Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c11.s18: The Dialogue Renewed

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c11.s18

Language: English

The Dialogue Renewed

c11.s18.1

Pt. Vidya Niwas Mishra exhibited a remarkable capacity for entering into dialogue with nations and cultures. On one hand he advocates *varṇāśrama* system, on the other he has opposed the whole concept of racial purity. *From the Ganges to the Mediterranean* edited by Oscar Pujol Riembau comprises a series of discussions between Vidya Niwas Mishra and Rafael Dieste, a Spanish writer and philosopher. This kind of bilateral dialogue between intellectuals, each representing distinct culture and philosophy, happens on very rare occasions. The whole experiment incorporates the best of human intellect where both the discussants look into the inner recesses of the minds of each other, and they are able to look beyond as well. Oscar Pujol, himself a well-known scholar of Sanskrit and Indian philosophy, has taken up a unique initiative by the way of becoming instrumental in arranging the whole series of discourses and discussions. He has made genuine efforts for the realization of an idea which has immense possibilities and as he himself puts it, which could result into a dialogue between “a representative of critical modernity and a representative of genuine traditions”. This dialogue — very much revealing in itself — has led to the rediscovery of several traditions, and also a revisit to all that is known by the terms the East and the West; it has also resulted in creating bridges and better understandings. Mishra and Rafael have enlightened each other, have helped each other for introspections and investigations, and shunning all pretensions and prejudices, both have come out with admittances of strong and weak points of two distinct cultures. Mishra admits that a tendency towards “self-closure” has surfaced on occasions in the tradition of Indian culture, whereas Rafael’s deliberations lead to an understanding of the dilemmas and inner contradictions of the West; of the disasters and dangers that lie ahead in the race against time and nature. He is able to show how the abundance of technology is leading to an amnesia and erosion of values. The havoc created by colonization of the nature and colonization of human world, the futility of greed and desire for possession, and value of polyphony — find a convincing footing in Rafael’s discourse.

c11.s18.2

These dialogues are marked with a frank admittance of differences between the interlocutors. The basic differences between the East and the West remain. Both have imbibed the experience of loneliness, but in a different way. Mishra aptly puts it:

c11.s18.3

You arrive at loneliness through all your actions and achievements. We start from loneliness, but we do not want to remain lonely, we want to see ourselves in the other.

c11.s18.4

While Rafael overrules the possibility of a dialogue between two diverse cultures, Mishra believes that it is possible to create dialogue across cultures, the very continuity of Indian traditions and their relevance in modern world would lead to the viability of this kind of a dialogue. Despite distinctive outlooks, this discussion between them leads to the conclusion that “basically human kind is the same all over. Human kind is the same in India or in the West”.

c11.s18.5

These dialogues have turned out to be critiques of our times and without taking recourse to the post-modern techniques, they deconstruct several ancient and modern myths. The myth of progress, the myth of golden age or locating paradise in the past — together with some of the modern myths like the myth of science and the myth of social equality have been deconstructed through the edge of these discussions. Mishra unravels the double standards of the notions of secularism, democracy and many others. It is here that both Mishra and Rafael present a joint memorandum by the way of offering the critique of modern civilization and a warning note on its tending to become Faustian.

c11.s18.6

Mishra’s Concept of Reality “as an incommensurable vibration” assumes a new significance in the context of modern scientific perspectives and the primordial vibration or *spanda* comes to be viewed in the context of complementariness and interconnectivity in the universe, and the vertical and horizontal hierarchies in social order. He suggests a new perspective to the whole concept of *varṇa-dharma* by visualizing the connections between four castes and four types of consciousness — *manas* (mind), *buddhi* (intellect), *citta* (conscience) and *ahaṁkāra* (ego). The interactions with Rafael enable him to review his concepts in contrast to the Western idea of the individual and to project the non-anthropocentric view of Indian culture. It is due to the insight of Mishra that Rafael has also been able to rediscover some of the basic notions from the Western world-view and reinvest them with a new perspective. This intensive exchange of ideas between two creative minds has also resulted in the expansion of definitions of a number of established categories like knowledge, time, space and Reality. The Concept of Reality and the time–space framework have been viewed in all their multiple nature, and new dimensions have been added therein with the reference to the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika which views the *avayava* (part) different from the *avayavī* (the whole). In the discussion on various notions of time — objective, spiral, experiential, psychological, etc. — Mishra spells out the subtle difference between the experiential time and the psychological time, taking into consideration the aesthetic frame that the former involves in. Rafael explains the anarchies of sleeping time and the legislations of time in memory.

c11.s18.7

This vigorous exchange of ideas has enabled both interlocutors to redefine some of the known categories. Rituals lead to the recharging of man through the re-enactment of the primordial act of creation. A deity is not what he or she appears to be, “it is that which has been invoked through incantations, according to a particular process”. To Rafael “man is a nostalgic animal — with an awareness of scarcity, having the consciousness of separation, of being an alien, an expatriate from a country that is not the one where he was born”.

c11.s18.8

Mishra has created new illustrations, metaphors and parables. He explains the relation between the micro, and the macro, and between human body and the cosmos by the illustration of the leaf and tree, unfolding the view of a bio-centric universe. His discourse contrasts the Western unilinear view with a vision of plurality. There are several gods, several centres are perceived, with every centre having several gods in its periphery. There is a continuous shift of centres and peripheries. He spells out the concept of “cosmic movement” through this idea of moving centres and moving peripheries.

c11.s18.9

*Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism* by Rajiv Malhotra is a study in failures and possibilities of East–West dialogue. Authored by a person from non-academic background, it offers fresh insights on the dichotomies in cross-cultural contacts. Rajiv repositions and reverses the gaze, instead of being observed by the West, he becomes the observer.

c11.s18.10

I am simply using the dharmic perspective to reverse the analytical gaze which normally goes from West to East and unconsciously privileges the former.

c11.s18.11

He instigates a debate on the cultural and spiritual matrix of *dharma* civilizations as distinct from the Western culture.

c11.s18.12

This distinctiveness is under siege, not only from unsustainable and inequitable development but also from something more insidious: the widespread dismantling, rearrangement and digestion of dharmic culture into Western frameworks, disingenuously characterized as “universal”. — Malhotra 2011: 12

c11.s18.13

In the context of this distinctiveness and the spiritual value he makes an attempt to evaluate the cultural chauvinism of much Western thought in its encounters with other cultures. further remarks:

c11.s18.14

. . . . people from dharmic cultures tend to be more accepting of difference, unpredictability and uncertainty than Westerners. The dharmic view is that so-called “chaos” is natural and normal; it needs, of course, to be balanced by order, but there is no compelling need to control or eliminate it entirely nor to force cohesion from outside. The West, conversely, sees chaos as a profound threat that needs to be eradicated either by destruction or by complete assimilation. — Ibid., p. 168

c11.s18.15

Malhotra proclaims further (p. 177) with pride and confidence that:

c11.s18.16

Western scholars find it difficult to acknowledge fully the merits of Indian systems of thought, even when the influence of these systems on West is irrefutable.

c11.s18.17

Chaos arises when one experiences phenomena which do not lie within one’s psychological and cultural comfort zones. Malhotra contrasts the opposite polarities in the light of Indian creativity, adaptability and ability to absorb as well as the non-translatability of certain terms involving the key concepts.

c11.s18.18

Malhotra insists on preserving difference with mutual respect — not with mere “tolerance”. The book addresses the challenge on differences and talks about unexamined beliefs that both sides hold about themselves and each other.

c11.s18.19

¹ Jone E. Wilson, 2010, *Anxieties of Distance: An Intellectual History of India*, p. 1.

c11.s18.20

² Ibid., p. 2.

c11.s18.21

³ Michael S. Dodson, 2011, *Orientalism, Empire and National Culture*, *Foundation*, p. 43.

c11.s18.22

⁴ There is a controversy about his date of birth. His family as well as in the tradition of Brahmo Samaj have been holding 1772 as the year of Rammohun’s birth. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1972/2009: 17) has made a detailed analysis of the whole problem and concludes by saying that “based on the reasonable assessment of all the evidences, available to me, the date of Rammohun’s birth is 1774 and not 1772”.

c11.s18.23

⁵ Winternitz, 2003, *History of Indian Literature*, vol. I, Introduction, p. 15.

c11.s18.24

⁶ Wilhelm Halbfass, 1988, *India and Europe*, p. 50.

c11.s18.25

⁷ Ibid., pp. 66-68.

c11.s18.26

⁸ Winternitz, *HIL*, vol. I, p. 246.

c11.s18.27

⁹ Wilhelm Halbfass, 1988, op. cit., pp. 73-75.

c11.s18.28

¹⁰ Quoted in Edward Said, 1985, op. cit., p. 254.

c11.s18.29

¹¹ Ambikadatta Sharma, 2012, “Advaitavādī Darśanoṅ kā Prasthānamūlaka Vaiśiṣṭya — Eka Samasāmayika Vimarśa”, *Unmīlana*, 26(1), p. 7.

c11.s18.30

¹² Ambikadatta Sharma, op. cit., 52.

c11.s18.31

¹³ Kate Teltscher, 1995, *India Inscribed: European and British Writing on India 1600–1800*, p. 2.

c11.s18.32

¹⁴ The word *gentoo* is derived from the Portuguese *gentio*, meaning the Indians as distinct from the Mohammadans (Winternitz, vol. I, Introduction, p. 8).

c11.s18.33

¹⁵ K. Satchidananda Murty, 1985, *Philosophy in India*, p. 116.

c11.s18.34

¹⁶ Michael S. Dodson, 2011, op. cit., pp. 49-50.

c11.s18.35

¹⁷ *The English Works of Raja Ram Mohan Roy*, in 6 vols., Calcutta, 1945-58, vol. II.

c11.s18.36

¹⁸ Jon E. Wilson, 2010, *Anxieties of Distance*, p. 10.

c11.s18.37

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 12-13.

c11.s18.38

²⁰ Jon E. Wilson, 2010, op. cit., p. 13.

c11.s18.39

²¹ Majumdar, 2009, *On Rammohun Roy*, p. 39.

c11.s18.40

²² Majumdar, 2009, op. cit., p. 76

c11.s18.41

²³ For more details, see Dodson, 2011, op. cit., pp. 8-10.

c11.s18.42

²⁴ Jone E. Wilson, 2010, op. cit., p. 8.

c11.s18.43

²⁵ C.A. Bayly, 2010, *Rammohun Roy and the Advent of Constitutional Liberalism: An Intellectual History of India*, p. 19.

c11.s18.44

²⁶ Ibid.

c11.s18.45

²⁷ Bruce Carlisle Robertson, 1995, *Raja Rammohun Roy: The Father of Modern India*, p. 16.

c11.s18.46

²⁸ Quoted by R.C. Majumdar in *On Rammohun Roy* (p. 43) from *The Indian Awakening and Bengal of N.S. Bose* (2nd edn, 1969, p. 171).

c11.s18.47

²⁹ C.A. Bayly, op. cit., p. 23.

c11.s18.48

³⁰ C.A. Bayly, op. cit., p. 24.

c11.s18.49

³¹ Ibid.

c11.s18.50

³² Shruti Kapila (ed.), 2010, *Self Spencer and Svaraj: Nationalist Throught and Critique of Liberalism, 1890-1920: An Intellectual History of India*, p. 104.

c11.s18.51

³³ C.A. Bayly, op. cit., p. 29.

c11.s18.52

³⁴ Ibid., p. 33.

c11.s18.53

³⁵ Ibid., pp. 29-30.

c11.s18.54

³⁶ Saumyendranath Tagore, 1975, *Rammohun Roy: His Role in Indian Renaissance*, p. 8.

c11.s18.55

³⁷ Majumdar, 2009, op. cit., p. 43.

c11.s18.56

³⁸ Edward Said, 1985, op. cit., p. 328.

c11.s18.57

³⁹ Kate Teltscher, 1995, op. cit., p. 6.

c11.s18.58

⁴⁰ From an article published in *Indian Mirror* in 1874, quoted in Nirad C. Chaudhury, 1974, *Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Müller P.C.*, p. 318.

c11.s18.59

⁴¹ Edward Said, 1985, op. cit., p. 51.

c11.s18.60

⁴² Ibid., p. 76.

c11.s18.61

⁴³ Edward Said, 1985, op. cit., p. 51.

c11.s18.62

⁴⁴ Nirad C. Chaudhury, 1974, op. cit., p. 126.

c11.s18.63

⁴⁵ In 1823 August Wilhelm von Schlegel published his edition of *Bhagavadgīta* with Latin translation. Humboldt wrote: “It is perhaps the most profound and the most sublime that the world has on record” (Winternitz, vol. I, Introduction, p. 15).

c11.s18.64

⁴⁶ William Jones, 1775 , “The Tenth Anniversary Discourse, 28 February”, *Asiatik Researches*, no. 4.

c11.s18.65

⁴⁷ Shiv Prasad, 1869, “Mokṣamūlarakṛtaṛgvedānuvādaḥ”, *The Pundit*, October, 4(41): 110-14.

c11.s18.66

⁴⁸ Letter of Pramadādāsa Mitra to the Director of Public Instruction, dated 2 April, 1884 in UP State Archive Lucknow cited in *Orientalism, Empire and National Culture* by Michael S. Dodson, p. 45.

c11.s18.67

⁴⁹ Edward Said, 1985, op. cit., p. 77.

c11.s18.68

⁵⁰ Kate Teltscher, 1995, op. cit., p. 192.

c11.s18.69

⁵¹ Quoted in Nirad C. Chaudhury, 1974, op. cit., p. 127.

c11.s18.70

⁵² For details of the performances and translations of *Abhijñānaśākuntala* during 150 years after the publication of its first English translation by William Jones and their impact in global scenario, see my article “Abhijñānaśākuntala on Modern Stage” in *Nāṭyaśāstra in the Modern World* edited by me.

c11.s18.71

⁵³ Winternitz, 2003, *A History of Indian Literature*, vol. I, p. 248.

c11.s18.72

⁵⁴ *Satyārthaprakāśavimarśa*, p. 14.

c11.s18.73

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 122.

c11.s18.74

⁵⁶ Bruce Carlisle Robertson, 1995, op. cit., p. 25.

c11.s18.75

⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 27.

c11.s18.76

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 32.

c11.s18.77

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 33.

c11.s18.78

⁶⁰ Ibid.

c11.s18.79

⁶¹ Ibid., pp. 158-59.

c11.s18.80

⁶² Winternitz, 2003, op. cit., Introduction, p. 17.

c11.s18.81

⁶³ Saumyendranath Tagore, 1975, op. cit., p. 88.

c11.s18.82

⁶⁴ Mary Carpenter, 1977, *Last Days of Rajah Rammohun Roy*, p. 61.

c11.s18.83

⁶⁵ Quoted in Edward Said, 1985, op. cit., p. 249.

c11.s18.84

⁶⁶ Quoted by Nirad C. Chaudhury, 1974, op. cit., p. 133.

c11.s18.85

⁶⁷ Ibid.

c11.s18.86

⁶⁸ Michael S. Dodson, 2011, op. cit., p. 85.

c11.s18.87

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 84.

c11.s18.88

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. 92.

c11.s18.89

⁷¹ Ibid., p. 113.

c11.s18.90

⁷² Ibid., p. 116.

c11.s18.91

⁷³ Quoted by Andrew Sartori, 2010, *Beyond Cultural Contact and Colonial Discourse: Intellectual History of India*, p. 72.

c11.s18.92

⁷⁴ Ibid.

c11.s18.93

⁷⁵ Quoted by Indulal Yajnik, 1950, *Shyamji Krishnavarma*. p. 13.

c11.s18.94

⁷⁶ Quoted by Indulal Yajnik, 1950, op. cit., pp. 19-35.

c11.s18.95

⁷⁷ “वरकन्या की दोनों को परस्पर प्रसन्नता होय, फिर माता, पिता वा बन्धु विवाह कर देंवे, अथवा आप ही दोनों विवाह कर लेवें, पशुवत् विवाह का व्यवहार करना उचित नहीं, जैसे कि गाय वा चेरी (बकरी) को पकड़ के दूसरे के हाथ में दे देते हैं, वे ले के चले जाते हैं जैसी इच्छा होय वैसा करते हैं इस प्रकार का व्यवहार मनुष्यों को कभी न करना चाहिये . . . ।” — *Satyārthaprakāśa*, 1^st edn, chap. IV, p. 100 quoted in *Satyārthaprakāśavimarśa*, p. 15

c11.s18.96

⁷⁸ T.P. Shankarankutty Nair, 2013, “Swami Narayan to Swami Chinmayanand”, *Dhīmahi*, p. 125.

c11.s18.97

⁷⁹ The verdict of Shiv Kumar Shastri is reported as follows: “अछूत होने से ही व्यक्ति हिंदू धर्म के क्षेत्र से बहिष्कृत नहीं किया जा सकता। वह उतनी ही मात्रा में हिंदू है जितनी मात्रा में कोई सवर्ण व्यक्ति अछूत हिंदू समाज का अविभाज्य अंग है।” — Baldev Upadhyaya 1994: 150

c11.s18.98

⁸⁰ The opposite parties on occasions felt aggrieved by his use of derogatory adjectives. The *paṇḍits* of Mirzapur gave a notice to him for holding a *śāstrārtha* (debate) with the following rider — you often use harsh words like fool, wicked, etc. If you speak about us in such terms, you will be punished. *Dayananda Saraswati ko Likhe gaye Patra aur Vigyapan*, ed. Yudhir Mimamsaka, part III, quoted by Harsha Narayan 2010, *Dayananda: Eka Punarviśleşana*, p. 13.

c11.s18.99

⁸¹ Harsha Narayan, 2010, op. cit., p. 17.

c11.s18.100

⁸² Ibid., p. 3.

c11.s18.101

⁸³ Harsha Narayan, 2010, op. cit., p. 24.

c11.s18.102

⁸⁴ Ibid., p. 8.

c11.s18.103

⁸⁵ Quoted in *Satyārthaprakāśavimarśa*, Preface.

c11.s18.104

⁸⁶ मेरा इस ग्रन्थ को बनाने का मुख्य प्रयोजन सत्य — सत्य अर्थ का प्रकाश करना है, अर्थात् जो सत्य है, उसको सत्य और जो मिथ्या है, उसको मिथ्या ही प्रतिपादित करना है। वह सत्य नहीं कहाता, जो सत्य के स्थान में असत्य और असत्य के स्थान में सत्य का प्रकाश किया जाए। किन्तु जो पदार्थ जैसा है, उसको वैसा ही कहकर लिखना और मानना सत्य कहाता है। जो मनुष्य पक्षपाती होता है, वह अपने असत्य को भी सत्य और दूसरे विरोधी मत वाले सत्य को भी असत्य सिद्ध करने में प्रवृत्त होता है, इसलिए वह सत्य मत को प्राप्त नहीं हो सकता। इसीलिए विद्वान् आप्तों का यही मुख्य काम है कि उपदेश व लेख द्वारा सब मनुष्यों के सामने सत्यासत्य का स्वरूप समर्पित कर दें, पश्चात् वे अपना हिताहित समझकर सत्यार्थ का ग्रहण और मिथ्यार्थ का परित्याग कर के सदा आनंद में रहें। — *Satyārthaprakāśa*, Preface, p. 2, vs 2050, Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi

c11.s18.105

⁸⁷ यद्यपि मैं आर्यावर्त देश में उत्पन्न हुआ और बसता हूँ तथापि जैसे इस देश के मतमतान्तरों की झूठी बातों का पक्षपात न कर यथातथ्य प्रकाश करता हूँ, वैसे ही दूसरे देशस्थ व मत वालों के साथ भी वर्तता हूँ। जैसा स्वदेश वालों के साथ मनुष्योन्नति के विषय में वर्तता हूँ, वैसा ही विदेशियों के साथ भी, तथा सब सज्जनों को भी वर्तनायोग्य है। — Ibid.

c11.s18.106

जो जो सर्वमान्य सत्य विषय हैं, वे तो सब में एक से हैं, झगड़ा झूठे विषयों में होता है। अथवा एक सच्चा और एक झूठा हो तो भी कुछ थोड़ा-सा विवाद चलता है। यदि वादी-प्रतिवादी सत्यासत्य निश्चय के लिए वाद-प्रतिवाद करें तो अवश्य निश्चय हो जाए। — Ibid., *anubhūmikā*, p. 3

c11.s18.107

जब तक वादी-प्रतिवादी होकर प्रीति से वाद वा लेख न किया जाए, तब तक सत्यासत्य का निर्णय नहीं हो सकता। जब विद्वान् लोगों में सत्यासत्य का निश्चय नहीं होता, तभी अविद्वानों को महाअंधकार में पड़कर बहुत दुःख उठाना पड़ता है, इसलिए सत्य के जय और असत्य के क्षय के अर्थ मित्ररता से वाद व लेख करना हमारी मनुष्य जाति का मुख्य कार्य

c11.s18.108

है। यदि ए◌ेसा न हो, तो मनुष्यों की उन्नति कभी न हो। — Ibid., *anubhūmikā*, p. 2

c11.s18.109

⁸⁸जैसे परमात्मा ने प◌ृथिवी, जल, अग्नि, वायु, चन्द्र, सूर्य और अन्नादि पदार्थ सबके लिए बनाए हैं, वैसे ही वेद भी सबके लिए प्रकाशित किए हैं, और जहाँ-जहाँ निषेध किया है उसका अभिप्राय यह है कि जिसको पढ़ने-पढ़◌ाने से कुछ भी न आवे, वह निर्बुद्धि और मूर्ख होने से शूद्र कहाता है। उसका पढ़ना-पढ़◌ाना व्यर्थ है। और जो स्त्रियों को पढ़ने का निषेध करते हों, वह तुम्हारी मूर्खता, स्वार्थता और निर्बुद्धिता का प्रभाव है। देखो! वेद में कन्याओं के पढ़ने का कारण

c11.s18.110

⁸⁸ [^89] *Satyārthaprakāśa*, p. 90. [^90] Harsha Narayan, 2010, op. cit., p. 28. [^91] *Satyārthaprakāśavimarśa*, Ramprakash, p. 31. [^92] The first edition of *Bhāskārābhāsanivāraṇa* was published by the author himself in 1901 and he again brought out a second edition in 1914 from his village. The first page of the volume gives a list of donors whose munificence provided for the cost of printing. [^93] Purnasingh Verma, 1918, *Paṇḍita Bhimasena Sharma kā Jīvan Carit*, pp. 62-66. [^94] Baldev Upadhyaya, 1994, *Kāśī kī Pāṇḍitya Paramparā*, pp. 383-84. [^95] Ibid., p. 72. [^96] Some of the places where the *śāstrarthas* of Dayananda were carried were — at Agra, Anupashahar with Pt. Ambadatta, at Soron with Pt. Angad Shastri, at Meerut with Pt. Harigopal Shastri, at Farrukhabad, Kanpur, Mumbai, Danapur, Chandapur, etc. (Yaduvansha Sahay, 2,000 *Maharshi Dayananda*, pp. 85-286). [^97] *Satyārthaprakāśavimarśa*, Ramprakash, p. 102. [^98] “Dayanand’s attitude towards the other religions was a necessity of the times in which he lived, and partly due also to his ignorance of the languages in which the best literature of these religions is found. But, in our opinion, there is no justification for his followers to continue to hold that attitude, and the sooner the Arya Samajists come to this conclusion, the better for them and for their cause. The other religions of the world, including those of India must be studied in the writings of their best exponents, and always spoken of in terms of respect and consideration, even if one is unable to accept them as true in their entirety.” — Lala Lajpat Rai, 1967, *History of the Arya Samaj*, New Delhi: Orient Longmans. [^99] Yaduvansha Sahay, 2000, op. cit., p. 314. [^100] Ibid., p. 307.

c11.s18.111

ब्रह्मचर्येण कन्या युवानं विन्दते पतिम्। — अथर्व., अनु 3, प्र. 24, कां. 11, मं 18

c11.s18.112

प्रश्न - क्या स्त्री लोग भी वेदों को पढ़ें?

c11.s18.113

उत्तर - अवश्य। देखो - श्रौतसूत्रादि में - इमं मन्त्रं पत्नी पठेत्। . . . जो वेद शास्त्रादि को न पढ़◌ी होवे, तो यज्ञ में स्वरसहित मन्त्र का उच्चारण और संस्कृतभाषण कैसे कर सके? भारतवर्ष की स्त्रियों में भूषणरूप गार्गी आदि वेदादि शास्त्र को पढ़ कर पूर्ण विदुषी हुईं यह शतपथ ब्राह्मण (कांड 14) में स्पष्ट लिखा है। — *Satyārthaprakāśa*, p. 73

c11.s18.114

¹⁰¹ Beldeva Upadhyaya, 1991, op. cit., p. 123.

c11.s18.115

¹⁰² At Lahore people threw the idols in Rāvī, Lala Balakram Khatri threw away them in Bazar. — Pushpa Suri, 1997, Arya Samaj Movement with special Reference to Punjab”, in *Dissent, Protest and Reform in Indian Civilisation*, ed. S.C. Malik, Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, p. 221

Linked texts (5)

Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit
Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Abhijñānaśākuntala — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit