Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Dear list To illustrate the point, we can clearly see how words can be played around. Atma is in essence a part of the God himself. Almost all scriputers of all religions say that atma was made in the Image of God. I hope there is no disagreement on this part atleast. SInce Atma is a divine spark, in essence all the attributes of Atma are that of God himself. Then why do well call Atma as Atma and God Paramatma? Do we mean to say that God wanted to create a " lower " being. Some people call god as Para Brahma, Does it mean that there is a Apara Brahma? Just think on these lines, and it would be clear that the context in which upanishads were written, i mean the word Para used in the Upanishads was to explain a different concept, which the commentator himself agrees cannot be explained., The absolute cannot be explained using any of " this " , i mean words, or any kind of speculation. The reason is simple. All the words, labels, explanations are of " this " and thus cannot be used to explain " that " . Even the great Shankara himself uses many examples such as sun etc. Even sun is part of this and not " that " . It is futile to explain GOD in pure state using any of our subject knowledge, however deep it may be, however complex it may be. That is why even the greatest of rishis and scholars who have realised god have called the absolute " that " , as they couldnot find any word or explanation to describe it. .. coming back, If someone says that Vedas, Jyotish are all apara vidya meaning lower knowledge then i suppose all those who are learning Jyotish solely for spiritual purpose can stop it immediately. best wishes partha On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:32:03 -0000, V.Partha sarathy <partvinu wrote: > > 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) > > > > > > |Om Tat Sat| > http://www.varahamihira > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.