Gṛhastha life and vedānta (focusing on Advaita here)




This thread and the succeeding comments made me remember the small notes from an orthodox sannyāsin and a friend of mine,and I am putting them in a jumbled form here.

So,in orthodox circles,there are three commentaries on the Gītā that are famous.

  1. Ādi Śaṅkara’s commentary-corresponds to śravana
  2. Madhusudanasarasvatī’s commentary-corresponds to manana
  3. Shankarananda’s commentary-corresponds to nidhidhyānsana(and these are studied in that order).

So, Śaṅkarānanda in his commentary on the 3rd chapter of the Gita states that a brāhmaṇa should not renounce until he has fulfilled the three ṛṇas(debts).

  1. Deva-ṛṇa(debt to the devas) by performing yāgas as laid out in the śruti
  2. Ṛṣirṇa(debt to the ṛṣis) by doing vedādhyayanam of svaśākhā and other vedas
  3. Pitṛ ṛṇa(debt to the forefathers) by begetting a child legitimately [and obviously raising him/her properly and so on and so forth]

As a note:On asking that friend,he suggested(for caturthas),the ṛṇas would be discharged as

  1. Deva-ṛṇa-worship devas through the paddhatis available(paurāṇika/tāntrika)
  2. Ṛṣirṇa-propagate vedāṇgas/itihāsa/tantra
  3. Pitṛ ṛṇa-same as the one for dvijas

(Note:This doesn’t mean that brāhmaṇas/other dvijas cannot pass on tāntrika/itihāsa/other lore)

So,the tradition already has the solution within itself,and it needs to be revitalized.


Also,what Bajirao did would be quite inappropriate from an Advaitin’s point of view. Śrīdharasvāmīn in his gloss on the very first śloka states

‘iha khalu sakalavanditacaraṇaḥ paramakāruṇuko bhagavān devakīnandanastattvajñānavijṛmbhita-śokamohavibhraṃśita-vivekatayā nijadharmaparityāga-pūrvakaparadharmābhisandhinamarjunaṃ dharmajñānarahasyopadeśaplavena tasmācchokamohasāgaraāduddhāraḥ|..’


A short summary(with emphasis on the bolded words would be that the ever-worshippable Śrī Kṛṣṇa rescued Arjuna from the sea of sorrow and delusion,under whose influence he was about to give up his own svadharma(of a warrior and ruler) and take up another’s dharma(that of an ascetic) by imparting to him, jṇānarahasyopadeśa. The Peshva had committed that same mistake Arjuna had done(maybe due to a different cause),and could hardly be said to be upholding vedantic ideals.

The tale of Satyakāma Jabala as seen by traditionalists

From an acquaintance’s posts here


Rajarshi Nandy:

The Chandogya Upanishad mentions this incident. The boy came to Gauthama
Rishi for knowledge and the Rishi asked him for his gotra. The boy goes back
to his mother and finds out that his mother is not aware of who the father
was. The boy comes back and says the same to Rishi Guathama, who says that
he shall teach the boy as the boy belongs to the gotra of truth, and thus by
default is a Brahmana.

“Thereupon the boy went to Gautama and asked to be accepted as a student.
‘Of what family are you, my lad?’ inquired the sage. Satyakama replied: ‘I
asked my mother what my family name was, and she answered: “I do not know.
In my youth I was a servant and worked in many places. I do not know who was
your father. I am Jabala, and you are Satyakama. Call yourself Satyakama
Jabala!” I am therefore Satyakama Jabala, sir.’ Then said the sage: ‘None
but a true Brahmin would have spoken thus. Go and fetch fuel, for I will
teach you. You have not swerved from the truth.'” (Chandogya Upanishad

So that is one sure shot, explicit case, where a Rishi shows that the tag
Brahmin is more by action than by birth.

Ajit Krishnan:

This is a popular misconception. Satyakama asks his mother this
question upfront. The mother does not know her child’s gotra. Why? In
olden days, women married young, and did not ask questions such as
“Who are you? What is your gotra?” to their husband. (In some areas,
this is still taboo today.) Over time, the gotra would be repeated
during various samskara’s, she would naturally remember it. The
conclusion here is that her husband, whom she served with devotion,
died young.

The seers were tri-kAla-darshi-s. Gautama knew of his boy’s pedigree
before asking him the question. After hearing his answer, he says “A
non-brahmin could not have said this . . . you have not swerved from
the truth”. “satyam” is explained as “brAhmaNa-jAti-dharma”.

First, you have a jAti-brAhmaNa who desires to go to a preceptor, on
his own, during childhood. He then answers the preceptor’s question
truthfully, in his mother’s own words, without embellishment. This is
a very rare set of events. Of course the acharyA sees the worthy
student in front of him.

Rajarshi Nandy:

I do not agree to this analysis of the incident.

Ajit Krishnan:

You are certainly welcome to your opinions. However, the view I shared
is the traditional one, and it makes quite a bit of sense to me. I am
content with the traditional understanding, which shows this woman as
a pativrata. In the famed 3-volume set “Upanishad Bhashyam”, the
editor, Sri S.N.Sastri has a very lengthly footnote on the subject.
Those who are interested can go through it.

Narasimha Rao

Dear Ajit,

I am really sorry, but I have to disagree with you in this issue.

With due respect to you and Sri S.N. Sastri, I must say that Rajarshi’s view
is far more accurate and truthful to the scripture. In fact, Swami
Vivekananda also shared exactly the same view (i.e. Rajarshi’s view) when
commenting on this story from Chhaandogypanishad!

* * *

The specific line where mother Jabaalaa tells son Satyakaama about his gotra
in Chandogyopanishad is:

“naahametadveda taata yadgotrastvamasi bahvaham charantii parichaariNii
yauvane tvaamalabhe saahametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi” (chhaandogyopaniShad

Literal meaning word to word is: taata = son, aham = I, na veda = not know,
etat = that, yat = which, gotras = gotra, tvam = you, asi = are, aham = I,
charantii = moving, bahu = a lot, parichaariNii = servant maid, yauvane = in
youth, tvaam = you, alabhe = got, saaham = thus I, na veda = not know, etat
= that, yat = which, gotras = gotra, tvam = you, asi = are.

Literal translation without any interpretation (or spin) is:

“Son, I do not which gotra you are. I was a servant maid moving a lot in
youth when I got you. Thus, I do not know which gotra you are.”

* * *

Now, I cannot reconcile Sri S.N. Sastri’s interpretation with the above at
all. Even today, in this deep Kali yuga, Brahmins do find out the gotra
before marriage and avoid marrying people from the same gotra at any cost. I
find it strange that one would get married without finding gotra in old
days. In any case, there is no reference to such a thing above. There is
also no reference to early death of father. If she did not know the gotra
because her husband died when child was young and she did not ask at the
time of marriage, she would’ve explicitly said that and not say “I was a
servant maid moving a lot in youth when I got you. Thus, I do not know which
gotra you are.” If the true reason is that her husband died young, what is
the relevance of her being a servant maid and her moving a lot? Why would
she mention those irrelevant points and not her husband dying young?

Thus, I cannot support Sri S.N. Sastri’s view at all. It seems quite
far-fetched and motivated to me.

* * *

If one’s conditioned mind cannot accept the fact that a maharshi accepted
the son of a woman who would be considered “fallen” by the moral standards
one is used to, then one would probably try to imagine things, twist the
words of a scripture and give an interpretation that fits with one’s notions
of right and wrong. But then, one would be missing out on the true morals of
the scripture and an opportunity to question and refine one’s pre-exiting
notions of right and wrong…

* * *

Let us say an unmarried woman with good control over senses wanted a child.
Let us say she slept with five men that she liked and respected, with mutual
consent, on five different occasions, not for carnal pleasure, but with the
sole intention of begetting a child with any of them and then raising the
child alone.

Let us say another person (man or woman) slept with the same person that one
is ritually married to, on five different occasions, not with the intention
of begetting a child but just for carnal pleasure (i.e. using birth control

Which is worse? Which has a higher purpose? Which more adharmik?

* * *

Prevalent rules of morality are there for general guidance. World will sink
into an abyss of chaos and adharma without them and they are definitely
needed. But they are not absolute.

The correct judgment of right and wrong does not always come from the
application of a set of rigid rules. Correct judgment comes only from a
refined and purified mind. Scriptures and actions of rishis and gods
contained in them (and actions of other great souls of recent centuries who
were most likely reincarnations of rishis and gods) are there to clarify and
refine our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. As we
understand more and purify ourselves more, our judgment will become more and
more perfect.

Best regards,


Ajit Krishnan


Dear Narasimha,

 >I am really sorry, but I have to disagree with you in this issue.

I do not know what there is to be sorry about.

> With due respect to you and Sri S.N. Sastri, I must say that Rajarshi’s view
> is far more accurate and truthful to the scripture. In fact, Swami
> Vivekananda also shared exactly the same view (i.e. Rajarshi’s view) when
> commenting on this story from Chhaandogypanishad!

I mentioned Sri S.N.Sastri’s name, because he has a long 2-page
footnote discussion on the subject, and not to bolster my argument by
association. If I had wished to do the latter, I would have invoked
AdishankarachArya — “paricAriNii paricaranti iti paracaraNa-shiiilA
eva aham paricaraNa-chittatayA gotrAdi-smaraNe mama manaH na abhUt”
and Anandagiri — “punaH tasya uparatatvAt”. According the S.N.Sastri,
Shri Ramanuja and Shri Madhva also subscribed to the same view.

> Now, I cannot reconcile Sri S.N. Sastri’s interpretation with the above at
> all. Even today, in this deep Kali yuga, Brahmins do find out the gotra
> before marriage and avoid marrying people from the same gotra at any cost. I
> find it strange that one would get married without finding gotra in old
> days.

Needless criticism. I obviously conveyed the wrong message — the
argument is that she does not remember her new gotra, and not that she
was never exposed to it. Some things require repeated repetition
before they register. It is quite normal, even today, for brides and
in-laws to be very forgetful (or, more accurately “un-remember-ful”)
of their new gotra.

> If the true reason is that her husband died young, what is
> the relevance of her being a servant maid and her moving a lot? Why would
> she mention those irrelevant points and not her husband dying young?

The points mentioned are not at all irrelevant. It is a partial excuse
/ apology. Her mind was totally occupied in these activities. In her
youth, it did not occur to her to pay attention and remember her
gotra. Narasimha, this is a conversation between mother and son. If
the father died young, it would be well-known, and there would be no
reason for the mother to “disclose” it to her son at this time. When
answering the question, there is simply no need to start reciting the
litany of known facts. On the other hand, the points mentioned are
relevant, since they show her state of mind. It is a natural lament.

> Thus, I cannot support Sri S.N. Sastri’s view at all. It seems quite
> far-fetched and motivated to me.

The first sentence is quite reasonable. To say that it seems
far-fetched to you, is also very reasonable. However, the last
criticism is unfair, and cannot be substantiated. Though I did not
wish to say it, I have the same criticism — I see an attempt to
retrofit a story to result in a desirable conclusion, which would make
for an excellent example.

> If one’s conditioned mind cannot accept the fact that a maharshi accepted
> the son of a woman who would be considered “fallen” by the moral standards


This diatribe is interesting, but irrelevant to this dicussion. I am
happy to accept that this is how maharshis worked. But, this incident
is not a good example. The traditional understanding adds facts which
are not found in the upanishad. However, in my opinion, in this
instance, it fits in quite well.

savinayam praNato.asmi,


Free will (I don’t care if I’m branded superstitious)

There is no free will. Even in the attainment of good things or bad.


Iti horaśāstre(referring here to Bṛhat Parāśara hora śāstra,Chap 2,śloka 3)-


avatārāṇyanekāni hyajasya paramātmanaḥ/jīvānāṃ karmaphalado graharūpī janārdanaḥ//

अवताराण्यनेकानि ह्यजस्य परमात्मनः|
जीवानां कर्मफलदो ग्रहरूपी जनार्दनः||

[Indeed,the unborn paramātmā has had many avatāras. Janārdana in the form of grahas(graharūpī) grants the karmaphala of living beings.]

Basically,whatever little will you have is also coloured by your past karmas. Your svābhāva which influences how you respond to whatever situations you get and the impressions your receive in your formative phases –they too are a result of your prārabdha karma. What can possibly be changed to make this better in long run is your attitude towards what you receive and how you manage with the cards you have been dealt with.




A note on a line in the harivaMsha after the greats of trika


tvayA vyAptamidaM sarvaM jagatsthAvaraja~Ngamam |
[The entire world of non-moving and moving entities is pervaded by you.]
With my praNAms to the greats in the lineages of abhinavagupta,Lakshman Joo,etc(and begging forgiveness for my mistakes and impertinence) I will make a note:This can be explained by the sequence of 13 kAlI-s sRRiShTI-kAlI–>raktA-kAlI–>sthiti-kAlI–>yama-kAlI–>saMhAra-kAlI–>mRRityu-kAlI–>rudra-kAlI–>mArtaNDa-kAlI–>paramArka-kAlI–>kAlAgnirudra-kAlI–>mahAkAlI–>mahAbhairavachaNDaghoraghorakAlI–>sukAlI(the sequence in the devIpa~ncashatikA cited by rAjAnaka jayaratha)
One may ask as to what basis that I am equating ekAnAMshA with kAlI. It is on the basis on the kAlikA purANA ,where in the 5th chapter,brahmA is shown invoking devI as viShNumAyA,hence she is the same continuous deity.
As sRRiShTI-kAlI,She is the First impulse of creation. As raktA-kAlI,She is direct perception. As sthiti-kAlI,She is the appeased state where the curiosity of perception has ended. As yama-kAlI,She winds up the state of thinking and perceiving and again resides in her own nature.As saMhAra-kAlI,impressions of the objective world appear as faint clouds in a clear blue sky.As mRRityu-kAlI,these clouds disappear and one begins to feels oneness. As rudra-kAlI,She destroys all remaining doubts and suspicions that hold one back.As mArtaNDa-kAlI,She absorbs the energies of cognition into Herself. At the level of paramArka-kAlI,ahaMkAra dissolves. At the level of kAlAgnirudra-kAlI, just time alone exists.  As mahAbhairavachaNDaghoraghorakAlI,effulgent light of supreme consciousness, responsible for manifesting the subjective, objective and cognitive worlds is held in a state of oneness. sukAlI or kAlasaMkarshiNi is is the thread of ‘supreme awareness’ that runs through the twelve beads of perception, or states of consciousness which span from the grossest to the subtlest level of creation.
This is how She pervades the entire creation.

Defending the identity of yoga, Kumarila style( with homage to Ganganath Jha )

Edit(22/5/2021):The author does not believe in this thing anymore,the statement is to be taken as its face value and it is to be learned from someone who is actually a sAdhaka of that mArga.

iti dattātreyayogaśāstre –

brāhmaṇaḥ śramaṇo’ vapy bauddho vāpy ārhato’thavā|kapāliko vā cārvākaḥ śraddhayā sahitaḥ sudhiḥ||yogābhyāsarato nityaṃ sarvasiddhimavāpnuyāt|

(Whether a Brahmin,an ascetic,a Jain or a Buddhist or a Kapālika or a Cārvāka materialist,the wise man who is endowed with faith and constantly devoted to the practice of yoga will obtain complete success)

“The statement that a brāhmaṇa, kapālika, bauddha and jaina can achieve success by yoga is to be understood thus. Surely, we cannot interpret kapālika, bauddhādi terms as referring to those who practice the tenets of that school in that entirety. For yoga emphasizes self-restraint and bhūtadayā in one’s acts and the kapālika, if he continues to practice the kapālika dharma fully, he will contravene these precepts of yoga and will not achieve success. Hence, it refers only to practices which are not in contradiction with the precepts of yoga and the dharma of the veda since the sūtrakāra of the yoga siddhānta (pātañjali) accepts veda as pramāṇa. Or, some understand that verse in this manner too, which is not really different from the previous meaning. The śramana and jaina; what they seek to achieve by torturing their bodies, the freedom from karma, they can achieve by practicing yoga. The kapālika, without resorting to any of the fierce acts prescribed for him, can attain union with rudra by practice of this yoga. The brāhmaṇa, unable to exhaust the repository of the vedas, by means of yoga with hiraṇyagarbha, attains the fruit of realizing the whole veda without doing all the karma in the Veda. This is what is meant by success. To each, his desired fruit is granted. In this way, there will be no contradiction. If it be argued that a kristu-panthin can practice yoga as he too wishes to attain Union with that deva, we reject it. A kristu-vādin cannot practice yoga as the devata he worships does not tolerate his pronouncing the names of other devas,let alone revering them. His mata is fundamentally a mata of dveṣa not kṛpā, let alone prema(even if it masquerades and sells itself as one such mata), as demonstrated by the vaiśya-cūḍāmaṇi and his beloved disciple, and the warnings of hypocrisy in the next verses apply to them in the context of our times most appropriately.The acceptance of pātañjali as ācārya, shraddhā in om(praṇava) as sacred sound, faith in the śruti and hiraṇyagarbha are all precluded for him. Hence, for him, there is no success in this path. If it be argued that the bauddha too rejects the veda, we reply that the bauddhas either have to accept that the Veda has limited application (they already do that to some extent in the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa in their vulgar Sanskrit “eṣa mantro mahābrahmā bodhisattvena … ābhicārukeṣu sarveṣu athavo* ceda paṭhyate ।”),and the pāñcarātrins and śaivas do not reject the Veda but merely state that their own śāstras are viśeṣa, or they have to renounce bauddham and accept the veda wholeheartedly. Thus, this argument too is rejected. Our original interpretation stands. What we said for the kristu-panthin, the same for the mahāmāda-panthin.”

If it be the second alternative, it is to be understood that the terms, ‘brāhmaṇa, bauddha, kapālika, etc’ in the shloka merely point to the status of the person at the time he is about to take up yoga. In the cases of bauddhakapālikādi, there is a renunciation of their formerly held beliefs. The bauddha, if he previously rejected the pramāṇatvam of the veda or ascribed sinful motives to the Veda, stops doing that when he takes up yoga. The kapālika gives up the idea that union with rudra is achieved by doing censureable acts. Hence, the śloka, of the second alternative is adopted, would mean that all persons, regardless of what doctrine they previously followed, would attain success when they take up yoga and act in accordance with the rules therein.

(Slightly modified with credits to @Ghorangirasa.)

इन्द्रध्वजोत्सव-विधि (कालिकापुराणान्तर्गत)| indradhvajotsava-vidhi (kālikāpurāṇāntargata)

और्व उवाच

अतातः ज़्ऱ्णु राजेन्द्र ज़क्रोत्थानं ध्वजोत्सवम्।
षत्क्ऱ्त्त्वा न्ऱ्पतिर्याति न कदाचि पराभवम्॥
रवौ हरिस्थे द्वादश्यां ज़्रवणेन विडोजसम्।
आराधयेन्न्ऱ्पः सम्यक् सर्वविघोमज़ान्तये॥
राजोपरिचरो नाम वसुनामापरस्तु यः।
न्ऱ्पस्तोनायमतुलो यज्ज़ः प्रावर्त्तितः पुरा॥
प्राव्ऱ्ट्काले च नभसि द्वादज़्यामसिततरे।
पुरोहितो बहुबिधैर्वाद्यैस्तुर्यैः समन्वितः।
प्रथमं ज़क्रकेत्वर्थं व्ऱ्क्षमामस्त्र्य वर्धयेत्।
संवत्सरो वार्द्धकिज़्च क्ऱ्तमग़्गलकौतुकः॥
उद्याने देवतागारे ज़्मज़ाने मार्गमध्यतेः।
ये कातस्तरवस्तांस्तु वर्जयेद्वासवद्ध्वजे॥
बहुवल्लीयुतं ज़ुष्कं बहुकण्टकसंयुतम्।
कुब्जं व्ऱ्क्षादनीयुक्तं लताच्चन्नतरुं त्यजेत्॥
पक्षिवाससमाकीर्णम् कोतरैर्बहुभिर्षुतम्।
पवनानन्दलबिद्द्व्हस्तं त्रौम यत्नेन वर्जयेत्॥
नारीसंज्ज़ाज़्च ये ब्ऱ्क्षा अतिह्रस्वा अतिक्ऱ्ज़ाः।
तान् सदा वर्जयेद्धीरः सर्वदा ज़क्रपूजने॥
अर्जुनो’प्यज़्वकर्णज़्च प्रियोअकोषक एव च।
औदुम्बरज़्व पज़्चैते केत्वर्थे ह्युतमाः स्म्ऱ्ताः॥
अन्ये च देवदार्वाद्याः ज़ालाध्यास्तरवस्तथा।
प्रज़स्तास्तु परिग्राह्या नाप्रज़स्ताः कदाचन॥
ध्ऱ्त्वा व्ऱ्क्षं ततो रात्रौ द्ऱ्ष्ट्वा मन्त्रमिमं पठेत्।
यानि व्ऱ्क्षेषु भूतानि तेभ्याः स्वस्ति नमो’स्तु वः॥
उपहारं ग्ऱ्हीत्वेमं क्ऱीयतां वासवद्ध्वजम्।
पार्थिवस्वां वरयते स्वस्ति ते’स्तु नगोत्तम॥
ध्वजार्थं देवराजस्य पूजेयं प्रतिग्रह्यताम्।
ततो’परे’ह्णि तं चित्वा मूलमष्टाग़्गुलं पुनः॥
जले क्षिपेत्तथाग्रस्य च्चित्वाइव चतुरग़्गुलम्।
ततो नीत्वा पुरद्वारं केतुन्निर्माय तत्र वै॥
ज़ुक्लाष्टम्यां भाद्रपदे केतुं वेदीम् प्रवेज़येत्।
वाविंज़द्धस्तमानस्तु अधमः केतुरुच्यते॥
द्वात्रिंज़त्तुततोज्यायान् द्वाचत्वारिंज़देव च।
ततो’धिकः सम्काख्यातो स्वापज़्चाज़त्तथोत्तमः॥
कुमार्यः पज़्च कर्तव्या ज़क्रस्य न्ऱ्पसत्तम।
ज़ालमय्यस्तु ताः सर्वा अपराः ज़क्रमात्ऱ्काः॥
केतोः प्रादप्रमाणेन कार्य्याः ज़क्रकुमारिकाः।
मात्ऱ्कार्द्धप्रमाणान्तु षन्त्रिहस्त्रद्वयं तथा॥
एवं क्ऱ्त्वा कुमारीज़्च मात्ऱ्काः केतुमेव च।
एकादज़्यां सिते पक्षे षष्टिन्तामधिवासयेत्।
अधिवास्यं सिते पक्षे षष्टिं गन्धद्वारादिमन्त्रकैः।
द्वादज़्यां मण्डलं क्ऱ्त्वा वासवं विस्ट्रतात्मकम्।
अच्युतं पूजयित्वा तु ज़क्रं पज़्चात् प्रपूजयेत्।
ज़क्रस्य प्रतिमां कुर्य्यात् काज़्चनी दारवीज़्च वा॥
अन्यतैजससम्भूतां सर्वाभाव तु म्ऱ्न्मयीम्।
तां मण्डलस्य मध्ये तु पूजयित्वा विज़ेषतः॥
ततःज़ुभे मुहूर्ते तु केतुमुत्थापयेन्न्ऱ्पः।
वज्रहस्त सुरारघ्न बहुनेत्र पुरन्दर॥
क्षेमार्थं सर्वलोकानां पूजेयं प्रतिग्ऱ्ह्यताम्॥
एह्येहि सर्वामरसिद्धसग़्घै-रभिष्टुतो वज्रधरामरेज़।
समूत्थितस्त्वं ज़्रवणाध्यपादे ग्ऱ्हाण पूजां भगवन्नमस्ते॥
इति मन्त्रेण तन्त्रेण नानावेध्यवेदनैः॥
अपूपैः पायसैः पानैर्गुडैर्धानाभिरेव च।
भक्षैर्भोज्याइर्ज़्च विविधैः पूजयेच्च्रीविच्ऱ्द्धये॥
घटेषु दज़दिक्पालान् ग्रहांज़्च परिपूजयेत्॥
साध्यादीन् सकलान् देवान् मात्ऱ्ः सर्वाः अनुक्रमात्॥
ततः ज़ुभे मुहुर्ते तु ज्ज़ानी वर्द्धकिसंयुतः।
केतूत्थापनभूमिन्तु यज्ज़वेद्यास्तु पज़्चिमे।
विप्रैः पुरोहितैः सार्द्धं गच्चेद्राजा सुमग़्गलैः॥
रज्जुभिः पज़्चभिर्वद्धं यन्त्रज़्लिष्टं समातूकम्।
कुमारीभिस्तु संयुक्तं दिक्पालानाय़्च पट्टकैः॥
ब्ऱ्हद्भिरतिकान्तैज़्च नानाद्रव्यैः सुपूरितैः॥
यथावर्णैर्यथादेज़े योजितैर्वस्त्रवेष्टितैः॥
युक्तं तं किग़्किणिजालैर्ब्ऱ्हद्घण्टोघचामरैः।
भूज़ितं मुकुरैरुच्चैर्माल्यैर्बहुविधैस्तथा॥
बहुपुष्पैः सुगन्धैज़्च भूषितं रत्नमालया।
चित्रमाल्याम्बरैष्चैव चतुर्भिरपि तोरणैः॥
उत्थापयेन्महाकेतुं राजकीयैः ज़नैः ज़नैः॥
तमूत्थाय महाकेतुं पूजितं मण्डलान्तरे।
प्रतिमां ताम् नयेन्मूल्यं केतोः ज़क्रं विचिन्तयन्॥
यजेत्तं पूर्ववत्तत्र ज़चीं मातलिमेव च।
जयन्तं तनयं तस्य वज्रमैरावतं तथा।
ग्रहांज़्चाप्यथ दिक्पालान् सर्वाज़्च गणदेवताः॥
अपूपाद्यैः पूजयेत्तु बलिभिः पायसादिभिः।
पूजितानाज़्च देवानाम् ज़ज़्वद्धोमं समाचरेत्॥
होमान्ते तु बलिं दद्यद्वासवाय महात्मने॥
तिलं घ्ऱ्तेज़्चाक्षतज़्च पुष्पं दूर्वां तथाइव च।
एतैस्तु जुहुयाद्देवान् स्वैः स्वैर्मन्त्रैर्नरोत्तम॥
ततो होमावसाने तो भोजयेद् ब्रआह्मन्यनपि।
एवं सम्पूजयेन्नित्यं सप्तरात्रं दिने दिने।
ब्राह्मणैः सहितो राजा वेदवेदाग़्गपारगैः॥
सर्वत्र ज़क्रपूजासु यज्ज़ेषु परिकीर्तितः।
त्रातारमिति मन्त्रो’यं वासवस्य प्रियः परः॥
एवं क्ऱ्त्वा दिवाभागे ज़क्रोत्थापनमादितः।
ज़्रवणर्क्षयुतायान्तु द्वादज़्यां पार्थिवः स्वयं
अन्तपादे भरण्यान्तु निज़ि ज़क्रं विसर्जयेत्।
सुप्तेषु सर्वलोकेषु यथा राजा न पज़्यति।
षण्मासान्म्ऱ्त्युमाप्नोति राजा द्ऱ्ष्ट्वा विसर्जनम्॥
ज़क्रस्य न्ऱ्पज़ार्द्दूल तस्मान्नेक्षेत तन्न्ऱ्पः।
विसर्ज्जनस्य मन्त्रो’यं पुराबिद्भिरुदीरितः॥
सार्धं सुरासुरगणैः पुरन्दरज़तक्रतो॥
उपहारं ग्ऱ्हीत्वेमं महेन्द्रध्वज गम्यताम्॥
सूतके तु समुत्पन्ने वारेभ्यैमस्य वा ज़नेः॥
भूमिकम्पादिकोत्पाते वासवत् न विसर्जयेत्॥
उत्पाते सप्तरात्रन्तु तथोपप्लवदर्ज़ने।
व्यतीत्य ज़निभैमै च ह्यन्यर्क्षे’पि विसर्जयेत्॥
सूतके तथ सम्प्राप्ते व्यतीते सूतके पूनः।
यस्मिन् तस्मिन् दिने चैव सूतकान्ते विसर्जयेत्॥
तथा केतुं न्ऱ्पो रक्षेत् पतन्ति ज़ाकुना यथा।
न केतौ न्ऱ्पज़ार्दूले यावन्नहि विसर्जनम्।
ज़नैः ज़नैः पातयेत्तु यथोत्थापनमादितः॥
क्ऱ्तं तथा यथा भग्ने केतौ म्ऱ्त्युमवाप्नुयात्॥
विस्ऱ्ष्टं ज़क्रकेतुन्तु सालग़्कारं तथा निज़ि।
क्षिपेदेनेने मन्त्रेण त्वगाधे सलिले न्ऱ्प।
तिष्ठ केतो महाभाग यावत् संवत्सरं जले।
भवाय सर्वलोकानामन्तरायबिनाज़क॥
उत्थापयेत्तूर्य्यरवैः सर्वलोकस्य वै पुरः।
रहो विसर्ज्जयेत् केतुं वेज़ेषो यः प्रपूजने॥
एवं यः कुरुते पूजां वासवस्य महात्मनः।
स चिरं प्ऱ्थिवीं भुक्त्वा वासवं लोकमवाप्नुयात्॥
न तस्य राज्ये दुर्भिक्षं नाधयो व्याधयः क्वचित्।
स्वास्यन्ति म्ऱ्त्युर्नाकाले जनानां तत्र जायते॥
तत्त्वल्यः को’पि नान्यो’स्ति प्रियः ज़क्रस्य पार्थिव।
तस्य पूजा सर्वपूजा केज़वाद्याज़्च तत्रगाः॥

सकलकलुषहारि व्याधिदुर्भिक्षानाज़ं
सकलभवनिवेज़ं सर्वसौभाग्यकारि।
सुरपतिग्ऱ्हगाभिर्वार्चनं ज़क्रकेतोः
प्रतिज़रदमनेकैः पूजयेच्च्रीविव्ऱ्द्द्यै॥


In SLP1 romanization(look up the representations of the vowels and consonants)

Orva uvAca

atAtaH Ru rAjendra akrotTAnaM Dvajotsavam.
zatkttvA npatiryAti na kadAci parABavam..
ravO harisTe dvAdaSyAM ravaRena viqojasam.
ArADayennpaH samyak sarvaviGomaAntaye..
rAjoparicaro nAma vasunAmAparastu yaH.
npastonAyamatulo yajaH prAvarttitaH purA..
prAvwkAle ca naBasi dvAdayAmasitatare.
purohito bahubiDErvAdyEsturyEH samanvitaH.
praTamaM akraketvarTaM vkzamAmastrya varDayet.
saMvatsaro vArdDakica ktamagalakOtukaH..
udyAne devatAgAre maAne mArgamaDyateH.
ye kAtastaravastAMstu varjayedvAsavadDvaje..
bahuvallIyutaM uzkaM bahukaRwakasaMyutam.
kubjaM vkzAdanIyuktaM latAccannataruM tyajet..
pakzivAsasamAkIrRam kotarErbahuBirzutam.
pavanAnandalabiddvhastaM trOma yatnena varjayet..
nArIsaMjAca ye bkzA atihrasvA atikAH.
tAn sadA varjayedDIraH sarvadA akrapUjane..
arjuno’pyavakarRaca priyoakozaka eva ca.
Odumbarava pacEte ketvarTe hyutamAH smtAH..
anye ca devadArvAdyAH AlADyAstaravastaTA.
praastAstu parigrAhyA nApraastAH kadAcana..
DtvA vkzaM tato rAtrO dzwvA mantramimaM paWet.
yAni vkzezu BUtAni teByAH svasti namo’stu vaH..
upahAraM ghItvemaM kIyatAM vAsavadDvajam.
pArTivasvAM varayate svasti te’stu nagottama..
DvajArTaM devarAjasya pUjeyaM pratigrahyatAm.
tato’pare’hRi taM citvA mUlamazwAgulaM punaH..
jale kzipettaTAgrasya ccitvAiva caturagulam.
tato nItvA puradvAraM ketunnirmAya tatra vE..
uklAzwamyAM BAdrapade ketuM vedIm praveayet.
vAviMadDastamAnastu aDamaH keturucyate..
dvAtriMattutatojyAyAn dvAcatvAriMadeva ca.
tato’DikaH samkAKyAto svApacAattaTottamaH..
kumAryaH paca kartavyA akrasya npasattama.
Alamayyastu tAH sarvA aparAH akramAtkAH..
ketoH prAdapramARena kAryyAH akrakumArikAH.
mAtkArdDapramARAntu zantrihastradvayaM taTA..
evaM ktvA kumArIca mAtkAH ketumeva ca.
ekAdayAM site pakze zazwintAmaDivAsayet.
aDivAsyaM site pakze zazwiM ganDadvArAdimantrakEH.
dvAdayAM maRqalaM ktvA vAsavaM viswratAtmakam.
acyutaM pUjayitvA tu akraM pacAt prapUjayet.
akrasya pratimAM kuryyAt kAcanI dAravIca vA..
anyatEjasasamBUtAM sarvABAva tu mnmayIm.
tAM maRqalasya maDye tu pUjayitvA viezataH..
tataHuBe muhUrte tu ketumutTApayennpaH.
vajrahasta surAraGna bahunetra purandara..
kzemArTaM sarvalokAnAM pUjeyaM pratighyatAm..
ehyehi sarvAmarasidDasaGE-raBizwuto vajraDarAmarea.
samUtTitastvaM ravaRADyapAde ghARa pUjAM Bagavannamaste..
iti mantreRa tantreRa nAnAveDyavedanEH..
apUpEH pAyasEH pAnErguqErDAnABireva ca.
BakzErBojyAirca viviDEH pUjayeccrIvicdDaye..
Gawezu daadikpAlAn grahAMca paripUjayet..
sADyAdIn sakalAn devAn mAtH sarvAH anukramAt..
tataH uBe muhurte tu jAnI vardDakisaMyutaH.
ketUtTApanaBUmintu yajavedyAstu pacime.
viprEH purohitEH sArdDaM gaccedrAjA sumagalEH..
rajjuBiH pacaBirvadDaM yantralizwaM samAtUkam.
kumArIBistu saMyuktaM dikpAlAnAca pawwakEH..
bhadBiratikAntEca nAnAdravyEH supUritEH..
yaTAvarREryaTAdee yojitErvastravezwitEH..
yuktaM taM kikiRijAlErbhadGaRwoGacAmarEH.
BUitaM mukurEruccErmAlyErbahuviDEstaTA..
bahupuzpEH suganDEca BUzitaM ratnamAlayA.
citramAlyAmbarEzcEva caturBirapi toraREH..
utTApayenmahAketuM rAjakIyEH anEH anEH..
tamUtTAya mahAketuM pUjitaM maRqalAntare.
pratimAM tAm nayenmUlyaM ketoH akraM vicintayan..
yajettaM pUrvavattatra acIM mAtalimeva ca.
jayantaM tanayaM tasya vajramErAvataM taTA.
grahAMcApyaTa dikpAlAn sarvAca gaRadevatAH..
apUpAdyEH pUjayettu baliBiH pAyasAdiBiH.
pUjitAnAca devAnAm avadDomaM samAcaret..
homAnte tu baliM dadyadvAsavAya mahAtmane..
tilaM GtecAkzataca puzpaM dUrvAM taTAiva ca.
etEstu juhuyAddevAn svEH svErmantrErnarottama..
tato homAvasAne to Bojayed braAhmanyanapi.
evaM sampUjayennityaM saptarAtraM dine dine.
brAhmaREH sahito rAjA vedavedAgapAragEH..
sarvatra akrapUjAsu yajezu parikIrtitaH.
trAtAramiti mantro’yaM vAsavasya priyaH paraH..
evaM ktvA divABAge akrotTApanamAditaH.
ravaRarkzayutAyAntu dvAdayAM pArTivaH svayaM
antapAde BaraRyAntu nii akraM visarjayet.
suptezu sarvalokezu yaTA rAjA na payati.
zaRmAsAnmtyumApnoti rAjA dzwvA visarjanam..
akrasya npaArddUla tasmAnnekzeta tannpaH.
visarjjanasya mantro’yaM purAbidBirudIritaH..
sArDaM surAsuragaREH purandaraatakrato..
upahAraM ghItvemaM mahendraDvaja gamyatAm..
sUtake tu samutpanne vAreByEmasya vA aneH..
BUmikampAdikotpAte vAsavat na visarjayet..
utpAte saptarAtrantu taTopaplavadarane.
vyatItya aniBEmE ca hyanyarkze’pi visarjayet..
sUtake taTa samprApte vyatIte sUtake pUnaH.
yasmin tasmin dine cEva sUtakAnte visarjayet..
taTA ketuM npo rakzet patanti AkunA yaTA.
na ketO npaArdUle yAvannahi visarjanam.
anEH anEH pAtayettu yaTotTApanamAditaH..
ktaM taTA yaTA Bagne ketO mtyumavApnuyAt..
viszwaM akraketuntu sAlakAraM taTA nii.
kzipedenene mantreRa tvagADe salile npa.
tizWa keto mahABAga yAvat saMvatsaraM jale.
BavAya sarvalokAnAmantarAyabinAaka..
utTApayettUryyaravEH sarvalokasya vE puraH.
raho visarjjayet ketuM veezo yaH prapUjane..
evaM yaH kurute pUjAM vAsavasya mahAtmanaH.
sa ciraM pTivIM BuktvA vAsavaM lokamavApnuyAt..
na tasya rAjye durBikzaM nADayo vyADayaH kvacit.
svAsyanti mtyurnAkAle janAnAM tatra jAyate..
tattvalyaH ko’pi nAnyo’sti priyaH akrasya pArTiva.
tasya pUjA sarvapUjA keavAdyAca tatragAH..

sakalakaluzahAri vyADidurBikzAnAaM
sakalaBavaniveaM sarvasOBAgyakAri.
surapatighagABirvArcanaM akraketoH
pratiaradamanekEH pUjayeccrIvivddyE..

Notes on pedagogy of śāstra(something written by a friend)

To add, as śāstra unfolds, things become quite simple and clear. The only issue is getting the pedagogy of śāstra. For instance, pratyakṣa and anumāna are listed ahead of śabda pramāṇa, and deducing from the visible natural phenomena is the primary learning underlying SAstra, with only subtler phenomena and lessons explicated by śāstra. As mentioned here, nature is the mother, teacher and trustee and what Rshis learn about organizing human societies is entirely from nature. The lessons from clans, prides, coalitions of animal world results in an optimal design of human family at micro level. Just the way legs obey the commands of brain and the way a weak body in turn compels brain into commands that suit the body’s condition, just the way the mano-vāk-kāya “hierarchy” works, the social being’s mano-vāk-kāya is understood. This is rather pratyakṣa than śabda as a pramANa (though we can find upon searching pramāṇa like “vAngme manasi pratishThita” or purusha sUkta could be found). śāstra comes into picture only to make a proper correlation to human society, such as Raja being divine representative who commands and sets the society in the right path – references about prajāpati in atharva are useful, but none better than mahābhārata and manusmṛti. The higher aspects of dharma that are not sāmānya are to be found in śruti, which form the substratum for the manifest layer of dharma (such as moral facts). It helps to recall Viswanatha’s taunt in this context – “you call it sāmānya because these things are commonly known through observation, why do you need to teach them formally and call it a subject”. But the sāmānya is not missed at any stage, it is visible in the implicit expectation of its awareness as a requirement. The head and central being two types of powers that hold the family, and a further distribution of these into the natures of power in society (will, knowledge and action in hierarchy, then into knowledge-power-wealth-action in distribution) is quite visible not just in organization but in śruti itself. The head-center nature of Indra-Agni, which later become visible as Siva-Sakti, as the ruling forces of the world-family are the prototypes for this. Similarly the cyclic day-night, month (aligned with moon), year (aligned with sun), astronomical cycles and human life cycle are pratyaksha pramāṇa for cyclic nature of time. śāstra pramāṇa only gives the conceptualizing of how the alignment of social cycle is to be done with the known cycles. One of the reasons upamāna is extensively visible all through in SAstra and kAvya is that it is not just an alaṃkāra but an integral part of the pedagogic nature of our texts. Second aspect is which śāstra throws light on which aspect of life. While the śruti-smṛti-śiṣṭācāra hierarchy is well known for prāmāṇya, śruti is not a reference for understanding the social aspects that evolve from time to time. śruti is a reference for sanātana or immutable yet non-obvious knowledge of the world from which the ever morphing aspects are to be derived and defined, which are liable to change, in the derivative texts. The layers of smṛti texts, be it MBH or dharma śāstra-s, ensure that they reproduce and record the unchanging principles from śruti, then specify the changing ones (the yuga and deśa-kāla layers) so that for a subsequent version of smṛti that evolves, the seeds of permanent principles are taken and continued. Third aspect is the untold – what a text covers is based on the scope of authority it assumes in the knowledge system. What is not covered, if covered elsewhere, indicates the relative authority and if is not, indicates the nature of untold to be self-explanatory or naturally known or not as a necessary factor. For instance the sampradāya-s that are substantially important in the society and are honored even by kings, find next to zero mention in the smṛti texts as influential or authorized or holding stake in social dynamic or organization notwithstanding their real influence, dharma nirṇaya is made the accountability of king no matter who he consults (and there is a different and a specific subject taught to king who he should consult and who he should not).

PS: It is an axiomatic change and a change in worldview for the west to look at things this way (their organizations are driven by ideals more than by nature of things), but they ARE actively working to plagiarize these concepts at various levels in sciences, and at a slower pace in social sciences. The papers on Artificial Intelligence I linked in a previous post indicate how they are getting natural biological phenomena into AI by consciously learning from nature, trying to make repeatable processes that are only cognitively decipherable.

(This was from a note by @SkandaVeera which I preserved)

On Kavīndrācārya


ACP: He was a close associate of Dara Shikoh

Me: I’m reading the kavIndrasucipatra,an index of books of his library.

ACP:And a festschrift with verses from all Sanskrit intellectuals of the day was written in his honour,and he negotiated with Shah Jahan on behalf of Hs. There were a lot of mentions of him in the book. Can’t recall offhand/search easily since I read the book in print + will have to pick it up again from the library

ACP: From my notes from the book(author(of this post’s) note:Both of us strongly disagree with the book’s thesis)(Can’t recall offhand/search easily since I read the book in print + will have to pick it up again from the library)

ACP: On Kavīndra’s interactions with the Mughals as a Sanskrit intellectual see Pollock, “Death of Sanskrit,” 407-8 and as a Hindi intellectual see Busch, “Hidden in Plain View,” 289-92.

ACP: My notes from the book further continue:

Under Shah Jahan the Brahmanical profile at the Mughal court became more pronounced with the entry of Kavīndrācārya Sarasvatī and Jagannātha Paṇḍitarāja. These two intellectuals interacted with the Mughals in different ways that demonstrate continuities with earlier Mughal patronage of Sanskrit literati but also important changes in cross-cultural relations. Kavīndra initially approached Shah Jahan in order to negotiate the relinquishment of taxes on certain Brahmanical pilgrimage sites, most notably Varanasi and Prayag. The exact chronology of what occurred is murky because no direct narrative accounts of Kavīndra’s time at Shah Jahan’s court are known in either Sanskrit or Persian. However, information gleaned from Sanskrit and Hindi verses praising Kavīndra attests that he spent time in Mughal company teaching Sanskrit texts to both Shah Jahan and Dara Shikuh. Among other works, he instructed them in Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya.87 Kavīndra also persuaded Shah Jahan to rescind a pilgrimage tax, much to the joy of the Brahmanical community

He was the one who taught Dara Shikoh the Yoga Vashishta? Don’t remember, you will find it in my collected DMs in the devayasna drafts

Moreover, in the 1640s-50s Kavīndra moved outside of the central royal court and joined the retinue of a Mughal noble, Danishmand Khan, and later of the French traveler, Francois Bernier.93 For reasons we do not yet fully understand, Sanskrit intellectuals shifted away from the central imperial context during Shah Jahan’s reign and found new homes in regional and subimperial courts.94 Additionally, Kavīndra’s association with Europeans reflects wider changes in the cultural landscape of early modern India.


Kavīndra initially approached Shah Jahan in order to negotiate the relinquishment of taxes on certain Brahmanical pilgrimage sites, most notably Varanasi and Prayag

Kavīndra also persuaded Shah Jahan to rescind a pilgrimage tax, much to the joy of the Brahmanical community

Yes,that much I too gathered

ACP: Kavindra also served the Mughals as a poet and musician and was paid by them (which was controversial among v1s in his time)

 Aurangzeb appears to have halted Shah Jahan’s stipend to Kavīndra, which prompted him to seek out Danishmand Khan’s assistance

Shah Jahan named Kavīndra sarvavidyānidhāna (Treasure House of All Knowledge) in recognition of his extensive learning.
Me: Anything about the loss of his library?
ACP: Don’t remember,perhaps there was.
The conversation ends here. Also,if anyone is interested in the kavIndrasucipatra,an index of books in his library, a link of it on archive.org exists here.