Mundakya on Para

March 16, 2005

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

Dear Gurus,

As most of you are well versed in the scriptures, you would know that the Mundakya commence with Brahma imparting Brahma vidya to Atharvan rishi. Atharvan in turn told this to Angirasa, who in turn spread the knowledge (who else but Brhaspati's ancestors, the karaka of the 5th house). It was in a conversation with Shaunaka that Angira imparted the knowledge of para and apara, both of which he says is necessary to achieve Brahma gyana. Shaunaka's specific question was, "by which can we know all?" Angira says that the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda (which includes the Mundakya by the way) and the six angas of the Vedas, that is, Shiksha, Kalpasutra, Vyakaran, Nirukta, Chanda and Jyotisha, are apara vidya; and para is that by which you can reach/get/realise the akshara brahma. Shankara gives a beautiful comment on this.

Briefly, Shankara in his long, comment on this sloka, says, "does this mean that Brahma vidya is out side the Rg Veda, for the view held is that which is outside the Vedas is asat or false, tamasik and hence fruitless. By this argument, the Upanishads will cease to be a part of the Vedas; (the Mundakya being a part of the Atharva). If they are a part of the Vedas, then by the above definition, it is apara. Similarly, are the the Vedas devoid of Brahmagyana and Truth? Shankara's answer to this is, the definition of vidya in this instance is to realize. No doubt the Vedas, Vedangas and the Upanishads impart Para Vidya, but not the assemblage of words, or collection of words or shabdasamuha that represent these Vedas, Upanishads etc. The mere body of words is the lower or apara knowledge, while the realisation of the Akshara Brahma through this body of knowledge is the higher or para knowledge. For in para knowledge, avidya or ignorance is removed. Ignorance, which cannot be simply removed by reading or understanding the Vedas etc., but only by realisation of the Akshara Brahma. Shankara adds, that this para knowledge can only be achieved after reading and understanding the scriptures, when you decide to take the shelter of a guru and take vairagya. He has said this in the bhashyas of the Brahma Sutras as well. Narada felt this very strongly, when in the Chandyogya Upanishad he says, "I am only a Mantravid; not an Atmavid". He then went to Sanatakumara for further learning. Even the Samkhyavids have said that Brahmajignasa comes after the study of the shastras, and from thence to a guru and then vairagya, which will enable one to realize Brahma, that is the knowledge of the Para.

So you see, Vedas, Upanishads, Jyotishas etc. is apara as far as they are mere bodies of texts and knowledge. But if with that knowledge we can realise the Brhama, then that knowledge becomes para. Can we be jyotisis at that level?

Best regards,

Sarbani

March 16, 2005

... hamsasso.aham ..

Dear Sarbani and others,

SS: “I decided to give you Shankara's commentary on this, as he is

more hardhitting than I can be.”

Just as a bad reading of the upanishads can be misleading, a

bad reading of Shankara’s commentary can be equally misleading.

SS: Shankara's answer to this is, the

definition of vidya in this instance is to realize. No

doubt the Vedas, Vedangas and the Upanishads impart Para Vidya

Shankara teaches that the primary purpose of vedanta is to

teach the bramha-vidya which cannot be taught. It is in this context that his

commentary must be read. The hard hitting Shankara says “Para vidya is that knowledge of the impreishable which is

imparted only by the Upanishads, and not merely the assemblage of words found

in the Upanishads”. He chooses the upanishads, and the upanishads alone

in his example. His parampara (the keeper of his views) does not hold that the “vedangas

impart para vidya”.

Madhusudana Saraswati wrote somewhere in his commentary on

the Gita that when two objects are compared, and one is disparaged, it is often

done solely to eulogize the other object. When we say that the teachings of the

upanishads alone ‘impart’ brahma-vidya, the aim is to the raise the

upanishads to new dizzying heights, and not to lower any other subject. However…..

SS: The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas

(the last includes the Upanishads) all teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate

aim of jyotish, as it is a vedanga…can we be jyotisis at that level?

The upanishads are useful only because they impart para

vidya. Using it for other purposes can be very, very dangerous. The knowledge

of Jyotisha is very much useful in daily life. It is also true that it’s

ultimate aim, like the aim of all shastras is certainly to bring about

brahmagyana.

When Shankara discriminates between the karma-kanda and

gyana-kanda of the vedas, and accepts only the latter as attempting to point

directly to brahman, it seems silly to attempt to quote his words to convey

that the primary role of Jyotisha and the Upanishads are the same.

SS: Shankara adds, that this para

knowledge can only be achieved after reading and understanding the scriptures,

when you decide to take the shelter of a guru and take vairagya.

Yes, his parampara is very clear in saying that vividhiShaa

sannyaasa is required as a preparation for Brahman-realization. Let us use this

as the measuring stick for a moment. Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to

sannyasa larger than the percentage of the general public who take to sannyasa?

Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa equal to or larger than the

percentage of Vedantins who take to sannyasa?

GD commented on “how dangerous little knowledge can be”

Indeed.

ajit

Sarbani Sarkar [sarbani]

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

6:24 AM

varahamihira

|Sri Varaha| Mundakya on Para

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

Dear Gurus,

As most of you are well versed in the

scriptures, you would know that the Mundakya commence with Brahma imparting

Brahma vidya to Atharvan rishi. Atharvan in turn told this to Angirasa, who in

turn spread the knowledge (who else but Brhaspati's ancestors, the karaka of

the 5th house). It was in a conversation with Shaunaka that Angira imparted the

knowledge of para and apara, both of which he says is necessary to achieve Brahma gyana.

Shaunaka's specific question was, " by which can we know all? " Angira

says that the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda (which includes the

Mundakya by the way) and the six angas of the Vedas, that is, Shiksha, Kalpasutra,

Vyakaran, Nirukta, Chanda and Jyotisha, are apara vidya; and para is that by

which you can reach/get/realise the akshara brahma. Shankara gives a beautiful

comment on this.

Briefly, Shankara in his

long, comment on this sloka, says, " does this mean that Brahma vidya

is out side the Rg Veda, for the view held is that which is outside the Vedas

is asat or false, tamasik and hence fruitless. By this argument, the

Upanishads will cease to be a part of the Vedas; (the Mundakya being a part of

the Atharva). If they are a part of the Vedas, then by the above

definition, it is apara. Similarly, are the the Vedas devoid of

Brahmagyana and Truth? Shankara's answer to this is, the definition

of vidya in this instance is to realize. No

doubt the Vedas, Vedangas and the Upanishads impart Para Vidya, but not

the assemblage of words, or collection of words or shabdasamuha that represent

these Vedas, Upanishads etc. The mere body of words is the lower or apara

knowledge, while the realisation of the Akshara Brahma through this body of

knowledge is the higher or para knowledge. For in

para knowledge, avidya or ignorance is removed. Ignorance, which cannot be

simply removed by reading or understanding the Vedas etc., but only by

realisation of the Akshara Brahma. Shankara adds, that this para knowledge can

only be achieved after reading and understanding the scriptures, when you

decide to take the shelter of a guru and take vairagya. He has said this in the

bhashyas of the Brahma Sutras as well. Narada felt this very strongly, when in

the Chandyogya Upanishad he says, " I am only a Mantravid; not an

Atmavid " . He then went to Sanatakumara for further learning. Even the

Samkhyavids have said that Brahmajignasa comes after the study of the shastras,

and from thence to a guru and then vairagya, which will enable one to realize

Brahma, that is the knowledge of the Para.

So you see, Vedas, Upanishads, Jyotishas

etc. is apara as far as they are mere bodies of texts and knowledge. But

if with that knowledge we can realise the Brhama, then that knowledge

becomes para. Can we be jyotisis at that level?

Best regards,

Sarbani

|Om

Tat Sat|

http://www.varahamihira

March 16, 2005

Dear Ajit,

What you say below is in a nut shell what I was trying to convey. This was the primary aim...not to equate jyotish with the upanishads.

It is also true that it’s ultimate aim, like the aim of all shastras is certainly to bring about brahmagyana. Yes, his parampara is very clear in saying that vividhiShaa sannyaasa is required as a preparation for Brahman-realization.

Try and read some other translations and commentaries as well...alpa vidya indeed is bhankari. Shastra leads to Brhama jignasa which leads to vairagya.

Just as a bad reading of the upanishads can be misleading, a bad reading of Shankara’s commentary can be equally misleading

Yes, his parampara is very clear in saying that vividhiShaa sannyaasa is required as a preparation for Brahman-realization. Let us use this as the measuring stick for a moment. Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa larger than the percentage of the general public who take to sannyasa? Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa equal to or larger than the percentage of Vedantins who take to sannyasa?

Sri Achyuta and his 12 disciples! Jagannath Rath totally renounced towards the end of his life and travelled everywhere with his guru. Seekers of the brahma gyana in the jyotish marga. Exactly...you proved my point. Nobody nowadays studies jyotish as another marga for reaching brahma gyana. That was the whole aim of the post: the de-spiritualization and secularization of the subject. That we are not hear to study about the day to day as much as in the larger spiritual aim of such a study. We are alone in the path. Shankara's commentary definitely helps us in that understanding...only this much was the scope of the message. At least this made you write here after long time. Yes, those who will ultmately take up the path of vairagya, will leave all shastra behind.

Best regards,

Sarbani

Ajit Krishnan [astro] Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:40 PMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Mundakya on Para

... hamsasso.aham ..

Dear Sarbani and others,

SS: “I decided to give you Shankara's commentary on this, as he is more hardhitting than I can be.”

Just as a bad reading of the upanishads can be misleading, a bad reading of Shankara’s commentary can be equally misleading.

SS: Shankara's answer to this is, the definition of vidya in this instance is to realize. No doubt the Vedas, Vedangas and the Upanishads impart Para Vidya

Shankara teaches that the primary purpose of vedanta is to teach the bramha-vidya which cannot be taught. It is in this context that his commentary must be read. The hard hitting Shankara says “Para vidya is that knowledge of the impreishable which is imparted only by the Upanishads, and not merely the assemblage of words found in the Upanishads”. He chooses the upanishads, and the upanishads alone in his example. His parampara (the keeper of his views) does not hold that the “vedangas impart para vidya”.

Madhusudana Saraswati wrote somewhere in his commentary on the Gita that when two objects are compared, and one is disparaged, it is often done solely to eulogize the other object. When we say that the teachings of the upanishads alone ‘impart’ brahma-vidya, the aim is to the raise the upanishads to new dizzying heights, and not to lower any other subject. However…..

SS: The Vedas, Vedangas and Vedantas (the last includes the Upanishads) all teach Brahmagyana. That is the ultimate aim of jyotish, as it is a vedanga…can we be jyotisis at that level?

The upanishads are useful only because they impart para vidya. Using it for other purposes can be very, very dangerous. The knowledge of Jyotisha is very much useful in daily life. It is also true that it’s ultimate aim, like the aim of all shastras is certainly to bring about brahmagyana.

When Shankara discriminates between the karma-kanda and gyana-kanda of the vedas, and accepts only the latter as attempting to point directly to brahman, it seems silly to attempt to quote his words to convey that the primary role of Jyotisha and the Upanishads are the same.

SS: Shankara adds, that this para knowledge can only be achieved after reading and understanding the scriptures, when you decide to take the shelter of a guru and take vairagya.

Yes, his parampara is very clear in saying that vividhiShaa sannyaasa is required as a preparation for Brahman-realization. Let us use this as the measuring stick for a moment. Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa larger than the percentage of the general public who take to sannyasa? Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa equal to or larger than the percentage of Vedantins who take to sannyasa?

GD commented on “how dangerous little knowledge can be”

Indeed.

ajit

Sarbani Sarkar [sarbani] Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:24 AMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Mundakya on Para

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

Dear Gurus,

As most of you are well versed in the scriptures, you would know that the Mundakya commence with Brahma imparting Brahma vidya to Atharvan rishi. Atharvan in turn told this to Angirasa, who in turn spread the knowledge (who else but Brhaspati's ancestors, the karaka of the 5th house). It was in a conversation with Shaunaka that Angira imparted the knowledge of para and apara, both of which he says is necessary to achieve Brahma gyana. Shaunaka's specific question was, "by which can we know all?" Angira says that the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda (which includes the Mundakya by the way) and the six angas of the Vedas, that is, Shiksha, Kalpasutra, Vyakaran, Nirukta, Chanda and Jyotisha, are apara vidya; and para is that by which you can reach/get/realise the akshara brahma. Shankara gives a beautiful comment on this.

Briefly, Shankara in his long, comment on this sloka, says, "does this mean that Brahma vidya is out side the Rg Veda, for the view held is that which is outside the Vedas is asat or false, tamasik and hence fruitless. By this argument, the Upanishads will cease to be a part of the Vedas; (the Mundakya being a part of the Atharva). If they are a part of the Vedas, then by the above definition, it is apara. Similarly, are the the Vedas devoid of Brahmagyana and Truth? Shankara's answer to this is, the definition of vidya in this instance is to realize. No doubt the Vedas, Vedangas and the Upanishads impart Para Vidya, but not the assemblage of words, or collection of words or shabdasamuha that represent these Vedas, Upanishads etc. The mere body of words is the lower or apara knowledge, while the realisation of the Akshara Brahma through this body of knowledge is the higher or para knowledge. For in para knowledge, avidya or ignorance is removed. Ignorance, which cannot be simply removed by reading or understanding the Vedas etc., but only by realisation of the Akshara Brahma. Shankara adds, that this para knowledge can only be achieved after reading and understanding the scriptures, when you decide to take the shelter of a guru and take vairagya. He has said this in the bhashyas of the Brahma Sutras as well. Narada felt this very strongly, when in the Chandyogya Upanishad he says, "I am only a Mantravid; not an Atmavid". He then went to Sanatakumara for further learning. Even the Samkhyavids have said that Brahmajignasa comes after the study of the shastras, and from thence to a guru and then vairagya, which will enable one to realize Brahma, that is the knowledge of the Para.

So you see, Vedas, Upanishads, Jyotishas etc. is apara as far as they are mere bodies of texts and knowledge. But if with that knowledge we can realise the Brhama, then that knowledge becomes para. Can we be jyotisis at that level?

Best regards,

Sarbani

|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira |Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

March 16, 2005

|| Om Gurave Namah ||

Dear Ajit,Sarbaniji and Jyotishas,

The definition of Para vs Apara Vidya is still vague to me.

Can someone please try to articulate it, for my better understanding.

My own understanding was that,

'Brahman' is same as Veda or Knowledge. Vedas is the text of all

collected Knowledge on Brahman.

Just as to sense organs(Karma Indriyas) are need to percieve the

manifest world. Gyana Indriyas are needed to gather Gyana.

The Tools or Gyana Indriyas for understand the ultimate Brahman are

the 6 Vedangas (Veda+Anga = deriving an anology to the bodily parts

of Veda).

Just Eyes are needed to see the manifest light, Skin needed to touch

the manifest matter. The KarmaIndriyas acts as contact between

Self and manifest world.

Similarly 6 Vedanga gives us contact to Veda.

Thus thru 6 Vedanga one gets in contact of Vedas and becomes

Vid, or Brahma Vid. Please correct me if you feel there is flaw

in this argument. So Shouldn't Vedanga be thus tools for

Paraa(Beyond) Vidya(Knowledge)?

This is my own understanding based on what I read.

To summarise, I take these 6 Vedangas as a very necessary

tool(intellectual) tool to understand Veda.

6 Vedangas are like the elementary/kindergarten education for

actual Veda. After understanding Vedas then comes Vedanta or

veda+anta(conclude)=conclusions. So Vedantist should already

have learnt the Vedanga classes

> measuring stick for a moment. Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to

> sannyasa larger than the percentage of the general public who take to

> sannyasa? Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa equal

to or

> larger than the percentage of Vedantins who take to sannyasa?

I find this confused, Why should you relate Sanyasa Yoga with one

vedanga?. There are also Gyana Yoga, Karma Yoga etc.

Do you expect a person to take sanyasa after learning pronounciations?

Shiksha(pronounciations study for understing Mantra articulation) is

also a vedanga. Just learning one Vedanga you cannot expect to person

to get Yoga.

Please tell me if there is a flaw in my understanding.

Warm Regards

Sanjay P

Hari Om Tat Sat

March 17, 2005

Dear Sanjay P,

The answer is very simple. Shaunaka had asked, "what is that by knowing which man can know everything". Angirasa answered, "the Brahmavids say that there are two forms of knowledge, both which are necessary: Para and Apara. Apara are the 4 Vedas and the 6 Vedangas. Para is the realisation of the Akshara (Akshara Brahma). " Experts have explained that the learning of these shastras (that is the Vedas and the Vedangas) is necessary for Brahmagyana. But by themselves they are merely a collection of words. However, by studying them you are eventually lead to the path where you will go to a guru, follow Vairagya and attain the Brahma. This attainment of the Bahma is the true para vidya, when all ignorance vanishes and you will have atmagyana. The crux of the matter is that the classification of para and apara in not in texts or classification of subject, but in whether or not you have renounced and attained the Brahma. For that you do need the 4 Vedas and the 6 Vedangas. I think Angirasa is clear on that. But just by reading/studying the Vedas and the Upanishads you do not get para vidya; it is still apara. Only by realizing/attaining Brahma from this knowledge can you get para vidya. It is a highly spiritual message that we get here.

Shankara has pointed out the anomaly in the definition given in the Mundakya:

1. This implies that Brahma gyana is outside the purview of the Vedas. Then how will para vidya be used for moksha sadhana?

2. The Smritis etc. have held all that is out side the Vedas is Untrue, Fruitless and Tamasik. Then Para vidya will be tamasik. How is it possible? the Upanishads will thus be outside by the Vedas. How is that possible either?

3. Yet the distinction is made.

4. The words in the Vedas and the Upanishads are shabda rashi only...that is a mere collection of words. (He says both Vedas and Upanishads).

5. These words will lead you to Brahmagyana only when you go to a guru and follow Vairagya and attain/realise the Akshara Brahama. That attainment is paravidya.

So you see the Upanishads will remain apara as long as one only masters the words like a shastra. But when you go to a guru, take sannyasa and finally attain the brahma you will get para vidya.

Best regards,

Sarbani

sanjaychettiar [sanjaychettiar] Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:21 PMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Mundakya on Para

|| Om Gurave Namah ||Dear Ajit,Sarbaniji and Jyotishas,The definition of Para vs Apara Vidya is still vague to me.Can someone please try to articulate it, for my better understanding.My own understanding was that,'Brahman' is same as Veda or Knowledge. Vedas is the text of all collected Knowledge on Brahman.Just as to sense organs(Karma Indriyas) are need to percieve the manifest world. Gyana Indriyas are needed to gather Gyana.The Tools or Gyana Indriyas for understand the ultimate Brahman are the 6 Vedangas (Veda+Anga = deriving an anology to the bodily parts of Veda).Just Eyes are needed to see the manifest light, Skin needed to touchthe manifest matter. The KarmaIndriyas acts as contact between Self and manifest world.Similarly 6 Vedanga gives us contact to Veda.Thus thru 6 Vedanga one gets in contact of Vedas and becomesVid, or Brahma Vid. Please correct me if you feel there is flawin this argument. So Shouldn't Vedanga be thus tools for Paraa(Beyond) Vidya(Knowledge)?This is my own understanding based on what I read. To summarise, I take these 6 Vedangas as a very necessarytool(intellectual) tool to understand Veda. 6 Vedangas are like the elementary/kindergarten education for actual Veda. After understanding Vedas then comes Vedanta orveda+anta(conclude)=conclusions. So Vedantist should alreadyhave learnt the Vedanga classes > measuring stick for a moment. Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to> sannyasa larger than the percentage of the general public who take to> sannyasa? Is the percentage of Jyotishas who take to sannyasa equalto or> larger than the percentage of Vedantins who take to sannyasa?I find this confused, Why should you relate Sanyasa Yoga with one vedanga?. There are also Gyana Yoga, Karma Yoga etc.Do you expect a person to take sanyasa after learning pronounciations?Shiksha(pronounciations study for understing Mantra articulation) isalso a vedanga. Just learning one Vedanga you cannot expect to person to get Yoga.Please tell me if there is a flaw in my understanding.Warm RegardsSanjay PHari Om Tat Sat|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

March 17, 2005

... hamsasso.aham ..

Let us take another look at the order by

which the elements are created:

akasha : sound

vayu : sound + touch

agni: sound, touch + sight

apa: sound, touch, sight + taste

prithivi: sound, touch, sight, taste +

smell

In the process towards realization, we

want to reverse this process of creation, to attain the source. This starts

with correct knowledge of the world around us, which is represented by the agni

tattwa, and ruled by Surya. This is followed by approaching a guru, who is

capable of two kinds of disksha: sparsha-diksha (initiation by touch), or the

higher initiation: shabda-diksha (initiation by sound). The shabda-diksha is of

a higher caliber, and thus, preferred. For those who are immensely qualified,

the teaching transcends even sound, and thus, silence becomes the mode of

teaching, even as the rishis Sanaka etc, learnt directly from Dakshinamurti.

** Para

vs Apara Vidya **

Para & Apara vidya are used in two

very different ways in different places. In the Mundaka upanishad the

para-vidya is defined as that which is, among other things “acakshuH

ashrotram” and “apaaNi paadam”, or that which cannot be seen,

or heard, and that which has no hands or feet. i.e. that which falls outside of

creation itself “bhuuta yoni”. By this definition, everything that

you can describe by a word, including “veda”, “upanishad”

etc are all apara vidya. Only the _import_

of the upanishads, that which is beyond comtemplation itself, is called para

vidya.

We have two other concepts for general

use: swarupa-gyana, and vritti-gyana. Swarupa-gyana is like the Sun that shines

all by himself when the clouds move from across his face. Nothing “causes”

the sun to shine when the clouds move, just as this knowledge cannot be “learnt”.

This is the true gyana. Vritti-gyana, is the knowledge of the active mind that

helps our mind to clear so that realization may dawn. This may be compared to

the wind that blows the clouds away from the face of the Sun. It does not “cause”

the Sun to shine, but simply helps the swarupa-gyana to self-manifest (svayam

prakaashate hi aatmaa).

The Mundaka upanishad says that

swarupa-gyana is para-vidya, while everything else, including vritti-gyana, is

only apara vidya. However, since vritti-gyana is so useful, we elevate it in

common parlance to the status of para-vidya. Here is an analogy: Even though

the Manikhya gem is only a stone, we stop calling it a stone, and call it a gem

due to its radiance. Similarly, since the upanishads have as their primary

purpose, the objective of pointing out the para vidya, we say that they contain

para-vidya (or that the upanishads are para vidya).

You can make your own determination with

regards to other subjects like Jyotisha.

** The eye of the vedas **

As those who practice Jyotisha, we are all

very proud that it forms the eye of the vedas. Let’s take another look at

the order of creation:

Tattwa / Gyana Indriya / Karma Indriya –

Vedanga

=====================================

Akasha / Hearing / Speech – Nirukta (ear

of the vedas)

Vayu / Touch / Hands – Kalpa (hands

of the vedas)

Agni / Sight / Legs – Chandas (feet

of the vedas), and Jyotisha (eye of the vedas)

Apa / Taste / Procreation – Vyakarana

(mouth of the vedas)

Prithivi / Smell / Excretion – Shiksha

(nose of the vedas)

The karmendriyas form the rajasic aspect

(karma kanda), while the gyanendriyas form the sattwic aspect (gyana kanda) of

the tattwas. Reordering them accordingly, in increasing order of subtlety, we

get Chandas, Kalpa, Shiksha, Vyakarana, Jyotisha and Nirukta. Is there any

doubt that Nirukta, whose sole purpose is to bring out the import of the vedas

is the subtlest of the vedangas? Perhaps it is a sign of the Kali yuga that we

do not accord Nirukta the importance that it deserves…

Again, see the three chakras used for

predictive purposes: the north indian Shukra chakra (apah), the east indian

Surya chakra (agni) and the south indian Guru chakra (akasha). For predictive

purposes, the Surya (agni) chakra ruled by Surya (sight) may be supreme, but

for one who truly wishes to hear the command of Ishwara . . .

** Shankara’s Commentary on Mundaka

1.1.5 **

[ Translation by Swami Gambhirananda.

Published by Advaita Ashrama ]

1.1.5: Of these, the lower comprises the

Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharva-veda, the science of pronounciation

etc, the code of rituals, grammer, etymology, metre and astrology. Then there

is the higher (knowledge) by which is attained that Impreishable.

Commentary: Rig-veda, Yajur-veda,

Sama-veda, Atharva-veda – these are the four vedas. Shiksha, the science

of pronounciation etc; kalpah, the code of rituals; vyakaranam, grammar;

niruktam, etymology; chandah, metre; jyotisham, astrology – these are the

6 auxiliary parts (of the vedas). These constitute the apara (lower) knowledge.

Now is being stated this higher knowledge by which that Impreshivable whose

attributes will be stated hereafter is attained (adhigamyate) – for the

root gam, preceded by the prefix adhi, generally means attainment. Besides, the

sense of realization does not differ that of attainment in the case of the Highest;

indeed, the attainment of the Highest consists merely in removing ignorance,

and nothing more.

Objection: In that case, the knowledge (of

Brahman) is outside the Rig-veda etc; (so) how can it be the higher knowledge

and the means for emancipation? The view accepted traditionally is this: “The

Smritis that are outside the Vedic pale and those that propound perverted

views, are all useless in the next world; and they are counted as occupied with

dark things’ (M.9.9); therefore it will be unacceptable as its outlook is

perverted and it is useless. Moreover, the Upanishads will become excluded from

the Rig-veda etc. Again, if they are included in the Rig-Veda etc, it is

illogical to distinguish them by saying, “Then the higher” and so

on.

Answer: No, since (by the word vidya) is

implied the realization of the thing to be known. What is primarily meant in

this context by the term “higher knowledge”, is that knowledge of

the Imperishable which is imparted only by the Upanishads (i.e. releaved

knowledge), and not merely by the assemblage of words found in the (books

called) Upanishads. But by the word Veda the meaning implied everywhere is the assemblage

of worlds. The knowledge of Brahman is distinctively mentioned and it is called

the higher knowledge since, even after the mastery of the assemblage of words,

the realization of the Imperishable is not possible without some other effort

consisting in approaching the teacher and so on, as well as detachment.

In connection with the subject matter of

injunctions are to be found certain acts which are like the Agnihotra

(sacrifice), to be performed subsequent to the understanding of the meaning of

the text, through a combination of numerous accessories, to wit, the agent etc.

Unlike this, nothing remains to be performed here within the domain of the

higher knowledge; but all actions cease simultaneously with the comprehension

of the meaning of the sentences; in as much as nothing remains to be done apart

from steadfastness only in the knowledge revealsed by the worlds. Therefore the

higher knowledge is being specified here by referring to the Impreishable

possessed of attributes states in ‘(The wise realize . . . ) that which

cannot be perceived’ etc.

http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in

– contains the sanskrit commentary

http://www.upanishads.iitk.ac.in -- currently unavailable. contains both the sanskrit commentary and

translation (but the poor formatting makes the translation almost unreadable)

March 17, 2005

Dear Ajit

That was a good piece.

My two cents

a) The notes given are meant to distinguish between the " absolute "

and " relative " .

b) The word para could mean something that is beyond, above etc.

All the Jyotish translators who had given commentaries equating

Jyotish to paravidya have meant it as a knowledge that is beyond the

five senses, one that elevates us to higher realm, but not

necessarily to the absolute Brahman who is imperishable , or

whatever.

c) I again repeat that in this context only we have equated jyotish

to Paravidya that which helps us to gain knowledge of the experiences

of atma, its current pursuits and also the previous experiences.

d) I dont think it was ever claimed by any writer/scholar that

Jyotish or any other assemblage of words(i really want to know who

used this phrase) can give the knowledge of the absolute., Every one

here knows that only by practice and different methodologies as

propounded by Patanjali muni and other modern teachers that we can

hopefully realise the absolute.

So let us take a middle ground

That knowledge which only talks of mechancial aspects of universe is

apara

the knowledge that can give us clues of higher workings of universe,

the divine laws, etc are Para.

Just my two cents

This is only my opinion, and need not be construed as coming from an

authority or one who knows sanskrita. I am just a fellow traveller.

best wishes

partha

varahamihira , " Ajit Krishnan " <astro@m...>

wrote:

> .. hamsasso.aham ..

>

> Let us take another look at the order by which the elements are

created:

>

> akasha : sound

>

> vayu : sound + touch

>

> agni: sound, touch + sight

>

> apa: sound, touch, sight + taste

>

> prithivi: sound, touch, sight, taste + smell

>

> In the process towards realization, we want to reverse this process

of

> creation, to attain the source. This starts with correct knowledge

of the

> world around us, which is represented by the agni tattwa, and ruled

by

> Surya. This is followed by approaching a guru, who is capable of

two kinds

> of disksha: sparsha-diksha (initiation by touch), or the higher

initiation:

> shabda-diksha (initiation by sound). The shabda-diksha is of a

higher

> caliber, and thus, preferred. For those who are immensely

qualified, the

> teaching transcends even sound, and thus, silence becomes the mode

of

> teaching, even as the rishis Sanaka etc, learnt directly from

Dakshinamurti.

>

> ** Para vs Apara Vidya **

>

> Para & Apara vidya are used in two very different ways in different

places.

> In the Mundaka upanishad the para-vidya is defined as that which

is, among

> other things " acakshuH ashrotram " and " apaaNi paadam " , or that

which cannot

> be seen, or heard, and that which has no hands or feet. i.e. that

which

> falls outside of creation itself " bhuuta yoni " . By this definition,

> everything that you can describe by a word,

including " veda " , " upanishad "

> etc are all apara vidya. Only the _import_ of the upanishads, that

which is

> beyond comtemplation itself, is called para vidya.

>

> We have two other concepts for general use: swarupa-gyana, and

vritti-gyana.

> Swarupa-gyana is like the Sun that shines all by himself when the

clouds

> move from across his face. Nothing " causes " the sun to shine when

the clouds

> move, just as this knowledge cannot be " learnt " . This is the true

gyana.

> Vritti-gyana, is the knowledge of the active mind that helps our

mind to

> clear so that realization may dawn. This may be compared to the

wind that

> blows the clouds away from the face of the Sun. It does not " cause "

the Sun

> to shine, but simply helps the swarupa-gyana to self-manifest

(svayam

> prakaashate hi aatmaa).

>

> The Mundaka upanishad says that swarupa-gyana is para-vidya, while

> everything else, including vritti-gyana, is only apara vidya.

However, since

> vritti-gyana is so useful, we elevate it in common parlance to the

status of

> para-vidya. Here is an analogy: Even though the Manikhya gem is

only a

> stone, we stop calling it a stone, and call it a gem due to its

radiance.

> Similarly, since the upanishads have as their primary purpose, the

objective

> of pointing out the para vidya, we say that they contain para-vidya

(or that

> the upanishads are para vidya).

>

> You can make your own determination with regards to other subjects

like

> Jyotisha.

>

> ** The eye of the vedas **

>

> As those who practice Jyotisha, we are all very proud that it forms

the eye

> of the vedas. Let's take another look at the order of creation:

>

> Tattwa / Gyana Indriya / Karma Indriya - Vedanga

>

> =====================================

>

> Akasha / Hearing / Speech - Nirukta (ear of the vedas)

>

> Vayu / Touch / Hands - Kalpa (hands of the vedas)

>

> Agni / Sight / Legs - Chandas (feet of the vedas), and Jyotisha

(eye of the

> vedas)

>

> Apa / Taste / Procreation - Vyakarana (mouth of the vedas)

>

> Prithivi / Smell / Excretion - Shiksha (nose of the vedas)

>

> The karmendriyas form the rajasic aspect (karma kanda), while the

> gyanendriyas form the sattwic aspect (gyana kanda) of the tattwas.

> Reordering them accordingly, in increasing order of subtlety, we get

> Chandas, Kalpa, Shiksha, Vyakarana, Jyotisha and Nirukta. Is there

any doubt

> that Nirukta, whose sole purpose is to bring out the import of the

vedas is

> the subtlest of the vedangas? Perhaps it is a sign of the Kali yuga

that we

> do not accord Nirukta the importance that it deserves.

>

> Again, see the three chakras used for predictive purposes: the

north indian

> Shukra chakra (apah), the east indian Surya chakra (agni) and the

south

> indian Guru chakra (akasha). For predictive purposes, the Surya

(agni)

> chakra ruled by Surya (sight) may be supreme, but for one who truly

wishes

> to hear the command of Ishwara . . .

>

> ** Shankara's Commentary on Mundaka 1.1.5 **

>

> [ Translation by Swami Gambhirananda. Published by Advaita Ashrama ]

>

> 1.1.5: Of these, the lower comprises the Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, Sama-

veda,

> Atharva-veda, the science of pronounciation etc, the code of

rituals,

> grammer, etymology, metre and astrology. Then there is the higher

> (knowledge) by which is attained that Impreishable.

>

> Commentary: Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharva-veda - these

are the

> four vedas. Shiksha, the science of pronounciation etc; kalpah, the

code of

> rituals; vyakaranam, grammar; niruktam, etymology; chandah, metre;

> jyotisham, astrology - these are the 6 auxiliary parts (of the

vedas). These

> constitute the apara (lower) knowledge. Now is being stated this

higher

> knowledge by which that Impreshivable whose attributes will be

stated

> hereafter is attained (adhigamyate) - for the root gam, preceded by

the

> prefix adhi, generally means attainment. Besides, the sense of

realization

> does not differ that of attainment in the case of the Highest;

indeed, the

> attainment of the Highest consists merely in removing ignorance,

and nothing

> more.

>

> Objection: In that case, the knowledge (of Brahman) is outside the

Rig-veda

> etc; (so) how can it be the higher knowledge and the means for

emancipation?

> The view accepted traditionally is this: " The Smritis that are

outside the

> Vedic pale and those that propound perverted views, are all useless

in the

> next world; and they are counted as occupied with dark things'

(M.9.9);

> therefore it will be unacceptable as its outlook is perverted and

it is

> useless. Moreover, the Upanishads will become excluded from the Rig-

veda

> etc. Again, if they are included in the Rig-Veda etc, it is

illogical to

> distinguish them by saying, " Then the higher " and so on.

>

> Answer: No, since (by the word vidya) is implied the realization of

the

> thing to be known. What is primarily meant in this context by the

term

> " higher knowledge " , is that knowledge of the Imperishable which is

imparted

> only by the Upanishads (i.e. releaved knowledge), and not merely by

the

> assemblage of words found in the (books called) Upanishads. But by

the word

> Veda the meaning implied everywhere is the assemblage of worlds. The

> knowledge of Brahman is distinctively mentioned and it is called

the higher

> knowledge since, even after the mastery of the assemblage of words,

the

> realization of the Imperishable is not possible without some other

effort

> consisting in approaching the teacher and so on, as well as

detachment.

>

> In connection with the subject matter of injunctions are to be

found certain

> acts which are like the Agnihotra (sacrifice), to be performed

subsequent to

> the understanding of the meaning of the text, through a combination

of

> numerous accessories, to wit, the agent etc. Unlike this, nothing

remains to

> be performed here within the domain of the higher knowledge; but

all actions

> cease simultaneously with the comprehension of the meaning of the

sentences;

> in as much as nothing remains to be done apart from steadfastness

only in

> the knowledge revealsed by the worlds. Therefore the higher

knowledge is

> being specified here by referring to the Impreishable possessed of

> attributes states in '(The wise realize . . . ) that which cannot be

> perceived' etc.

>

> http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in <http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/> -

contains

> the sanskrit commentary

>

> http://www.upanishads.iitk.ac.in

<http://www.upanishads.iitk.ac.in/> --

> currently unavailable. contains both the sanskrit commentary and

translation

> (but the poor formatting makes the translation almost unreadable)

March 17, 2005

> That knowledge which only talks of mechancial aspects of universe is

> apara

> the knowledge that can give us clues of higher workings of universe,

> the divine laws, etc are Para.

> > (but the poor formatting makes the translation almost unreadable)

I was teached also in the same manner, beyond many paths which Person

can choose in live there are path of uncivilized human, karma-kanda,

jnana-kanda and bhakti-marg. Jnana-kanda and bhakti-marga are within

the range of nivrtii-margas because they transcend the ocean of

material existence and karma-kanda is pravrtti-marga where one wants

to enjoy life regulated by Vedic injunctions. In way leading to Moksa

Upanisad's are the most important ¦astra so these are Para Vidya, in

way leading to Bhagavan Puranas (Srimad Bhagavatam), Itihasas

(Ramayana) are most important and this is their Para Vidya.

Everything depends on context so we must know what is what. We can say

that only OM or Maha-Mantra is Para-Vidya and everything (even

sastras) are Apara Vidya in the same manner like we can say that

Grhasta-life is Nivrtti in compare to Grhamedhi-life (marriedlife not

focused on realization of Supreme) which is Pravrtti, but from Higher

Perspective every married life is simply Pravrtti and Sannyas life is

Nivrtti. So we have to know how to use this words, and how they were

used by Acaryas, Rsis and comentators.

Basically they are 3 vidyas (sciences) :

Para Vidya - direct knowledge of Supreme and Sadhana leading to Supreme

Apara Vidya - all Vedic knowledge which are helping Para Vidya

Avidya - a-Vedic knowledge or knowledge not based on ¦abda (Vedic

authority)

with regards,

Rafal

March 17, 2005

Dear Ajit,

Thank you for this gem. Now I can do some work tonight, and write back leisurely at my own pace. I used 6 translations all of which say the same thing: 5 of which are from the RKM: Gambhirananda, Sarvananda, Jushtananda, Bhuteshananda and another from Pandit Durgacharan Sankhya Vedanta-Tirtha. I am planning personally at Sanjayji's request, to type out the relevant shlokas and Shankara's commentary in Sanskrit and posting it to the list. Let me see if I can do it by tonight. I had one or two comments to add to your mail, which I will do later.

Best regards,

Sarbani

Ajit Krishnan [astro] Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:40 PMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Mundakya on Para

... hamsasso.aham ..

Let us take another look at the order by which the elements are created:

akasha : sound

vayu : sound + touch

agni: sound, touch + sight

apa: sound, touch, sight + taste

prithivi: sound, touch, sight, taste + smell

In the process towards realization, we want to reverse this process of creation, to attain the source. This starts with correct knowledge of the world around us, which is represented by the agni tattwa, and ruled by Surya. This is followed by approaching a guru, who is capable of two kinds of disksha: sparsha-diksha (initiation by touch), or the higher initiation: shabda-diksha (initiation by sound). The shabda-diksha is of a higher caliber, and thus, preferred. For those who are immensely qualified, the teaching transcends even sound, and thus, silence becomes the mode of teaching, even as the rishis Sanaka etc, learnt directly from Dakshinamurti.

** Para vs Apara Vidya **

Para & Apara vidya are used in two very different ways in different places. In the Mundaka upanishad the para-vidya is defined as that which is, among other things “acakshuH ashrotram” and “apaaNi paadam”, or that which cannot be seen, or heard, and that which has no hands or feet. i.e. that which falls outside of creation itself “bhuuta yoni”. By this definition, everything that you can describe by a word, including “veda”, “upanishad” etc are all apara vidya. Only the _import_ of the upanishads, that which is beyond comtemplation itself, is called para vidya.

We have two other concepts for general use: swarupa-gyana, and vritti-gyana. Swarupa-gyana is like the Sun that shines all by himself when the clouds move from across his face. Nothing “causes” the sun to shine when the clouds move, just as this knowledge cannot be “learnt”. This is the true gyana. Vritti-gyana, is the knowledge of the active mind that helps our mind to clear so that realization may dawn. This may be compared to the wind that blows the clouds away from the face of the Sun. It does not “cause” the Sun to shine, but simply helps the swarupa-gyana to self-manifest (svayam prakaashate hi aatmaa).

The Mundaka upanishad says that swarupa-gyana is para-vidya, while everything else, including vritti-gyana, is only apara vidya. However, since vritti-gyana is so useful, we elevate it in common parlance to the status of para-vidya. Here is an analogy: Even though the Manikhya gem is only a stone, we stop calling it a stone, and call it a gem due to its radiance. Similarly, since the upanishads have as their primary purpose, the objective of pointing out the para vidya, we say that they contain para-vidya (or that the upanishads are para vidya).

You can make your own determination with regards to other subjects like Jyotisha.

** The eye of the vedas **

As those who practice Jyotisha, we are all very proud that it forms the eye of the vedas. Let’s take another look at the order of creation:

Tattwa / Gyana Indriya / Karma Indriya – Vedanga

=====================================

Akasha / Hearing / Speech – Nirukta (ear of the vedas)

Vayu / Touch / Hands – Kalpa (hands of the vedas)

Agni / Sight / Legs – Chandas (feet of the vedas), and Jyotisha (eye of the vedas)

Apa / Taste / Procreation – Vyakarana (mouth of the vedas)

Prithivi / Smell / Excretion – Shiksha (nose of the vedas)

The karmendriyas form the rajasic aspect (karma kanda), while the gyanendriyas form the sattwic aspect (gyana kanda) of the tattwas. Reordering them accordingly, in increasing order of subtlety, we get Chandas, Kalpa, Shiksha, Vyakarana, Jyotisha and Nirukta. Is there any doubt that Nirukta, whose sole purpose is to bring out the import of the vedas is the subtlest of the vedangas? Perhaps it is a sign of the Kali yuga that we do not accord Nirukta the importance that it deserves…

Again, see the three chakras used for predictive purposes: the north indian Shukra chakra (apah), the east indian Surya chakra (agni) and the south indian Guru chakra (akasha). For predictive purposes, the Surya (agni) chakra ruled by Surya (sight) may be supreme, but for one who truly wishes to hear the command of Ishwara . . .

** Shankara’s Commentary on Mundaka 1.1.5 **

[ Translation by Swami Gambhirananda. Published by Advaita Ashrama ]

1.1.5: Of these, the lower comprises the Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharva-veda, the science of pronounciation etc, the code of rituals, grammer, etymology, metre and astrology. Then there is the higher (knowledge) by which is attained that Impreishable.

Commentary: Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharva-veda – these are the four vedas. Shiksha, the science of pronounciation etc; kalpah, the code of rituals; vyakaranam, grammar; niruktam, etymology; chandah, metre; jyotisham, astrology – these are the 6 auxiliary parts (of the vedas). These constitute the apara (lower) knowledge. Now is being stated this higher knowledge by which that Impreshivable whose attributes will be stated hereafter is attained (adhigamyate) – for the root gam, preceded by the prefix adhi, generally means attainment. Besides, the sense of realization does not differ that of attainment in the case of the Highest; indeed, the attainment of the Highest consists merely in removing ignorance, and nothing more.

Objection: In that case, the knowledge (of Brahman) is outside the Rig-veda etc; (so) how can it be the higher knowledge and the means for emancipation? The view accepted traditionally is this: “The Smritis that are outside the Vedic pale and those that propound perverted views, are all useless in the next world; and they are counted as occupied with dark things’ (M.9.9); therefore it will be unacceptable as its outlook is perverted and it is useless. Moreover, the Upanishads will become excluded from the Rig-veda etc. Again, if they are included in the Rig-Veda etc, it is illogical to distinguish them by saying, “Then the higher” and so on.

Answer: No, since (by the word vidya) is implied the realization of the thing to be known. What is primarily meant in this context by the term “higher knowledge”, is that knowledge of the Imperishable which is imparted only by the Upanishads (i.e. releaved knowledge), and not merely by the assemblage of words found in the (books called) Upanishads. But by the word Veda the meaning implied everywhere is the assemblage of worlds. The knowledge of Brahman is distinctively mentioned and it is called the higher knowledge since, even after the mastery of the assemblage of words, the realization of the Imperishable is not possible without some other effort consisting in approaching the teacher and so on, as well as detachment.

In connection with the subject matter of injunctions are to be found certain acts which are like the Agnihotra (sacrifice), to be performed subsequent to the understanding of the meaning of the text, through a combination of numerous accessories, to wit, the agent etc. Unlike this, nothing remains to be performed here within the domain of the higher knowledge; but all actions cease simultaneously with the comprehension of the meaning of the sentences; in as much as nothing remains to be done apart from steadfastness only in the knowledge revealsed by the worlds. Therefore the higher knowledge is being specified here by referring to the Impreishable possessed of attributes states in ‘(The wise realize . . . ) that which cannot be perceived’ etc.

http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in – contains the sanskrit commentary

http://www.upanishads.iitk.ac.in -- currently unavailable. contains both the sanskrit commentary and translation (but the poor formatting makes the translation almost unreadable)

|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

March 17, 2005

Dear Rafal,

At least I have found some one who is in agreement.

Chandrashekhar.

jyotraff wrote:

> That knowledge which only talks of mechancial aspects of universe

is

> apara

> the knowledge that can give us clues of higher workings of

universe,

> the divine laws, etc are Para.

> > (but the poor formatting makes the translation almost

unreadable)