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. jagannAtha (Jay Vaidya)
2. RaghuvaMsha shloka (Jay Vaidya)
3. Re: jagannAtha (Vis Tekumalla)
4. Re: Request for Explanation (Ambujam Raman)
5. saraLI kurvantu saMskR^itam (simplify sanskrit) (Sai)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] jagannAtha
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> gunavR^iddh*I* pare yasminnaiva staH pratyayAtmake.
>
> budheShu saditi khyAtaM tad brahma samupAsmahe..
>
Note single correction i -> I. hrasva i is okay (all
lists are optionally samAhAra-dvandva, hence napuMsaka
ekavachanam), but not in good style. "guNavR^iddhI", a
non-samAhara dvandva form (hence puMli.nga
dvivachanam) is seen in one of pANini's sutras
(1.1.3). That is better for the humor.
> We meditate upon the Absolute Being which is nothing
> but consciousness, which is without qualities or
> increase, and which is known among scholars as �Sat�
> i.e., Existence.
Very cute, but is it grammatically correct?
Let us stipulate that the "grammatical" meaning does
not include the words "budheshhu", "brahma" and
"samupaasmahe". Maybe you could throw in "budheshhu".
So the anvaya is:
yasmin pratyayaatmake pare guNavR^iddhI na eva staH
tat (budheshhu) sat iti khyaatam |
That which, when it follows in pratyaya-form, is not
at all associated with guNa or vR^iddhi changes, is
well known as "sat" (among the wise).
Now as Vis gaaru correctly points out that the "sat"
pratyaya consist of "shatR^i" and "shaanach". pA.sU.
32.124-3.2.127
Unfortunately for the poet, these ARE associated with
guNa (though not vR^iddhi).
e.g.,
bhU + shatR^i = bho + at (guNa, and removal of 'it'
markers) = bho+ (a) + at = bhav + at = bhavat
(addition of another 'a', special sandhi rules apply)
= bhavan (puNliMge prathamAyA ekavachanam)
bhavat/bhavantI/bhavat means he/she/that which is
being
similarly bhU+ shAnach = ... = bhavamAna (with guNa
seen)
Example of bhU without guNa is "abhUt". (This is just
for illustration, luN^/tip is not a 'sat' pratyaya.)
I think we should consider the shloka a joking use of
grammatical terminology by jagannAthapaNDita -- no
full-fledged second meaning is expected.
The problem with "oM" as = "a+u+m" is that it is
formed by a guNa transformation.
---------
Consider that the word "sugrIvam" is missing in the
fourth pAda of the quoted shloka from the
raghuvaMsham.
We can discuss that shloka once the pATha is sure. My
feeling is that the grammatical/non-grammatical
shleshha is on the word "pada" alone, neither on dhatu
nor perhaps adesha.
dhana.njayaH
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] RaghuvaMsha shloka
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
yushhmAbhiH paNDitaiH etaani shuddhiikaraNaani
pariixaNiiyaani (kanichit kR^itaani itaraiH, tair
upakR^ito.asmi) -
You learned folk may please examine these corrections
(some made by others, to whom I am obliged)
*sa* hatvaa vaalinaM viirastatpade chirakaaMxit*am* |
dhaatoH sthaana ivaadeshaM *sugriivam* sannyaveshayat
||
"sa" iti "viiraH" ityasya samaanaadhikaraNe | pUrvaM
yat "na" iti, tad anarthakam |
"chiraakaaMxitam" iti "adesham" tathaa cha "sugriivam"
ityanayoH samaanaadhikaraNe |
"sugriivam" paadam artham cha dva api puurayati |
"sa" coordinates with "viiraH". The earlier "na"
distorted the meaning.
"chiraakaaMxitam" coordinates with "adesham" and also
"sugriivam".
"sugriivam" completes both the line and the meaning.
dhana.njayaH
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] jagannAtha
To: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jay Vaidya uvaacha:
Now as Vis gaaru correctly points out that the "sat" pratyaya consist of "shatR^i" and
"shaanach". pA.sU.32.124-3.2.127
------------
parantu, etani sarvaaNi samiikShaNaani aachaaryasyaiva; ahaM kevalaM prashnin:-)
(However, all these insights and observations are the professor's (Prof.
Sriramachandrudu's) alone. I was just asking a question:-)
Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gunavR^iddh*I* pare yasminnaiva staH pratyayAtmake.
>
> budheShu saditi khyAtaM tad brahma samupAsmahe..
>
Note single correction i -> I. hrasva i is okay (all
lists are optionally samAhAra-dvandva, hence napuMsaka
ekavachanam), but not in good style. "guNavR^iddhI", a
non-samAhara dvandva form (hence puMli.nga
dvivachanam) is seen in one of pANini's sutras
(1.1.3). That is better for the humor.
> We meditate upon the Absolute Being which is nothing
> but consciousness, which is without qualities or
> increase, and which is known among scholars as �Sat�
> i.e., Existence.
Very cute, but is it grammatically correct?
Let us stipulate that the "grammatical" meaning does
not include the words "budheshhu", "brahma" and
"samupaasmahe". Maybe you could throw in "budheshhu".
So the anvaya is:
yasmin pratyayaatmake pare guNavR^iddhI na eva staH
tat (budheshhu) sat iti khyaatam |
That which, when it follows in pratyaya-form, is not
at all associated with guNa or vR^iddhi changes, is
well known as "sat" (among the wise).
Now as Vis gaaru correctly points out that the "sat"
pratyaya consist of "shatR^i" and "shaanach". pA.sU.
32.124-3.2.127
Unfortunately for the poet, these ARE associated with
guNa (though not vR^iddhi).
e.g.,
bhU + shatR^i = bho + at (guNa, and removal of 'it'
markers) = bho+ (a) + at = bhav + at = bhavat
(addition of another 'a', special sandhi rules apply)
= bhavan (puNliMge prathamAyA ekavachanam)
bhavat/bhavantI/bhavat means he/she/that which is
being
similarly bhU+ shAnach = ... = bhavamAna (with guNa
seen)
Example of bhU without guNa is "abhUt". (This is just
for illustration, luN^/tip is not a 'sat' pratyaya.)
I think we should consider the shloka a joking use of
grammatical terminology by jagannAthapaNDita -- no
full-fledged second meaning is expected.
The problem with "oM" as = "a+u+m" is that it is
formed by a guNa transformation.
---------
Consider that the word "sugrIvam" is missing in the
fourth pAda of the quoted shloka from the
raghuvaMsham.
We can discuss that shloka once the pATha is sure. My
feeling is that the grammatical/non-grammatical
shleshha is on the word "pada" alone, neither on dhatu
nor perhaps adesha.
dhana.njayaH
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040916/c58332f8/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:11:11 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Request for Explanation
To: "Vis Tekumalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
jeyaaha:
The problem with "oM" as = "a+u+m" is that it is
formed by a guNa transformation.
oM is samaShTi praNava. It is incorrect to interpret it as the guNa-form using the
vyaShTi components. It is more like the nityasamaasa ( a concept I would request Jay
to explain in simple terms).
I also wish to draw attention that in the shloka Pt Jagannatha has cleverly equated
'brahma' with 'oM' recalling the quote from shruti: 'omityekaaxaram brahmaM'. In this,
there is a parallel of 'sugriiva' replacing 'vaali' like 'aadesha' replacing 'dhatu'.
Prof Venkataraghavacharya commenting on the Raghuvamsha shloka states that in grammar
the aadesa is final or there is no aadesha to replace an aadesha. Thus the
installation of sugriva by Rama is final and immutable. Hence true to his reputation
(upamaa kaalidaasasya), the poet has chosen the most appropriate comparison.
Similarly in vedanta since oM is the ultimate brahmaN, the choice of comparison by the
great poet jagannatha is par excellence.
Raman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040916/f4cf04b2/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:34:19 -0600
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] saraLI kurvantu saMskR^itam (simplify sanskrit)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Please pardon my long rant that follows:
I beseech those who use technical words to demystify
them for the technically challenged like me. Nowadays I am seeing a
flurry of technically-oriented discussions, which are hard to follow
(for me at least) because a lot of words and pANini sutra quotations are
used without explanation (samiShTi praNava, vyaShTi, guNa, vR^iddhi,
samAhAra-dvandva, ...)
Umpteen Slokas have been posted without fully
elucidating their anvaya and meaning for the average person. And we are
moving quickly on to the next Sloka and the next ...
If a Sloka is posted on the sanskrit list, what is the use of moving on
to the next Sloka if 90+ % of the members can't understand how the first Sloka
got its english translation (i.e., how to grasp it from its original;
how to think in sanskrit)
We are not here just to be satisfied by reading the english translations
dished out by someone else. There are so many books that just provide
such translations isn't it?
With this approach, there will be a lot of email activity, but with no gain
to the majority.
For instance, I had enormous number of questions on each of the last 10
Slokas (at least) posted. But I was quickly overwhelmed by the
volume that I basically gave up. I know giving up is not the right thing to
do, but exemplifies the typical reaction when the bar seems too high.
My strong conviction is that sanskrit grammar is not as hard to follow as the
jargon and pANini quotations make it seem to be.
I'm sure grammarians produce those rules by starting from an intuitive
understanding of trends in natural conversation. I feel that trying to do
the opposite (learning language from jargon) is the unintuitive way and
the reason why Sanskrit is in such a bad state.
I know jargon is necessary for conciseness, but what we want on this
mailing list is not conciseness but simplicity and intuition.
So, here are my humble requests:
1. When you feel the urge to use a technical word in your mail, please
try to resist the temptation, and instead (or in addition) provide an
example usage of its concept in brackets. e.g.,
> lists are optionally samAhAra-dvandva (e.g., as in rAma-lakShmaNau)
(here I don't know what samAhAra dvandva is, but gave a popular example of
dvandva samAsam just to illustrate the point)
This helps the average person quickly grasp the idea instead of hitting
a wall.
2. Reading sanskrit in english alphabet (ITRANS) is already hard.
Please do not make it harder by using sandhis.
Split words when possible unless they are too easy (many of us already
do this). When compounds (samAsas) are to be used, put spaces or hyphens
to make it easy to parse the individual words in a long samAsa (such as
guNa-vR^iddhi instead of guNavR^iddhi)
3. After a long email discussion on the intricacies of a particular
Sloka/topic, please post a single mail giving the fruit of the discussion:
the Sloka, its anvaya and meaning and a small comment on its rasa/beauty.
This is best done by its original sender, or by a knowledgeable member.
Without this, the discussion will not benefit those other than the
participants. People quickly lose interest in the mailing list and treat
sanskrit mails as spam.
In summary, have mercy on us poor souls.
- Sai.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 19
****************************************
