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

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Dear Bhaskar Prabhu-Ji
 
Please help me understand the "vaidic apaurusheyatva"in the following R^icaa
 
Where romasha is describes her private parts to the king svanaya -  Here, she compares the curly hair on the private part with sheep's wool from gaa.ndhaara_desh and suggests to disregard the apparent visible size?
 
aagadhitaa parigadhitaa yaa kashiikeva ja~Ngahe | 
dadaati mahyaM yaadurii yaashuunaam bhojyaa shataa || R^igveda 1.126.06 || 
upopa me paraa mR^isha maa me dabhraaNi manyathaaH | 
sarvaaham asmi romashaa gandhaariiNaam ivaavikaa || R^igveda 1.126.07 || 

  
Often scholars (especially Arya Samaji) have difficulty in even accepting that such description of Indra even exists in our R^igveda.  After Indra defeating the women warriors sent by namuci daasa decides to keeps two women for his own pleasure.  (Why two !?)
  
striyo hi daasa aayudhaani cakre kim maa karann abalaa asya senaaH | 
antar hy akhyad ubhe asya dhene athopa praid yudhaye dasyum indraH || R^igveda 5-30-9 || 

 
I have purposely removed the udaatta and anudaata marks for easier understanding to drive home the message.  Hope few on this list get it !?

Regards,
 
Dr. Yadu

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, ymoharir at yahoo.com <ymoharir at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: ymoharir at yahoo.com <ymoharir at yahoo.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, 6:30 AM



Namaste Bhaskar Prabhu-Ji:
 
You have answered your own question in your query.  Absolutely, grammar and other tools are necessary to understand the meaning.  If the meaning is not understood then how can the corresponding "viniyoga" happen.  Our vaidik literature has "R^iShii",  "chhanda", "devataa" and "viniyoga".  Within the text they (various R^iShii's) have encompassed the knowledge.
 
If one does not understand what they are saying (reciting), then what that say will have no meaning.  I am not suggesting to change the R^icaa by a long shot.  I am merely suggesting to concentrate on understanding what has been said by our sages.
 
R^ico axare parame vyoman yasmin devaa adhi vish{}ve niSheduH |
yastanna veda kimR^icaa kariShyati ya ittad vidusta ime samaasate || R^igveda. 1.164.39 ||
 
diirghattamaa while praising veda he says comments -  (liberal translation) Gods reside in vedic R^icaa.  But if one does not understand their meaning then what is the use of such vead for him?  One who realizes this live together with understanding (harmonious & coherent society).
 
I am extremely familiar with PaNini and other 64 grammarians before him, including Indra.  Grammar is just a tool that helps us understand the correct (intended) meaning.  Even sarmaa, Indra's bitch could communicate in Sanskrit and paNi's who has stolen cows were amazed at this because they could not speak Sanskrit.  This does not mean that sarma was brilliant because she could understand Sanskrit.  My bird at home in US is bi-lingual because he understands Marathi as well as English.
 

How unfortunate are we who just insist on academic recitation rather than trying to understand the associated meaning !?
 
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, 5:05 AM



IMHO - Knowledge in Veda is apauruSheya not the text as we know it.

praNAms Sri Yadu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I dont think so prabhuji...if the veda text is not apaurusheya & ONLY
knowledge imbedded in that text is apaurusheya, then why all the fuss that
we should not change the maNtra-s,  svara-s, grammer etc.  in veda...If the
text is documented / written by some Rishi-s in their own knowledge of
Sanskrit & grammer, then it will definitely have the human errors and these
mistakes has to be corrected as per the classical grammer is it not!!?? but
nobody in tradition sofar dared to say text is hand written one by some
Rishi-s and knowledge is apaurusheya...

I request further comments from prabhuji-s of this list.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
_______________________________________________
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/
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