[Advaita-l] About Patanjali and Panini
shashwata.unimas at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 23:51:54 CST 2016
Regarding Apastamva- He did mention that - मन्त्रेण ब्राह्मणा बेद
नामध्बेয়म। But what about the Aranayakas and the Upanishadas? Any reference
regarding this two part?
P.S: Ishopanishada can be considered as a part associating with the Mantra
Vaga. As the verses are derived from Yajurveda.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Shashwata Shastri <
shashwata.unimas at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chandasam Drishta Brahmanah Proktah. -- regarding this statement of
> Panini, Patanjala has done his own commentary supporting Panini. Well I was
> having a discussion about uttara mimamsa. A particular guy told me that
> only the Mantra part can be considered as Auparusheya but the others parts
> are paurusheya since they are not aloukik but rather loukik. I disagreed on
> this statement strongly since I know that Lord Shankara accepted the
> upanishadas as shruti. Without vedanta veda is not complete per my view. As
> we know he refuted the commentary of Purva Mimamsa Commentators point blank
> regarding the exact same matter. But I got a bit puzzled after seeing this
> statement.As It was derived from Panini. That is why I have inquired here,
> since I do not have that much knowledge about the works of the ancient
> grammarians. Though I wanted to read the vartika of Katayana where he
> criticized Panini. If anything was mentioned there regarding that statement
> of Panini it would be helpful also.
> Best Regards
> Shashwata Chowdhury
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
>> I don't know why you say that Patanjali "stated that only veda's mantra
>> part is Vaidiki but the rest is loukik?" Which particular statement in
>> Mahabhashya do you have in mind?
>> I am guessing here that you refer to the text quoted below. In the first
>> Ahnika (day-lesson) popularly known as पस्पशाह्निकम् the opponent
>> challenges the stance of Siddhanti शास्त्रेण धर्मनियमः क्रियते by stating
>> that there are certain usages sanctioned by Sastra, but not actually found:
>> अस्त्यप्रयुक्ताः। सन्ति वै शब्दा अप्रयुक्ताः। तद्यथा - ऊष, तेर, चक्र, पेच -
>> इति। After some discussion, Patanjali says that one must simply not state
>> that these Sabdas are not used, but must make an effort to find the usage:
>> उपलब्धौ यत्नः क्रियताम्। महान् शब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः। सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती,
>> त्रयो लोकाः, चत्वारो वेदाः साङ्गाः सरहस्या बहुधा भिन्नाः . . .
>> Translation: Effort ought to be made to find out [the usages]. The
>> subject/topic of usage of language is vast. The earth consists of seven
>> islands; there are three lokas, and four Vedas along with its subsidiary
>> elements (Vedangas) and with Rahasyas (Upanishads).
>> Now, some people may say that just like Angas, a clearly external part as
>> far as Vedas are concerned are mentioned, the external part of Upanishads
>> are also similarly mentioned - साङ्गाः सरहस्याः। Given below are the
>> reasons why Upanishads are not external to the Vedas.
>> I. bhedavivakshA vs. abhedavivakshA
>> Within Mahabhashya, Patanjali shows that whether we refer to an avayava
>> separately or not is the wish of the speaker (vivakshA). As such no
>> inference can be drawn from such usages. For instance if I hurt my right
>> hand's index finger, I can choose to use any of the following sentences:
>> 1. I hurt myself, 2. I hurt my right hand, 3. I hurt a finger on my right
>> hand, 4. I hurt the index finger on my right hand, 5. I sustained a deep
>> cut on the distal phalanx of my right index finger.
>> So it does not necessarily mean that Rahasya is not Veda, just like
>> usages 2 to 5 above do not mean that the distal phalanx of my right index
>> finger is not included in the word "I"
>> II. Different interpretation
>> He is clearly stating that Upanishads are a part of Veda. Why didn't he
>> say सब्राह्मणाः and सारण्यकाः? Because, Upanishads are the last part.
>> III. Rahasya need not mean Upanishad only
>> Further, Nagesabhatta in his commentary offers a resolution: रहस्यम् -
>> उपनिषत्। म्वादिस्मृतयो वा, वेदनिगूढार्थप्रकाशत्वात्। In Purvamimamsa, it
>> has been shown that Smritis throw light on parts of Veda which are
>> otherwise not accessible.
>> If we look at literature of that time, we see that other Sastras -
>> Mimamsa, Apastambasutra, Manusmriti etc. agree that Veda means Mantra bhaga
>> and brAhmaNabhAga (here brAhmaNa means brAhmaNa, AraNyaka and upanishat).
>> IV. General vs. Particular
>> Also, within Mahabhashya there are sentences like
>> नामाख्यातोपसर्गनिपाताश्च proposing a four-fold division of words. Now, it
>> is well known that according to Panini, words are of two types - सुबन्तम्,
>> तिङन्तम् (substantive and verb). Therefore in the four-fold division
>> mentioned, i.e. नामाख्यातोपसर्गनिपाताश्च, upasarga and nipAta are
>> necessarily a part of nAma.
>> V. Sentences quoted in Mahabhashyam
>> Finally, within Mahabhashya, many Vedic sentences occur such as (all
>> these occur in PaspaSa only in the context of discussion about dharmaniyama)
>> a) पयोव्रतो ब्राह्मणः यवागूव्रतो राजन्यः आमिक्षाव्रतो वैश्यः
>> b) बैल्वः खादिरो वा यूपः स्यात्
>> c) अग्नौ कपालान्यधिश्रित्याभिमन्त्रयते
>> All these sound like extracts from Brahmana-bhAga (unless they are from
>> Krishnayajurveda where the saMhitA portion is mixed with instructions /
>> guidelines like these, but then Patanjali belonged to Atharvaveda).
>> Admittedly, one has to trace these quotations before concluding this line
>> of argument.
>> N Siva Senani
>> *From:* Shashwata Shastri via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> *To:* advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 9 March 2016 11:57 AM
>> *Subject:* [Advaita-l] About Patanjali and Panini
>> Lord Shankara has accepted all four parts of the shruti as vedas. But why
>> did patanjali in his mahavashya stated that only veda's mantra part is
>> Vaidiki but the rest is loukik?
>> 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