Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Mahabharata/Bhagavad-Gita Question (Vis Tekumalla)
2. mudAkarAtta modakam ??? (Sai)
3. Re: mudAkarAtta modakam ??? (Vis Tekumalla)
4. Re: sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 30 (Mani Varadarajan)
5. Re: mudAkarAtta modakam ??? (Sai)
6. li.nga of samAsa (Jay Vaidya)
7. Re: mudAkarAtta modakam ??? (peekayar)
8. Re: mudAkarAtta modakam ??? (Sai)
9. Kalidas - upama (Desiraju Hanumanta Rao)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Mahabharata/Bhagavad-Gita Question
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
mahaaSayaaH:
I came across the following verse (it is given in three lines just as I show here) in
the introduction part of a Bhagavad-Gita book:
ShaTshataani savi.mshaani shlokaanaa.m praaha keshavaH
arjunaH saptapa~nchashat saptaShaShTi.m cha sa~njayaH
dhR^itaraaShtraH shloka-meka.m geetaayaa maana-muchyate
The book said the verse is from Mahabharata Bhishma Parva and gave the cite as 43.4 in
that Parva. I checked the online versions of Mahabharata and could not find such a
verse. Purportedly (if the verse does exist in Mahabharata) in Bhagavad-Gita - Krishna
has 620 shlokas, Arjuna 57, Sanjaya 67, and Dhritarashtra 1 - making a total of 745
verses. Bhagavad-Gita versions available now have only 700 (or 701 - some versions
have an extra shloka "prakR^iti.m puruSha.m chaiva" attributed to Arjuna in the 13th
chapter) shlokas with the following breakdown: Krishna - 574, Arjuna - 84, Sanjaya -
41, and Dhritarashtra - 1 - Total = 700. The book went on to say that some shlokas are
lost forever (Arjuna's shlokas increased however). It also said, they found a
manuscript in Gujarat with 755 verses, but that doesn't math with with the 745 number
either.
Does such a verse exist in Mahabharata Bhishma Parva? If yes, have you ever come
across any scholarly discussion anywhere about that apparent descrepency?
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/b9f4dada/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:12:46 -0600
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] mudAkarAtta modakam ???
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I couldn't parse the first portion of the gaNeSa paJNcha ratna stotram
by Sankara.
mudAkarAtta modakam
what does it mean?
- Sai.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] mudAkarAtta modakam ???
To: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The link here has the meaning but not the parsing.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:gklJexpdtz4J:www.geocities.com/malibutemple/ga_sloka.htm+ganesha+pancharatnam&hl=en
Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I couldn't parse the first portion of the gaNeSa paJNcha ratna stotram
by Sankara.
mudAkarAtta modakam
what does it mean?
- Sai.
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/ab1aaf50/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:48:27 -0700
From: Mani Varadarajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Re: sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
likhitam mAnya-dhananjayena:
> Your explanation and sUtra quotation are correct.
> saMGYA in this case is what is called a "proper noun"
> or a "defined technical term". In the sense that you
> should not try to get the meaning from the component
> words, but from tradition or technical context or a
> naming ceremony.
Then how do we explain words like 'parAyaNam',
as in 'rAmAn nAsti parAyaNam parataram'? Surely
this is not a technical word or proper noun.
Mani
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:33:15 -0600
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] mudAkarAtta modakam ???
To: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I found the meaning of atta:
The root is
ad (or at) = to eat
modaka = rice ball (unDrAyi in telugu)
atta = having eaten (like kR^itaH)
attavya = fit to be eaten.
(attR = eater, attA = an eater, attiH (male) = eater)
mAMsAdaH = mAmsa + AdaH = meat-eater.
atta-modakaH = modakaH attaH yena saH (one by whom a modaka is eaten)
Akara = accumulation , plenty , multitude a mine
(amRtAkara = " a mine of nectar ")
mudAkara = mudA + Akara = a mine of joy
atta-modakaH, mudAkaraH = One who having eaten a modaka, becomes a mine of joy
The final vigraha vAkya (expanded form) becomes,
yaH atta-modakaH, mudAkaraH (bhavati) saH
mudAkara-atta-modakaH
tam mudAkarAtta modakam
mudAkarAtta mOdakaH =
one who is/becomes a mine of joy by having eaten a modaka.
or,
a mine of joy who ate a modaka
mudAkara Apta kAmaH = one who became a mine of joy having achieved
a desired object.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] li.nga of samAsa
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Usually it should not be very hard to assign number
and gender to samAsa compounds. If multiple forms
exist, the choice of form would probably change
meaning. So, if you have a meaning already in mind,
you often have no choice.
Yes, any list-like dvandva compounds can be neuter and
singular. Neuter and singular lists are called
samAhAra dvandva. There is a difference in the sense
of the compounds though. In the singular case, you are
focusing on the group as a cohesive identity. In the
dual-or-plural you are letting the individuality of
things come through.
The rules for when the lists become neuter and
singular are given pA.sU. 2.4.2 to 2.4.16. Most people
will never need to use these rules, and many students
may ignore them if they find them difficult.
Regarding these sUtras, the relevant reading from the
kAshikA (2.4.2) is (my translation):
""
Given that dvandva compounds can be made in lists
severally (as individuals=itaretara) and as
combination groups (samAhAra), the singular form of
the samAhAra is already set. Why then this (series of
rules)? This (series of rules) is to make a division,
... when one may only make samAhAra compounds and ...
when one may only make itaretara compounds. (There are
examples in the ... spaces).
""
In these sUtras, people, and in some cases certain
(not all) animals are excluded from samAhAra
compounds. More than once, the compound
brAhmaNa-xatriyau is given as an example of
never-seen-as-samAhAra, because it refers to animate
objects or people.
So it not good style to make samAhAra for human
beings. And yes, there is some archaic caste
discrimination regarding this rule (also codified
within that group of rules). When talking of the
non-untouchable shUdra people sa.nskR^ita speakers
would use the neuter singular in compounds. It is
possible that the discrimination is not vicious, but
to point to the fact that these "professional" shUdras
form trade-related, thus non-individual, groups. But
that is pure speculation.
And also for musicians, and armed soldier squads. But
then they are only "pieces of an orchestra" and "armed
resources", by English analogy, never the individuals,
when the samAhAra cannot be used.
For some other lists, where a single member
summarizes, we have discussed before.
Let us took at the compound between sItA and rAma .
(i) sItA-rAmam (neuter and singular) - this is bad
style, but could presumably mean the sItA-rAma couple,
where we do not want to focus on them as individuals.
I would strongly recommend against using this
compound.
(ii) sItA-rAmau (masculine and dual) sItA and rAma (in
a mixed group, the masculine gender remains.) This
relates to both persons as individuals.
(iii) sItA-rAmaH = sitAyAH rAmaH = the rAma of sItA.
This refers to rAma, the one person, and reminds one
of his connection to sItA.
dhana.njayaH
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: peekayar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] mudAkarAtta modakam ???
To: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sanskrit digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am inclined to disagree with Sri Sai's derivation of the meaning.
My derivation would be -
mudaakaraattamodakam = mudaa kareNa aattam
modakaM yasya tam
meaning -
mudaa = joyfully,
karaatta = kareNa + aatta = received, accepted by the hand = held by the hand
modaka = sweet rice ball
Example. upaattavidyo gurudakSiNaarthii (Raghuvamsa)
In this connection there is another gaNeshavandanaaa which says -
mUSikavAhana modakahasta chAmarakarNa viLambitasUtra
Here hasta = kara appears.
Sankara"s Sanskrit in Stotras is the simplest
and does not require elaborate explanation.
Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I found the meaning of atta:
The root is
ad (or at) = to eat
modaka = rice ball (unDrAyi in telugu)
atta = having eaten (like kR^itaH)
attavya = fit to be eaten.
(attR = eater, attA = an eater, attiH (male) = eater)
mAMsAdaH = mAmsa + AdaH = meat-eater.
atta-modakaH = modakaH attaH yena saH (one by whom a modaka is eaten)
Akara = accumulation , plenty , multitude a mine
(amRtAkara = " a mine of nectar ")
mudAkara = mudA + Akara = a mine of joy
atta-modakaH, mudAkaraH = One who having eaten a modaka, becomes a mine of joy
The final vigraha vAkya (expanded form) becomes,
yaH atta-modakaH, mudAkaraH (bhavati) saH
mudAkara-atta-modakaH
tam mudAkarAtta modakam
mudAkarAtta mOdakaH =
one who is/becomes a mine of joy by having eaten a modaka.
or,
a mine of joy who ate a modaka
mudAkara Apta kAmaH = one who became a mine of joy having achieved
a desired object.
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/eb7d2630/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:42:02 -0600
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] mudAkarAtta modakam ???
To: peekayar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: sanskrit digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mine was not making sense even after all those feats.
Your explanation makes more sense, is simple and elegant.
I didn't try the word Atta, but was instead looking for atta and
got carried away.
dhanyo.asmi,
- Sai.
peekayar uvaacha:
> I am inclined to disagree with Sri Sai's derivation of the meaning.
>
> My derivation would be -
>
> mudaakaraattamodakam = mudaa kareNa aattam
> modakaM yasya tam
>
> meaning -
>
> mudaa = joyfully,
> karaatta = kareNa + aatta = received, accepted by the hand = held by the hand
> modaka = sweet rice ball
>
> Example. upaattavidyo gurudakSiNaarthii (Raghuvamsa)
>
> In this connection there is another gaNeshavandanaaa which says -
>
> mUSikavAhana modakahasta chAmarakarNa viLambitasUtra
>
> Here hasta = kara appears.
>
> Sankara"s Sanskrit in Stotras is the simplest
> and does not require elaborate explanation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found the meaning of atta:
>
> The root is
> ad (or at) = to eat
> modaka = rice ball (unDrAyi in telugu)
> atta = having eaten (like kR^itaH)
> attavya = fit to be eaten.
> (attR = eater, attA = an eater, attiH (male) = eater)
> mAMsAdaH = mAmsa + AdaH = meat-eater.
>
> atta-modakaH = modakaH attaH yena saH (one by whom a modaka is eaten)
> Akara = accumulation , plenty , multitude a mine
> (amRtAkara = " a mine of nectar ")
> mudAkara = mudA + Akara = a mine of joy
> atta-modakaH, mudAkaraH = One who having eaten a modaka, becomes a mine of joy
>
> The final vigraha vAkya (expanded form) becomes,
> yaH atta-modakaH, mudAkaraH (bhavati) saH
> mudAkara-atta-modakaH
> tam mudAkarAtta modakam
>
> mudAkarAtta mOdakaH =
> one who is/becomes a mine of joy by having eaten a modaka.
> or,
> a mine of joy who ate a modaka
>
> mudAkara Apta kAmaH = one who became a mine of joy having achieved
> a desired object.
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Desiraju Hanumanta Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Kalidas - upama
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Recently Vishvam quoted Kalidas's Raghuvamsha, verse 58, 12th sarga - sa hatvaa
vaalinam... and asked for details of similie. Here is some info:-
The root 'aas' is removed and 'bhuu' is established according to 'aasterbhuuH'
principle, and according to 'aadesha' but not as per 'aagama'. Where 'aagama' is the
arrival of something without uprooting the existing pattern, while 'aadesha' is
transformation of existing thing, along with some usurpation of existing factors also,
like 'aas' becming 'bhuu' and 'bhuu' becoming 'babhuuva' and the like.
It is therefore said - shatruvat aadeshaH, mitravat aagamaH -
Sugreeva has come similar to aadesha, imposing himself upon the existing pattern,
usurping Vali's, kingdom, riches, even wife Tara. So his entry is - shatru vat
aadeshaH -
The gist of that verse:
The warrior having killed Vali established Sugreeva in his place, which had been
longed after for a long time, just as an 'aadesha' [substitute, another word of
similar import] is put in the place of a root. - K M Joglekar.
dhrao
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/241a3889/attachment.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 31
****************************************
