AyurVeda - AtharvaVeda !! Attn. Abhishek Ji

[Guest guest]

Resp. Abhishek Ji,

 

Sadar Pranam,

 

I accept my mistake to find out a valid fact about relation between

ayurveda and other two vedas.

 

I dont think division and relation btween vedas and upvedas w'd have

been done by vedic sages or rishis.

 

It's quite general to understand, any relations and division happens

in later part, when a subject is extended to the point a division is

required.

 

So, logically, as in rigveda, aurvedic matter is very less and is in

it's primary stage, it seems after the atharva veda is compiled, they

must have felt need to relate aurveda to any veda.

 

coz it dosn't seem that in period of rikveda, aurveda was compiled,

definitely it's long after.

 

some says this division is done by no one but Ved Vyasa in the dwapar

yuga.

 

And to me, hardly a division or relation matters, what matters is

content.

 

I will request to not to be so bitter or cruel while treating to

members.

 

regards,

Lalit.

 

 

 

vedic astrology , sanjay sharma <drdevgun1

wrote:

>

> Respected Abhishek Ji,

> At the outset, I apologise for putting across my view point

before some one having a difference of opinion starts an all out war

of mails.

> I never wanted another controversy to start in this forum

concerning a trivial matter as this one so I never argued about the

lineage of Ayurveda earlier on. But Sir, what ever has been said by

the so called " Scholar " is not what he was taught in just a matter of

1 yr. by some misdirected Ayurvedist.

> Kindly go through the " Historical Background of Ayurveda " , before

commenting like this. Kindly check the period to which the

authoritative texts mentioned by the person who has posted this mail,

date back. For your convenience, I repeat those " Charak Samhita,

Susruta Samhita, Vagbhatta Samhita " .

> I am sure, as a person who has done an in-depth study of the

vedic literature, you would be knowing about the Vedic Kaal, Arsh

Kaal, Samhita kaal etc. etc. So, dont just negate the point put

across by your fellow group member without checking the authenticity

of the other view point. The names of the authentic texts themselves

give an indication as to the period when these were written

(Samhita). Hence, clearly these books have not been written by any

present day scholar to show his Scholastic Abilities.

> Furthermore the man is also quoting Puranas which most

definitely were not written by the scholar in question.

> With due respect to the saint and Kanchi Seer that you have

cited, let me bring to your kind notice that he also belongs to

todays period while the authors of the texts mentioned above are from

the Samhita Kaal.

> Therefore, as i had written earlier also, it is only a matter of

differece of opinion of the people who are studying their own fields;

interpreting the subject to their own awareness and knowledge, as

most definitely the development of Ayurveda did not happen keeping

into mind, and developing onto what was followed or grasped from one

veda itself.

>

> And now coming to the point why those learned scholars said that

this owes its birth to the Atharva Veda is because of the mention of

the Ayurvedic basics (principles) and herbs. The matter pertaining to

Ayurveda is mostly found in Atharvaveda.

>

> P.S. - I shall not write any thing more on this anymore as I

feel, any further debate on this should be done in an Ayurveda group,

not in this group which happens to be related to Astrology.

>

> With Regards,

> Dr. Sanjay Sharma

>

>

>

> abhishekpotti <abhishekpotti wrote:

> Hello group:

>

> Ayurvedic doctor would have probably studied in some Indian

> University where we read distorted version of our own history with

> controversies.......I honestly feel that this issue need not have

> been raked up. I repeat...there are enough scholars here in this

> very forum.....The Ayurvedic Doctor from this forum also said what

> the " scholar " that Lalith has consulted said.....He also confessed

> that it was what was taught to them in their college....The scholar

> that Lalith refers to also will also obviously say the same thing

> that he learnt during his first year of college!

>

> I have already written in the group that Rig Vedic Scholars who

have

> done adhyayanaa in the traditional form from Kerala have also

studied

> Ayur veda as their upa vedaa. I leave it to the group to decide

> whether they are going to go by the version of the so called

scholar

> who would have doubtless been following what has been taught to him

> by his University for 5 years or by the version of Vedic Scholars

> who come from a long line of vedic experts of the particular veda

and

> spend all their life in mastering their subject. I think if there

is

> a doubt regarding my house, my version should hold good!

>

> More importantly, Shri Chandrasekara Saraswathy - the revered

> Paramaachaaryaa (many senior members of this group will definitely

> remember the Great Sage of Kaanchi) - a scholar of many subjects

and

> a Saint has clearly stated in his lectures that Ayur Veda is the

Upa

> Veda of Rig Veda.

>

> I would prefer such " researches " and enquiries to " self-certified "

> scholars be kept to concerned members themselves because they are

> patently wrong. I am sorry. I do not mean to enter into

> controversy, but even after my clarifying the point, the point has

> been raised. Writing a book is not a fool-proof indicator of

> scholastic abilities; nor does practising a subject mean that the

> person knows ALL about his subject's history. I mean no offence to

> anyone here. My only intention is that the group should not be

> mislead.

>

> Please do not treat this as an egoistic exchange between Lalith

> Mishra and myself....no......He stated his views based on his

limited

> experience and by approaching the person who is the best person

whom

> he could contact as he is a software engineer and does not know

vedic

> traditions or paatashaalaas. Whereas I am an old keraleeya Brahmin

> from an orthodox Rig Vedic family (Rig Veda is my veda and I come

> from a line of ayurvedic practitioners), and had access to Veda

> Paatashaalaas where they REALLY teach vedas in pristine form, and

> also the Great Saint of Kaanchi who obviously must know what He was

> speaking with all his siddhis and shastraic knowledge!

>

> Let the Group decide whether they are going to follow the Jagat

> Guru's version or the modern doctor's version. I am no one to

> comment on this anymore.

>

> Blessings to everyone.

>

> Abhishek.

>

> vedic astrology , " litsol " <mishra.lalit@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Group,

> >

> > There was a discussion on Upvedas, particularly, related to

Atahrva

> > Veda, I contacted an scholar Dr.Thrigulla Saketh Ram,Hyderabad,

he

> > has written following, He is a Ayurved Doctor too.

> >

> > regards,

> > Lalit.

> > -------------------------

> -

> >

> > Namaskar, I think I can answer the first question.

> >

> > Ayurveda is Upaveda of Atharvaveda and not Rigveda. All the

Ayurved

> > Samhitas-Charaka, Susruta and Vagbhata clearly state that

Ayurveda

> is

> > upveda of Atharvaveda. Purnas Like Brahmavaiarta, Vishnu purnana

> also

> > confirm the same.

> >

> > With Regards

> >

> > Dr.Thrigulla Saketh Ram

> > Ayurvedacharya(BAMS), Ayurved Vachaspati(MD)

> > Hyderabad

> >

 

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search.

>

>