Pandav Geeta Shloka

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Subject Line corrected Pandav Geeta Shloka

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:38 PM, sadasivamurty rani <ranisada...@yahoo.com> wrote:

शमीवृक्षस्य गर्भ: गर्भ: - अग्नि: । (शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भ: )

(शमीगर्भस्थ: अग्नि: इत्यस्य आन्तर्यमिदम् - शमीवृक्षखण्डनिर्मितात् अरणिविशेषात् मथनव्यापारेण उद्गत: अग्नि: शमीगर्भगर्भ: इति ख्यात:)

तस्य अग्ने: रिपु: - जलम् ; जलगर्भ: - जलगर्भात् जाता - लक्ष्मी:।(क्षीरसागरमथनोद्गता) (रिपुगर्भ:) तस्य (तस्य रिपुगर्भविशेषस्य) (लक्ष्मीदेव्या:) भर्ता - विष्णु:। स: विष्णु: मे प्रसीदतु इति)

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Ashish Sharma <cools...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Pandav Geeta Shloka

Dear All

I am still waiting for the reply of the below given query. 

I will be obliged if someone give the meaning of this shloka as didnt found the exact meaning of the shloka-

शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भः तस्य गर्भस्य यो रिपुः |

रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः स मे विष्णुः प्रसीदतु ||

regards

Ashish Sharma

Decrypting of Astrological Texts
OSD to President and Assistant Controller of Examination of Indian Council of Astrological Sciences(ICAS)

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 3:54:32 PM UTC+5:30, Ashish Sharma wrote:

Dear Learned Scholars and Guruvars

Pranaam

There is a shloka in Anusmriti (In Mahabharat) as:

शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भः तस्य गर्भस्य यो रिपुः |

रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः स मे विष्णुः प्रसीदतु ||

I found an old book of PanchGeeta by Geetapress Gorakhopur in which they have mentioned above Shloka but now neither in Mahabharata nor in PanchGeeta(new editions), Geetapress had not published this Shloka.

Can anyone tell me the exact meaning of this Shloka?

Regards

Ashish Sharma

Decrypting of Astrological Texts
OSD to President and Assistant Controller of Examination of Indian Council of Astrological Sciences(ICAS)

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

[sadasivamurty rani]

वर्तमानशृङ्खलायां विषय: क: इति न दृष्ट:। अस्यां सृङ्खलायां "न जायते म्रियते वा......" इत्यादिश्लोकस्य प्रस्तावना किमर्थमित्यपि न जानामि। परन्तु मत्त: पूर्वतनलेखागतस्य "शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भ:..." इत्यादिश्लोकस्य अर्थविवरणमेव मम लेखाया: अशय:।
प्रयत्नेऽस्मिऩ् बहव: टङ्कणदोषा: सम्भवन्ति मम यन्त्रदोषवशात्।
अत: एव मम पूर्वतनपत्रे  "प्रथम" इति स्थाने कोऽपि दोष: प्रवृत्त:।
क्षन्तव्योऽयं जन:।

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013 7:47 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Pandav Geeta Shloka

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भः तस्य गर्भस्य यो रिपुः |

रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः स मे विष्णुः प्रसीदतु ||

शमीगर्भस्य = अग्नेः , यः गर्भः = वायुः , तस्य गर्भस्य = भीमसेनस्य , यः रिपुः = दुर्योधनः , रिपुगर्भस्य = कुन्त्याः , यः गर्भः = ज्ञानस्वरूपः(सा तं स्मरतीति भावः) , सः विष्णुः व्यापनशीलः मे प्रसीदतु प्रसन्नो भवतु ।

In यजुर्वेद the word  शमी -  is used in the sense of भूमि and it is also described that there is अग्नि in भूमि  - even in the usage of शाकुन्तलम् , i.e. अग्निगर्भां शमीमिव , according to a मीमांसक it is भूमि  only and not शमीवृक्ष as commented .

गर्भः -- गॄ = निगरणे (तुदादि) , शब्दे (क्र्यादि) , विज्ञाने (चुरादि) 

अतिगॄभ्यां भन् (उणादि 3-152) - गर्भः 

अमरकोशः - कुक्षिभॄणार्थका गर्भाः ।

मेदिनी - गर्भो भॄणे’र्भके कुक्षौ सन्धौ पनसकण्टके ।

शमी गर्भः कुक्षिः  यस्य सः शमीगर्भः अग्निः।

’वायोरग्निः’ - तैत्तिरीयोपनिषत् - अग्नेः गर्भः कुक्षिः भॄणो वा वायुः।

तस्य वायोः गर्भः अर्भकः भीमसेनः ।

तस्य भीमसेनस्य यः रिपुः शत्रुः दुर्योधनः ।

रिपुगर्भस्य रिपोः गर्भः कुक्षिः कुन्ती तस्याः।

यः गर्भः ज्ञानस्वरूपः विष्णुः मे प्रसीदतु ।

धन्यो’स्मि

2013/6/11 Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>

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

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:05:13 AM UTC+8, korada wrote:

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भः तस्य गर्भस्य यो रिपुः |

रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः स मे विष्णुः प्रसीदतु ||

शमीगर्भस्य = अग्नेः , यः गर्भः = वायुः , तस्य गर्भस्य = भीमसेनस्य , यः रिपुः = दुर्योधनः , रिपुगर्भस्य = कुन्त्याः , यः गर्भः = ज्ञानस्वरूपः(सा तं स्मरतीति भावः) , सः विष्णुः व्यापनशीलः मे प्रसीदतु प्रसन्नो भवतु ।

If रिपु is taken as दुर्योधन, then would not रिपुगर्भ be गान्धारी rather than कुन्ती? 

[Sivasenani Nori]

If in stead of रिपुगर्भस्य, the text were तस्य गर्भस्य, then the only possible interpretation would be दुर्योधनगर्भस्य. However, since the actual text is रिपुगर्भस्य, it could be interpreted as रिपुगर्भस्य = दुर्योधनरिपुगर्भस्य = युधिष्ठिरगर्भस्य = कुन्त्याः.

 

If one wants to interpret रिपुगर्भस्य as वायोः गर्भस्य रिपुगर्भस्य, then we could take it to mean हनुमतः रिपुगर्भस्य = रावणगर्भस्य = ब्रह्मणः (धातुः), and then derive Vishnu to be ब्रह्मणः गर्भः।

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

---
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.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:05:27 PM UTC+8, Sivasenani Nori wrote:

If in stead of रिपुगर्भस्य, the text were तस्य गर्भस्य, then the only possible interpretation would be दुर्योधनगर्भस्य. However, since the actual text is रिपुगर्भस्य, it could be interpreted as रिपुगर्भस्य = दुर्योधनरिपुगर्भस्य = युधिष्ठिरगर्भस्य = कुन्त्याः.

 

This interpretation violates सापेक्षमसमर्थवत्, which is undesirable (though there are some rare examples of this violation). If an interpretation can be obtained without violation, that is preferable.

[ashish sharma]

I too agree with Shri Nityanand Misra jee that if the interpretation will come without any violation and also that interpretation should be acceptable to all masses as our reply create a foundation of the shloka meaning.

I will publish this shloka with the meaning which I will get from this forum only.

Regards

Ashish Sharma

Decrypting of Astrological Texts
OSD to President and Assistant Controller of Examination of Indian Council of Astrological Sciences(ICAS)

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sri Mishra has raised an interesting point. I believe that if we follow the path pointed out by him, every interpretation of the verse would be similarly defective. Let me explain.

 

In the second pAda, we have: तस्य गर्भस्य यो रिपुः, that is "[he] who is the enemy of the son of VAyu". This "he" we agree is Duryodhana. The यत् used in this pAda expects a तत् later, otherwise the construct "[he] who is the enemy of" is unnecessary. We will ignore this loose end for the time being. Now, the next pAda reads रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः. Here if the word रिपुगर्भस्य is to be understood as दुर्योधनगर्भस्य, then we interpret "ripu" as "the enemy of Bhima", that is रिपुगर्भस्य अर्थात् भीमसेनरिपुगर्भस्य - and the last word attracts the same nyAya - सापेक्षमसमर्थम्। Even if we change it to भीमसेनस्य रिपुगर्भस्य, the defect will remain. On this interpretation, we have the additional defect that the expectancy of यत् in second pAda has not been satisifed.

 

Now, if we revisit the loose end "[he] who is the enemy of Bhimasena", we would be justified in bringing in a तत् (अध्याहरः) and write it out as तस्य रिपुगर्भस्य; but, then this falls foul of the same nyAya - सापेक्षमसमर्थम्।

 

Since the problem lies with the word रिपुगर्भस्य, one way out would be to write it as रिपोः गर्भस्य (this will pose new problems in interpreting the word "garbhasya" - but that is another matter).

 

Or, if we take "ripu" to be a सम्बन्धिशब्दः like guru, pitr, dAsa etc., we have a way out. Vakyapadiyam 3.11.47 reads:

 

सम्बन्धिशब्दः सापेक्षो नित्यं सर्वः प्रयुज्यते।

स्वार्थवत्सा व्यपेक्षास्य वृत्तावपि न हीयते ॥ 47, VrittisamuddeSa ॥

 

Helaraja's "PrakASa" reads thus: इह केचिच्छब्दाः स्वार्थमितरापेक्षं नान्तरीयकमभिदधानाः सम्बन्धिशब्दाः कथ्यन्ते। तद्यथा - गुरुशिष्यपितृपुत्रमातृभ्रात्रादयः।

 

One wonders, though, that if we start including words like "enemy" in this list, it would really become so big, as to put a question mark on the application of समर्थः पदविधिः।

 

Sri Ashish Sharma wrote:

"I too agree with Shri Nityanand Misra jee that if the interpretation will come without any violation and also that interpretation should be acceptable to all masses as our reply create a foundation of the shloka meaning."

 

- If we really look at all doshas listed - say as given in the 7th chapter of Kavyaprakasa - verses like this would have to be termed defective. The underlying principle is that describing Vishnu in such a roundabout way is devoid of what Anandavardhana would say "cArutvotkarsha". One story goes that Sri Harsha, the author of NaishadhIyacaritam, was related (as a nephew) to MammaTAcArya (author of Kavyaprakasa) and that MammaTa upon examining Naishadham exclaimed that he should have perused the mahAkAvyam before compiling his doshaprakaraNa, for he would not have had to go to such lengths to find examples (of verses with doshas)! Then we have so many Slokas with only SabdAla~NkAras and citrakavitva (both Bharavi and Magha dedicated one chapter in their mahakavyas to compose such poetry, including a verse each using only one letter), which the poeticians categorise as third-rate poetry. Then, Anandavardhana labelled Kalidasa's description of the cosummation of the marriage of Siva and Parvati in Kumarsambhava as "anucita" (they are the parents of the world, and since it is inappropriate to describe such acts of uttama prakriti characters like kings, and of our own parents, that description is "anucita", inappropriate). If our Mahakavis have been so criticised by Alaankaarikas, one can imagine the criticism possible in case of other Slokas.

 

Hence, a mature approach would be to look at an interpretation which is "reasonably agreeable to scholars" and not add the filter of "dosharahita".

 

Finally, one disclaimer. I mentioned the above doshas of Mahakavis stated by Alaankaarikas only to give a strong counter-example. Samudaacaara is to ignore such aspects and focus on the positives and celebrate their genius. In a way, this practice is what has led to unreasonable expectations of perfection. Alaankaariakas are also poets in our tradition and those great men learned in VyaakaraNa, MImaamsaa and Nyaaya had the courage to criticise the Mahakavis (ordinary mortals like yours truly should not do so independently), but they hold them in very high regard. For instance, Anandavardhana, notwithstanding the criticism of Kalidasa, holds him in the highest regard - संसारे कालिदासप्रभृतयो द्वित्राः पञ्चषा वा महाकवय इति गण्यन्ते (Dhvan. Vritti on 1.6). My point is that we should strive to absorb the good, and not be caught in the rut of identifying the not-so-good. Bar Srimannarayana, there is no defect-free entity in this world.
 
बुधजनविधेयः
N. Siva Senani

 

[Sivasenani Nori]

In my earlier email, please read "Sri Misra" for "Sri Mishra" - NSS.

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Thank you for the correction Dr Misra .

Naturally , it should be गान्धारी  and not  कुन्ती ।

Overtaxing the mind sometimes leads one into oblivion .

Vidvan Ashish Sharma -

I kept in mind the context  - पाण्डवगीताश्लोकः । Therefore any interpretation should be nearer to Pandavas and co and one should be in a position to defend with authority , i.e. Veda , Vedangas , Itihasa etc.

Usage of certain words , which are not popular , also plays an important role in such cases .

The word प्रमाणम् is used by Bhartrhari in Padakanda of Vakyapadiyam in the sense of हिंसा ( मीङ् हिंसायाम्) ।

धन्यो’स्मि

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:55:41 PM UTC+8, Sivasenani Nori wrote:

 

On 13 June 2013 10:16, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:05:27 PM UTC+8, Sivasenani Nori wrote:

If in stead of रिपुगर्भस्य, the text were तस्य गर्भस्य, then the only possible interpretation would be दुर्योधनगर्भस्य. However, since the actual text is रिपुगर्भस्य, it could be interpreted as रिपुगर्भस्य = दुर्योधनरिपुगर्भस्य = युधिष्ठिरगर्भस्य = कुन्त्याः.

 

 

This interpretation violates सापेक्षमसमर्थवत्, which is undesirable (though there are some rare examples of this violation). If an interpretation can be obtained without violation, that is preferable.

 

Sri Mishra has raised an interesting point. I believe that if we follow the path pointed out by him, every interpretation of the verse would be similarly defective. Let me explain.

When we have not seen every interpretation of this verse, how can we say that every interpretation with violate the Nyaya. If one has the Anvaya wherein there is no association between ripu in the first half and ripugarbha in the second half, an interpretation based on such Anvaya would not have this violation. With all the possible meanings of garbha and ripu (Ripu is also the name of Yadu's son), such an Anvaya and interpretation is very much possible. 

It's a tricky verse to say the least. It would be worth exploring the precise published source and variant readings (if any) of the verse. Is this from Pandava Gita or Anusmriti (or both, if the two are not the same)? I could not trace this verse to a published source on the Internet - an unrealiable website ascribed this to Anusmriti, which as per some other sources is not found in some editions of Mahabharata.  Unless traced to a reliable published source, there is always the possibility of the actual reading being different (as turned out to be the case with कुधर्म तत् in a verse cited by Sharma Ji which was actually कुवर्त्म तत्). 

If a commentary or gloss is available in the published source which makes the Anvaya clear, it would help our understanding. 

 

 

Since the problem lies with the word रिपुगर्भस्य, one way out would be to write it as रिपोः गर्भस्य (this will pose new problems in interpreting the word "garbhasya" - but that is another matter).

I also thought of this as a possible variant reading. Which is why would be good to know the precise source(s) and reading(s). 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 9:30:10 AM UTC+8, Nityanand Misra wrote:

It's a tricky verse to say the least. It would be worth exploring the precise published source and variant readings (if any) of the verse. Is this from Pandava Gita or Anusmriti (or both, if the two are not the same)? I could not trace this verse to a published source on the Internet - an unrealiable website ascribed this to Anusmriti, which as per some other sources is not found in some editions of Mahabharata.  Unless traced to a reliable published source, there is always the possibility of the actual reading being different (as turned out to be the case with कुधर्म तत् in a verse cited by Sharma Ji which was actually कुवर्त्म तत्). 

I could not locate the शमीगर्भस्य verse in the Brihat Stotra Ratnakara published by Nirnay Sagar Press in 1912, where the last Stotra is Pandava Gita 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76542515/brihat-stotra-ratnakara

Sharma Ji may want to confirm which edition of Pandav Gita he has referred.

[sadasivamurty rani]

Pranams to all Scholars.
I too couldn't find this in Anugita. I don't have the Pandava Geetha text with me.
I gave my interpretation of this sloka from my memory as I learned this sloka while I was studying MA in Sanskrit during 1978-'80.

While this discussion is in progress here in this forum and after posting my sloka here, curiously I searched in the Subhashita Ratnabhandagara where I could trace out this sloka on page 195 with sloka no. 26. There also I could see the same way of interpretation as I have posted here. This information may be of some use in this context.
With regards,

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013 7:27 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Pandav Geeta Shloka

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00:22 PM UTC+8, sadasivamurty rani wrote:

Pranams to all Scholars.
I too couldn't find this in Anugita. I don't have the Pandava Geetha text with me.
I gave my interpretation of this sloka from my memory as I learned this sloka while I was studying MA in Sanskrit during 1978-'80.

While this discussion is in progress here in this forum and after posting my sloka here, curiously I searched in the Subhashita Ratnabhandagara where I could trace out this sloka on page 195 with sloka no. 26. There also I could see the same way of interpretation as I have posted here. This information may be of some use in this context.

Dr. Murty, Many thanks for tracing this. I would like to read the context and gloss (if any). 

Can you please share the Prakarana and Vishaya, along with the edition of Subhashitaratnabhandagara you are referring.

I refer the publication by Nirnay Sagar Press (1952) available at http://archive.org/stream/SubhashitaRatnaBhandagara/ which likely has different page and verse numbers. 

[shankara]

Namaste,

It is more likely that this sloka is part of 'Anusmriti'. In the beginning of this discussion, Ashish Sharma clearly mentions that this sloka is from Anusmriti. I wonder how 'pandava geeta' entered in the name of this thread.

Anusmriti available online at the following blog contains the sloka beginning with 'samigarbhascha'.
http://prramamurthy1931.blogspot.in/2012/04/anusmriti-anumriti-is-considered-asone.html

Gita Press edition of Mahabharata has Anusmriti in chapter 209 in Santi Parva - Page 4958. It can be read online at
http://archive.org/details/mahabharat05ramauoft

But, I could not find this particular sloka (beginning with Samigarbhascha) in that chapter, though there are a few slokas ending with 'sa me vishnu prasidatu' in Narada's stuti which follows anusmriti. Giving below one such verse which needs scholarly interpretation.

 
चतुर्भिश्च चतुर्भिश्च द्वाभ्यां पञ्चभिरेव च।
हूयते च पुनर्द्वाभ्यां स मे विष्णुः प्रसिदतु॥

Mahabharata based on south Indian texts, contains Anusmriti in chapter 210, Santi Parva, page 335. The sloka beginning with 'samigarbhascha...' is not found there. Chitrasala edition of Mahabharata also has a chapter on anusmriti (chapter 209), but this sloka is absent there too.

regards
shankara

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013 7:27 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Pandav Geeta Shloka

[shankara]

Namaste!

Please read 'samigarbhasya' in place of 'samigarbhascha' in my last mail.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: shankara <shanka...@yahoo.com>
To: "nmi...@gmail.com" <nmi...@gmail.com>; "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013 10:32 AM

[udaya bhaskar deekshit Parasaram]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 

though I don't know the source of the sloka

चतुर्भिश्च चतुर्भिश्च द्वाभ्यां पञ्चभिरेव च।
हूयते च पुनर्द्वाभ्यां स मे विष्णुः प्रसिदतु॥

 

this refers to one of the important rituals in shrauta yagnas.i.e Hautram or Devataahvanam

Vishnu who is invoked  with four, four, two, five  and with  two is refered to in this shloka

here is the mantra referred by the numbers.

चतुर्भिश्च -  आश्रावय

चतुर्भिश्च-   अस्तुश्रौषट

द्वाभ्यां    -  यज

पञ्चभि:   -  ये यजामाहे

पुन: द्वाभ्यां- वौषट्

 

अयमर्थः  यज्ञेषु "  आश्रावाय अस्तुश्रौषट् यज येयजामहे  वौषट् " इति शब्दैः हूयमानः विष्णुः मे प्रसिइदतु

 

more details from scholors requested

[sadasivamurty rani]

Dear Sri Misra!
The following are the details of the source of the sloka:
SUBHASITA -RATNA-BHANDAGARA  or GEMS OF SANSKRIT POETRY selected and arranged by KASHINATHA PANDURANGA PARAB and Revised By WASUDEVA LAXMAN SHASTRI PANSIKAR.
Published by ; EASTERN BOOK LINKERS
                       5825, New Chandrawal, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi -110007 Phone: 23970287
                       Edition : 2003, ISBN No: 81-7854-031-2 Price : Rs. 500/-
                                     easte...@mantraonline.com
The Context of the Sloka is as follows:
This sloka is given in the KUTA Slokas under the title ; KUTANI .
In the Kutaslokas it is 26th Sloka in the page: 195
Best wishes,

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

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

Cc: "nmi...@gmail.com" <nmi...@gmail.com>; sadasivamurty rani <ranisada...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013 10:25 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Pandav Geeta Shloka

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 4:58:43 PM UTC+8, sadasivamurty rani wrote:

Dear Sri Misra!
The following are the details of the source of the sloka:
SUBHASITA -RATNA-BHANDAGARA  or GEMS OF SANSKRIT POETRY selected and arranged by KASHINATHA PANDURANGA PARAB and Revised By WASUDEVA LAXMAN SHASTRI PANSIKAR.
Published by ; EASTERN BOOK LINKERS
                       5825, New Chandrawal, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi -110007 Phone: 23970287
                       Edition : 2003, ISBN No: 81-7854-031-2 Price : Rs. 500/-
                                     easte...@mantraonline.com
The Context of the Sloka is as follows:
This sloka is given in the KUTA Slokas under the title ; KUTANI .
In the Kutaslokas it is 26th Sloka in the page: 195
Best wishes,

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

Sorry for the delayed reply as I was travelling on the weekend. Thanks so much Dr. Murty for this additional information. I could finally trace the verse online here - http://archive.org/stream/SubhashitaRatnaBhandagara/SubhashitaRatnaBhandagara-KashinathSharma#page/n201/mode/1up. With the actual reading, the context and the gloss, I have sufficient information to write this mail.

The actual verse in the Nirnay Sagar Press (NSP) edition is is

शमीगर्भस्य यो गर्भस्तस्य गर्भस्य यो रिपुः
रिपुगर्भस्य यो भर्ता स मे विष्णुः प्रसीदतु

The reading in third quarter is रिपुगर्भस्य यो भर्ता and not रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः. This also explains why Prof. Murty used भर्ता in his explanation. Sharma Ji, you may want to check the actual reading with your source to check if रिपुगर्भस्य यो गर्भः is a variant reading in some published source.

The footnote on this verse in the NSP edition is (similar to the meaning given by Dr. Murty) -

शम्याः शमीवृक्षस्य गर्भोऽन्तसारस्तस्य गर्भोऽग्निस्तन्मथनेनोद्भूयमानत्वात्. तस्याग्ने रिपुर्जलं तद्गर्भो लक्ष्मीस्तस्याः सागरमथनेन जलजात्वात्. तस्या भर्तेत्यादि शमीगर्भपदेन अश्वत्थ इत्यपि केचित्तदपि सुवचमश्वत्थस्यापि वह्नियोनित्वात्.

Scholars may forgive me, but my intellect is not satisfied with any of the meanings presented so far. एकोऽप्यर्थो मम बुद्धिं तृप्तिं नैव गमयति.

1. The two meaninings given by Dr. Aklujkar are not precise translations. He has taken शमीगर्भ as अग्नि  and जलगर्भ as विष्णु and in the process skipped two levels of अनुयोगी-प्रतियोगी relationships.
2. The meaning given by Dr. Korada, with रिपुगर्भ as कुन्ती earlier and गान्धारी later, appears चिन्त्य to me. I find it difficult to accept that गान्धारी who is known for pronouncing a शाप on कृष्ण can be considered as somebody who remembers कृष्ण (सा तं स्मरतीति भावः).
3. The additional level of अनुयोगी-प्रतियोगी relationship inserted by Sh. Sivasenani to make रिपुगर्भ mean कुन्ती goes against the principles of अध्याहार. अध्याहार should be made of a minimal set of words which make the अन्वय complete. अध्याहार of an additional level of relationship changes the meaning of the text.
4. The NSP footnote and the meaning given by Prof. Murty are quite similar. While the meanings appear to be fine at first glance, but on deeper inspection here too the corresponding Anvaya (as with other explanations) suffers from violation of the maxim सापेक्षमसमर्थवत्.  I had a chance to enquire this with my Guru on the weekend, and as soon as I read out the NSP gloss, he said "if this was the विवक्षा then the poet should not have done the समास between रिपु and गर्भ"  With the problematic Anvaya, which is the first step in explaining the verse, we have a situation of प्रथमग्रासे मक्षिकापातः and hence I find the meaning not satisfactory enough.

With this background, I thought of an alternate अन्वय which do not have the समर्थसापेक्ष problem and corresponding multiple meanings, which I present under (please excuse any typos).

अथान्वयः -
यः शमीगर्भस्य गर्भः (=विष्णुः), यः तस्य गर्भस्य/तस्यगर्भस्य रिपुः (=विष्णुः), यः रिपुगर्भस्य भर्ता (=विष्णुः), स विष्णुः मे प्रसीदतु.

In this Anvaya, the first, second and third quarters independently qualify विष्णुः in the fourth quarter, and there is no relation between the first three quarters.

अथानव्यानुसार्यर्थः  -

1. प्रथमः पादः - शमेः शमीवृस्क्षस्य गर्भोऽन्तःस्थः शमीगर्भोऽग्निः. यथा "अग्निगर्भां शमीमिव" (शकुन्तलानाटके चतुर्थेऽङ्के). शमीगर्भस्याग्नेर्गर्भोऽन्तःस्थकारणं श्रीरामः. "सूर्यस्यापि भवेत्सूर्यो ह्यग्नेरग्निः प्रभोः प्रभुः" (वा.रा. २-४४-१५) इतिवाल्मीकिवचनाद्राम एवाग्नेर्मूलकारणम्. स राम एव विष्णुः.
2. द्वितीयः पादः - "तः" म्लेच्छे (मेदिनीकोशः). तस्य मलेच्छस्य गर्भः पुत्त्रः कालयवनः. तस्य गर्भस्य म्लेच्छपुत्रस्य कालयवनस्य यो रिपुः शत्रुः कृष्ण इत्यर्थः. स कृष्ण एव विष्णुः. यद्वा "तस्यगर्भस्य" इति "तस्यगर्भम्" इति समस्तपदस्य षष्ठ्येकवचनरूपम्. तस्यः क्षीयमाणो गर्भो भ्रूण उत्तरागर्भस्थः परीक्षित् येन तत् तस्यगर्भम्. अश्वत्थामप्रक्षिप्तब्रह्मास्त्रमित्यर्थः. तस् उपक्षये (धा.पा. १२१२) तस्मात् यति प्रत्यये दिवादिगणत्वाद्गुणाभावे "तस्य" इति पदं व्युत्पन्नम्. तस्यगर्भस्य अश्वत्थामप्रक्षिप्तब्रह्मास्त्रस्य यो रिपुः कृष्ण इत्यर्थः. उत्तरागर्भो अश्वत्थामप्रक्षिप्तब्रह्मास्त्रात्कृष्णेनैव रक्षितः.  स कृष्ण एव विष्णुः.
3. तृतीयः पादः - रिपवः कामक्रोधमदलोभमोहमत्सरादयो गर्भेऽभ्यन्तरे यस्य स रिपुगर्भो देही तेषां देहिस्थत्वात्.  "कामः क्रोधश्च मोहश्च मात्सर्यं मदलोभकौ. देहिस्था रिपवश्चेति" इत्योक्तेः. रिपुगर्भस्य देहिन आत्मनो यो भर्ता स्वामी परमात्मा इत्यर्थः. सः परमात्मा विष्णुरेव.  यद्वा रिपुर्यदोः चतुर्थपुत्त्रः. रिपुः गर्भो पुत्रो यस्मिन् तत् यदुकुलम्. तस्य रिपुगर्भस्य यदुकुलस्य भर्ता नाथो यदुकुलनाथः कृष्ण इत्यर्थः. कृष्ण एव विष्णुः.

एवंभूतो विष्णुः मे प्रसीदतु

प्रश्नः - कथमत्र द्रविडप्राणायामः प्रस्तूयते शब्दबलात्कारश्च क्रियते?
उत्तरम् - अत्रभवन्तः प्रसङ्गं न जानन्ति. इदं पद्यं चित्रप्रकरणे "कूटानि" विभागे विद्यते. कूटपद्यविषये द्रविडप्राणायामः शब्दबलात्कारश्चानिवार्य एव. प्रथमे कूटपद्येऽपि "केशवं पतितं दृष्ट्वा" इत्यत्र "केशवं" इत्यस्य "जले मृतकं" इतयर्थोऽपि द्रविडप्राणायामसहितशब्दबलात्कार एव. तं विना पद्यस्यार्थः न सम्भवेदिति.

The above Anvaya also contradicts Sh. Sivasenani's statement that all meanings of this verse will have the समर्थसापेक्ष problem. Sh. Sivasenani's position is well supported by citations and examples but he has not thought about alternative Anvayas.
मदुक्ताभ्यामन्वयार्थाभ्यां "सर्वेऽप्यर्थाः समर्थसापेक्षदोषग्रस्ताः" इति शिवसेनानिमहोदयजल्पितं बहूद्धरणयुक्तं सदपि विचाररहितं मतं निरस्तम्

Thanks, Nityanand

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

I have one query on it. You said as follows:

Quote

I find it difficult to accept that गान्धारी who is known for pronouncing a शाप on कृष्ण can be considered as somebody who remembers कृष्ण (सा तं स्मरतीति भावः).

Unquote

How can you say like this about one of the greatest women of all time. She never blessed her own children to win against Dharma as she always wished the Dharma (Righteousness) to win. It was only towards the end of the war when Duryodhana went to take her blessings she wanted to save his life by making him invincible, but never blessed him to  be able to kill Bhima. Her curse to Lord Krishna shows her disappointment at Lord Krishna's not finding a way to avoid the war, as according to her nothing is impossible for the Lord.

In assessing Gandhari we have to remember what she said;

गान्धारी  उवाच :
त्वमे व  माता च पिता त्वमे व
त्वमे व बन्धुश्च सखा त्वमे व /
त्वमे व विद्या द्रविणं त्वमे व
त्वमे व सर्वं मम दे व दे व //                                                                  27

 Gandhari said :

Of  my Lord of Lords, you alone are my mother and you alone are my father,

You alone are my relations, you alone are my friend,

You alone are my knowledge, you alone are my wealth,

You alone are everything  for me.

In mahabharata Vedavyasa says that the Lord could have annulled tyhe curse of gandhari but he willingly allowed to bear fruit and that shows how much respect and love the Lord had for her.

My point is that about nearness to the Lord, please consider Gandhari as not any different from Kunti, if not nearer.

2013/6/17 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:31:29 AM UTC+8, Gitarthi wrote:

Namaste,

I have one query on it. You said as follows:

Quote
I find it difficult to accept that गान्धारी who is known for pronouncing a शाप on कृष्ण can be considered as somebody who remembers कृष्ण (सा तं स्मरतीति भावः).

Unquote

How can you say like this about one of the greatest women of all time. She never blessed her own children to win against Dharma as she always wished the Dharma (Righteousness) to win. It was only towards the end of the war when Duryodhana went to take her blessings she wanted to save his life by making him invincible, but never blessed him to  be able to kill Bhima. Her curse to Lord Krishna shows her disappointment at Lord Krishna's not finding a way to avoid the war, as according to her nothing is impossible for the Lord.

In assessing Gandhari we have to remember what she said;

गान्धारी  उवाच :
त्वमे व  माता च पिता त्वमे व
त्वमे व बन्धुश्च सखा त्वमे व /
त्वमे व विद्या द्रविणं त्वमे व
त्वमे व सर्वं मम दे व दे व //                                                                  27

My point is that about nearness to the Lord, please consider Gandhari as not any different from Kunti, if not nearer.

Well no doubt that Gandhari is one of the inspiring characters of the Mahabharata, who was aware that Krishna is Paramatman himself. However, if at all Gandhari is known for being a devotee, she is known as a devotee of Shiva (Adi Parva of MBh) and not Krishna or Vishnu (unless one uses the argument that Shiva and Vishnu are one). Contrast this with Kunti who desires for the Darshana of Krishna again and again as Vyasa says in Bhagavatam - 

विपदः सन्तु नः शश्वत्तत्र तत्र जगद्गुरो। 

भवतो दर्शनं यत्स्यादपुनर्भवदर्शनम॥ Srimadbhagavatam 1-8-25

The reading Dr. Korada had is different so he may want to clarify his opinion on whether Gandhari can be considered as a devotee of Krishna/Vishnu.

Another issue I have with this interpretation is that if रिपु is taken as Duryodhana, then what Samaasa is to be understood in रिपुगर्भ to mean Gandhari. If it is बहुव्रीहि (रिपुः दुर्योधनः गर्भः पुत्त्रः यस्याः सा) then it should be in feminine gender, whereas रिपुगर्भस्य is masculine/neuter. If it is षष्ठीतत्पुरुष (रिपोः दुर्योधनस्य गर्भः) then which meaning of गर्भ is to be understood to imply mother? This question does not arise if रिपु is taken as water and रिपुगर्भ as लक्ष्मी - there it is षष्ठीतत्पुरुष (रिपोः जलस्य गर्भः) and गर्भ is to be understood as "that which is inside", as लक्ष्मी was born from सागरमथन.

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Dr Misra,

Thanks you for exploring further.  As they say "pushing the envelope".

Incidentally, some of you may know that "shani trre" also has some interesting properties that are associated with "Laxmi" and water. residing inside as garbha,

This tree has unique capability of bringing up the water table.

Water is located as close as 10-15 feet from the tree.,  This information is often used by the "Water Locators" at the time of digging a new well on the farms.

Therefore, cutting a shami tree near an well is always to be discouraged.  Similar properties are also associated with "peepal tree".   Cutting down a peepal tree during urbanization has always resulted in drying of wells.  I often see that our ancestors gave us the clues for our benefit through many illustrations. and it is up to us (the present generation) to discover and use the information (utility principle) for larger benefit of the society.

Best Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

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

Cc: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>; sadasivamurty rani <ranisada...@yahoo.com>; sivas...@gmail.com; subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>; Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Pandav Geeta Shloka

[Ashish Sharma]

Dear Learned Scholars and Guruvars

Pranaam

As per my Gurus order, I am here mentioning how I got this shloka.

2 years back, I read this shloka in 1 book written by Shri Atharvan Satyajeet Dubey and he had used this shloka in some astrological interpretation and also wrote that its from Mahabharata. After an year, Sri PR Ramamurthy had posted this shloka in his forum which our gurus have already and posted here. 

I had a talk with him and he too confirmed that its from Anusmriti from mahabharata. Yesterday i sent a mail to him to get about edition detail and so I am here pasting his reply for you all-

"Dear Sharmaji,

  I had the 14th Edition , (सं० २०४१ चौदह्‍वाँ संस्करण) ( corresponding to Christian Era 1984 AD, I guess). The sloka quoted above appears in 'Anusmriti'  which is one of the five jewels of Mahabharata, the other four being Bhagavadgita,  Vishnu Sahasranama, Bhishma Stavaraja and Gajendra moksha.  The above is the 31st sloka in Anusmriti and it appears on page 171 of 'Pancharatna Gita, 14th Edition"

I hope I have given the details you wanted from me.

With good wishes,

PRR "

Regards

Ashish Sharma

Decrypting of Astrological Texts
OSD to President and Assistant Controller of Examinations of  Indian Council of Astrological Sciences(ICAS)