Source of न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear scholars

What is the source of the निषेध "न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः"? I could not trace it in the Mahabhashya copy I have? It is cited in several places like by Mallinatha on Kumarasambhava 14.2 and in Tattvabodhini on 2-2-1 पूर्वापराधरोत्तरमेकदेशिनैकाधिकरणे.

Thanks, Nityanand

--
Nityānanda Miśra
Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR
Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

[K S Kannan]

The statement is from Durghata-vrtti of Sharanadeva  on Ashtadhyayi 2.1.51 Dr KSKannan Director, Karnataka Samskrit University Chamarajpet, Bangalore --- On Sat, 5/11/13, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) to subscribe go to the link below and put a request https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com   --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

’ न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः ’

This aspect  is discussed  in महाभाष्यम् under  र ऋतो हलादेर्लघोः 6-4-161 -  followed by  प्रदीप -उद्योत (6-4-161) - प्रौढमनोरमा - शब्दरत्न  - तत्त्वबोधिनी (पूर्वापर 2-1-1) .

Bonus Info --

एकदेशिना - is a  कर्मधारयसमास  with  तद्धितान्त - इनिः- -

 ’ अत इनिठनौ ’ (5-2-115) is checked by एकगोपूर्वाट् ठञ् नित्यम् (5-2-118) , but due to निपात here in this सूत्रम् it is साधु as इन्नन्त ।

But एकदण्डी is असाधु - why ?

when the अर्थ is can be expressed by a single वृत्ति one should not go for वृत्ति on वृत्ति --

एकः दण्डः एकदण्डः , एकदण्डः अस्य अस्ति इति एकदण्डी - समास + तद्धित --

the same meaning can be achieved by बहुव्रीहि - एकः दण्डः यस्य अस्ति स एकदण्डः ।

पदमञ्जरी and प्रौढमनोरमा say -

 एकदेशशब्दः अवयवे रूढः । अत एव तस्य कर्मधारयत्वे"पि ततो मत्वर्थीयः , कृष्णसर्पवान् वल्मीकः इतिवत् ।

In other words , the नियमः - न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः - has to be applied carefully after  digesting महाभाष्यम् --

अस्तु तावत् हलादेरङ्गस्येति ।

कथम् अप्रथीयान् इति ? तद्धितान्तेन समासो भविष्यति - न प्रथीयान् अप्रथीयान् इति ।

भवेत् सिद्धं यदा तद्धितान्तेन समासः ।

यदा तु खलु समासात्तद्धितोत्पत्तिः तदा न सिद्ध्यति ।

न वै समासात्तद्धितोत्पत्त्या भवितव्यम् ! 

(here वै is in निश्चये - निपातानामनेकार्थत्वात्)

किं कारणम् ? 

बहुव्रीहिणा उक्तत्वान् मत्वर्थस्य ।

(कैयटः - न वै समासादिति । प्रकृताभिप्रायेणैतदुच्यते । ईदृशात् समासाद् ईदृशस्तद्धितः नोत्पद्यते )

भवेद्यदा बहुव्रीहिः तदा न स्यात् ।

यदा तु खलु तत्पुरुषस्तदा प्राप्नोति - न पृथुः अपृथुः । अयमपृथुः , अयमपि अपृथुः , अयम् अनयोः अतिशयेन अपृथुः -- अप्रथीयान् इति ।

it is a lengthy discussion .

शब्दरत्नः --

रूढत्वे तु न दोषः । कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीये कृते यो’र्थः प्रतीयते तस्मिन् बहुव्रीहिणा लभ्ये हि लाघवचिन्ता नान्यथेति तात्पर्यम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

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

[K S Kannan]

namas sarvebhyah ! The full sentence is  na karmadhArayAn-matvarthIyo bahuvrIhis' cet tad-artha-karaH. raghuvams'a 17.25 has haMsa-cihna-dukUlavAn which violates the above maxim. MallinAtha defends it, after the analogy of sarvadhanI. See also mahAbhAs"ya on 7.3.44 where asupaH is glossed as asubvataH. The maxim is thus sometimes taken as anitya. I am not sure, but VAmana seems to make some statement to a similar effect in his kAvyAlan'kAra-sUtra(-vRtti).

Dr KSKannan Director, Karnataka Samskrit University Chamarajpet, Bangalore

--- On Sat, 5/11/13, subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nityanand Misra]

Dr. Kannan

Thanks, but I could not find the statement in Durghatavritti 2.1.51. I referred the edition which was edited by Mm. T. Ganapati Sastri (1942, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series No. VI., DLI Barcode 2020010008571) and the Vritti on 2.1.51 goes -

तद्धितार्थोत्तरपदसमाहारे च

कथं पञ्चगुः पुरुषः. उच्यते. तद्धितार्थे मत्वर्थे नेष्यते. अनभिधानात्पञ्चगुरिति रक्षितः.

And that is all on 2-1-51. Could you please let me know which edition you are referring to? Or if it is under some other Sutra?

Thanks, Nityanand

[K S Kannan]

Dr Misra, Thanks for your kind response. Am not able to lay my hands on my copy of Durghata-vrtti immediately. I used a different edition, and had made some notes from it, from which I quoted. Will try to locate and send the ref. again Regards Kannan

[Nityanand Misra]

2013/5/11 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

’ न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः ’

This aspect  is discussed  in महाभाष्यम् under  र ऋतो हलादेर्लघोः 6-4-161 -  followed by  प्रदीप -उद्योत (6-4-161) - प्रौढमनोरमा - शब्दरत्न  - तत्त्वबोधिनी (पूर्वापर 2-1-1) .

Thanks Dr. Korada, I have seen this section in the Mahabhashya, but it does not contain the exact form of the नियम cited often as "न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः", or as "न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयो बहुव्रीहिश्चेत्तदर्थकरः" (as per Dr. Kannan) or as "न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयो बहुव्रीहिश्चेत्तदर्थप्रत्ययकरः" (in the text I am editing). The closest to this in the extract you quoted is from शब्दरत्न of नागेश (18th century), but as evident from मल्लिनाथ's quotation at several places, this must come from before fourteenth century. So the search continues. :)

 

Bonus Info --

एकदेशिना - is a  कर्मधारयसमास  with  तद्धितान्त - इनिः- -

 ’ अत इनिठनौ ’ (5-2-115) is checked by एकगोपूर्वाट् ठञ् नित्यम् (5-2-118) , but due to निपात here in this सूत्रम् it is साधु as इन्नन्त ।

But एकदण्डी is असाधु - why ?

when the अर्थ is can be expressed by a single वृत्ति one should not go for वृत्ति on वृत्ति --

एकः दण्डः एकदण्डः , एकदण्डः अस्य अस्ति इति एकदण्डी - समास + तद्धित --

the same meaning can be achieved by बहुव्रीहि - एकः दण्डः यस्य अस्ति स एकदण्डः ।

I beg to disagree here. When used for any person with a दण्ड or any body with three दण्डs, the बहुव्रीहि एकदण्ड/त्रिदण्ड denotes the same meaning as the कर्मधारय + णिन्नन्त एकदण्डी/त्रिदण्डी.

But when used for certain sects of ascetics who carry one दण्ड, the meaning is नित्ययोग or प्राशस्त्य as per

भूमनिन्दाप्रशंसासु नित्ययोगेऽतिशायने।
संसर्गेऽस्ति विवक्षायां भवन्ति मतुबादयः॥

The मतुप् णिन् etc can denote the नित्ययोग or प्राशस्त्य meaning but the बहुव्रीहि cannot denote the same.

So एको दण्डः एकदण्डः. नित्ययुक्त/प्रशस्त एकदण्डो यस्य स एकदण्डी. This meaning cannot come from बहुव्रीहि. Same for त्रिदण्डी.

PS: Both एकदण्डी and त्रिदण्डी are used in हारीतस्मृति and मनुस्मृति

[Krishnaprasad]

It is from vamana's Kavyalankara sutra vrtti. Sutra by Vamana

and also quoted by Charudeva Sastry in his Sabdapasabda viveka page
234 while rectifying nivrttadehaabhimaaninaH as nivrttadehaabhimanaaH
but little variant is there in the vamana's sutra
And in Kumarasambhava there is no commentary for 14th canto by
Mallinatha

On May 11, 5:44 pm, K S Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dr Misra,
> Thanks for your kind response.

> Am not able to lay my hands on my copy of Durghata-vrtti immediately.I used a different edition, and had made some notes from it, from which I quoted.Will try to locate and send the ref. again

> RegardsKannan
>
> --- On Sat, 5/11/13, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Source of न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः
> To: "K S Kannan" <ks_kan...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013, 6:07 PM
>
> Dr. Kannan
>
> Thanks, but I could not find the statement in Durghatavritti 2.1.51. I referred the edition which was edited by Mm. T. Ganapati Sastri (1942, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series No. VI., DLI Barcode 2020010008571) and the Vritti on 2.1.51 goes -
>
> तद्धितार्थोत्तरपदसमाहारे च
>
> कथं पञ्चगुः पुरुषः. उच्यते. तद्धितार्थे मत्वर्थे नेष्यते. अनभिधानात्पञ्चगुरिति रक्षितः.
>
> And that is all on 2-1-51. Could you please let me know which edition you are referring to? Or if it is under some other Sutra?
>
> Thanks, Nityanand
>

> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM, K S Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The statement is from Durghata-vrtti of Sharanadeva
> on Ashtadhyayi 2.1.51
> Dr KSKannanDirector,Karnataka Samskrit UniversityChamarajpet,Bangalore
>
> --- On Sat, 5/11/13, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Source of न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः
>
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013, 12:01 PM
>
> Dear scholars
>
> What is the source of the
>  निषेध "न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः"? I could not trace it in the Mahabhashya copy I have? It is cited in several places like by Mallinatha on Kumarasambhava 14.2 and in Tattvabodhini on 2-2-1 पूर्वापराधरोत्तरमेकदेशिनैकाधिकरणे.
>
> Thanks, Nityanand
>
> --
> Nityānanda Miśra
> Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR

> Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, Indiahttp://nmisra.googlepages.com

>
> --
>
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
>
> to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
> bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> ---
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
>
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
>

> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Krishnaprasad]

it is also explained vyakarana chandrodaya 2nd volume page 433 by
charudeva sastry he says there vaamana vachanaat

[Nityanand Misra]

Thanks Sh. Krishnaprasad for tracing this to Vamana's Kavyalankara Sutra Vritti -

"It is from vamana's Kavyalankara sutra vrtti. Sutra by Vamana

and also quoted by Charudeva Sastry in his Sabdapasabda viveka page 234 while rectifying nivrttadehaabhimaaninaH as nivrttadehaabhimanaaH
but little variant is there in the vamana's sutra
And in Kumarasambhava there is no commentary for 14th canto by Mallinatha

it is also explained vyakarana chandrodaya 2nd volume page 433 by charudeva sastry"

I will refer the texts and get back to you. And you are right, Mallinatha has not commented on the so-called 14th canto of Kumarasambhavam, I do not know who this commentary is by - http://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/कुमारसम्भवम्_-_मल्लिनाथः/चतुर्दशः_सर्गः

2013/5/11 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[K S Kannan]

In my 5.30pm post, I had already mentioned it as somewhat from Vamana's kavyalankara-sutra-vrtti, and even cited the full sentence which you had only quoted in part. KSKannan

--- On Sat, 5/11/13, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) to subscribe go to the link below and put a request https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com   --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Krishnaprasad <krishnap...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is from vamana's Kavyalankara sutra vrtti. Sutra by Vamana

and also quoted by Charudeva Sastry in his Sabdapasabda viveka page
234 while rectifying nivrttadehaabhimaaninaH as nivrttadehaabhimanaaH
but little variant is there in the vamana's sutra
And in Kumarasambhava there is no commentary for 14th canto by
Mallinatha

The exact phrase of KavyalankarfasUtravRitti is this:

न कर्मधारयो बहुव्रीहिप्रतिपत्तिकरः ॥ ५..१..७॥

बहुव्रीहिप्रतिपत्तिं

करोति यः कर्मधारयः,

स न प्रयोक्तव्यः।

तेन विपर्ययो व्याख्यातः॥ ५..१..८॥

बहुव्रीहिरपि कर्मधारयप्रतिपत्तिकरो

न प्रयोक्तव्यः। 

Except the above two sUtra-s, there is no direct mention of the न कर्मधारयान् मत्वर्थीयः।

which is quoted in several other commentaries also, in similar contexts having मत्वर्थीय after कर्मधारय.The verbatim quotation in दुर्घटवृत्ति is not the source for the निषेध, as the वृत्ति is just like the last chapter of काव्यालंकारसूत्रवृत्ति dealing with rare usages seemingly opposed to or opposed to पाणिनि-s शब्दसंस्कार and hence it is not an independent वृत्ति like काशिका, or its sub commentaries. 

I have not seen the व्याकरणचन्द्रोदय which is a recent 19th century work. If he gives the original source for the quotation, it is welcome. If the discussion on the quotation, please produce the relevant page or the source therein or the guist of the discussion therein may be given.

In short, the source of the quotation is yet to be traced which is quoted in Durghatta also among the later grammarians.

Research Scholar(Retd),

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Sh. Krishnaprasad for tracing this to Vamana's Kavyalankara Sutra Vritti -

"It is from vamana's Kavyalankara sutra vrtti. Sutra by Vamana

and also quoted by Charudeva Sastry in his Sabdapasabda viveka page 234 while rectifying nivrttadehaabhimaaninaH as nivrttadehaabhimanaaH
but little variant is there in the vamana's sutra

भवतु वा तदन्तविधिः। कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयानुपपत्तिः, लघुत्वात्क्रमस्येति बहुव्रीहिणैव भवितव्यम्। तत्कथमिति मत्वर्थीयस्याप्राप्तौ चतुरस्रशोभीति प्रयोगः?

is the casual reference to the quoted niShedha in respect of the compound चतुरस्रशोभी. 

[Krishnaprasad G]

It is already pointed out by Kannan and by me that it is from kavyalankara sutravrtti

and it is also said by Charudeva Sastry.

please refer 5 adhikarana 2 adhyaya and 58 sutra in kavyalankara sutravrtti

2013/5/11 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[Nityanand Misra]

Dr. Kannan and Dr. Krishnaprasad

I referred the Kavyalankara Sutravritti (Nirnay Sagar Press Kavyamala Series 15, edited by Mm. Durgaprasad and Kashinatha Panduranga Parab, year 1926). In this edition, the statement from 5-2-59 is what Dr. Bhat has quoted -  कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयानुपपत्तिः.

Unfortunately, this is not the quote I was looking for, though it is similar. The source for "न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः" [बहुव्रीहिश्चेत्तदर्थ[प्रत्यय]करः] is still unknown to me. Jnanendra Saraswati has used "इति" which shows he is clearly quoting from some source -

एकदेशशब्दोऽवयवे रूढः. अत एव तस्य कर्मधारयत्वेऽपि ततो मत्वर्थीयः. 'कृष्णसर्पवान्' इत्यत्रेव 'न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः' इति निषेधस्य रूढेष्वप्रवृत्तेः.

Dr. Krishnaprasad, can you please confirm the edition of Vamana's Vritti you are referring and whether it has a different reading?

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I too could not trace it to Durghata Vritti, as already said by Nityananda Mishra. Other Editions will have to be checked. 

The full sentence is 

na karmadhArayAn-matvarthIyo bahuvrIhis' cet tad-artha-karaH.

Cf. na karmadhārayo bahuvrīhipratipattikaraḥ |KavyalankarasUtra  || 5..1..7||

of Vamana.

--

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,

[K S Kannan]

The reading I have in my notebook is na karmadhArayAn-matvarthIyo bahuvrIhis' cet tad-artha-pratipatti-karaH. I have a feeling that I used the DurghaTa-vRtti of Ratna publications or so. My books are dislocated and am not hopeful of early recovery. Bhoja's s'Rn'gAra-prakAs'a/sarasvatI-kaNThAbharaNa are also possible sources to be looked into. Regards KSKannan --- On Sun, 5/12/13, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[K S Kannan]

Dear All, I found my copy of durghaTavRtti. Exactly as I had mentioned earlier, the quote

na karmadhArayAn-matvarthIyo bahuvrIhis' cet tad-artha-pratipatti-karaH.

is to be traced to durghaTavRtti  on as''TAdhyAyI  2.1.51 taddhitArthottarapada-samAhAre ca but in the commentary called vivRti of s'rI nArAyaNa mis'ra on the the text in page 57, Ratna Publications, Kamachha, Varanasi (1985, 1st Edition) However, the said sentence  occurs in inverted commas  in the commentary, which means, it is a quotation from an earlier text. Regards K S Kannan

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:02:20 AM UTC+8, Sampath Kannan wrote:

is to be traced to durghaTavRtti  on as''TAdhyAyI  2.1.51 taddhitArthottarapada-samAhAre ca but in the commentary called vivRti of s'rI nArAyaNa mis'ra on the the text

That should read "is NOT to be traced to the दुर्घटवृत्ति on ... but in the commentary called विवृति of ...". :) If something is not in the Ashtadhyayi but is in the Mahabhashya, one cannot say "it can be traced to Ashtadhyayi but in the Mahabhashya on Ashtadhyayi". 

On page 323 of fifth part (Taddhita Prakarana) of Bhaimi commentary on LSK (First edition, Bhaimi Prakashan, Delhi, 1991), Bhimasena Sastri ascribes the quote to the "Bhashya". He writes न कर्मधार्यान्मत्वर्थीयो बहुव्रीहिश्चेत्तदर्थप्रतिपत्तिकरः (भाष्ये). Assuming Mahabhashya is meant here, this may occur in some manuscript of Mahabhashya which Bhimasena Sastri had access to. 

At the same time, the statement is called वामनवचन by Charudeva Shastri in Vyakarana Candrodaya. This could either point to वामन of the Kavyalankara Sutra Vritti or maybe to the वामन-जयादित्य duo of Kashika - it is believed that one of them produced the first half and the other the second. 

I would have taken the word of Charudeva Shastri but then the word of another stalwart (Bhimasena Shastri) contradicts it. Given this situation, and having not seen any edition or manuscript of Mahabhashya/Kashika/Vamana with this exact tatement, I am leaving this uncited for now in my edited text. 

Thanks, Nityanand

[girish jha]

Dear Colleagues,

I found this line in the Mathuri Pancalaksani(Vyaptipancaka).In haste I couldnot use diacritics.

Girish K. Jha

Dept of Sanskrit

Patna University

Patna 800 005

 

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

-- निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)to subscribe go to the link below and put a requesthttps://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribeTo unsubscribe from this group, send email tobvparishat+...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.  

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM, girish jha <jhakg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I found this line in the Mathuri Pancalaksani(Vyaptipancaka).In haste I couldnot use diacritics.

Girish K. Jha

Dept of Sanskrit

Patna University

Patna 800 005

 

I could not see any line with or without diacritics in your message. What do you want to say you found the line  "na karmadharayaat ..." etc. is found in Pancalakshani of Mathuranatha Bhattacharya?

[girish jha]

I found ,"na karmadhaarayaan matvarthiyo bahuvrihes cet tadarthapratipattikarah" in Mathuri Pancalaksani.

Girish K.Jha

Patna Univ 

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: girish jha <jhakg...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "nmi...@gmail.com" <nmi...@gmail.com>; "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>; Krishnaprasad G <krishnap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Source of न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः

[K S Kannan]

I fully agree with Sri Misra-ji. The reference is from the commentary, not the original. The notes I had made for myself was somewhat cryptic, hence the approximation. I could not rectify the same till I traced my copy of the book, but as soon as I did, I did remark that it is from the commentary. Even the Vamana reference I gave first, was from memory, before I could trace the copy, which is why I could not give the full reference. Thanking the first person who traced it to this source also,  rather than one who traced later  is more in keeping with such a fastidiousness. Right ? Regards KSKannan

--- On Thu, 5/16/13, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Source of न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयः To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.) to subscribe go to the link below and put a request https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com   ---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dr. Kannan

Apologies if I missed out on thanking you enough, never meant to. Once again thanks a lot for all the trouble you took to trace this to multiple sources. अधमर्णोऽस्मि.

Regards, Nityanand