87 views
Skip to first unread message

Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya

unread,
Dec 16, 2011, 12:31:24 PM12/16/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma, rama, vasudh...@groups.facebook.com
प्रिय विद्वत्सुहृदः,
प्रणम्य।अत्रेदमवधेयम्।" तिरुप्पावै व्रतस्य द्वितीयो दिवसः-द्वितीयं पाशुरम्।"
गोदादेवी(आण्डाळ्) प्रथमदिवसे व्रतस्य लक्ष्यं भगवत्प्राप्तिरित्युक्तवती।अद्य व्रतनियमानि निर्दिशति।
तमिळपाशुरम्-संस्कृतलिप्याम्-"वैयत्तु वाळ्वीर्गाळ् नामुं नम्बावैक्कु,शेय्युं किरिशैगळ् केळीरो।
पार्कडलुळ् पैयत्तुयिन्र परमनडि पाडि, नेय्युण्णों पालुण्णों नाट्काले नीराडि,मैयिट्टिळुदोम्।
मलरिट्टु नामुडियों,शेय्यादन शेय्यों, तीक्कुरळै चेन्रोदों,ऐयमुं पिच्चैयुमान्दनैयुं कैकाट्टि,
उय्युमारेण्णि उगन्देलोरेम्बावाय्"
संस्कृतश्लोकः।"भूम्यां विभूतिभवुकाः,श्रुणुतास्मदीयदिव्यव्रतस्य करणीयकृतस्तरुण्यः।
              क्षीरार्णवे निखिलरक्षणयोगनिद्रा मातन्वतोऽस्य परमस्य पदं प्रगाय॥
            नाद्मो घृतं न च पयोऽप्युषसि प्रमज्य लिम्पामहेऽञ्जनमषीं न न बन्धयामः
            वेणीं प्रसूननिकरैः,न कदाप्यकार्यं कुर्मोऽहितं न च वचोऽनृतमीरयामः॥
            भिक्षां प्रदाय बहुमानमनारतं च मत्वा समभ्युदयहेतुरिति प्रमोदात्।
            ध्येयः फलं च करणं च स एव कृष्णः वृत्तं निसर्गमधुरं व्रतमस्मदीयम्॥
विशेषांशाः:-श्रीविल्लिपुत्तूर्-इत्यस्य संस्कृतं नाम "धन्विनव्यपुर"मिति।"प्रणवो धनुः,शरोह्यात्मा,
          ब्रह्म तल्लक्ष्यमुच्यते"त्युक्त्या प्रणवार्थो भगवान् तत्र नगर्यामस्ति।तत्रत्यो भगवान्
          वटपत्रशायी।अपि च, गोदादेव्याः पालकपिता विष्णुचित्तः (पेरियाळ्वार्) द्राविडवेदस्य
          पारायणे प्रथमं पठ्यमानं पल्लाण्डु नामकं प्रबन्धं कृतवान्।एष प्रबन्धः प्रणवरूपः।
          वेदस्य आरम्भे यथा "ओम्"इत्युच्चार्यते तथैव द्राविडवेदारम्भे पल्लाण्डु प्रबन्धोऽपि
          पठ्यते।प्रणवस्य तत्र नगरे अस्तित्वादपि तन्नाम सार्धकम्भवति। धनुस्तत्रास्तीति
          कारणेन "धनुस्सम्बन्धी मासः"इति व्युत्पत्या धनुर्मासः सार्धको भवति।
          "मासानां मार्गशीर्षोऽह"मिति गीतायामुक्तत्वेन,भगवत्प्रापकमार्गेषु सर्वेष्वपि (कर्म,
           ज्ञान,भक्ति,योगेषु) प्रपत्तिरूपतया उत्तमत्वेन पुण्यप्रदोऽयं मासः।(अनुवर्तते) 
Regards,
insacharya.
                                                                                                                        

desikan desikan

unread,
Dec 16, 2011, 12:44:09 PM12/16/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
मान्याः
अत्यन्तं समीचीनमस्ति.।

--- On Fri, 16/12/11, Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Dec 16, 2011, 12:45:33 PM12/16/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
अतिसुन्दरमस्ति भवदीयं व्याख्याप्रयासः ।  परह्य आरभ्य अहं श्री वेळुक्कुडि कृष्णन् स्वामिनां पूर्वमुद्रितव्याख्यानं शृण्वन्नस्मि, प्रतिदिनं भागशः । अस्य श्लोक्स्य (पाशुरस्य) विवरणावसरे ते पेरियवाच्चान् पिळ्ळैकृतव्याख्यानमपि 
तत्र उदाहरन्ति यदत्र श्लोके आण्डाळ् व्रतानुष्ठातॄणां कृत्याकृत्यविवेकं उपदिशति इति । 

कृपया भवन्तः इदं प्रवर्तयन्तु यन्मादृशानां कृते महदुपकाराय भवेदिति ।

इति तिरुप्पावैरसिकः  
सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा 

2011/12/16 Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com>

desikan desikan

unread,
Dec 16, 2011, 12:50:49 PM12/16/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
भो तिरुप्पावैरसिकाः..तमिल् जानन्तीति ज्ञायते।

--- On Fri, 16/12/11, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्}
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Dr. P. Ramanujan

unread,
Dec 17, 2011, 3:10:53 AM12/17/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma, rama, vasudh...@groups.facebook.com
श्रीमन्तः नरसिंहाचार्याः
अतिश्लाघ्यं
भगवत्कैङ्कर्यं विदधति ।
भागवतानां मुदे चैतत्
कल्पते । विपश्चिते पवमानाय
गायत । इति, यः पूर्व्याय
वेधसे नवीयसे । सुमज्जानये
विष्णवे ददाशति । यो जातमस्य
महतो महि ब्रवात् । सेदु
श्रवोभिर्युज्यञ्चिदभ्यसत्
। .. आऽस्य जानन्तो नाम
चिद्विवक्तन । बृहत्ते
विष्णो सुमतिं भजामहे इति,
त्रेधा विष्णुरुरुगायो
विचक्रमे इति श्रुतिभ्यः,
उरुगायत्वाच्च,
श्रीमद्भागवते -
उरुगायगाथाः, महाभारते - एष
मे सर्वधर्माणां
धर्मोऽधिकतमो मतः ।
यद्भक्त्या पुण्डरीकाक्षं
स्तवैरर्चेन्नरः सदा इति
ज्ञानिभिश्च उद्घुष्टः
भगवद्गुणगानवैभवप्रकारः
गोदादेवीद्वारा सम्यक्
प्रकाशितः एभिः सार्वजनीनं
क्रियते इति अभिनन्दनार्हा
इमे विद्वांसः । इति
भागवतवशंवदः रामानुजः ।On Fri, Dec

> --

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं
संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
> ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
> तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

--
Dr. P. Ramanujan
PC-IHG,
C-DAC, Bangalore (KP)
ra...@cdac.in
080-25246350, 66116444 (Off.-Dir.)

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

desikan desikan

unread,
Dec 17, 2011, 5:29:35 AM12/17/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com, rama

मान्याः.,। सम्यगुक्तम्।

मेल्पत्तूर् बट्टतिरिपादाः श्रीमन्नारायणीये एवं स्तुवन्ति।

आद्यायाशेषकर्त्रे प्रतिनिमिषनवीनाय भर्त्रे विभूतेः

भक्तात्मा विष्णवे यःप्रदिशति हविरादीनि यज्ञार्चनादौ।

कृष्णाख्यं जन्म यो वा महदिव महतो वर्णयेत्सोयमेव

प्रीतः पूर्णोयशोभिस्त्वरितमभिसरेत्प्राप्यमन्ते पदन्ते।


हे स्तोतारःकवीन्द्राः तमिह खलु यतश्चेतयध्वे तथैव

व्यक्तं वेदस्य सारं प्रणुवत जननोपात्तलीलाकथाभिः।

जानन्तश्चास्य नामान्यखिलसुखकरणीति सङ्कीर्तयध्वं

हे विष्णो कीर्तनाद्यैस्तव खलु महतः तत्वबोधं भजेयम्।।


श्रीदेशिकप्रियः



 



--- On Sat, 17/12/11, Dr. P. Ramanujan <ra...@cdac.in> wrote:

From: Dr. P. Ramanujan <ra...@cdac.in>
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: {भारत��यविद��वत��परिष त�¥}
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com, "Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya" <insac...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma" <d.ramak...@gmail.com>, "rama" <ra...@cdac.in>, vasudh...@groups.facebook.com

Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya

unread,
Dec 18, 2011, 1:07:36 AM12/18/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
महोदयाः,
प्रणम्य। धन्यवादः।
भावत्कः,
ऐएन्नेस्साचार्यः।

2011/12/17 Dr. P. Ramanujan <ra...@cdac.in>

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 11:35:19 AM12/20/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
20 12 11
Dear Colleagues,
I do not have Ganganath Jha’s annotated translation of the Mīmāṃsābhāṣya or the Tantrvārttika in my personal collection. Since our University library will open on 27th I request for kind help in the following matter.
Will any scholar find for me the exact source of the following example given by Jaimini on the priority of Śruti  in Śruti-Smti-virodha in the bhāṣya to ‘हेतुदर्शनाच्च’, मी.सूत्र ... : बुभुक्षमाणाः केचित्क्रीतराजकस्य भोजनमाचरितवन्तः।...तत एषा स्मृतिरित्यवगम्यते।   कुमारिल comments क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नवाक्यं चाथर्ववैदिकम्। तस्याप्रमाणत्वे किंचिदप्यस्ति कारणम्। I long thought that this must be a part of the nārāśaṃśīgāthā of the Kuntāpasūktas. But I recently discovered that it is not so. It is quite possible that I am making a silly error in being unable to find out the source.  But this not in the Saṃhitā. Ganganath Jha has possibly traced the source. Hence this request. If I get the source in the meantime I will inform.
With thanks in advance
and
Best wishes
DB
 

subrahmanyam korada

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 1:39:25 AM12/21/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
नमो विद्वद्भ्य्ः

Mimaamsakaustubha of Kandadeva  has got the following information --

हेतुदर्शनाच्च 1-3-4 --  तथा राजक्रयावधिकभोज्यान्नत्वस्मृतेरपि मूलभूता अथर्ववेदे  प्रत्यक्षैव श्रुतिः - ’तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवतीति’ !

’न दीक्षितस्यान्नमश्नीयात्’ (मैत्रायणीयसंहिता 3-6-7) ... ’अग्नीषोमीये संस्थिते ’ (मै सं ३-७-८) !

आपदि तु ऐतरेयब्राह्मणगतेन ’ अशितव्यं हुतायं वपायाम् ’ इत्यनेन वपाप्रचाररूपः !

Hope this information will be useful .

धन्यो’स्मि

2011/12/20 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)



--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)





Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 5:33:30 AM12/21/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
२०.१२.११
विद्वद्वरेण्यसुब्रह्मण्यमहोदय, भवता खण्डदेवनिर्देशनं महत उपकाराय कल्पेतेति मन्ये। मत्सकाशे श्रीवाञ्छेश्वरयज्व- प्रणीता भाट्टचिन्तामणिसहिता भाट्टदीपिकाऽप्यस्त्येव, तन्मया पूर्वं न ग्रन्थविचारमुखेन दृष्टमिति मे अनुशोचनाकारणम्। पार्थसारथिमिश्रोऽपि किञ्चिद् विचारितवानस्मिन्विषय इति स्मरामीदानीम्। तदपि मया सुतरां द्रष्टव्यम्। एतत् सर्वं भवत उक्त्यैव स्मारितमिति कृतज्ञतां मे ज्ञापयामि। अधीतमपि विषयमिदानीं विस्मरामीति खेदः।
मम शङ्काया अपि कारणं ज्ञापयामि। अत्र भाष्यकारः कथमथर्ववेदसंहितोक्तिः अप्रमाणमिति सिद्धान्तं कर्तुं प्रवृत्तः इत्येव मे शङ्का। वार्तिककारेण, जयन्तभट्टेन सायणेन च अन्यथा विचारितम्। यद्यपि भट्टपादैस्तथोक्तं तथापि सोक्तिरथर्ववेदसंहितायां नास्तीत्यपि शङ्काकारणम्। भवता यद्दर्शितं तेनापि क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नवाक्यं चाथर्ववैदिकमिति वार्तिककारोक्तिर्न प्रमाणिता भवति। नापि बुभुक्षमाणाः केचित्क्रीतराजकस्य भोजनमाचरितवन्तः इति भाष्यकारोक्तेरथर्ववेदमूलकत्वम्, एवमथर्ववेदोक्तेरदर्शनात्। कल्पग्रन्थे स्याच्चेत्तदन्वेष्यम्। भवानिच्छेच् चेत् तत्तद्ग्रन्थविचाराद् यत्फलं लभ्येत तदवश्यं ज्ञापयिष्यामीति मे निश्चय इति विदुषां वशंवदस्य दीपकभट्टाचार्यस्य।
 
 


From: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्}

subrahmanyam korada

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 10:32:23 AM12/21/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
नमो विद्वद्भ्य्ः

आचार्य दीपकमहोदय

अथर्ववेदे (Nag Prakasak , New Delhi, 1994, p324, 15-14-10) एतदेव लक्ष्यते --

स यद्  धृवां दिशमनुव्यचलत् विष्णुर्भूत्वा ’नुव्यचलत् विराजमन्नादीं कृत्वा विराजान्नाद्यान्नमत्ति य एवं वेद

क्रीतराजको भोज्यान्नः (=सोमक्रयणानन्तरं दीक्षितस्य यजमानस्य अन्नं भोज्यम्) - इति सूत्रं बौधायने नस्ति ! प्रायशः मनुस्मृतौ अपि न दृश्यते !
पार्थसारथिमिश्रस्तु  शास्त्रदीपिकायाम्  उक्तसूत्रे एवं वक्ति -- 

सिद्धान्तस्तु - अविच्छिन्नवैदिकपरिग्रहानुपपत्या मन्वादिष्वनुपलभ्यमानो’पि वेदः कल्पितः ! शाक्यादिष्विदमत्यन्तविपरीतमवैदिकमप्रमाणं च तदित्येव शिष्टानां स्मरणम् ... अतो’त्र वेदकल्पना दवीयसीत्यप्रामाण्यमेव तेषामसन्मूलत्वादिति !

आन्ध्रीकृतमीमाम्सादर्शने’पि --

श्रुतिविरोधाभावे’पि लोभमूलकत्वात् इयं स्मृतिः न प्रमाणम् - इति भाष्यकारमतम् !

शृतिस्मृत्योः अत्यन्तविरोधः नांगीकार्यः , अत्यन्तसमत्वं वा - इति वार्तिककारमतम् !

अनुवादकाः (मल्लावज्झल वेंकटसुब्बरमशस्त्री) - श्रुतिगतम् आदरं पुरस्कृत्य अत्यन्तहितोपदेशबुध्या जैमिनिः एवमुवाचेति ग्राह्यम् !

बहुषु सूत्रेषु भाष्यकारवृत्तिकारयोः वैरुध्यं दरीदृश्यते !

गोविन्दमृतमुनेः भाष्यविवरणे’पि नास्ति कश्चन विशेषः !

सर्वव्याख्याविकल्पानाम् द्वयमेव प्रयोजनम् !
पूर्वत्रापरितोषो  वा  विषयव्याप्तिरेव वा !! (वार्तिकम्)

यदि कश्चन विशेषः भवतां दृष्टिपथमागच्छति चेत् कृपया वदन्तु 

धन्यो’स्मि



2011/12/21 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

Advayananda

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 12:04:21 PM12/21/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Respected Scholars,
Hari Om! Pranams
 
Shall be thankful if someone in the group would suggest for me the place to procure Mahabharata with a commentary of Nilakanthiyam. 
 
In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 2:11:33 PM12/21/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

१.१२.११

विद्वद्वरेण्य सुब्रह्मण्यमहोदय, सुहृद्वरेण्यैर्भवद्भिः सुधीजनहिताय यदुद्धरणं कृतमथर्ववेदादाचार्याणां मतं वा यद् भवद्भिरालोचितमवितथं तदित्यहं सानन्दं स्वीकरोम्यभिनन्दयामि च भवन्तं धन्यवादं च ज्ञापयामि। अपि तु शंका मे न निरसनीयेति प्रतीयते। शौनकीयव्रात्यकाण्डवत्पैप्पलादीयोपि व्रात्यकाण्डोऽस्ति, शोधितोऽपि स मया प्रकाशितश्च    अस्मिन्नेव मासि कलिकातास्थितेन एशियाटिक् सोसाइटिना। उभे परस्परं तुलिते च तत्रस्थभूमिकायाम्। बहूनां गम्भीरपाठान्तराणां सद्भावेऽपि प्रसक्तमन्त्रविषये समानप्राये एव द्वे संहिते अस्मिन् मन्त्रविषये।
एतद् भवतां ज्ञातार्थमेव मित्रभावेनैव निवेदितं मया, न त्वात्मश्लाघार्थं यस्य न कोपि निमित्तमात्रमप्यस्ति। अपि तु भवद्भिरवितथमुद्धृतेन श्रुतिवचनेन भाष्यकारेणाथर्ववेदाप्रामाण्यं सूचितमिति वार्तिककारस्यानुमानस्य हेतुर्नानुभूयते मया। अर्थात् मया क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नवाक्यं चाथर्ववैदिकम्। न तस्याप्रमाणत्वे किंचिदप्यस्ति कारणम्। इति वार्तिककारोक्त्याऽमूलशङ्कैव निरस्ता इति प्रतीयते मे । शास्त्रज्ञानेन लौकिकविषये वृद्धिलाभः य एवं वेद इति वचनान्तेन वाक्येन सततमेवोदिपदिष्टं ब्राह्मणादिषु ग्रन्थेषु। अन्नलाभोपि तद्वल्लौकिकवृद्धिमात्रम्। तेन तद्वचने अप्रमाणशङ्का जायेत कथम्? अमूलैव शङ्का तेन। अपरापि शङ्काऽस्ति कृतराजकादिवचनसमर्थनमनेन व्रात्यकाण्डवचनेन न कर्तुं शक्यते इति। इदं तु वार्तिककारदोषदिदृक्षेति न गण्येत, वेदे यन्नास्ति तत्कथं तेन वेदोक्तिरूपेणोपस्थापयितुं शक्यमित्याकुलितचित्तोऽयं जनः अग्रे यथासम्भवं विचिचरिषुरेवेत्थं वक्तुं प्रवृत्तः। सम्प्रदायव्याख्यानपरम्परायामेव कश्चिद्दोषोऽजनि ग्रन्थार्थबोधे वा मे दोषः कश्चिदिति मृग्यमिति विदुषां वशंवदस्य दीपकभट्टाचार्यस्य।

From: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011 9:02 PM

S.R.Krishnamurthy

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 5:52:55 PM12/21/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Respected Dipakji,
 
I am not a scholar; but still an interested researcher. You have rightly pointed out that many traditional scholars have written commentaries, which are materially not correct. you are right. I have come accross many lapses in Sayanabhashya of Rigveda; and Yajurveda. I had come to the wrong conclusion that because he was not versed in physical sciences, he had erred in interpreting scientific mantras.
But when I read an article of Dr. T.N.Dharmadhikari, a well-known Vedic Scholar, in which he postulates that the great Sayana was the chief editor of the commentaries, and the actual commentaries were written by a number of scholars; I was convinced of it. For Sayana has written introduction to every sukta in an inimitably erudite style; whereas the mantras have been annotated in too prosaic a style, that one cannot associate with the introduction. Secondly, in many a place, the commentary is wide off the mark with reference to the Introduction; and at some places, is totally irrelevent.
Though this has nothing to do with the question that is going round, i posted this because ot the question of the reliability of the commentary is common.
- s.r.krishna murthy

2011/12/22 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 6:43:18 AM12/22/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Krishnamurthyji,
 
I agree with you on the whole. There is no doubt that great men can err. Emperor Asoka erred, so did Pāṇini, Patañjali, Śaṅkara and many others. Kumārila too, ‘though a genius of many millennia’ could err. But one thing will remain unexplained even if we accepted that Kumārila had erred. That is: What text did Śabarasvāmin mean when he said बुभुक्षमाणाः केचित्क्रीतराजकस्य भोजनमाचरितवन्तः। ...तत एषा स्मृतिर् इत्यवगम्यते। Kumārila thought that this meant the Atharvaveda. But what we find in a text kindly brought to notice by Subrahmaniam Koradaji does not exactly tally with this. The problem is very complicated. I am trying to solve it for some time. I hope to reach a positive conclusion very soon. I shall let you know. Till then
Best wishes
DB
My previous letter with inadvertent errors of language is appended after correction. Pardon!
२२.१२.११
पूर्वस्मिन्निवेदनस्थास्त्रयः प्रमादा मे गोचरीभूतास्तेऽधः शोधिताः। क्षम्यतामिदं सदोषनिवेदनमिति दीपकभट्टाचार्यस्य।
२१.१२.११
विद्वद्वरेण्य सुब्रह्मण्यमहोदय, सुहृद्वरेण्यैर्भवद्भिः सुधीजनहिताय यदुद्धरणं कृतमथर्ववेदादाचार्याणां मतं वा यद् भवद्भिरालोचितमवितथं तदित्यहं सानन्दं स्वीकरोम्यभिनन्दयामि भवन्तं धन्यवादं ज्ञापयामि। अपि तु शंका मे निरसनीयेति प्रतीयते। शौनकीयव्रात्यकाण्डवत्पैप्पलादीयोपि व्रात्यकाण्डोऽस्ति, शोधितोऽपि मया प्रकाशितश्च    अस्मिन्नेव मासि कलिकातास्थितेन एशियाटिक् सोसाइटिना। उभे परस्परं तुलिते तत्रस्थभूमिकायाम्। बहूनां गम्भीरपाठान्तराणां सद्भावेऽपि प्रसक्तमन्त्रविषये समानप्राये एव द्वे संहिते अस्मिन् मन्त्रविषये।
एतद् भवतां ज्ञातार्थमेव मित्रभावेनैव निवेदितं मया, त्वात्मश्लाघार्थं यस्य किमपि निमित्तमात्रमप्यस्ति। अपि तु भवद्भिरवितथमुद्धृतेन श्रुतिवचनेन भाष्यकारेणाथर्ववेदाप्रामाण्यं सूचितमिति वार्तिककारस्यानुमानस्य हेतुर्नानुभूयते मया। अर्थात् क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नवाक्यं चाथर्ववैदिकम्। तस्याप्रमाणत्वे किंचिदप्यस्ति कारणम्। इति वार्तिककारोक्त्याऽमूलशङ्कैव निरस्तेति प्रतीयते मे शास्त्रज्ञानेन लौकिकविषये वृद्धिलाभः एवं वेद इति वचनान्तेन वाक्येन सततमेवोदिपदिष्टं ब्राह्मणादिषु ग्रन्थेषु। अन्नलाभोपि तद्वल्लौकिकवृद्धिमात्रम्। तेन तद्वचने अप्रमाणशङ्का जायेत कथम्? अमूलैव शङ्का तेन। अपरापि शङ्काऽस्ति कृतराजकादिवचनसमर्थनमनेन व्रात्यकाण्डवचनेन कर्तुं शक्यते इति। इदं तु वार्तिककारदोषदिदृक्षेति गण्येत, वेदे यन्नास्ति तत्कथं तेन वेदोक्तिरूपेणोपस्थापयितुं शक्यमित्याकुलितचित्तोऽयं जनः अग्रे यथासम्भवं विचिचरिषुरेवेत्थं वक्तुं प्रवृत्तः। सम्प्रदायव्याख्यानपरम्परायामेव कश्चिद्दोषोऽजायत ग्रन्थार्थबोधे वा मे दोषः कश्चिदिति मृग्यमिति विदुषां वशंवदस्य दीपकभट्टाचार्यस्य।


From: S.R.Krishnamurthy <srkmu...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2011 4:22 AM

Bhagwan Singh

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 10:17:46 PM12/22/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Respected scholars,
This is not a reply but a request. Earlier Sanskrit scholars wrote long samhit and samast padas understandably for tow reasons: scarcity of writing material and to keep the language and knowledge confined to a small circle as it was considered to be the exclusive property of the Brahmanas. There shevadhi. You who intend to popularise Sanskrit may serve the cause better if you write the words separately as is done in a living language. Sanskrit is not a difficult language, it has deliberately made so. While citing even Rigvedic verses I prefer something close to padapaaTh, rather than Samhitaa paaTha so and that makes the citation easy to grasp by a larger circle.
BS

--- On Thu, 22/12/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sivasenani Nori

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 1:20:55 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
To all the learned scholars who are benefiting many with their knowledge
 
I pray that use of good Sanskrit be continued. Why? Here are the grounds:
 
1. Nowadays Sanskrit is dumbed down enough everywhere for that to be repeated here as well. (Kridantas replacing verbs; only a few - may be less than 400 - roots being used even to form those kridantas; the over-use of asti etc.).
 
2. Texts where we have very good style of prose - mahaabhaashyam, dhvanyaalokavritti, Saankarabhaashyam - are studiously avoided because thought the language is simple and attractive, the subject matter is difficult to grasp. Others like daSakumaaracaritam or Pancatantra are not prescribed, so not studied. Students generally read 'rahasyas' which are like guides and purposefully written in simplified Sanskrit described in 1 above.
 
3. BVP is one place where one gets to read some good Sanskrit prose (and some good poetry as well occasionally), apart from books like nibadddhaSatam. This is good as it exposes students, beginners and learners to good prose.
 
4. Without expsoure, it will disappear, much like Prakrit is now disappearing from texts of dramas.
 
5. If visandhi is preferred in  prose, slowly it spreads to poetry (as evidenced by the request that padapaaTha of Veda be quoted), which is against Saastram. Chandas has to be sacrosanct - that kingpin amongst Saastras, Vyakarana itself becomes secondary to chandas. Even those who do not believe in the Vedas, ought to respect their integrity and quote extracts as they are.
 
6. The perceived difficult of reading good Sanskrit is only felt during the first few attempts - say, five. Once one makes an attempt and gets used to it, one becomes much richer for the effort.
 
7. We need to consider the work ethic we want to foster: Do we move up, or do we drag everybody down? As Patanjali says in the Mahabhashya, यत्नः क्रियताम्.
 
8. The choice of guna - maadhurya, ojas or prasaada - to be used should be that of the author.
 
9. Finally, language reflects the personality of the author / speaker. Consider: Nehru and Laloo Prasad Yadav. It has been said:
 
आचारः कुलमाख्याति वपुराख्याति भोजनम् ।
वचनं श्रुतमाख्याति स्नेहमाख्याति लोचनम् ।।
 
With hope in the heart that good Sanskrit prose flourishes on BVP, and a prayer on the lips
 
सरस्वती श्रुतमहतां महीयताम्
 
Regards
N. Siva Senani
 
 
2011/12/23 Bhagwan Singh <bhagw...@yahoo.co.in>

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:46:47 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Sivasenani ji,

This is not to object what you say.  I agree language flourishes only when used and used with no compromise on standard.  I would like to know if the following:

   

2011/12/23 Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com>

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:53:17 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Inadvertently I hit the 'send' button instead of the sanskrit script selection on gmail.  I am continuing the post:

2011/12/23 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Namaste Sivasenani ji,

This is not to object what you say.  I agree language flourishes only when used and used with no compromise on standard.  I would like to know if the following:
kalpanAlAghavam yatra tatpakSham rochayAmahe
kalpanAgauravam yatra tatpakSham na sahAmahe 

Will there be the 'gauravakalpanA' doSha while using high standard Sanskrit while it is possible to express oneself through 'laghu' pada/vAkyam-s?

Regards,
subrahmanian.v 

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:58:22 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com




2011/12/23 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>


kalpanAlAghavam yatra tatpakSham rochayAmahe
kalpanAgauravam yatra tatpakSham na sahAmahe 

Will there be the 'gauravakalpanA' doSha while using high standard Sanskrit while it is possible to express oneself through 'laghu' pada/vAkyam-s?

Is he doing any kalpanA ?

If you want to apply this law to things different from kalpanA, then remaining lazy and idiot will also become preferred, lAghavAt. 

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 5:08:02 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com


2011/12/23 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@lalitaalaalitah.com>
Surely an author's kalpanAkaushalam gets expressed through his works.  Is there not the expression 'lalitapadaH', 'komalashabdaH', etc.? If the reader is not put to much strain is it not a plus-point of the writer?  I am not talking of the lazy and idiot.  

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 6:07:26 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Dear Colleagues,
There was no intention of creating difficulty for the reader by adopting the normal Brahmī orthography of forming a syllable out of the initial consonant and its preceding final vowel. This is the normal orthography of all Brahmī origin scripts of India barring Tibetan. But it does not intend any pedantic display. Would we say devam īļe that is देवम् ईळे or देवमीळे? This orthographic correspondence of what we say and what we write was taken note of and praised as an independent creation of Indian Pandits by A. H. Dani, the noted student of A. S. Altekar. Whether it was created by Pandits or traders may be debated but the fact remains that this is typically Indian Brahmī.
[In parentheses: Chinese authorities have occasionally blamed ostentatious Chinese writers for the adoption of a pedantic style of writing. Again, the much maligned pedantic style which scared Weber from the Kādambarī was partially of orthographic origin. A partial adoption of the Roman orthography with small hyphens between components would have made the Kādambarī easier for the distressed scholar.]
What even a partial adoption of  the Roman orthography where each word is separated from its  preceding and following ones will be seen in, with due respect, Raghu Vira’s transliteration of Barret’s edition of the Kashmir ms of the Paippalāda-Sahitā. Raghuvīra’s orthography was not accepted by scholars.
For this reason forsaking the unique characteristic of syllable-formation in Brahmī origin scripts  is undesirable. That would deprive them of the power of representing some correspondence between what we speak and what we write.  I admit that difficulties do arise. What we can do to ameliorate is to avoid long compounds and uncommon forms that add to the woes of the reader, which are, in any case, real. We have examples before us – Patañjali, Jinendrabuddhi, Vasudeva Dīkita. The nineteenth century saw Satyavrata Sāmaśramin, Śaṅkar Pandurang Pandit, the twentieth saw Abhyankar, Vidhuśekhara Śāstrī, Chinnasvāmī Śāstrī and many others. Their style was easier than the one in the following verse (with due respect) श्रोत्रार्हन्तीचणैर्गुण्यैर्महर्षिभिरहर्दिवम्(note - not निशम्) तोष्टूय्यमानोप्यगुणो विभुर्विजयतेतराम्।
Best
DB


From: Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 23 December 2011 11:50 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्}

Sivasenani Nori

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 8:21:25 AM12/23/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sir
 
If I could rephrase your view, it is that if any idea which could be expressed using simple words is expressed using high-level Sanskrit, there could be kalpanaagauravadosha.
 
It depends on what high-level Sanskrit is. If it is an ornate style, with sentences running into pages, using obscure words, difficult constructs and such, such a fault would indeed result.
 
However, if high-level Sanskrit uses verbs, uses prefixes (upasargas) thoughtfully, expresses meanings precisely, uses all the roots available, and expresses powerful ideas concisely (say, by using compound words or words ending in the ablative case  to replace a whole paragraph), and omits words like asti which could easily be supplied by the reader, there is indeed no dosha.
 
Regarding sandhi, Saastra says that it is compulsory internally (as in harau), in compound words (bhaanoodayah) and poetry (otherwise metre would be compromised) and that it is optional in prose or while speaking. That said, most mature writers prefer to let sandhi be even in prose in most places. Why? It is a habit, as they routinely do that in other places. In fact this kind of behaviour is seen in native speakers of most languages. For instance, Americans prefer contractions like 'betcha' (bet you, which itself has many connotations), or the way the English say 'a cup of tea' - what we see here is the tendency to make sandhi when the component words are common. Sanskrit words are indeed very intimate friends to vidvaans so they tend to make the sandhi.
Regards
N. Siva Senani
 
2011/12/23 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 12:57:59 AM12/24/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Sivasenani, you have expressed my thoughts very clearly.

S P Narang

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 8:15:30 PM12/24/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
It is not a comment on Prof. Bhattacharya's write up. I suggest hereby that for course, the knowledge of Kharoshthi must be imparted which is the most important and lost field with Sanskrit cultural heritage. Regards to all and Prof. Dipak in particular. spnarang


--- On Fri, 12/23/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Madhu B

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 11:24:15 PM12/24/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Respected Scholors,
What are the 'Dictionary softwares' easily accessable and easy to
run , available on net and matching Indian languages ? Pl. furnish
details of "Berha" dictionary software . Pl. Give a short description
of working.

Madhu.B.

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 11:54:13 PM12/24/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
25 12 11
Professor Narang has drawn attention to an important element in the history of Indian writing which is little discussed by Sanskrit scholars and hence should be paid due attention with thanks to Professor Narang. This may raise old debated questions, but that is welcome. We have to remember that Kharoṣṭhi’s Semitic mode of writing from right to left was not accepted in India. If the mode proves to be the cause of its rejection then, its role as contributor notwithstanding, it will be difficult to prove Kharoṣṭhi to be the origin of Brahmī. For, the question will naturally be raised ‘How could the other mode of writing from left to right be preferred unless it had already a place in a now lost script of independent Indian origin?’ It means that we have to accept Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭhi as heterogeneously developed with mutual influence and the former as basically of native origin that many have debated. Many Indian authorities have hesitated to attach too much importance to Kharoṣṭhi or its origin that is Phoenician for this reason among others.   
 Though none has criticized, my previous mail had many typographical slips. They are corrected, as far as I could note, in a new presentation below.
Best
DB
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
There was no intention of creating difficulty for the reader by adopting the normal Brahmī orthography of forming a syllable out of the final consonant and its following initial vowel as in देवमीळे for देवम् ईळे. This is the normal orthography of all Brahmī origin scripts of India... But it does not intend any pedantic display. Would we say देवम् ईळे or देवमीळे? This orthographic correspondence of what we say and what we write was taken note of and praised as an independent creation of Indian Pandits by A. H. Dani, the noted student of A. S. Altekar. Whether it was created by Pandits or traders may be debated but the fact remains that this is typically Indian Brahmī.
[….]
So this is of dialectal origin and the orthographic rule it has brought into being must be regarded as irreversible. What an adoption of  the Roman orthography where each word is separated from its  preceding and following ones can do will be seen in, with due respect, Raghu Vira’s transliteration of Barret’s edition of the Kashmir ms of the Paippalāda-Saṃhitā. Raghu Vira’s orthography was not accepted by scholars.
For this reason forsaking the unique characteristic of syllable-formation in Brahmī origin scripts is undesirable. That would deprive them of the power of representing some correspondence between what we speak and what we write.  
I admit that difficulties do arise. There are at least two things that we can do to ameliorate The first measure will be avoiding Sandhi as far as possible. Secondly, some stylistic changes are called for.  We have examples before us – Patañjali, Jinendrabuddhi, Madhusūdana of the Prasthānabhedāḥ, Vāsudeva Dīkṣita. The nineteenth century saw Satyavrata Sāmaśramin, Śaṅkar Pandurang Pandit, the twentieth saw Abhyankar, Vidhuśekhara Śāstrī, Chinnasvāmī Śāstrī and many others. Their style was easier than the one in the following verse (with due respect) श्रोत्रार्हन्तीचणैर्गुण्यैर्महर्षिभिरहर्दिवम् (note - not निशम्) तोष्टूय्यमानोप्यगुणो विभुर्विजयतेतराम्।
Best
DB
 
 


From: S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 25 December 2011 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re:Objections against Sanskrit Orthography

Veeranarayana Pandurangi

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 3:11:06 AM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
क्षम्यतां कालविलम्बः। 

2011/12/22 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

१.१२.११

विद्वद्वरेण्य सुब्रह्मण्यमहोदय, सुहृद्वरेण्यैर्भवद्भिः सुधीजनहिताय यदुद्धरणं कृतमथर्ववेदादाचार्याणां मतं वा यद् भवद्भिरालोचितमवितथं तदित्यहं सानन्दं स्वीकरोम्यभिनन्दयामि च भवन्तं धन्यवादं च ज्ञापयामि। अपि तु शंका मे  निरसनीयेति प्रतीयते।

अत्रेदं प्रतीयते। भाष्यकारेण "क्रीतराजको भोज्यान्न" इति स्मृतिवाक्यमुदाहृतम्। इदं च वाक्यं नाथर्ववैदिकम्। भाष्यकारेण स्पष्टमेव "तत एषा स्मृतिरित्यवगम्यते" इति (1.3.4.)स्मृतित्वाभिधानात्, आनुपूर्व्या अन्यथात्वाच्च। अनुमीयते भाष्यकारेण तादृशं श्रुतिवाक्यमनवलोक्यैव अस्याः स्मृतेरप्रामाण्यमुक्तम्।

वार्तिककारेण तु  "क्रीतराजको भोज्यान्न" इति प्रत्यक्षं स्मृतिवचनमनुपलभ्यैव वा, उपलम्भेपि वा "क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नत्ववचनं यद्यप्यथर्ववेस्ति, तथापि तस्याहवनीयसंबद्धकर्मोपकारकत्वाभावात् ......स्मृतिपक्षनिःक्षेपाद्भाष्यकारेणोदाह्रियते" इति अथर्ववेदे  पठ्यमानस्य "तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवति" इति वाक्यस्यैव भाष्यकारेण अप्रामाण्यं सिद्धान्तितम् इत्युक्तम् । (द्र0 राणकवचनानि  "क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नत्वस्मृतिमूलस्य तु  "तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवति"  इति अथर्ववेदे पठ्यमानस्य अस्मदादिप्रत्यक्षत्वेन निराकर्तुमशक्यत्वात्")

तदित्थं भाष्यकाररीत्या अधिकरणं निरूप्य पुनः स्वमतेन भाष्यमतं विमृष्टं (पृ. 321 ताराप्रकाशन) भाष्यकाररीत्या सर्ववेष्टनस्मृतेरप्रामाण्योक्तिः न संगता, शाट्यायनिनां श्रुतौ दर्शनात् इत्युक्तम्। 
अथ च क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नवाक्यंचाथर्ववैदिकम्।  तस्याप्रमाणत्वे किंचिदप्यस्ति कारणम्।“ इति आथर्वणिकस्य वेदवचनस्यैव मूलत्वात् न भोज्यान्नत्वस्मृतिः नाप्रमाणम् इति प्रतिपादितम्।
तदत्र वार्तिककारस्य दोषप्रसङ्गाभाव इति। प्रत्युत भाष्यकारस्यैव दोष इति 
"तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवति"  इति वाक्यं कुत्रोपलभ्यते इति तु भवद्धिर्विचारणीयम्। व्रात्यकाण्डे नास्ति चेदपि कदाचित् लुप्तशाखासु क्वचित्स्यात्।
 
 शौनकीयव्रात्यकाण्डवत्पैप्पलादीयोपि व्रात्यकाण्डोऽस्ति, शोधितोऽपि स मया प्रकाशितश्च    अस्मिन्नेव मासि कलिकातास्थितेन एशियाटिक् सोसाइटिना। उभे परस्परं तुलिते च तत्रस्थभूमिकायाम्। बहूनां गम्भीरपाठान्तराणां सद्भावेऽपि प्रसक्तमन्त्रविषये समानप्राये एव द्वे संहिते अस्मिन् मन्त्रविषये।
एतद् भवतां ज्ञातार्थमेव मित्रभावेनैव निवेदितं मया, न त्वात्मश्लाघार्थं यस्य न कोपि निमित्तमात्रमप्यस्ति। अपि तु भवद्भिरवितथमुद्धृतेनश्रुतिवचनेन भाष्यकारेणाथर्ववेदाप्रामाण्यं सूचितमिति वार्तिककारस्यानुमानस्य हेतुर्नानुभूयते मया। अर्थात् क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नवाक्यंचाथर्ववैदिकम्।  तस्याप्रमाणत्वे किंचिदप्यस्ति कारणम्। इति वार्तिककारोक्त्याऽमूलशङ्कैव निरस्तेति प्रतीयते मे  
शास्त्रज्ञानेनलौकिकविषये वृद्धिलाभः  एवं वेद इति वचनान्तेन वाक्येन सततमेवोदिपदिष्टं ब्राह्मणादिषु ग्रन्थेषु। अन्नलाभोपितद्वल्लौकिकवृद्धिमात्रम्। तेन तद्वचने अप्रमाणशङ्का जायेत कथम्? अमूलैव शङ्का तेन। अपरापि शङ्काऽस्ति क्रीतराजकादिवचनसमर्थनमनेन व्रात्यकाण्डवचनेन  कर्तुं शक्यते इति। इदं तु वार्तिककारदोषदिदृक्षेति



--
Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Head, Dept of Darshanas,
Yoganandacharya Bhavan,
Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Samskrita University, Madau, post Bhankrota, Jaipur, 302026.


अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।

subrahmanyam korada

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 5:28:17 AM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Sanskrit Language and its use --

’दैवी वाग् व्यवकीर्णेयम् अशक्तैः अभिधातृभिः’ - says Bhartrhari in  Vakyapadiyam ( 1-155) - the divine speech became degenerated because of some people who did not have the capacity to pronounce perfectly .

Patanjali discusses pronunciation under ' तदस्य  तदस्मिन् स्यादिति ’ ( 5-1-16 ) . 

In German too there are lengthy compound words - who introduced them ? Chinese and Japanese Languages are very difficult to learn ( Pictography) .

As far as Sanskrit is concerned it is believed to be that of Devatas initially and this is said by  Sages with Yogasakti .
Such facts do not require any historical proof , nor is it possible to prove .

Certain subjects are by nature difficult , so also languages .

Certain subject is difficult for someone , say Mathematics , for others it is not so .

कष्टं शास्त्रम्  , दुरवगाहमित्यर्थः - कौमुदी , कृदन्तः -- for a scholar  it is not difficult .

Then what does it mean - difficult ? 

The  बुद्धिस्थानम् ( fifth place from लग्नम् ) and  बृहस्पति ( बुद्धिकारकः )    in one's  जातकचक्रम् (Horoscope) indicate the level of  sharpness of brain . If there is any one of the three सम्बन्धाः ( 1.परिवर्तनम् / swapping , 2. सहावस्थनम् ,3.दृष्टिः)   to  बुद्धिस्थानम्  or बृहस्पति ( this is just an example )  with शनिः (मन्दः)  then the degree of sharpness is considerably reduced . As a result the Native ( जातकः) cannot comprehend a subject quickly and cannot retain the comprehended material for long or does not have समयस्फूर्तिः !
Kalidasa in  उत्तरकलामृतम्   and Varahamihira  in बृहज्जातकम्    assert that  पूर्वजन्मकर्मफलम्   is the cause .

Ayurveda shows remedy but to some extent and at an early stage of age only -  सरस्वतीलेह्यम् , सरस्वतीतैलम्  besides food restrictions - oil , coconut ,  वार्ताकम् ( brinjal) , बिम्बफलम् , माषा: (अशेषशेमुषीमुषणमाषापूपं खादामि - श्रीहर्षः) etc .

घृतेन वर्धते बुद्धिः क्षीरेणायुष्यवर्धनम् !
शाकेन वर्धते व्याधिः मांसं मांसेन वर्धते !!

So it is a conbination of वेदान्तः - ज्योतिषम् - आयुर्वेदः !

It may be borne in mind that nobody can satisfy  the ' so called ' common man / सामान्यमानवः ! Still a common man can be presented who cannot understand the very simple Language . Because  he does not improve his vocab nor is it possible to explain every term to his satisfaction .

For example the term  गुणः means differently in  अयुर्वेद ः - सांख्यम् - न्यायः - मीमांसा - व्याकरणम् etc.

Using  सन्धिः and समासः etc.--

I agree that it is advisable to avoid सन्धिः and  समासः as  far as possible .   But in certain cases it is a must and a lot of time is consumed in avoiding समासः !  

Take the following ( कादम्बरी - महाश्वेतावृत्तान्तः ) -

यदेतदनुमरणं नाम तदतिनिष्फलम् ! अविद्वज्जनाचरित एष मार्गः ! मोहविलसितमेतत् ! अज्ञातपद्धतिरियम् ! ....

In the above quotation the compound words are very forceful , they lose their force if used as व्यस्ताः !

Same is the case with some शास्त्रीयप्रयोगाः also .

धन्यो’स्मि
गायत्रीजपः etc may be helpful to some extent .










Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 7:23:30 AM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
विद्वद्वर,
<(द्र0 राणकवचनानि "क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नत्वस्मृतिमूलस्य तु तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवति इति अथर्ववेदे पठ्यमानस्य अस्मदादिप्रत्यक्षत्वेन निराकर्तुमशक्यत्वात्")तदित्थं भाष्यकाररीत्या अधिकरणं निरूप्य पुनः स्वमतेन भाष्यमतं विमृष्टं>(पृ. 321ताराप्रकाशन) इति भवदुद्धृतवचनं कस्येति ज्ञातुमिच्छामि।
    यावन्मयाधीतं वेदेषु वा श्रौतसूत्रेषु वा गृह्यसूत्रेषु वा तद्दत्तभोज्यं दूरमस्तु क्रीतराजकशब्द एव नास्ति। यद्दीक्षितो(अ)ऽक्रीतराजकः इत्याद्यापस्तम्बधर्मसूत्रवचनाद्दीक्षितस्याऽक्रीतराजकस्यान्नं न भोज्यमित्यनुमातुं शक्यं किं तस्याथर्ववेदेन सम्बन्ध इति नाहमनुमातुं समर्थः। तदिमामेव मे प्रतीतिं जनयति यद्वार्तिककारेण भाष्यकारवचनमिदमिति बुद्ध्या श्रुतिरेव तेन अवहेलितेति प्रत्याख्यातुं चेष्टितं स प्रयास एव शून्यं प्रतिपक्षं कृत्वा युद्धवत् निमित्तापाये नैमित्तिकापायवदस्माभिर्व्यवहर्तव्यः। ।
    वार्तिककारदोषदर्शने प्रमाद एव मया कृतः स्याच्चेत् सन्तोषमेव मे जनयिष्यति तत्।  न मे गुरुनिन्दा रोचते। अपि च अभिप्रायस्तस्य महात्मन महानेवासीदित्यसंशयं वक्तुं शक्यते। मयाप्यथर्ववेदस्य त्रयीत्वस्य प्रमाणे यः प्रयास इदानीं क्रियते तस्मिन् तत्कृतप्रयासस्यानुकूल्यमेव लक्ष्यत इति कस्याश्चिच्छङ्काया अमूलत्वे वा सद्भावे वा नैव दोषो दर्शनीयो वार्तिककारस्येति विरमत्ययं जन इदानीं वार्तिककारवचनालोचनादिति दीपकभट्टाचार्यस्य निवेदनमिदम्।  
 


From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 26 December 2011 1:41 PM

Veeranarayana Pandurangi

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 8:16:04 AM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
"क्रीतराजकभोज्यान्नत्वस्मृतिमूलस्य तु तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवति इति अथर्ववेदे पठ्यमानस्य अस्मदादिप्रत्यक्षत्वेन निराकर्तुमशक्यत्वात् क्रीतराजको भोज्यान्न इत्युदाहरणभाष्यमयुक्तमिति शङ्कते- क्रीतेति" 
वाक्यानीमानि भट्टसोमेश्वरस्य वार्तिकव्याकर्तुः। पृ. 1.309 मीमांसादर्शने सं. महाप्रभुलालगोस्वामी तारा प्रिंटिंग् वर्क्स्, वाराणसी, 1984

2011/12/26 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 12:26:31 PM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
26 12 12
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing in English for many scholars have requested that important discussions be summarized in English.
Bhaṭṭa Someśvara’s assertion that तस्माद्दीक्षितस्य विज्ञातस्य क्रीतराजकस्य भोज्यं भवति is an Atharvavedic statement cannot be confirmed from the Saṃhitā or ancillary book of the Atharvaveda. I searched into all the indexes (VVRI, New Vedic Concordance etc ) and Durgamohan Bhattacharyya’s unpublished Pāda-index of the Paippalāda-Saṃhitā but did not find the sentence.
As you know medieval scholars regarded many minor Upaniṣads as ātharvaṇī śruti. Or Someśvara might have depended on some late Paddhati like the Prayogabhānu. These paddhatis often erred.
In any case if I find the sentence in any unpublished work of the AV I shall let you know. Till then
Best wishes for all
DB


From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 26 December 2011 6:46 PM

Bhagwan Singh

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 10:49:42 PM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaar puurvaka nivedan hai ki bhaaSaa ko khara kuupa jala banaane se accha hai ise bahataa niir bannana. The texts as we have them have archival value. In order to make Skt. a living and widely understood language modern writers should make a decision whether they want to confine themselves to a shrinking circle or intend to outreach a larger circle the way Sanskrit vaartaa prasaaraNa does. Recently there was a posting from a kin of Abhayankar ji. We must see the difference and power of communication of the language he used and that is simply what I advocate. As for my knowledge of Skt. is concerned, I have no comments to offer. But we must shift from a crammed and recital language to a language of ideas and communication.
BS

--- On Mon, 26/12/11, subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 11:24:09 PM12/26/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Every writer has his own writing style and likes. Let everyone decide on his own.
If someone wants to write in simple language, let him do so. If someone finds error in that language and rectifies to convey exact idea, as navyanaiyAyika-s, let him do so.
In the same way using sandhi or not is personal choice.
I don't think that language of kAlidAsa, even if not understood by some people, is less charming. So, if someone prefers difficult language to generate charm, then no objection should be raised. He, who is doing so, know well that he is not writing for all. There exists something called adhikAra. Even those who write easy Sanskrit, can not say that their writing is for all, because their writings are for only beginners of specific language.
It is better to push yourself to reach higher levels, instead of wishing their non-existence and asking all to come to lower-level.

Veeranarayana Pandurangi

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 4:05:52 AM12/27/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I think there is no need to come to a hurried conjecture that  "Someśvara might have depended on some late Paddhati like the Prayogabhānu." someshvara lived at least one thousand years ago. this time period is more than enough for the natural or accidental death of many shakhas of atharvan which are counted by as nine by patanjali, but originally 12 as per a skanda quotation by Madhvacharya. 

even kumarila quoted a shatyayana shruti in same context.  I dont think that is  available in present time.


2011/12/26 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

Dipak Bhattacharya

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 4:45:54 AM12/27/11
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
27 12 11

Dear Colleagues,

    There cannot be any question of drawing hasty conclusion by me because the matter is under
investigation. I hinted at possibilities only.
   
    What is certain is that the available Atharvavedic literature does not support the existence of such a sentence in it.  Moreover the Minor Upaniads barring one, or may be two, came into being between Gauapāda and the Sekoddeśaṭīkā ('The Catukāya doctrine in the Mantranaya' Journal of Research Visva Bharati II.1 1977-78, 92-131). Late ancillaries include them too. There may be such lost sources. But the Sahitās of the AV are so structured that such a sentence would not fit into it. Only one Brāhmaa of it exists and two ritual sutras of antiquity (Kauśika, Vaitāna); they do not have it nor the Pariśiṣṭas, nor the known Upanishads.. May be works like the Paihīnasi-Grhyasu. had it. But we cannot verify that.  Other unpublished works accessible to me are being looked into. 

    Subject to further verification, till now my impression is that of error. Dr Pandurangi has himself pointed to mistakes by the Shabarasvaamin. Why could not others commit that?

Best

DB


 





From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 27 December 2011 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Kriitaraajakabhojaanna
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages