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. Re: Bravo for corrected verse (Ambujam Raman)
2. IdR^ik (Jay Vaidya)
3. satyameva jayate nAnR^itam (Jay Vaidya)
4. Re: satyameva jayate nAnR^itam (Ambujam Raman)
5. muNDakopanishad (Desiraju Hanumanta Rao)
6. Re: satyameva jayate nAnR^itam (Ambujam Raman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:22:20 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Bravo for corrected verse
To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jay, Srikrishnan:
..........
> *kaamam* bhunakti bubhuje na ca bhokShyatii*dR^ik*
and Jay's comment
(6) The plural IdR^ishaH did not jive with anything
else.
iidR^ik is prathama ekavachanam. But don't we need dvitiiya here?
which would be 'iidR^shaM' (since dR^k is feminine).
Raman
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] IdR^ik
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
alikhat ambujarAmaH:
> ..........
> > *kaamam* bhunakti bubhuje na ca bhokShyatii*dR^ik*
>
> and Jay's comment: ... (etc.)
>
> iidR^ik is prathama ekavachanam. But don't we
> need dvitiiya here?
> which would be 'iidR^shaM' (since dR^k is feminine).
>
anvayitavAn aham "IdR^ik"-iti padam "kAmam"-iti
padasya visheshhaNavat | tena dvitIyaikavachanam
apexitam iti ambujarAmasya vachanaM sAdhureva | na tu
striyAm | syAt puMsi vA napuMsake vA | "kAma" iti
napuMsake paThitam mayA anyatra :
kaamam tu mama yat sainyam mayaa saha gamiSyati |
(vAlmiki: araNya:38:7) iti udhAharaNam pashyantu
bhavantaH |
atra vishhaye napuMsake "IdR^ish"-iti asya dvitIyAyAm
ekavachanarUpam "IdR^ik"- ityeva |
paraM tu dinamAtraM tishhThAma | vadati
shrIkR^ishhNamahodaye tadvachanam pramANam mantavyam |
----------------------------------------------------
I had parsed "IdR^ik" as a <adjective/modifier> of
"kAmam". So, Ambujan Ramagazh's statement that the
second case singular is expected is quite right. But
not in the feminine. It would be in the masculine or
the neuter.
I have read the word "kAma" in the neuter elsewhere:
for example, you may see this quotation:
kaamam tu mama yat sainyam mayaa saha gamiSyati |
(vAlmiki: araNya:38:7)
In the case at hand, the neuter second case singular
of "IdR^ish" is "IdR^ik", just the same.
However, let us wait for just a day. When
Shrikrishnagazh speaks, what he says will be
definitive.
dhana.njayaH
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] satyameva jayate nAnR^itam
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Offhand, I could not find the reason to use "jayate"
out of parasmaipada.
Does anyone have the full verse from the
muNDaka-upanidhhat? I am working on two crackpot
theories that need the rest of the context.
-----------------------------------------------------
Theory 1:
I think I am safe in calling the upanishhad "vaidika"
literature.
In vaidika literature, "vi" or "parA" (as all
prefixes) can be separated from their related verbs,
and be seen elsewhere in the verse. The Atmanepada
would be used just the same.
I could not even find a "general-purpose" optional
exception for vaidika literature. pANini made such
rules when usage had gradually changed. In such cases,
both forms are seen in the veda, but there was only
one form in the spoken language at pANini's time.
Is there any other example of "jayate" in
vaidika/sa.nskR^ita literature?
-----------------------------------------------------
Theory 2:
Atmanepada is used when there are more than one
kartAraH, and they are doing the action to each other.
Now jayati is a sakarmaka verb. So as there is a
conqueror, there is something conquered.
So if the verse is :
" satyam eva jayate, na anR^itam..."
satyam (eva) anR^itaM jayati, (na) anR^itam satyam
jayati = satyameva jayate (Atmane) nAnR^itam...
But a nearly fatal flaw in this theory is that when an
action is being done by more than one kartAraH to each
other, the verb will be in the dual or plural.
---------------------------------------------------
Sorry to be of no help!
dhana.njayaH
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:12:44 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] satyameva jayate nAnR^itam
To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jay
There are quite a few 'jayate' in Rigveda.
I didn't locate any in Valmiki Ramayana
Manusmriti consistently uses 'jayati'
There are a few in Mahabharata.
For example in Vanaparva, Chapter 240, verse 36 Karna tells Duryodhana:
na m^rto jayate shatruuN jiivan bhadraaNi pashyati|
m^rtasya bhadraaNi kutaH kauraveya kuto jayaH||
( Hey Kurunandana! The dead do not win over enemies, live one experience
auspiciousness. How can there be auspiciousness or victory of the
dead-ones?)
Somehow it intuitively appears to me that the atmanepada is appropriate
here!
kR^paya vimaR^shataaM
Raman
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Desiraju Hanumanta Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] muNDakopanishad
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
dhananjayji, pl hit here for muNDaka - or for some more texts.
http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/doc_upanishhat.html
dhrao
---------------------------------
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/20040827/fcc9d781/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:58:03 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] satyameva jayate nAnR^itam
To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mundakopanishad (shaakaa 3, khaaNda 1, verse 6)
satyameva jayate naan^Rtam
satyena panthaa vitato devayaanaH |
yenaa' ' kramanty^RShayo hyaaptakaamaa
yatra tatsatyasya paramam nidhaanaM ||
Truth alone wins, and not untruth.
By truth is laid the path (called) Devayaana,
by which seers only who with fulfilled desires ascend
to where (exists) the supreme treasure of that truth.
Interestingly Shankaracharya while commenting on this verse changes jayate
to jayati as follows:
satyameva = satyavaaneva
jayate = jayati
naan^Rtam = naan^Rtavaadii iti arthaH
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 17, Issue 29
****************************************
