Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Dear Dr. Sanjay: I never said " misguided ayurvedist " ....what I mean to say is that most scholars of today are basing their arguments/ ideas upon " translated " versions of classics. As regards His Holiness - you have said he belongs to the present era - but touch your heart and say.....don't you think a person who has spent his whole life researching manuscripts, inscriptions, etc. and whose knowledge has been acknowledged to be superior to experts in the respective fields, and who has conducted hundreds if not thousands of " sadas " (a sadas incidentally is a congress of experts on various subjects), and who would have undoubtedly read the puraanaas and samhitaas mentioned in the post like Charaka Samhita....won't he be knowing what he is saying? That is the point I wish to make. We are all speaking from the knowledge and research of others....is it not? His Holiness used to differ from the " Period classification " of Western Scholars (like Rig Veda was oldest etc. based on vedic etymology); In His opinion such classifications do not hold ground at all as etymology cannot be the basis of fixing time period of the apaurusheya vedaas. His miracles are too well known...........He used to take experts from across the world on the defensive with his acute observations on the most minute points of subjects......A person of such a calibre would certainly have made valid remarks is it not? Again, charaka samhita, Susrutha samhita etc. do not belong to the vedaas. Today, I might write a book on astrology; but that does not mean vedaang jotish belongs to " My " period. Charaka Samhita, etc. were works on Ayurveda - they are rather like manuals of ayurveda. As someone who knows the Rig veda and its mantraic application (as opposed to the general view that only Atharva veda has incantations, there are mantrik application of all vedic mantraas), I can say for certain that at least certain portions of modern day Ayurveda can be traced to Rig Vedic hymns. Veda Bhaashya explains that! Ayurveda originated not from Sage Susrutha (He was the First one credited to have done Caesarean, is it not?)...but far before him, by the Aswini Devataas. References to this are in the Rig veda. Now, let me end this matter with this saying...... Upavedaas are ancillaries of the main vedaas. It is quite possible that at different points of time, various ancillaries were taught for vedic students keeping in tune with the spirit of the times. So, I do know and I now concede that Ayurveda has been a upaveda of Atharveda in certain regions of India, and it has been the ancillary for Rig Vedic studies in Keralaa and parts of Peninsular India. I have commented on this even before. Again, no comparison can be made between Charaka, Susrutha, etc. and His Holiness.....Charaka etc. were respected Physicians, and definitely not " siddheeshwaraas " . The Sage of Kaanchi was a Sidheeswara who was revered by such great saints like Sage Ramana Maharishi, Seshaadri Swaamigal, recently Yogi Raam surat Kumar, etc. besides countless jogis of north India.....He was believed to have been in communion with Goddess Kaamaakshi Herself often, and with such Divine Insight obtained by a pure Brahmacharya Sanyaasi life, He can hardly go wrong. That was my contention. As you rightly said, it is more suitable for ayurvedic forums. And even there, it will serve no useful purpose....... A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet. In the same way, Ayurveda is a upaveda (an ancillary to vedic studies - whatever be the veda), and its purpose is relief of humans from ailments. That is all to it. Blessings. Abhishek. 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Resp. Abhishek Ji, I happen to reply to u, without reading this mail of u. I agree to you - " Ayurveda is a upaveda (an ancillary to vedic studies - whatever be the veda), and its purpose is relief of humans from ailments. That is all to it " . that's a beautiful end to the discussion, however, i dont think Kanchi JagatGuru is beyond discussion as he didn't recognise fellow shankaracharyaa's life and doings. But, let's dont raise this issue, i offer my best regard to him. regards, Lalit. vedic astrology , " abhishekpotti " <abhishekpotti wrote: > > Dear Dr. Sanjay: > > I never said " misguided ayurvedist " ....what I mean to say is that > most scholars of today are basing their arguments/ ideas > upon " translated " versions of classics. As regards His Holiness - > you have said he belongs to the present era - but touch your heart > and say.....don't you think a person who has spent his whole life > researching manuscripts, inscriptions, etc. and whose knowledge has > been acknowledged to be superior to experts in the respective fields, > and who has conducted hundreds if not thousands of " sadas " (a sadas > incidentally is a congress of experts on various subjects), and who > would have undoubtedly read the puraanaas and samhitaas mentioned in > the post like Charaka Samhita....won't he be knowing what he is > saying? > > That is the point I wish to make. We are all speaking from the > knowledge and research of others....is it not? His Holiness used to > differ from the " Period classification " of Western Scholars (like Rig > Veda was oldest etc. based on vedic etymology); In His opinion such > classifications do not hold ground at all as etymology cannot be the > basis of fixing time period of the apaurusheya vedaas. > > His miracles are too well known...........He used to take experts > from across the world on the defensive with his acute observations on > the most minute points of subjects......A person of such a calibre > would certainly have made valid remarks is it not? > > Again, charaka samhita, Susrutha samhita etc. do not belong to the > vedaas. Today, I might write a book on astrology; but that does not > mean vedaang jotish belongs to " My " period. Charaka Samhita, etc. > were works on Ayurveda - they are rather like manuals of ayurveda. As > someone who knows the Rig veda and its mantraic application (as > opposed to the general view that only Atharva veda has incantations, > there are mantrik application of all vedic mantraas), I can say for > certain that at least certain portions of modern day Ayurveda can be > traced to Rig Vedic hymns. Veda Bhaashya explains that! > > Ayurveda originated not from Sage Susrutha (He was the First one > credited to have done Caesarean, is it not?)...but far before him, by > the Aswini Devataas. References to this are in the Rig veda. > > Now, let me end this matter with this saying...... > > Upavedaas are ancillaries of the main vedaas. It is quite possible > that at different points of time, various ancillaries were taught for > vedic students keeping in tune with the spirit of the times. So, I > do know and I now concede that Ayurveda has been a upaveda of > Atharveda in certain regions of India, and it has been the ancillary > for Rig Vedic studies in Keralaa and parts of Peninsular India. I > have commented on this even before. > > Again, no comparison can be made between Charaka, Susrutha, etc. and > His Holiness.....Charaka etc. were respected Physicians, and > definitely not " siddheeshwaraas " . The Sage of Kaanchi was a > Sidheeswara who was revered by such great saints like Sage Ramana > Maharishi, Seshaadri Swaamigal, recently Yogi Raam surat Kumar, etc. > besides countless jogis of north India.....He was believed to have > been in communion with Goddess Kaamaakshi Herself often, and with > such Divine Insight obtained by a pure Brahmacharya Sanyaasi life, He > can hardly go wrong. That was my contention. > > As you rightly said, it is more suitable for ayurvedic forums. And > even there, it will serve no useful purpose....... > > A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet. In the same way, > Ayurveda is a upaveda (an ancillary to vedic studies - whatever be > the veda), and its purpose is relief of humans from ailments. That > is all to it. > > > Blessings. > Abhishek. > > 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. > > > > 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.