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 ****************************************