[Advaita-l] Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (analysis)

Dr. Yadu Moharir ymoharir at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 16 16:19:12 CDT 2009

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhu-Ji
You are still missing the point.
What I had said earlier was -
"Where the properties of specific herbs remain "apauruSheya" and the sages who observed the corresponding use became the dR^iShTaa for those R^icaa.
Just like gravity is apauruSheya but Newton observed and documented how it functions and it's relevance to our lives.  Therefore Newton is no less than a R^iShi."
I again stress that the apauruSheya thing here was "GRAVITY" which was not created by any human being and is eternal.  Newton was the observer and formulate for bringing it to the rest of the human beings, through his formulas.  The the process of knowledge is not apauruSheya, neither it's observer and how they observed.  The eternal principle is the apauruSheyatva.  After learning about it and then it is up to us to utilize it.  Where to apply it is the viniyoga portion.   Finally it is up to the current reader at present to utilize the specific knowledge.
It is unfortunate that folks keep on discussing mundane things this through eyes of specific smapradaaya and think that know and they have understood but fail to apply it to the present.  Why do forget the famous remarks from manusmR^iti ;
aj~nebhyo granthinaH shreShThaa\, granthibhyo dhaariNo varaaH |
dhaaribhyo j~naaninaH shreShThaa\, j~naanibhyo vyavasaayinaH || manusmR^iti 12-103||

Meaning - Someone who has studied a little is better than totally ignorant. Someone who has memorized them are better than someone who knows a little. One who knows the meaning is superior to those who memorizes. However, one who practices it (knowledge) is certainly the most superior.

I think most of the vedantic discussions are like a motion on a rocking chair, where one feels the motion but does not go anywhere !  At the same token feels that they have the profound knowledge of vedaanta.  IMO - Unless they practice it there is absolute no value to that knowledge. If acharya did not want to use his advaitic principles then he would not have traveled all over India to establish various "maTha".  How many of them even talk to each other !?  All they are interested in is "paadya-puujaa".
Kind regards,
Dr. Yadu

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (analysis)
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 10:18 PM

praNAms Sri Yadu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I do completely agree with you prabhuji that one should recite maNtra-s
knowing its meaning & viniyOga...But my question is entirely
different..Since you said ONLY knowledge is apaurusheya and the
words/maNtra-s that depict the knowledge is the composition of Rishi-s
(implying text of the veda is paurusheya) I asked my doubt why we should
not change these texts in a more clear & readable way!!  After all, you
agree with me changing the words, grammer in veda-s would not bring any
change to the knowledge that is representing by it...Instead 'changed'
maNtra-s with simple and readable manner, complying with strict rules of
grammer would reach more people without any complications &
controversies...But why nobody tried their hands in this direction sofar??
Why still we are believing only some set of texts as apaurusheya and other
texts as paurusheya??  Dont you think paurusheya texts (like smruti, purAna
etc.)  also contain the apaurusheya knowledge??  but then why we give
apaurusheya status to ONLY veda-s & paurusheya status to smruti &

With regard to your quote from Rigveda about 'guptAnga' of stree, maNtra-s
like this we can find a plenty in saMhita-s, brahmaNa-s & AraNyaka-s...But
that does not mean these veda maNtra-s have been written 'after' these
incidents & Rishi-s who physically seen these incidents !!  can we say
after the invention of 'nail cutter' chAndOgya has been written by some
Rishi by taking this example?? can we say after nachiketa's journey to
yamalOka, kaTha has been written??  In one of the upanishads there is a
long list of brahma jnAni-s (muNdaka I think!!), can we say after the life
time of all these rishi-s, some other rishi listed these names in that
upanishad after reading the biographies of those Rishi-s??

kAnchi mahaswamigal observes that veda-s (texts) are infinite and it is not
a composition of any rishi and the rishi has seen/hear  the particular
maNtra, hence we prostrate before him & remember him as maNtra drashtra and
not as maNtra karta ...Kindly refer Hindu dharma chapter 8 to 16 with
regard to this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list