line
of thinking adopted below no way implies something like "Anyone in samAdhi
can get new Veda mantra-s revealed to himself" - if anything the contrary
emerges from the reasoning below.
A brief summary

1. The question arose in trying to reconcile the fact of a finite number of
veda mantras and the word anantAH in the mantra anantAH vai vedAH for which
Siva Senani ji gave the detailed sAyaNabhAShya reference. Sri Rama ji and
also Subhanu ji suggested that the word anantAH is better taken literally
since the whole story itself taken **as a whole** is an arthavAda for the
savitRcayanam which is an exalted aham-grahopAsanA. But that even if we take
anantA as infinite, this need not imply mantras are numerically infinite.

2. Therefore to explain anantA, I suggested that in the shAstra yonitvAt
bhAshya, there is a reference to IshvAra as being possessed of adhikatara
j~nAnam than what even the Vedas contain. So can't this word anantA be taken
to mean that there are infinite mantras a part of which is
expressed/breathed out in each kalpa, the rest being
**unexpressed/unexpressible** in this particular kalpa - no one can
claim access to them even if they exist. Only then the word
adhikataraj~nAnam of Ishvara makes sense. I also suggested that this
interpretation may explain how the same j~nAni does not return again in the
next kalpa and re-enact the same script as an aj~nAnI. In other words, we
could accept the possibility of other *complete/coherent* sets of Veda
mantra-s with names of other different Rishis and j~nAnis and students
(equivalent to Janaka) would figure in those other mantras revealed in the
next kalpa. Each such set of Veda mantras revealed in each kalpa are
complete (they enfold brahmaj~nAnam) and the word Veda itself may be
class-label and can thus refer in a general way to any one such set. Can we
say that the same mantras need not repeat in every kalpa? (Here I am
intrigued by the following reference by Sri Subrahmanian ji from the
ratnaprabhA TIkA -चिन्मात्रः परमेश्वरः स्वकृतपूर्वकल्पीयक्रमसजातीयक्रमवन्तं
वेदराशिं तदर्थांश्च युगपज्जाननेव करोतीति न वेदस्य पौरुषेयता (The Veda
mantras and the knowledge enfolded in them which is similar to that which He
"created" in the previous cycle of cereation (kalpa), are
recollected/breathed out, thereby they are apaurusheyatA -since the meaning
and the sound of the mantras are simultaneous, unlike in paurusheya words
where the meaning flashes first and is then expressed with effort into words
rendering them paurusheya.) The use of the *sajAtIya* to compare the
Veda-mantra-s in the previous kalpa with the Veda mantra-s in this kalpa is
intriguing. Are the sets of Veda mantras in the 2 kalpas dentical or are
the 2 sets of Veda mantras "sajAtIya", of the same class ? but, that aside
..) Thus anantatvam, apaurusheyatvam and the non-return of the j~nAnI would
be accounted for. When I suggested the above, it was pointed out that this
seriously impinges on the nityatva (eternality) of the Veda and that it may
not be tenable to hold that the Veda itself is changeable in any manner not
even in the sajAtIya- sense. This angle needs further exploration - I
believe BhAmati-kAra says something comparing the Vedic manifestation in
different kalpas to the way a teacher teaches a nartaki (a female dancer) a
dance - the student's dance is reasonably faithful though not necessarily
the same reproduction of what the teacher teaches.

3.Sri Subrahmanian ji, Shyamji's suggestion/interpretation (made in the
thread on apaurusheyatva) seemed to be a better one than mine - i.e, they
said that LYV talked of the possibility that the Veda mantras are fixed and
finite and still provide the generic template or script with a different set
of jIvas in each kalpa donning the generic role of Janaka and the Rishis.
This way, we could explain the non-return of the j~nAnI and also have a
fixed finite set of Veda mantra-s. A different jIva would fill the role
occupied by Janaka in the previous kalpa etc.

4.If we go along with the above suggestion given by them from LYV,
that leaves us with the option of taking the veda mantra-s to be fixed
and finite in number and accounting for the word anantA in a different
way to refer to the infinite vibhutIs and glories within vyavhAra as Sri
Subrahmanian ji quoted न हि ईश्वरस्य सर्वात्मनः दिव्यानां विभूतीनाम् इयत्ता
शक्या वक्तुं ज्ञातुं वा केनचित्। None can specify or know the limits of this
vibhUti of Ishwara In other words the word anantA and the vistAra-jnAna can
be taken as elucudation/expansion of the Vedas to reveal unbounded depth and
possibilities. Such elucidation into Smritis etc would of course imply that
the end product granthas are necessarily paurusheya elucidations and yet the
apaurusheya-status of the Veda mantras remains undisturbed. Thus in an
indirect manner the word anantA is explained and we can account for the
Vedic template repeating kalpa after kalpa without the problem of the same
j~nAnI having to return and also the word anantAH being explained as above
by Sri Subrahmanian ji and others to refer to the infinite glories -
vibhUti-s. All this seemed an acceptable possible explanation. It preserves
apaurusheyatvam, nityatvam, anantatvam of the Veda with a fixed set of
mantra-s, and can explain the non-return of the j~nAnI.

From here on the question that came up and that was raised by me is on a
different subject - regarding "वेदे हि सर्वार्थप्रकाशनशक्तिरुपलभ्यते, सा
तदुपादानब्रह्मगतशक्रिपूर्विका
तद्गता वा, प्रकाशनशक्तिवत् ।" (The Vedas have the capacity to bring to light
all-knowledge.)
which led me to ask the question regarding Ishvara's sarvavittvam which,
may perhaps merit a separate thread.....but the basic question is "can we
premise Ishvara-sarvavittvam upon his being the Veda-hetu?' The sUtra,
bhAshya, TIka and verse from the muNdaka Upanishad seem to say "yes" as per
my understanding.

Thank you everyone
Raghav
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance,

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 14:36, Raghav Kumar <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1. The word vedAH quite clearly refers to the "veda mantra-s" and not to
> the
> shAkha-s (recensions) which are generally agreed to be a definite number.
>

Definite number of shAkhA-s doesn't comprise of unlimited mantras. This is
also generally believed.


> 2 The question is, does anantA mean "the Veda mantras are numerically
> infinite (and accordingly encapsulate limitless knowledge)"


Nope.


> or whether "a
> fixed and finite number of Veda mantra-s alone exist which are faithfully
> reproduced but still can enfold limitless knowledge"
>

They are finite and reveal finite knowledge. Cause ? Revelation of things
known by other pramANas by veda-s will make them apramANa. Either accept
them apramANa or finite. Both are not possible.


> To elaborate :let us take it that the mantra-s are finite in number, the
> word anantA can possibly accounted for by taking it to mean that "analysis,
> elucidation and cogitation (mImAmsA, vistAra, tapas ) based upon the
> original veda mantras leads to an infinite multi-layered depth and also
> breadth of knowledge (vij~nAna) enfolded in the Vedas which can thus be
> gradually unfolded" ,.
>

anantA is used for veda-s and not anything else.
Word don't say anything which they don't say.


> (the unfoldment which takes place due to Ishvara - (IshvaraH .. kArayAmAsa)
>

mImAMsaka-s and vedAntins, both accept that veda-s are learned by
guru-shiShya-paramparA. There is no such revelation in samAdhi for both.
mImAMsaka-s even not accept any sarvaGYa puruSha.
Moreover,
meditation or samAdhi are just repetition of same vR^itti. They are not any
mean of knowledge. So, they can't produce any new knowledge.
Even if I accept that some knowledge is produced, I'll like to know the
cause to label them as veda. Is vedatvam of that knowledge is also revealed
in samAdhi ?
I've already said that knowledge is not veda. Specific words are veda.
I already asked you about R^shi-s. Can you tell me about the source where it
is said that veda-s were first revealed to R^iShis in samAdhi ? The meaning
gained by vyutpatti, i.e. "R^iShayo mantradraShTAraH", is not enough to
prove this.
Accepting sarvaGYa puruSha and revelation in samAdhI will make scriptures of
bauddha, jaina, muslims, etc. veda and everyone of them a R^iShi.

महत: ऋग्वेदादे: .... प्रदीपावत् सर्वार्थावद्योतिन: सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनि:
> ब्रह्म
>

I don't think a lamp illumines all things of this world and so veda-s.


> वेदे हि सर्वार्थप्रकाशनशक्तिरुपलभ्यते (bhAshya ratnaprabhA) (In the Vedas
> lies the power to illuminate all (objects) that exists.),


No commentary can prove this.
Writing in Sanskrit is not enough to negate pramANas.
manu knew all veda-s. He taught others. See a sentence from parimala
indicating this :
सर्गादौ सर्वान्वेदानध्यापितेष्वीश्वरवत्सार्वज्ञ्यरहितेषु मन्वादिषु ....
Do you want to say that through veda he also knew about dna, computers,
internet, etc. ? I've no cause to believe you even if you say 'yes'.
The above sentence also proves that veda-s are not ananta. If they were
ananta, it would be impossible to study and teach them for anyone, including
Ishvara.




> and after asking
> whether Brahman's सर्वज्ञत्वं (omniscience) can be established purely on
> the
> ground that He breathed out the Vedas or is there anything called
> "knowledge not derivable from the Veda', in which case, just because He
> breathed out the Vedas, we cannot rush to the conclusion that He is
> omniscient, after asking this question, shrI govindAnanda indiates that
> "वेद
> हेतुत्वेन ब्रह्मण: सर्वज्ञत्वं साधायति"
>

Impossible for the given reason.
The problem is that words of AchArya are proved baseless. To prove them true
some follower of AchArya should come and show the correct meaning.
I'm not interested in a branching discussion dealing with 'sarvaGYatvam of
Ishvara derived from kAraNatvam of veda-s'.

The mere fact of the existence of any
> non-vedic knowledge which can be derived independent of any elucidation by
> tapas/cogitation/upadesa etc of the Veda would negate the possibility of
> Ishvara's sarvaj~natvaM being premised on the all-knowledge that is the
> Veda. But since, the hetu (reason) is not flawed


Your reasoning actually proves it flawed.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

[Shrinivas Gadkari]

Namaste Shri Vidyasankar,

I would like to suggest that we take statements like "when brahma
vidyA is known, everything else is known", on face value - to
encompass all knowledge including all vyavahArika sciences and arts.

Though I myself am only an entry level student of brahma vidyA, I
still feel quite certain that above statement is not at all an
exaggeration. (It is just a matter of time spanning several
lifetimes :-) that one will get to verify the correctness of this
statement via direct personal experience.)

Here is a high level summary of how this works - I am also quite
sure that you must be more than familiar with this theory.
- Whatever is in macrocosm is also in the microcosm.
- Sometimes it is easier to deal with microcosm, at other times
vice versa.
- Understanding this interrelationship and harnessing it is at the
heart of every vidyA.
- One of the best tools in this context is dhAraNA-dhyAna-samAdhi
described by maharSi pAtanjali.
- Chapter 13 of gItA calls the microcosm kSetra. One would expect
macrocosm would be called kSetra - this might be a subtle hint in
gitA on equivalence of microcosm and macrocosm.
- Chapter 13 of gItA then on to state that the whatever RSi-s could
understand (via yoga or any other sAdhanA) of the components of
this kSetra they have encapsulated in the veda mantras (chanda-s).
- Since there is no end to components of kSetra and their interactions,
there cannot be any end to veda mantras. Now, can we say that every
statement about components of kSetra and their interactions is a
veda mantra? Probably not. Though, through sAdhana, it may be
possible to refine every such statement until it attains the status
of a veda mantra. Not everyone is capable of this feat - those who
are, are known as mantra draSTA-s.
(This should also shed some light on veda-s being ananta.)

hari om.

Regards,
Shrinivas




----------------------------------
In a general sense, the word veda, as a noun form related to the verb vid - "to know"
- can be seen as encapsulating every single element of human knowledge. In a different
day and age, perhaps this attitude would be unexceptionable. However, making assertions
about the unfolding of any and every kind of human knowledge from veda mantras, and
that too at a vyAvahArika level is fraught with problems, especially in contemporary times.
It should be seen as nothing more than arthavAda - stuti of knowledge in general. Given
the weakness of social and ideological support for the transmission tradition today,
combined with the motivation from multiple quarters to generate new texts aspiring to
be called veda, I would urge a huge note of caution about pressing this point.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

A Brahma Jnani is sarvajna but this jnanam is undifferentiated because it is
an hindrance to the experience of bliss. His state, the state of Vishnu, is
beyond the known and unknown. Just as we cannot say with respect to Brahman
that it knows or it does not know, so is it with respect to a Brahma Jnani.
He is identical with the Nirupadhika Ishwara. However, the question arises
because it is hard to see some one who is a sarvajna though we hear that
with respect to few. This is because, as you know, there are four stages of
jivan mukti and it is in the the highest stage that this is irrefutably
true. In the previous stages, though the ajnana associated with the jiva is
destroyed, the mental modifications continues to exist, which is the cause
of error. Even in these stages, if the mental modifications have been
destroyed through practice of yoga, then there is no possibility of error
because the mind becomes fully transparent to knowledge in Brahman. All that
we see in the Universe is particularization of Brahma Jnanam through Maya.

Vedas are ananta because they transcendental to space, being the breadth of
brahman, not because they have mathematically infinite number of mantras.
Mathematics itself is finite evne if it deals with the infinite.


On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Shrinivas Gadkari
<sgadkari2001-/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Namaste Shri Vidyasankar,
>
> I would like to suggest that we take statements like "when brahma
> vidyA is known, everything else is known", on face value - to
> encompass all knowledge including all vyavahArika sciences and arts.
>
> Though I myself am only an entry level student of brahma vidyA, I
> still feel quite certain that above statement is not at all an
> exaggeration. (It is just a matter of time spanning several
> lifetimes :-) that one will get to verify the correctness of this
> statement via direct personal experience.)
>
> Here is a high level summary of how this works - I am also quite
> sure that you must be more than familiar with this theory.
> - Whatever is in macrocosm is also in the microcosm.
> - Sometimes it is easier to deal with microcosm, at other times
> vice versa.
> - Understanding this interrelationship and harnessing it is at the
> heart of every vidyA.
> - One of the best tools in this context is dhAraNA-dhyAna-samAdhi
> described by maharSi pAtanjali.
> - Chapter 13 of gItA calls the microcosm kSetra. One would expect
> macrocosm would be called kSetra - this might be a subtle hint in
> gitA on equivalence of microcosm and macrocosm.
> - Chapter 13 of gItA then on to state that the whatever RSi-s could
> understand (via yoga or any other sAdhanA) of the components of
> this kSetra they have encapsulated in the veda mantras (chanda-s).
> - Since there is no end to components of kSetra and their interactions,
> there cannot be any end to veda mantras. Now, can we say that every
> statement about components of kSetra and their interactions is a
> veda mantra? Probably not. Though, through sAdhana, it may be
> possible to refine every such statement until it attains the status
> of a veda mantra. Not everyone is capable of this feat - those who
> are, are known as mantra draSTA-s.
> (This should also shed some light on veda-s being ananta.)
>
> hari om.
>
> Regards,
> Shrinivas
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> In a general sense, the word veda, as a noun form related to the verb vid -
> "to know"
> - can be seen as encapsulating every single element of human knowledge. In
> a different
> day and age, perhaps this attitude would be unexceptionable. However,
> making assertions
> about the unfolding of any and every kind of human knowledge from veda
> mantras, and
> that too at a vyAvahArika level is fraught with problems, especially in
> contemporary times.
> It should be seen as nothing more than arthavAda - stuti of knowledge in
> general. Given
> the weakness of social and ideological support for the transmission
> tradition today,
> combined with the motivation from multiple quarters to generate new texts
> aspiring to
> be called veda, I would urge a huge note of caution about pressing this
> point.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> I would like to suggest that we take statements like "when brahma
> vidyA is known, everything else is known", on face value - to
> encompass all knowledge including all vyavahArika sciences and arts.

I am not suggesting the opposite. However, I would like to draw everyone's
attention to the fact that in the chAndogyopanishad bhAshya, bhagavatpAda
Sankara says two things:

ekena satA vijnAtena sarvam idaM vijnAtaM bhavati - instrumental case
ekasminn sati vijnAte sarvam idaM vijnAtaM bhavati - locative case

The instrumental case covers what you say - that brahmavidyA encompasses
all knowledge, sacred and secular. The locative case goes a step beyond and
renders all particular kinds of vyAvahArika knowledge redundant or irrelevant
for the brahmajnAnI.

> - Since there is no end to components of kSetra and their interactions,
> there cannot be any end to veda mantras. Now, can we say that every
> statement about components of kSetra and their interactions is a
> veda mantra? Probably not. Though, through sAdhana, it may be
> possible to refine every such statement until it attains the status
> of a veda mantra. Not everyone is capable of this feat - those who
> are, are known as mantra draSTA-s.

That is precisely what I am cautioning about in today's context. It is easy to
delude oneself and/or others that some particular epiphany that one has had
about some issue gives its expression the status of a veda mantra. There is
the nebulously well-intentioned behavior of disciples and believers in one
or the other person, which leads them to think that everything uttered by that
person is vedavAk or its equivalent. In addition, I feel there are many cases in
the world today where the person in question is capable of believing that one's
own utterances are vedavAk or its equivalent. In the absence of strong control
from institution(s) and in the face of ongoing weakening of the transmission of
the existing veda tradition, ours is a dharma that is particularly prone to abuse
and misuse today. I would much rather guard against that than anything else.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[V Subrahmanian]

I had composed this reply long ago in the day and am posting it only now.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Shrinivas Gadkari
<***@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Namaste Shri Vidyasankar,
>
> I would like to suggest that we take statements like "when brahma vidyA is
> known, everything else is known", on face value - to encompass all knowledge
> including all vyavahArika sciences and arts.
>

Srinivas,

While Sri Vidyasankar would give his response, here is mine:

The fundamental teaching of Vedanta is that the 'sarvam', 'many',
'manifold', multiplicity, vikAra, is insubstantial, having no existence of
its own, having no more reality than mere speech, words, vAchArambhaNam
nAmadheyam. The Upanishad stresses that the real substance there, the
mUlakAraNam, alone is satyam. By the direct knowledge of this satyam,
kAraNam, what is declared to be known is the essence of everything. The
teaching, in the Chandogya 6th ch., begins with the declaration: येन अश्रुतं
श्रुतं भवति, अमतं मतं, अविज्ञातं विज्ञातम् . By knowing which everything
that has not been heard or thought of or known, becomes known. For this the
three examples of clay, gold, and iron are given. The term ' विज्ञातम्' is
important. It means 'knowing something 'essentially', or knowing the
essence of something.' So, when clay is known to be the material cause of
the lump, मृत्पिण्ड (a word used in that mantra), everything that is made of
clay everywhere in the universe is known in its essential nature, clay. That
is the idea. When Sat is known as the material Cause of the entire cosmos
everything in the cosmos is known as essentially Sat. Now, Sat is admitted
to be without any parts or internal distinctions: sajAteeya, vijAteeya and
svagata bheda shUnyam. Thus, when Sat is known correctly, the whole kAryam
of Sat that is the cosmos is deemed to be known as this Sat and nothing
else. In other words, it will be known that there is nothing in this cosmos
which is other than/apart from the Sat just like the superimposed serpent
has no existence as apart from the substratum rope. This knowledge is said
to be the liberating knowledge.

Since the Upanishad itself has said that the kAryam, vikAra, is mere speech
and insubstantial, there is no expectation on the part of the Shruti that
the knower of the Sat will have to know the insubstantial which is only
mithyaa. Sarvajnatva of a knower, Jnani, is not about the mithyA; it is
only with respect to the Satyam. Nor can it be said on the basis of any
pramANa, that the knowledge of Sat will automatically make that knower a
visheShajna of the mithyA.

Some other exalted beings designated by Ishwara for certain cosmic
management purposes like Veda Vyasa are deemed to be having the vishesha
jnana of the mithyA cosmos only owing to their special tapas. Even there it
is not regarding each and every object/discipline; it is trikAlagnAna of
events that have passed, present and would occur in the future. Swami
Vidyaranya has clarified in the Panchadashi that special powers are a result
of tapas and not jnana. It is also admitted in the tradition that not all
Rshi-s said to be mantra-draShTa-s are Atmajnanis.

In the contemporary scene, certain personages admitted to be Jnani-s have
openly declared their ignorance of one or the other discipline, thing, etc.
For example, the 35th Jagadguru of Sringeri Peetham, Sri Abhinava
Vidyatirtha SwaminaH has stated in public speeches (in
Telugu/Kannada/Tamil/Hindi) that He does not know English. In His Tamil
speeches on occasions He has looked around for prompts for certain words
that denote certain objects in that language. Another venerable Jnani who
authored the famous SridakShinAmurti Stotram in English in two parts, who
was himself a scientist having worked under the Nobel laureate Sir
C.V.Raman, and taught quantum physics throughout his career, towards the end
of his mortal life in the late 1980's asked some of us to show him how a
computer works, what all it can do, etc. Since he was confined to his house
and was very orthodox, he could not be taken to an institution for a
demonstration. Those were days when even laptops were not so common.

I stated these instances only to show that a Brahmajnani does not by default
know everything in the cosmos. In fact the earlier mentioned Acharya
Himself was a very curious learner of things. He would seek out to any
person who seemed to have any specialized knowledge in a certain field and
ask questions galore and get to know things.

The tradition of Advaita Vedanta does not subscribe to the thinking that the
Upanishadic sarvajnatva entails knowledge of everything in the cosmos in its
specific details.

Just last week I had occasion to hear another Jnani who is a Yogi, too, par
excellence, say exactly what I have said above. He said, 'when gold is
known to be the material of all ornaments/objects of gold in the universe,
there is no automatic knowledge of the shape and design and weight of every
golden object everywhere.'

Below are some comments:


>
> Though I myself am only an entry level student of brahma vidyA, I still
> feel quite certain that above statement is not at all an exaggeration. (It
> is just a matter of time spanning
>
several lifetimes :-) that one will get to verify the correctness of this
> statement via direct personal experience.)
>

You need not really wait to have the personal experience; the words of a
traditional Acharya, Self-realized or not, can settle the matter beyond any
doubts.

>
> Here is a high level summary of how this works - I am also quite sure that
> you must be more than familiar with this theory.
> - Whatever is in macrocosm is also in the microcosm.
> - Sometimes it is easier to deal with microcosm, at other times vice
> versa.
> - Understanding this interrelationship and harnessing it is at the heart
> of every vidyA.
>

All this is very nicely said.


> - One of the best tools in this context is dhAraNA-dhyAna-samAdhi
> described by maharSi pAtanjali.
>

Surely a yogi can become endowed with supernatural/superhuman
powers/knowledge. But that is not a requirement for Brahmajnana leading to
moksha. The Jnani-Yogi stated by me above has written His own experiences
in that very rare book 'Crest Jewel of Yogis' Part 2 (which most devotees of
the Sringeri Peetham would have had a chance to possess/read) recalling how
siddhis like clairvyoance and clairaudience started manifesting by
themselves (not as a result of yoga) and how he prayed to His Guru to
withdraw those powers. He has described vividly a few instances of these
encounters. One is about the very well known Ariyalur train accident that
left several dead. Just the day before this accident, he had a vivid vision
of the accident and the devastation. He was in for a shocking surprise to
read in the next day's newspaper about the accident with a photo of the
calamity.

- Chapter 13 of gItA calls the microcosm kSetra. One would expect macrocosm
> would be called kSetra - this might be a subtle hint in gitA on equivalence
> of microcosm and macrocosm.
>

The verses 13.5 and 6 describe concisely the entire kShetra as consisting of
both the micro and macrocosm. This is what the kShara and akShara of the 15
chapter is.


> - Chapter 13 of gItA then on to state that the whatever RSi-s could
> understand (via yoga or any other sAdhanA) of the components of this kSetra
> they have encapsulated in the veda mantras (chanda-s).
>

Actually the verse 4, as per the bhashyam is about the 'essential' nature of
the kshetra and the kshetrajna.
Here also there is no hint at all that the Rshi-s have said what they
understood thru yoga, etc.


> - Since there is no end to components of kSetra and their interactions,
> there cannot be any end to veda mantras. Now, can we say that every
> statement about components of kSetra and their interactions is a veda
> mantra? Probably not. Though, through sAdhana, it may be possible to refine
> every such statement until it attains the status of a veda mantra. Not
> everyone is capable of this feat - those who
> are, are known as mantra draSTA-s.
> (This should also shed some light on veda-s being ananta.)
>

According to tradition, there is no possibility of admitting into the fold
of 'veda rAshi' anything that someone in the world might claim as his
'darshana'. There are texts like 'Sri RamakrishNopanishat', etc. which the
tradition would not treat as veda mantras. Not even the revelations said to
be had by Sri KavyakanTha Ganapati Muni's disciple Daivarata will be
admitted into the fold of Veda.

http://kavyakantha.arunachala.org/KNatesan.htm

// The Vedic seers were by no means removed from the affairs of the world.
In fact, these seers made themselves the vehicle through which the Divine
forces worked for the welfare of humanity. To become one such perfect
instrument in the hands of Maha Shakti was the goal towards which
*Ganapati*worked and dedicated his entire life of penance.

Though the *Muni* was a giant personality, he remained humble. Two incidents
in his Divine life will illustrate this: The *Muni* and his beloved disciple
Daivarata *did* tapas in Padaiveedu, near Vellore, in the year 1917. As a
result of these tapas certain *mantras* were revealed to his disciple
Daivarata. The Guru of the disciple, our *Ganapati* *Muni*, acted as the
scribe and noted down the *mantras* as they issued forth from his inspired
disciple. Later, the *Muni* even wrote a commentary on the *mantras*, just
as Adi Sankara *did* for the verses of his disciple Hastamalaka.//


Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> In a general sense, the word veda, as a noun form related to the verb vid -
> "to know"
> - can be seen as encapsulating every single element of human knowledge. In
> a different
> day and age, perhaps this attitude would be unexceptionable. However,
> making assertions
> about the unfolding of any and every kind of human knowledge from veda
> mantras, and
> that too at a vyAvahArika level is fraught with problems, especially in
> contemporary times.
> It should be seen as nothing more than arthavAda - stuti of knowledge in
> general. Given
> the weakness of social and ideological support for the transmission
> tradition today,
> combined with the motivation from multiple quarters to generate new texts
> aspiring to
> be called veda, I would urge a huge note of caution about pressing this
> point.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact

[Shrinivas Gadkari]

Shri Subramanian:
>Sarvajnatva of a knower, Jnani, is not about the mithyA; it is
>only with respect to the Satyam. Nor can it be said on the basis of any
>pramANa, that the knowledge of Sat will automatically make that knower a
>visheShajna of the mithyA.

Namaste,

I am suggesting let us be open to the claim that brahma vidyA also
opens doors to all vyAvahArika sciences and arts. Those few who want
to explore this domain should do so (provided they have done the
required the preparatory work AND have sadguru bhakti to support).

Shri Vidyasankar:
>The instrumental case covers what you say - that brahmavidyA encompasses
>all knowledge, sacred and secular. The locative case goes a step beyond and
>renders all particular kinds of vyAvahArika knowledge redundant or irrelevant
>for the brahmajnAnI.

My personal opinion on this is: agreed at some stage vyAvahArika
sciences and arts will be transcended in quest for a much
higher tattva. But this did not prevent people like me and you and
many others on this list from acquiring these (vyAvahArika
sciences and arts) under the label of "modern science and
technology". If one were to present any topic in these fields WITHOUT
any adhyAtma-adhidaiva angle to it almost all will enthusiastically
read it / contemplate on it. Only when someone brings in an
adhyAtma-adhidaiva and related angles into it do we start
talking this language of "finally everything is mithyA". We are
probably the most blessed people in the history of mankind. We
understand multiple disciplines of modern science and technology and
may be even arts. In addition, with sadguru's grace we understand
atleast the basics of vedas (or so we think). If WE do not explore
augmenting modern science and technology with insights from
sAnhkya-yoga-vedas, WHO will?

Best regards,
Shrinivas

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Shrinivas Gadkari
<sgadkari2001-/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Shri Subramanian:
> >Sarvajnatva of a knower, Jnani, is not about the mithyA; it is
> >only with respect to the Satyam. Nor can it be said on the basis of any
> >pramANa, that the knowledge of Sat will automatically make that knower a
> >visheShajna of the mithyA.
>
> Namaste,
>
> I am suggesting let us be open to the claim that brahma vidyA also
> opens doors to all vyAvahArika sciences and arts. Those few who want
> to explore this domain should do so (provided they have done the
> required the preparatory work AND have sadguru bhakti to support).


I agree with Sri Subrahmanian and Sri Vidyasankar on this. sarvajnatvam does
not mean you know the particularities of all things. As nirvisesha brahman,
there are no particular objects for you to know or not know in the first
place. But the problem is perhaps in leaving it at that. You are forced to a
conclusion that a Jnani (=Brahman) does not know something. Though it may
tally with direct experience by the observers, the point is that we cannot
say that brahman (jnani) does not know as much as we cannot say that brahman
(jnani) knows. He is at a stage beyond known and unknown, which are with
respect to the cognizer where as brahman is pure intelligence or
consciousness (substratum of cognizer, cognition and cognized). Though He is
distinct from all names and forms, all the names and forms are present in
Him. Sankara quotes this in BSBh (2.1.14) "that within which these forms and
names are contained is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14, 1)". A jivan mukta DOES
NOT have any obstacle to objective knowledge or ignorance because the cause
of both (viz ajnana) does not exist for him. If he does have difficulties to
either objective knowledge or ignorance then it is either because he is not
a jivan mukta or because he attained mukti by isvaranugraha even before
complete mano-nasa and vasana kshaya takes place. So, he has tattva jnana
but not the complete experience of jivan mukti. He is perhaps in the fourth,
fifth and sixth stages of jivan mukti but not the seventh. We are
attributing the defects of his mind to his soul. Madhusudana talks about
this in Gudartha Dipika. But if you achieve mano-nasa and vasana kshaya
before attaining jivan mukti, you will experience sarvajnatva (in the sense
of knowing all objects) as well as rulership over all things and giving that
up you will attain advaita siddhi.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Shrinivas Gadkari
<sgadkari2001-/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Shri Subramanian:
> >Sarvajnatva of a knower, Jnani, is not about the mithyA; it is
> >only with respect to the Satyam. Nor can it be said on the basis of any
> >pramANa, that the knowledge of Sat will automatically make that knower a
> >visheShajna of the mithyA.
>
> Namaste,
>
> I am suggesting let us be open to the claim that brahma vidyA also
> opens doors to all vyAvahArika sciences and arts.


I would like to know where such a claim is made.

Regards.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste All



>Shri Shrinivas ji wrote: I would like to suggest that we take statements
like "when >brahma vidyA is known, everything else is known", on face value
- to

>encompass all knowledge including all vyavahArika sciences and arts.

>I am suggesting let us be open to the claim that brahma vidyA also

>opens doors to all vyAvahArika sciences and arts. Those few who want

>to explore this domain should do so (provided they have done the

>required the preparatory work AND have sadguru bhakti to support).





A modified version of what you wrote, Shrinivasji , would perhaps be more
accurate –

“The level of mental maturity (antaHkaraNa shuddhi) required for
appreciating brahma vidyA, needs, in most cases except the very best
students – the uttamAdhikArIs , meditation (upAsanA) and yogAbhyAsa of a
very high order. In doing these practices which are auxiliary to
brahma-vidyA (mahAvAkya vicAra), ; as an incidental byproduct, many such
“doors” to other vidyAs do indeed come up. If one were to take these other
doors and the routes they entail and explore the realms which open up, there
is nothing inherently wrong or false about it.”



But unfortunately it’s also true that one can lose one’s way in terms of
failing to stay focused on the advaita j~nAna which is the real blessing.
That however does not mean that such possibilities don’t even exist or
should not be explored – it is just that there are significant occupational
hazards in following such a course of action.



Shrinivasji wrote:

>My personal opinion on this is: agreed at some stage vyAvahArika sciences
and arts will be transcended in quest for a much higher tattva. But this did
not prevent people like me and you and many others on this list from
acquiring these (vyAvahArika

>sciences and arts) under the label of "modern science and technology". If
one were to >present any topic in these fields WITHOUT

>any adhyAtma-adhidaiva angle to it almost all will enthusiastically read it
/ contemplate >on it. Only when someone brings in an adhyAtma-adhidaiva and
related angles into it do >we start talking this language of "finally
everything is mithyA". We are

>probably the most blessed people in the history of mankind. We

>understand multiple disciplines of modern science and technology and

>may be even arts. In addition, with sadguru's grace we understand

>atleast the basics of vedas (or so we think). If WE do not explore

>augmenting modern science and technology with insights from

>sAnhkya-yoga-vedas, WHO will?



You have a good point. If we say that there are dangers and obstacles in
exploring the “side attractions” which may come upon a person pursuing yoga
sAdhana, upAsanA etc., are there not similar problems of losing oneself in
various samsAric quests which are inevitable in leading a modern, practical
life engaging with modernity and science and technology not on our own
terms, but on unequal terms which are dicatated to us by these nAstikA,
lokAyAta (non-Vedic) worldviews which inescapably blemish the mind
(antaHkaraNam) no matter how much one may talk big about “living like a
lotus-leaf unaffected by the water etc etc.” (padma-patramivAmbhasA.) There
seem to be no easy answers to the question you have raised.

.

>a statement about components of kSetra and their interactions is a

>veda mantra? Probably not. Though, through sAdhana, it may be

>possible to refine every such statement until it attains the status

>of a veda mantra. Not everyone is capable of this feat - those who

>are, are known as mantra draSTA-s.

>(This should also shed some light on veda-s being ananta.)



The Acarya-s are stressing that a veda-mantra is not arrived at by a
process of steady refinement of existing knowledge expressed in sentences.
They say (rough translation) –“ In the cases of knowledge in any empirical
field, the knowledge/insight occurs first in the mind of some genius, and
then by effort is expressed outwardly in human language to communicate it
to others. Thus the shabdaArtha j~nAna (knowledge/insight) is prior to and
becomes the cause of the shabda (which is articulated by effort) Such is
not the case with veda-mantra-s where the sabda and sabdArtha arise together
inseparably without any intermediate human intervention."

“parameshvaraH ….vedarAshiM tadarthAn cha yugapat.h jAnan eva karotIti na
vedasya paurusheyatA”

“yatra hi arthaj~nAna pUrvakam vAkya-j~nAnam vAkya-sRShTau kAraNam, tatra
paurusheyatA, “ .(bhAShya ratnaprabhA sub-commentary on the third
brahma-sUtra.)



For example, when brahmA ji first manifested the veda –mantra-s or in the
rarest of rare cases of the mantra-dRShTa-s who 'caught the breath' of
brahmA ji.....



That is why veda mantra-s cannot be translated into any other language
without ceasing to be mantra-s. They can still convey some meaningful and
valuable knowledge and there is much benefit in such translation, but such
translations are still not the same as veda-mantra-s where the knowledge
encased in them (potentially infinite in breadth/vastness) is inseparable
from the sound syllables expressing them (the sabda)Veda-mantras cannot
really be arrived at by refinment.



It may be more accurate to say – that through such sadhana various levels of
hidden knowledge in the veda-mantras can be discovered and unfolded. Such
knowledge is precious, if at all discovered, but when expressed cannot be
called a “veda-mantra” but it is a meaningful and useful
elucidation/expansion of the veda-mantra, like the sUtra literature or
smritis etc. For example, by intense gAyatri japam, some other knowledge may
indeed surface, and be (possibly) expressed in sUtras, such other knowledge
and the sentences expressing them are not vedic-mantras but, they are still
valid to the extent they help us better understand the world or promote
human welfare in some respect or the other. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating. If such derivative knowledge is useful it is fine, otherwise
such "elucidations" of veda-mantra-s will be consigned to oblivion by
history. So we don't have to worry about incorrect elucidations. The fact
that it is possible to have such “elucidations/expansions backed up by tapas
to reveal infinite BREADTH in the Vedic mantras” – seems to be plausible
way of explaining the taittiriIya araNyaka mantra – “anantA vai vedAH.”
Because the brahma-sUtra (shAstrayonitvAt BSB1.1.3) and the commentaries
are emphatic that Ishvara’s sarvavittvaM (visheSha j~nAna , particularized
knowledge of all things in jagat) is established **because** he manifested
the Vedas implying thereby the infinite BREADTH in the Vedic mantra-s to
reveal all particularized knowledge of the empirical realm.. The
transmission tradition in this respect is unfortunately almost non-existent



In contrast, the Vedanta tradition which helps us appreciate the infinite
DEPTH in the Veda by presenting the essential knowledge that “I am Brahman
which is sarvasya-adhiShThAnaM ”, is still alive and kicking, which is a
great blessing for all of us. This goes to show the immense gratitude we all
owe to the past AcAryas of the Vedanta tradition especially from the
shAnkara-bhAShya period onwards whence the adhyAropa-apavAda prakriya method
of unfolding Vedanta-vAkyAs to directly reveal their import was put on a
firm footing by the 'writing' of the bhAshya-s. And we can fuitfully engage
in shaAstra vicAra along vedantic lines even today, while, paradoxically,
the other Vedic vidyAs are almost extinct. At an individual level we can
still manage to get by, but this can hardly be called a satisfactory
situation for the total Vedic tradition. But again, there are no easy
answers or solutions. Maybe a good start would be to at least acknowledge
the problem.





Sri Subramaniam ji wrote:
>
> According to tradition, there is no possibility of admitting into the fold
> of 'veda rAshi' anything that someone in the world might claim as his
> 'darshana'. There are texts like 'Sri RamakrishNopanishat', etc. which
the
> tradition would not treat as veda mantras.



The rAmakRShNopaniShat was composed by a respected contemporary Swamiji and
it contains valuable ideas regarding the teachings of Sri ramakRShNa.
However it clearly **does not fulfill ** the clear and unambiguous lakShaNa
(characteristic) of a veda-mantra since it involves ruminating over past
incidents and stringing them (the teachings) together as words, composing
lines of prose etc.



Sri Subrahmanianji said

>Not even the revelations said to be had by Sri KavyakanTha Ganapati Muni's
disciple Daivarata will be admitted into the fold of Veda.

Sri Ram ji wrote:
> The mantra darshana bhAga of Brahmarishi Daivarata is
calle Chandodarshana. The >entire darshana is in the form of vedic
intonations with 3 svaras. I have the entire
> copy of the mantra darshanas which resonate with the rg vedic mantra /
brahmana >bhaga.
>
> What is wrong with it and in what way Ganapati Muni & Daivarata (aka
Ganapati Bhatt >of Gokarna) differ from ancient vedic seers? The mantra
darshana can be done even in >modern times and that is what they have
displayed with their tapas.
>

Here it is decidedly tricky to say whether the shabda and shabdArtha arose
spontaneously/simultaneously in the mind of shrI daivarata or not. shrI
kAvyakanTha gaNapati muni and his disciples were of course of a very high
order. And yet…



Understandably, we have to exercise great caution in this respect because
anyone and everyone can go around claiming to receive vedic-mantras every
other night, including such hilarities like “IshorvedaM”.



One of the characteristics of a veda-mantrA is that it should be associated
with some injunction to ultimately give a meaningful result – it should have
phalavat-arthabodhakatvaM. I am curious to know how the Chandodarshana of
daivarata figures in this respect ? And what is the karma associated with
the mantra-s and the karmaphala ? If it is the default karma-phala of
svarga, then that again does not give us any immediate indication.

Om

Raghav

[Venkata sriram P]

Dear Shrinivas Ji,

///
I am suggesting let us be open to the claim that
brahma vidyA also opens doors to all vyAvahArika
sciences and arts. Those few who want
//

This is not true. One cannot expect a brahmajnani to
write Java Applets & Oracle Programs in a jiffy.

I don't remember the exact source now but when a devotee asked
Bhagavan Ramana that "does a jnani knows everything" to which
Bhagavan replied a jnani "knows everything worth knowing".
But yes, there are certain instances where yogis have mastered the parA vidya
in a very short span because of their mEdhA, dhAraNa shaktis.  But then it is a yogic feat.

On certain day in Chennai, Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati had to give discourse in Tamil one evening.  Till that day, His Holiness didn't know Tamil.  The same day in morning, He prayed to Mother Sharada and contemplated on His gurunatha Shri Sacchidananda Nrisimha Bharati Mahaswamigal.   In the evening, His Holiness spoke extempore in Tamil.       
Bhagavan Ramana mastered Sanskrit in no time with the help of Shri Ganapati Muni. 

So, these are the rare siddhis exhibited by great souls.  So, when Brahmavidya has been mastered, rest of the vidyas are just a small fry for them which is not impossible.

regs,
sriram

[Venkata sriram P]

Dear Subbuji,

According to tradition, there is no possibility of admitting into the fold
of 'veda rAshi' anything that someone in the world might claim as his
'darshana'. There are texts like 'Sri RamakrishNopanishat', etc. which the
tradition would not treat as veda mantras. Not even the revelations said to
be had by Sri KavyakanTha Ganapati Muni's disciple Daivarata will be
admitted into the fold of Veda.

//

The mantra darshana bhAga of Brahmarishi Daivarata is called
Chandodarshana. The entire darshana is in the form of
vedic intonations with 3 svaras. I have the entire
copy of the mantra darshanas which resonate with the
rg vedic mantra / brahmana bhaga.

What is wrong with it and in what way Ganapati Muni &
Daivarata (aka Ganapati Bhatt of Gokarna) differ from
ancient vedic seers?

The mantra darshana can be done even in modern times and that
is what they have displayed with their tapas.

regs,
sriram

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Venkata sriram P
<venkatasriramp-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Dear Subbuji,
>
> According to tradition, there is no possibility of admitting into the fold
> of 'veda rAshi' anything that someone in the world might claim as his
> 'darshana'. There are texts like 'Sri RamakrishNopanishat', etc. which the
> tradition would not treat as veda mantras. Not even the revelations said
> to
> be had by Sri KavyakanTha Ganapati Muni's disciple Daivarata will be
> admitted into the fold of Veda.
>
> //
>
> The mantra darshana bhAga of Brahmarishi Daivarata is called
> Chandodarshana. The entire darshana is in the form of
> vedic intonations with 3 svaras. I have the entire
> copy of the mantra darshanas which resonate with the
> rg vedic mantra / brahmana bhaga.
>
> What is wrong with it and in what way Ganapati Muni &
> Daivarata (aka Ganapati Bhatt of Gokarna) differ from
> ancient vedic seers?
>
> The mantra darshana can be done even in modern times and that is what they
> have displayed with their tapas.
>
> regs,
> sriram
>
> Dear Sriram ji,

I think there will be some questions that will come up in this regard:


- There is a method of deciding what one's sva-shakhA is: the one that
his father studied and the one his father and so on. I do not know how the
latest 'veda' will be treated. In other words, who will be the students
that will be studying it (adhyayana)?
- I have heard that there is a vidhi: '....anya shiShyAn na bodhayet' - a
vedic Acharya should not teach someone who belongs to a shAkhA/veda that is
different from his own veda/shAkha. The reason is that by doing so he will
be disrespectful to the Acharya of the other veda/shAkha. There is a method
of taking his permission and ceremonially inducting the student of the other
veda into this veda for study.
- Who will decide as to which shAkhA or veda the newly discovered mantras
belong?
- First of all, is there any provision in the Veda or sampradaya for
inclusion of newly discovered mantras into the existing vedic fold?
- There might be other technical issues that I am unaware of.
- Have any of the Acharyas of the vedic sampradaya recognized these newly
discovered mantras? Do they have the authority to get the general eligible
public to do adhyayana of them?
- Who has learned them methodically from whom?
- To your question on the Vedic seers of the Vedas and the present two I
can only say that we have no yardstick to make such a comparison.


I have nothing personal for or against the particular two persons involved
in the mantra darshana here. I am only expressing the general views on
this.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[shyam Subramanian]

Perhaps no other singular event has registered such a deep impact on e national psyche as the inspiring struggle of Shri Anna Hazare to rid from our midst the scourge of corruption.
I have composed a essay that draws lessons for us from the Bhagawad Gita based on his inspiring story.

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2011/09/anna-hazare-lessons-from-bhagwad-gita.html

Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyo namah
Shyam

[Ramamurthy Venkateswaran]

Dear Shri Shyamji Pranams Thanks for circulating the blog. I am circulating it among my friends. With best personal regards, Sincerely,



R. VENKATESWARAN

email: r_venkateswaran-***@public.gmane.org


> From: shyam_md-/***@public.gmane.org
> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:52:53 -0400
> To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Anna Hazare : a true karmayogi
>
>
> Perhaps no other singular event has registered such a deep impact on e national psyche as the inspiring struggle of Shri Anna Hazare to rid from our midst the scourge of corruption.
> I have composed a essay that draws lessons for us from the Bhagawad Gita based on his inspiring story.
>
> http://www.adi-shankara.org/2011/09/anna-hazare-lessons-from-bhagwad-gita.html
>
> Hari OM
> Shri Gurubhyo namah
> Shyam
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Venkata sriram P wrote:

> The mantra darshana bhAga of Brahmarishi Daivarata is called
> Chandodarshana. The entire darshana is in the form of
> vedic intonations with 3 svaras. I have the entire
> copy of the mantra darshanas which resonate with the
> rg vedic mantra / brahmana bhaga.
>

I have wondered about this. Given that the grammar and intonation of
Vedic is explained in full in Panini and the pratishakyas, a sufficiently
skilled person could compose "Vedic-style" suktas I see that some people
have done exactly that.


> What is wrong with it and in what way Ganapati Muni &
> Daivarata (aka Ganapati Bhatt of Gokarna) differ from
> ancient vedic seers?
>
> The mantra darshana can be done even in modern times and that
> is what they have displayed with their tapas.
>

You do not know in which manner the Rshis saw mantras. You are assuming
it is by yogic means but that is by no means settled. It could have been
because of their practice of yajna as mentioned in the purusha sukta.
There is a theory that soma was a hallucinogen which could have put the
Rshis into a suprasensory state. In fact why even assume any virtue on
the part of the Rshis. Some of them very unpleasant characters giving
shapa to people according to the stories about them.

The Rshis themselves did not call everything they thought and felt Veda.
For instance Yajnavalkya who was a mantradrashta by the favor of the Sun
also is the author of a dharmashastra. In the introductory part of that
work he is acclaimed as a "yogishwara" yet it is called yagnavalkya smrti
not shruti.

And then big practical problem is that when shastra is replaced by
whatever ones pet guru has said (and no two people will agree on which
gurus are authoritative) objectivity goes out of the window. The winner
will be the one with the best PR department not necessarily the most
enlightened. The reason Mimamsakas pushed this doctrine of apaurusheyatva
so hard in the first place is to put the focus on the text not the author.




--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> You do not know in which manner the Rshis saw mantras. You are assuming it
> is by yogic means but that is by no means settled. It could have been
> because of their practice of yajna as mentioned in the purusha sukta. There
> is a theory that soma was a hallucinogen which could have put the Rshis into
> a suprasensory state.

In the course of reading the bhAShya on brahmasUtra 1.3.29 I noticed that
the AchArya has quoted a R^ik one of the rare instances where he refers to
the saMhita portion of shrUti.

yaGYena vAchaH padavIyamAyantAmanvindannR^iShiShu praviShTAm

"With sacrifice they[1] followed the footsteps of vAk[2], and found her
dwelling within the R^iShis." (R.V. 10.71.3)

[1] the hotR^is or officiating priests in a shrauta yaGYA.

[2] Speech personified.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>

[Venkata sriram P]

Namaste Raghavji,
 
/////
Understandably, we have to exercise great caution in this respect because
anyone and everyone can go around claiming to receive vedic-mantras every
other night, including such hilarities like “IshorvedaM”.
 
//
 
The great Rg Vedic Scholar of Pune Mahamahopadhyaya Dattosarma Fotedar
exclaimed in ecstasy after going thru the work "chandodarshana"
and said that after several thousands of years, again
the Rg Veda was revealed to posterity through the medium of Daivarata.
 
Ganapati Muni says as:
 
vEda draShTA sa bhagavAn brahmarishi brahmaNaspati
vAchaMsaMchO nayatvAshu vEdArthasyaprakAshanE
vEdamAtA bhagavatI shabdabrahma kAparA
tat tvaM prabOdhayatvAshu lEkhanI brahmachOdini
chandOdarshana vEdEsmin daivarAtarShi saMshrutE
vAsiShTAnvaya bhAShyaMvai mantrArthaM bOdhayEdalaM
namastE brahmaNI vAchaM sAkShAt vAchaka shaktayE
vAchyAtma vastu satvAya brahmaNaspatayE namaH
 
That said there were students in Gokarna Veda Pathasala who used to
learn the vedas & shastras from Daivarata (Hoseman Gajanana Bhatt).
A mahAsOmayAga was also conducted under the supervision of
Daivarata in Gokarna.
 
These people are unsung heroes of bhArata varSha who go unnoticed.....
 
regs,
sriram
 
 


 
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaste

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste

Regarding the revelation of Rg-vedic mantra-s etc., Sri kAvyakanTha
gaNapati muni ji's wrods are clear and to be respected. I have no doubts
about that. I was aghast at the use of the word 'Veda' to describe the
'bible' etc. That amounts to stretching things too much. Also, I wanted to
know in a general manner if these mantras are associated with some specific
devatA and karma with an ordained karma-phala.

Thank you for the information regarding the dakshinamurthy stotram form
kanchi kamakoti peetham. However the link is broken it seems. When I click
on the link within the page
it says - do send report for /telugu/70/index.htm not
found<http://www.kamakoti.org/main/contact.html?splcomments=not+found+-/telugu/70/index.htm++from+http://www.kamakoti.org/telugu/70/index.html>

Om
Raghav
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Venkata sriram P <venkatasriramp-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Namaste Raghavji,
>
> /////
> Understandably, we have to exercise great caution in this respect because
> anyone and everyone can go around claiming to receive vedic-mantras every
> other night, including such hilarities like “IshorvedaM”.
>
> //
>
> The great Rg Vedic Scholar of Pune Mahamahopadhyaya Dattosarma Fotedar
> exclaimed in ecstasy after going thru the work "chandodarshana"
> and said that after several thousands of years, again
> the Rg Veda was revealed to posterity through the medium of Daivarata.
>
> Ganapati Muni says as:
>
> vEda draShTA sa bhagavAn brahmarishi brahmaNaspati
> vAchaMsaMchO nayatvAshu vEdArthasyaprakAshanE
> vEdamAtA bhagavatI shabdabrahma kAparA
> tat tvaM prabOdhayatvAshu lEkhanI brahmachOdini
> chandOdarshana vEdEsmin daivarAtarShi saMshrutE
> vAsiShTAnvaya bhAShyaMvai mantrArthaM bOdhayEdalaM
> namastE brahmaNI vAchaM sAkShAt vAchaka shaktayE
> vAchyAtma vastu satvAya brahmaNaspatayE namaH
>
> That said there were students in Gokarna Veda Pathasala who used to
> learn the vedas & shastras from Daivarata (Hoseman Gajanana Bhatt).
> A mahAsOmayAga was also conducted under the supervision of
> Daivarata in Gokarna.
>
> These people are unsung heroes of bhArata varSha who go unnoticed.....
>
> regs,
> sriram
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>