[Advaita-l] About Patanjali and Panini
shashwata.unimas at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 00:15:08 CST 2016
*Purva mimamsa is not holding the upanishad portions as paurusheya. They
hold those portions also as veda alone. Their view is that this portion
that does not talk of any action, is to be deemed arthavāda, a praise of
the doer or devatā to which actions are addressed. Shankara only showed
that both the action part and the knowledge part of the veda are not
contradicting each other and that each had its own area of application. *
Any quote or reference supporting this? I mean directly from the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:01 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Shashwata Shastri via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> Chandasam Drishta Brahmanah Proktah. -- regarding this statement of
>> 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.
>> we know he refuted the commentary of Purva Mimamsa Commentators point
>> regarding the exact same matter.
> Purva mimamsa is not holding the upanishad portions as paurusheya. They
> hold those portions also as veda alone. Their view is that this portion
> that does not talk of any action, is to be deemed arthavāda, a praise of
> the doer or devatā to which actions are addressed. Shankara only showed
> that both the action part and the knowledge part of the veda are not
> contradicting each other and that each had its own area of application.
>> 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
>> 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>
>> > Sir
>> > 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
>> > that there are certain usages sanctioned by Sastra, but not actually
>> > अस्त्यप्रयुक्ताः। सन्ति वै शब्दा अप्रयुक्ताः। तद्यथा - ऊष, तेर, चक्र,
>> पेच -
>> > इति। After some discussion, Patanjali says that one must simply not
>> > that these Sabdas are not used, but must make an effort to find the
>> > 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
>> > far as Vedas are concerned are mentioned, the external part of
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 2 to 5 above do not mean that the distal phalanx of my right index
>> > 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
>> > and brAhmaNabhAga (here brAhmaNa means brAhmaNa, AraNyaka and
>> > IV. General vs. Particular
>> > Also, within Mahabhashya there are sentences like
>> > 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,
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > of argument.
>> > Regards
>> > 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
>> > 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/
>> > 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 at advaita-vedanta.org
>> 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