Big treasure chest of Chitrakavyas

[Jay Dave Zoom]

This attached file is a big treasure chest of Chitrakavya- 20 pages full. One question- Is दाददो or naananao nunnanunnano etc Shlokas example of Yamak? As I understand, Yamak is one word or group of characters used to express different meanings. I had a chance to read Ghatkarpar, and these Sholkas lead in different directions. I would say it is Yamak if दाददो is used twice to express different meaning. On 3/18/2011 11:26 AM, hnbhat B.R. wrote: shvashuragR^ihanivAsaH svargatulyo narANAM yadibhavati dinAni trINi vA pa~nca sapta|| dadhimadhughR^itadhArA kShIrasArapravAhaH taduparidinamEkaM pAdarakShA prayogaH धन्यवादाः। मम धन्यवादमनेन श्लोकेन माघस्थेन प्रकटयामि - दाददो दुद्द्दुद्दादि दादादो दुददीददोः दुद्दादं दददे दुद्दे ददादददोऽददः॥ अनुवाद : दान देने वाले, खलों को उपताप देने वाले, शुद्धि देने वाले, दुष्ट्मर्दक भुजाओं वाले, दानी तथा अदानी दोनों को दान देने वाले, राक्षसों का खण्डन करने वाले ने, शत्रु के विरुद्ध शस्त्र को उठाया-- There are many others who composed yamaka- poetry. Raghava-Pandaviyam, is another one. Bhargavapandaviyam is similar one. There Rama-kRishNa-viloma- kaavya too, which will narrate two stories with the same verses, read in order and reverse. Another feat Ramayana and Bharata story narrated in the same fashion. In Shishupalavadha and Kiratarjuniya, they are limited to the sarga-s describing the yuddha, with different Vyuha, cakrabandha, khadgabandha, etc. Ekakshara, dvyakshara, etc. are different fashions of Yamaka. another of the same type beginning with naananao nunnanunnano etc. I do not remember. The other one I found on the net. and I have pasted the translation available there in the page and not my own. In the sarga-s of the both kavya-s, one can find similar verses. Vasudevavijaya is entirely Yamaka-kaavya. Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. EFEO, PONDICHERRY --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group. To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[hnbhat B.R.]

Thank you for the attachment.

Anyhow I am not interested in Chitrakavya. Somebody would answer your question.

Here is the difference between अनुप्रास and यमक as given by a commentator on the general definition of yamaka:

आवृत्तिमेव वर्णसंघात-गोचरां यमकं विदुः। (काव्यादर्श १.६१a-b)

quoting the definition from साहित्यदर्पण -

सत्यर्थे पृथगर्थायाः स्वरव्यञ्जनसंहतेः।

क्रमेण तेनैवावृत्तिः यमकं तन्निगद्यते॥ (१०.८)

as follows:

‘अनुप्रासे बहूनाम्, क्वचिदेकस्वरसहितस्य व्यञ्जनस्य व्यञ्जनस्यावृत्तिर्भवति, यमके तु स्वरव्यञ्जनसहितानां पूर्वक्रमेणैव आवृत्तिः ’ इत्युभयोर्भेदः।

You may be right in understanding that Yamaka should have a different meaning with the same words.

In श्लेष there need not be repetition of words, but only difference in meaning with or without splitting the same words.

Hope other members will shed light on your question.

-- 

[murthy]

Many thanks for the pdf file containing an overview of Citrakavyas. A very interesting type is the "caturangturangabandha", where over a 8X4 (half of a chess-board) matrix a sloka is written serially, one syllable in a cell and we can read an equally meaningful sloka as per the movement of chess-knight(horse in Indian chess) covering all the 32 cells.

Mathematically it is very interesting and was discovered much later by western mathematicians. Prof. Knuth, the wellknown mathematician and computer theorist has unearthed that the earliest appearance of this is in "haravjaya" circa 9-10 century AD. It appears in Vedanta Desika's Padukasahasra (14th century) too. Prof Knuth has worked out a similar verse in English too except that he uses one word in a cell instead of one syllable. More info could be obtained on web through googling.

Regards

Murthy

[Krishnanand Mankikar]

We may also see

 

cs.annauniv.edu/insight/Reading%20Materials/chhandas/pages/chtrpage.htm

 

for chitrabandhas

 

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Yamaka, as understood in Marathi poetics, is repetition of the last
one or more syllables of lines of a stanza. An example is the
following verse from नलदमयन्ती स्वयंवर of रघुनाथ पण्डित

तया वनी एक तटाग तोये।
तुडुंबले तामरसानपाये।
निरन्तरामन्द मरन्द वाहे।
तपातही यास्तव रिक्त नोहे॥

It was an almost inflexible rule in Marathi poetry, with the earlier
saint-poets as also with the later paNDita-poets, that there could not
be a stanza without yamaka. An amusing example that I can cite is,
with some liberty with good grammar:

बाइ म्या उगवताच रवीला
दाट घालुनि दधी चरवीला
त्यामधे घुसळताच रवीला
सार काढून हरी चरवीला

Even modern poets like Keshavsut and Baalkavi followed this rule in
their creations. Later, Baa SI Mardhekar, who otherwise flouted most
other rules of conventional poetry, both as regards form and content,
was still faithful to the yamaka rule.

In recent days Marathi poetry is generally written in blank verse and
not in the old meters and the yamaka rule is no more obligatory

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 21, 2011.

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

In classical India, poetry and learning, including mastery over
language and vocabulary, were considered inseparable, as the following
verses show:

विद्वत्कवयः कवयः केवलकवयस्तु केवलं कपयः।
कुलजा या सा जाया केवलजाया तु केवलं माया॥

हठादाकृष्टानां कतिपय पदानां रचयिता
जनः स्पर्धालुश्चेदहह कविना वश्यवचसा।
भवेदद्य श्वो वा किमिह बहुधा पापिनि कलौ
घटानां निर्मातुस्त्रिभुवनविधात्राऽपि कलहः॥

The first is clear enough. In the second, please note the word
वश्यवचस्. I think it was for this reason that even accomplished poets
like Bharavi and Maagha had to incorporate chapters devoted to
Chitrakaavya into their work. Even Kaalidasa was tempted, albeit in
a small way, to display his mastery over language in the 9th sarga of
RaghuvaMsha. Following MammaTa, this was one way of putting Kavya to
use in pursuit of Yashas.

The modern view would be that if poetry is subordinated to less
relevant purposes like display of mastery over language, it is a sure
sign of decadence.

Arvind Kolhatkar, March 21, 2011.

[Sunder Hattangadi]

Some interesting spin-offs of 'yamaka'.     Regards,   sunder -------------------------------------------     1] अयुक्पादयमक / अयुक्-पाद-यमक n. = अयुग्म-प् See. Comm. on Bhat2t2. x , 10. [#15354] [Img:85,3] [2] आद्यन्तयमक / आद्य्-अन्त---यमक n. " homophony in the beginning and end of a stanza " , N. of a figure in poetry (occurring in Bhat2t2. x , 21 S3is3. Kir. etc. ) [#24503] [Img:137,1] [3] काञ्चीयमक / काञ्ची--यमक n. a kind of paronomasia or punning , e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 8. [#48922] [Img:269,1] [4] गर्भयमक / गर्भ--यमक n. (in rhet. )a यमक (See. )exhibited in an inserted phrase( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 18 ). [#65852] [Img:350,1] [5] चक्रवाल / चक्र--वाल n. = ल-यमक Bhat2t2. x , 6 Sch. [#72550] [Img:381,2] [6] चक्रवालयमक / चक्र--वाल---यमक n. a kind of artificial stanza (as Bhat2t2. x , 6 ) [#72553] [Img:381,2] [7] पादमध्ययमक / पाद--मध्य-यमक n. paronomasia in the middle of the 4 verses of a stanza (as in Bhat2t2. x , 5 ). [#126985] [Img:617,3] [8] पादयमक / पाद--यमक n. paronomasia within the पाद s or single verses Va1m. [#126993] [Img:617,3] [9] पुष्पयमक / पुष्प--यमक n. a यमक ( s.v. )of the final syllables of all lines of a stanza e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 14. [#132394] [Img:639,3] [10] मध्यान्तयमक / मध्या n. a यमक ( s.v. )in the -mmidland and end of averse( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 17 ) [#163214] [Img:782,1] [11] महायमक / महा--यमक n. a verse in which all four पाद s contain words with exactly the same sounds , but different senses( e.g. Kir. xv , 52 or Bhat2t2. x , 20 ). [#167513] [Img:799,2] [12] मिथुनयमक / मिथुन--यमक n. a partic. kind of यमक ( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 12 ). [#171609] [Img:817,1] [13] यमक mfn. twin , doubled , twofold MBh. [#178150] [Img:846,3] [14] यमक m. a religious obligation or observance(= व्रत ) L. [#178151] [Img:846,3] [15] यमक m. ( scil. स्नेह )two similar greasy substances , oil and ghee Sus3r. [#178152] [Img:846,3] [16] यमक m. or n. restraint , check(= यम ) L. [#178153] [Img:846,3] [17] यमक n. (in med.) a double band or bandage Sus3r. [#178155] [Img:846,3] [18] यमक n. (in rhet. )the repetition in the same stanza of words or syllables similar in sound but different in meaning , paronomasia (of which various kinds are enumerated) Ka1vya7d. Va1m. etc. (See. IW. 457 ) [#178156] [Img:846,3] [19] यमक n. a kind of metre Col. [#178157] [Img:846,3] [20] यमककाव्य / यमक--काव्य n. N. of an artificial poem (ascribed to घट-कर्पर ). [#178158] [Img:846,3] [21] यमकत्व / यमक--त्व n. (in rhet. )the being a यमक Sa1h. [#178159] [Img:846,3] [22] यमकभारत / यमक--भारत n. a summary of the महा-भारत in alliterative verse (by आनन्दतीर्थ ). [#178160] [Img:846,3] [23] यमकरत्नाकर / यमक--रत्ना m. N. of wk. [#178161] [Img:846,3] [24] यमकशिखामणि / यमक--शिखामणि m. N. of wk. [#178162] [Img:846,3] [25] यमकशालवन / यमक--शाल-वन n. N. of a place DivyA7v. [#178163] [Img:846,3] [26] यमकावली / यमका f. an uninterrupted series of यमक s( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 9 ). [#178165] [Img:846,3] [27] विपथयमक / वि-पथ---यमक n. a kind of यमक (See. )in which the paronomasia is only at the beginning and end of the verse( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 16 ) [#206247] [Img:973,3] [28] वृत्तयमक / वृत्त--यमक n. a kind of verse containing a play on words(See. यमक ) MW. [#213506] [Img:1009,3] [29] वृन्तयमक / वृन्त--यमक n. a kind of यमक ( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 13 ). [#213849] [Img:1011,2] [30] वृन्दावनयमक / वृन्दा--वन---यमक n. N. of wk. [#213894] [Img:1011,3] [31] शब्दालंकार / शब्दा m. embellishment of the sound (of a sentence by rhyme. alliteration etc. , as opp. to अर्था-ल् See. ) , a figure of speech depending for its pleasingness on sound or words (such as the यमक and अनुप्रा-स , qq. vv.) [#222368] [Img:1053,3] [32] समुद्गयमक / समुद्ग---यमक n. id. Bhat2t2. Sch. [#245869] [Img:1167,3] [33] सर्वयमक / सर्व--यमक n. congruity in sound of all the 4 पाद s( e.g. Bhat2t2. x , 19 ). [#249233] [Img:1186,3] --- On Mon, 3/21/11, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Vasuvaj .]

Namaste

Kripayaa etat lekhanam pattatu:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/how-europeans-misappropri_b_837376.html

It is not widely known that the European quest to appropriate the highly prized library of Sanskrit's ancient spiritual texts motivated the construction of the "Aryan" race identity, one of the ideological roots of Nazism. The Sanskrit word "arya" is an adjective that means noble or pure. For example, the famous Buddhist Four Noble Truths are described as the Four Arya Truths or catv锟斤拷ri 锟斤拷ryasaty锟斤拷ni in Sanskrit. Arya does not refer to a race, but a cultural quality venerated in Sanskrit texts.

German nationalism turned this word into a noun, "Aryan," and capitalized it to refer to an imagined race of people that were the original Sanskrit speakers who had composed its great texts. Early romantic claims that Indians were the ancestors of the Europeans were gradually replaced by the new myth that a race called "Indo-Aryans" was the common ancestors to both. Their origin was thought to be in the Caucasus Mountains, hence the term "Caucasian." Later, the "Indo" was dropped and the white Aryan Race Theory emerged. Thus, from the European desire to be seen as the inheritors of the Sanskrit civilization, the notion of a European super-race was born, with Germany as its highest manifestation.

How did this come about? In the late 1700s, European identity was shaken when scholars discovered that Sanskrit was closely related to the European languages, though much older and more sophisticated. At first, this discovery fed European Romantic imagination, in which India was glorified as the perfect past. Herder, a German Romanticist, saw Europe's "discovery" of India as a "re-discovery" of its own foundation. India was viewed as Europe's mother civilization by Frederick Schlegel in Germany and by Voltaire in France. William Jones, a British colonial administrator, considered Sanskrit the most marvelous product of the human mind. Sanskrit and Indology entered most major European universities between 1800 and 1850, challenging if not replacing Latin and Greek texts as a source for "new" ideas. Many new disciplines were shaped by the ensuing intellectual activity, including linguistics, comparative religion, modern philosophy and sociology.

With European nations competing among themselves for civilizational legacy, many rival theories emerged regarding the origins of the original Sanskrit speakers and their civilization. German nationalists found in the affinity between Sanskrit and German the possibility of a newly respectable pedigree vis-锟斤拷-vis the French, and claimed the heritage of the treasure trove of Sanskrit literature to bolster their cause. The British interpreted India and Sanskrit in a manner that would strengthen their own role as empire-builders, with India as the jewel in the crown. Because Indians were not participants in European forums, there was widespread plagiarism of Indian texts, as well as much distorted interpretation.

By "becoming" the Aryans, Europeans felt that they were the rightful custodians of the massive corpus of Sanskrit texts that were generating new breakthroughs in the humanities and liberal arts. Germans took their newly adopted Aryan identity to extremes, and most of the influential European thinkers of the time colluded. Their racist theories often had an anti-Semitic dimension, seeking to reconstruct the Bible in Aryan terms. Ernest Renan, a philologist and Hebrew scholar, drew sharp distinctions between Semitic and Aryan languages and peoples. He proposed that though Aryans began as polytheists they were later transformed into Christian monotheists, and that Semitic peoples comprised an entirely different (and inferior) civilization. Adolphe Pictet, a Swiss linguist and ethnographer, was fully committed to the notion of European Aryans who were destined to conquer the world being blessed with "innate beauty" and "gifts of intelligence." He separated Jesus from Judaism, and turned him into the Aryan Christ.

The nascent discipline called "race science" was reinforced by such ideas. Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, a French diplomat, philosopher and historian argued in his hugely influential Essay on the Inequality of Human Races that Adam from the Bible was the "originator of our white species." He wrote of the "superiority of the white type and within that type of the Aryan family." His thesis on India claimed that white Aryans had invaded India and subsequently began to intermarry with the local population. Realizing the danger of intermarriage, the Aryan lawgivers invented the caste system as a means of self-preservation. India was held up as an example of how interbreeding with an inferior race could bring about the decline of a superior one. Hitler's idea of "purifying" the Aryans was born out of this, and it culminated in the Holocaust.

Houston Chamberlain was a British historian whose magnum opus, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (written in German), also projected Aryan-Germans as the most evolved among Aryan races. He introduced Christian, scientific and philosophical arguments to lend credibility and explained the benefits that Christianity would derive by supporting German racism. Anthropologist Kenneth Kennedy concludes of Gobineau and Chamberlain, that they "transformed the Aryan concept, which had its humble origins in philological research conducted by Jones in Calcutta at the end of the eighteenth century, into the politics and racial doctrines of Adolph Hitler's Third Reich."

In 2007, I played a role in a historic milestone when I was invited to address the first Hindu-Jewish Summit. I spoke on the Aryan myth and the suffering that it had inflicted on both religious communities. Contrary to earlier apprehensions of some Hindus that this was a "risky" topic to bring up, the head of the Jewish delegation, Rabbi Rosen, member of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel's Commission for Inter-religious Dialogue, was very impressed. The Jewish delegation decided to appoint a team of scholars to study the issue and the references I had supplied. As a result, at the following year's Summit, a joint declaration was signed, which included the following language from my draft:

"Since there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory of an Aryan invasion/migration into India, and on the contrary, there is compelling evidence to refute it; and since the theory seriously damages the integrity of the Hindu tradition and its connection to India; we call for a serious reconsideration of this theory, and a revision of all educational material on this issue that includes the most recent and reliable scholarship."

Today, the Western mainstream has made special efforts to remove the notion of an Aryan race from the vocabulary and the public psyche. However, as my recently released book, Breaking India, explains, the damage in India has worsened. The Dravidian Race Theory was formulated by British missionaries in the 1800s in parallel with the Aryan theory, and it divides the peoples of India into racial categories of "Aryans" and "Dravidians." Western scholars and institutions continue to support Dravidian racism, which is dependent upon acceptance of the Aryan race construct. In a future blog I will explain how Christian missionaries are now exploiting these dangerous constructs.

[Krishnanand Mankikar]

Thank you for the list.

Detailed ideed.

 

K

--

[Jay]

Bhat Mahodat,
My question came as well responded thread had Yamak in subject line
which I thought was not the Yamak example, but Chitrakavya..

Kolhatkar Mahoday, would this not fall under प्रास, rather than Yamak?

तया वनी एक तटाग तोये।
तुडुंबले तामरसानपाये।
निरन्तरामन्द मरन्द वाहे।
तपातही यास्तव रिक्त नोहे॥

Dhaval,

Your comments, please. Alankars are your domain too.

[Sunder Hattangadi]

Some interesting links to alankara, poetics, dramaturgy:   http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~aam/sanskrit/alankar.html       Regards,   sunder

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Yes, there is अनुप्रास also in this but I used this verse to
demonstrate यमक in Marathi i.e. the use of the same syllable at the
end of lines of couplets or quartets and this, unlike in Sanskrit
verses, is a sine qua non of a Marathi verse.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 22, 2011.

[Vimala Sarma]

Sunder Mahodaya

Those are very good resources for poetics.

I wonder if people know about this site which is something of a gem.– It contains English translations of the major works in Sanskrit literature, together with each verse.

It represents a prodigious amount of work!

http://www.giirvaani.net/

 

Vimala

--

[Sunder Hattangadi]

It is a rare gem indeed. We lost the author to our Heavenly Master only a few months ago.   "Sri Desiraju Hanumanta Rao passed away on 29/10/10..."       Regards,   sunder   --- On Tue, 3/22/11, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

[Padma Kuppa]

Namaste
Has anyone read the new introduction to the original Penguin translation of Bhagavad Gita by Juan Mascaro?

I believe that the new intro by Simon Brodbeck is not in the same tone as the original by Mascaro Living in the West as I do, I find Mascaro's intro to be beautiful, insightful, respectful and  the values of Sanatana Dharma are understood by the author/translator without in any way claiming any kind of western superiority. Mascaro's translation is also very poetic although perhaps not as true to the text as other translations.
Would be happy to know what others think.
Thanks
Padma

--
padmakuppa.blogspot.com

[gaja...@yahoo.com]

I think what you have said is true. Western people they do not understand Dharma. They treat it as other religions. Its not their fault. We are responsible for this. Our lack of interest in representing/following Dharma is the main reason.

Regards

 G Joshi

--

[Sai Susarla]

I see all the ingredients of another flame war. Kripayaa samskrita bhaashaayaam anuvartayantu.
- Sai.

[Naresh Cuntoor]

I agree with Sai Susarla. I have rejected some posts that veer too much from the Samskritam-centric focus of the list. I am not going to suggest a blanket ban on AIT-related discussion, but let us keep the list objectives in mind before replying to this discussion.  For the moment, I will approve - on a case-by-case basis, some posts that are informative (e.g., mentioning related books).

Further, if you feel strongly that some words like dharma do not have English equivalents, then I invite you to write an article in Samskritam to convince the readers.

I would also like to mention that some regular posters on the list are not moderated. As regular participants in discussions, I trust you to make the call whether a post is keeping within the scope of the list or not.

Thanks for your understanding,

Naresh

[Jaideep Joshi]

Namaste!

I have been silent on this so far, but since lot of scholars have shared their thoughts, I feel I should now pitch in.

Since Indian scholars have so far stuck to a certain line of thinking, they have not been able to produce concrete arguments against the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT). They mainly argue for the Sanskrit Origin Hypothesis, which cannot be so easily proven and receives counter-arguements also, and hence fail utterly in academic circles. And even when their arguements are good, (like the arguments based on archaeological findings) they do not care to account for other facts. This lack of a holistic approach has led to an eternal war between linguists and archaeologists!

And when arguements fail, they start shouting about the vested motives of the Europeans behind the AIT (and the western scholars do the same in case of OIT, by the way.) Even if that may be true to some extent, such shouting will never win the debate for them. It is necessary to come up with solid arguements against the AIT and in support of Out of India Theory (OIT). These arguements will have to show not only that the AIT scenario does not explain the facts, but also that the OIT scenario explains all the facts.

I came across the books by Sri Srikant Talageri on this topic. In all the material I have read so far, I have found his arguements to be most logical. The following are his salient points:
1) Internal chronology of Rigveda is established based on the composers of hymns. (i.e. hymns composed by descendants are later that those composed by ancestors)
2) The chronological picture clearly shows an east to west expansion
3) He argues for an Indian Homeland for IE languages (and of course, also for Vedas), (but not for the Sanskrit Origin Hypothesis), and is able to explain all the similarities between the IE languages (which AIT arguements cannot), and he also shows that the arguments in favour of AIT do not actually support the AIT at all!
4) He uses the textual, linguistic, archaeological evidence from Rigveda and Avesta.
5) He identifies the Vedic Aryans and the Iranians, and demostrates how the common culture developed

Rather than playing the blame game, let us actually discuss the various arguments, placed from both sides, if the scope of this forum allows so.

His 2nd book can be found here: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/ (published in 2000)
There is a 3rd book also, which is even more rigorous! (Rigveda and Avesta: the Final Evidence - published 2008)
I request you all to go through it once. It is definitely a scholarly work.

PS: I verified his interpretations with Sayana Bhasya. They agree in most places. But even when they dont, it is on minor points which dont affect the big picture.

Regards,
Jaideep

[Sai Susarla]

Aryavaideshya siddhAntah asmin kUTe aprastutah, yadi Angle charchitah
Atah yadi sAmarthyamasti tarhi samskrite Eva bhavataam abhiprAyAn vyakiikurvantu, no Chet mounam tiShtantu, anyatra nayantu iti prArthaye
- Sai.

On Mar 25, 2011 6:07 PM, "Jaideep Joshi" <jaide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste!
>
> I have been silent on this so far, but since lot of scholars have shared
> their thoughts, I feel I should now pitch in.
>
> Since Indian scholars have so far stuck to a certain line of thinking, they
> have not been able to produce concrete arguments against the Aryan Invasion
> theory (AIT). They mainly argue for the Sanskrit Origin Hypothesis, which
> cannot be so easily proven and receives counter-arguements also, and hence
> fail utterly in academic circles. And even when their arguements are good,
> (like the arguments based on archaeological findings) they do not care to
> account for other facts. This lack of a holistic approach has led to an
> eternal war between linguists and archaeologists!
>
> And when arguements fail, they start shouting about the vested motives of
> the Europeans behind the AIT (and the western scholars do the same in case
> of OIT, by the way.) Even if that may be true to some extent, such shouting
> will never win the debate for them. It is necessary to come up with solid
> arguements against the AIT and in support of Out of India Theory (OIT).
> These arguements will have to show not only that the AIT scenario does not

> explain the facts, but also that the OIT scenario explains *all *the facts.

>
> I came across the books by Sri Srikant Talageri on this topic. In all the
> material I have read so far, I have found his arguements to be most logical.
> The following are his salient points:
> 1) Internal chronology of Rigveda is established based on the composers of
> hymns. (i.e. hymns composed by descendants are later that those composed by
> ancestors)
> 2) The chronological picture clearly shows an east to west expansion
> 3) He argues for an Indian Homeland for IE languages (and of course, also
> for Vedas), (but not for the Sanskrit Origin Hypothesis), and is able to

> explain *all* the similarities between the IE languages (which AIT

> arguements cannot), and he also shows that the arguments in favour of AIT do
> not actually support the AIT at all!
> 4) He uses the textual, linguistic, archaeological evidence from Rigveda and
> Avesta.
> 5) He identifies the Vedic Aryans and the Iranians, and demostrates how the
> common culture developed

> *

> Rather than playing the blame game, let us actually discuss the various

> arguments, placed from both sides, if the scope of this forum allows so.*

>
> His 2nd book can be found here:

> http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/(published in 2000)

> There is a 3rd book also, which is even more rigorous! (Rigveda and Avesta:
> the Final Evidence - published 2008)
> I request you all to go through it once. It is definitely a scholarly work.
>
> PS: I verified his interpretations with Sayana Bhasya. They agree in most
> places. But even when they dont, it is on minor points which dont affect the
> big picture.
>
> Regards,
> Jaideep
>

[Naresh Cuntoor]

नमस्ते,

अत्र सर्वथा अप्रासङ्गिकोयं सिद्धान्तः इत्यत्र मम सहमतिर् नास्ति | यतः, मौल्यादीनां विषये संस्कृतवाङ्मये वेदप्रभृतिषु किमुच्यते इतीयं जिज्ञासा भवति । स खलु अत्रान्वेति ।

संस्कृतेनैव व्यवह्रियताम् इत्येव अस्माकम् आकूतिश्चेत्, सः नियमः सर्वदा परिपालनीयः खलु | यतो हि यदृच्छया कल्पिता नियमाः अस्थाने | (संस्कृतेनैव लिख्यताम् इति वदामः चेत्, अनेकेषाम् सहभागः नाशम् एष्यति इति जानीमः एव) |

अथ जनाः सुविचार्य लिखन्ति चेत्, अथवा इदं पुस्तकं दृश्यताम् इति ज्ञापयन्ति चेत्, किञ्चित् अवकाशः भवेत् इति मम मतिर् कथयति....

यथा, तलगेरि पुस्तकस्य विषये यत् कथितं, तत् संस्कृत-सम्बद्धम् एव खलु |

मध्ये मध्ये एतादृश्यः चर्चाः भवन्ति चेत् न कापि हानिः इति मन्ये |

सम्प्रति विमानं सिद्धप्रायमिति शंसन्ति । साधयामि तावत् ।


Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com

[hnbhat B.R.]

साधु भोः नरेशमहोदयाः,

संस्कृतं वा संस्कृतेतरद् वा लेखनं भवतु, तावता तस्य विचारस्य मौल्यमापनं तु नैवोचितमिति कालिदासमतमानिनामस्माकमपि मतमेव, यत् तेनैव कविकुलगुरुणा सन्दिष्टमेव ---

पुराणमित्येव न साधु सर्वम्, न चापि काव्यं नवमित्यवद्यम्।

सन्तः परीक्ष्यान्यतरद् भजन्ते ...................................॥

इति। प्रस्तुतस्य विचारस्य मूल्यांकनं विना, संस्कृतं नास्ति, इत्यादयो हेत्वाभासाः सतां न शोभते इति हृदयम्। सर्वथा परीक्षापरत्वमेव संस्कृतहृदयानां सहृदयानां हृदयम्, भाषा या कापि वा भवत्। यदि मया, संस्कृतत्वावच्छिन्नसंस्कृतकार्यतानिरुपितकारणत्वावच्छिन्नलेखनत्वावच्छिन्नलेखनकर्मतानिरूपितकर्तृत्त्वावच्छिन्नकर्तृतानिरूपितकार्यताश्रयेण भूयते, तर्हि कतिभिर्ज्ञातुं शक्यं स्यादिति मे शंका। संस्कृतेनैव लिख्यन्ते वादाः, अतिव्याप्त्यव्याप्त्यावृत्त्यादिदोषत्रयरहित पूर्वपक्षोत्तरपक्षनिरूपणकक्षीकारक्षयक्षीणं विना।

तत्रापि, न हि सर्वः सर्वं जानाति। मादृशाः किंचिद् जानन्ति, भवादृशाः किंचिद् जानन्ति। परस्परं भावयन्तः श्रेयः परमाप्स्याम। तथापि,

गुणदोषौ बुधो गृह्णन् इन्दुक्षेडाविवेश्वरः।

शिरसा श्लाघते पूर्वं परं कण्ठे नियच्छाति॥

इति सुधियां पन्थाः।

[Sai Susarla]

bhaTTa mahodaya,
'eShaH-vichaaraH eva pariikShaNiiyaH, saH na' ityaadi mayaa noktam | vastutaH, vasuvaj mahodayena preShitaH sandeshaH asmin kUTe sambaddha aasiit ityeva manye | mama upasthaapanam kevalam 'charchaa shiighram samskritetara-viShayam prati (indology etc.) gacChet, yo.asmaakam kUTasya viShayaH na' ityeva | mAdRishaaH janaaH atra samskrita bhAShA sambaddha-viShayaan charchitum aagataaH, Angla bhAShaayaam indology na | indology kR^ite anyaaH kuTaaH santi |

bhavatu naama | evam na chintayanti chet, mama kaa haaniH | And I trust Naresha's judgement.

tiShThaami taavat,
- Sai.

2011/3/26 hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[venugopal gudimetla]

I apologize I misquoted the web link to the forum earlier in the day, it should be www.india-forum.com .

Regards,

Venugopal Gudimetla

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Learned Sirs,

Burden of proving AIT is wrong is as much a burden to the AIT nay-sayers as it to prove that it is correct for AIT believers. I doubt the validity of discussing AIT here in this Sanskritam forum. The reason is basically linguistics is an inexact science, may be an art more or less, not science, what ever argument one can give as to why Sanskrit is not an Indian language but has roots in Romania or Iran or what ever Central Asian country, another set of arguments can be given based on similarities between all the Indian languages and Sanskrit etc. So these arguments based on languages don't lead anywhere.

AIT is history related question, it is a question of culture, it is a question of genetics, it is a question of archeological findings etc, more than a question of linguistics. It is very difficult to answer AIT based on time lines of flux of a language from one region to another as such dates are more suggestive than concrete, that one can have confidence in using language as a tool to answer AIT.

If one agrees with my above statement, then why discuss here? sure you can discuss how Sanskritam has affected other languages, or even European languages..but discussing AIT through the lens of sanskrit or any other language is like using knife to cut a diamond. If one is so interested in AIT, kindly refer to india-forums.com where the discussion on AIT is discussed to death.

It is my humble view that any discussion here on AIT is going to be OT (off topic) for the reason what one has to bring in archeological, genetic, history, geographical, spacial mapping  topics into picture, but since this is a dedicated Sanskitam thread...I don't know if the moderator would allow it. Please take it for what it is worth.

Regards,

Venugopal Gudimetla

--