Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

[Subrahmanian R]

Sirs,

 

 

The अमरकोश under 'Vishnu' lists 39 names, which include कंसारि, देवकीनन्दन: कृष्ण; वासुदेव: epithets of Krishna. Why no name of Rama - दासरथि is found in the Amarakosa.

 

Yours

R Subrahmanian

[Sethu Ramachandran]

Apparently the names you mentioned connote the same avathar, while Dasarathi connotes another avthar.
This,according to me,seems to be the reason.
Sethu.R

--
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.

[Prathibha Sharangapani]

नमस्ते , I am new to this group and love it! I have wanted to learn Samskritam from my childhood, especially spoken samskritam. This group is doing a great job!

Is there a e-version of अमरकोश available? Please let me know.

धन्यवादः
प्रतिभा

--

[murthy]

The observation of Subrahmanianji is revealing. Even In Vishnusahasranaamam, epithets of Rama are largely missing.

Does it indicate that Rama joined the pantheon later? I have read elsewhere that Krishna's temples are much older than those of Rama.

Regards

Murthy

--

[DEV RAJ]

>The अमरकोश under 'Vishnu' lists 39 names, which include कंसारि, देवकीनन्दन:
>कृष्ण; वासुदेव: epithets of Krishna. Why no name of Rama - दासरथि is found
>in the Amarakosa.

कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयं (भाग-1।3।28)

dev

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:01 AM, DEV RAJ <rde...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The अमरकोश under 'Vishnu' lists 39 names, which include कंसारि, देवकीनन्दन:
>कृष्ण; वासुदेव: epithets of Krishna. Why no name of Rama - दासरथि is found
>in the Amarakosa.

Very interesting. Rama came to be considered as incarnation at the time of the concept of दशावतार much later than Amarakosha, probably. Hence not deified at the time of Amarasimha in the lexicons. 

None of the names of other epic Mahabharata also do not appear in it.  A notable point. While the Buddha and Jina epithets lead the way to wide discussions as in an earlier thread. Nor Matsya, kUrma, varAha, vAmana, etc. are also the incarnations among the ten incarnations, not included in the Amara lexicon. Krishna cult might be older than other Vaishnava cults based on पाञ्चरात्र आगम-s.

 

 

-- 

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

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Several digital versions of Amarakosha. plain, with Sanskrit
commentaries or with English translation, are available on sites like
sanskritdocuments.org and archive.org. You can pick your choice.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 27, 2011.

On Dec 26, 1:07 pm, Prathibha Sharangapani

[Nityanand Misra]

What do other lexicographers give as synonyms of विष्णु? I mean मेदिनीकोश, धनञ्जयकोश, हलायुधकोश et cetera? Interestingly, most of these synonyms of Vishnu given by Amarasimha are also the names of Rama in the Ramastavarajastotra which is a form of Sanatkumara Samhita. Names like विष्णु, कृष्ण, विधु, ईशान, नारायण, वासुदेव, माधव, are to be found here. Several names are found in श्रीरामरक्षास्तोत्र as well which is ascribed to विश्वामित्र. As somebody pointed out, other अवतारs are not referred to as well.

Also, some names can be explained in multiple ways like माधव. It can be either explained as मायाः लक्ष्म्याः धवः पतिः इति माधवः to mean विष्णु, or it can be explained as मधोर्भवः मधुः चैत्रमासः तस्मिन् जातः आविर्भूतः इति माधवः to mean राम.

--
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.

--
Nityānanda Miśra
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
     - Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda

[Nityanand Misra]

Typo, that should read "which is a part of Sanatkumara Samhita".

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dr Bhat says: <Very interesting. Rama came to be considered as

incarnation at the time of
the concept of दशावतार much later than Amarakosha, probably. Hence
not
deified at the time of Amarasimha in the lexicons. >

I notice that while Amarakosha devotes much attention to Krishna -
several variations of Vishnu are names derived from episodes of
Krishna's life, his conch and bow have a verse each, Balarama has two
verses and Aniruddha has a verse to himself, all these in the
Svargavarga - Rama, RavaNa, Seeta, Hanuman etc are not even
mentioned. Buddha and Jina to find a mention in Svargavarga. Yet the
concept of Dashavatar is absent.

What is the period of the creation of the Dashavatar concept? It does
not seem older than Amarasinha, who has been ascribed to the 4th
century. (Please see the Introduction by K.G.Oka in his edition of
Amarakosha with the commentary by Kshiraswamin.) Would it mean that
the story of Dashavatar was created after the 4th century? Garuda
Purana mentions 22 avatars. These include Dashavatars including Rama
but excluding Buddha. Jayadeva (12 century) has the famous Dashavatar
Ashtapadi.

Can someone throw light upon the origin of the concept of Dashavatar
or give pointers to it?

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 27. 2011.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The deification of  seems to be deep rooted by the time of this anonymous verse was composed:

वेदवेद्ये परे पुंसि जाते दशरथात्मजे।

वेदः प्राचेतसादासीत् साक्षाद् रामायणात्मना॥

(attributed to अगस्त्यसंहिता) 

glorifying रामायण the classical composition only next to वेद-s as it is claimed by many poets and honored with the title आदिकाव्य.

 

The  work  दशावतारचरित of क्षेमेन्द्र however,   has  great   importance as it contains the  earliest  known  reference  to the  Buddha being considered as  an  incarnation of विष्णु and  the   narration 

of  the Buddha's life is an  abridgment of the  story  as told  in Buddhist works.  The style shows maturity of conception, and is easy and flowing.  The  work  was finished  in  the  Laukika  era  41 i.e.  1066

A.D.  on  the Tripurea Mountain."

The Kshemendra Studies - Suryakanta.

It  may  be the  first known  work to present  the ten  incarnations in the 

exact  order  in which they arc  enumerated in the  49th  verse of the Vishnupadadikesastotra of Sri Shankara. 

Anyhow  the concept of Dasavatara is to some extent discussed in Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashavatara

Here is a book on personal deity:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

in Google Books.

[Subrahmanian R]

Themes from Ramayana have been used and elaborated by Poet Bhasa (variously estimated between 1st and 4th Century AD) in Pratimanataka and by Kavi Kalidasa [age probably 4th to 6th Century AD] in his famous Raghuvamsa. It is possible that Amarakosa preceded these. Though the Ramayana incident is much older than the Mahabharata event, it appears that Ramayana is later to Mahabharata or at least, Ramayana became popular after popularity of Mahabharata.

 

While Adi Sankara wrote commentaries on Bhagavadgita, Vishnu Sahasranama and Sanatsujatiya - all from Mahabharata, he has not composed any commentary for any portion of Valmiki Ramayana [like the Aditya hridayam - Agastya's advice to Lord Rama]

 

R Subrahmanian

[Ram Kumar Krishnan ராம குமரன்]

In vishnu sahasranama itself, we have a verse which tells that saying Rama nama is equivalent to saying Vishnu sahasranama. There are stories from mahabaratha which reminds us of ramayana like bheema meeting hanuman and hanuman being in the flag of arjuna's chariot

2011/12/27 Subrahmanian R <subrah...@gmail.com>

[Aditya B.S.A]

नमो नमः

अहं एतस्यां गोष्ट्यां नूतनः सदस्य: अस्मि। अत्र प्रचलतां विषयाणां विचारः चर्चा च आयताभ्यां नेत्राभ्यां प्रतिदिनं मया दृश्यते। अत्रत्येषु सदस्येषु यत् परस्परादरत्वमिश्रितपाण्डित्यं दृष्टं, तत् बहुप्रेरणाजनकाय   इति प्रतिभाति। 

संस्कृतबालः अपि स्वात्मानं कथयितुं अशक्यः अहं अत्र एकं अनुरोधं कर्तुं इच्छामि, यत् 'purely academic' विचारेषु मध्ये अपि एका युक्ता विषयप्रस्तावनशैली अस्माभि: अवलोकनीया, यया विषयादरत्वं त्रायते। 

पूर्वस्मिन् लेखने यानि प्रश्नानि प्रुष्टानि तेषां यद्यपि योग्याः विषयाः तथापि किञ्चिद्वा अयुक्तं दृष्टं मया। 

<What is the period of the creation of the Dashavatar concept?>

At the risk of sounding too touchy or holier-than-thou, I feel that a little bit of tact would go a long way when we're dealing with issues of deep religious significance. 

Trust me, I'm very keen to know more about when Dashavatara might have gained prominence, but in this world of corporate concepts that are created in a few hours, 'Dashavataram concept creation' seems to me slightly peremptory. 

Also, maybe, a tad unfair to the तपोबलं of our seers. 

It's a tough spot for me to be in, because I totally appreciate an unmitigated playing field, but sometimes, you gotta be the party-pooper to make yourself heard. 

वचनदोषा: क्षन्तव्याः,

A fan of Lord Rama, 

Aditya. 

ps - I'm eagerly anticipating more info in this post :)

[Vimala Sarma]

Aditya Mahodayta

This is an OK way of phrasing things.  Dasavatharam was an idea which must originated at sometime. If the corporate world has taken over some phrases, i can’t be helped but I am sure no disrespect was intended.

Bhat Ji suggested this book – there is much information and facts here..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vimala

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Aditya Mahodayta

This is an OK way of phrasing things.  Dasavatharam was an idea which must originated at sometime. If the corporate world has taken over some phrases, i can’t be helped but I am sure no disrespect was intended.

Bhat Ji suggested this book – there is much information and facts here..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vimala

The same tone. If we consider history in BC or AC it would not be compatible with the Belief and Faith in our religious literature, created by Brahma, along with Veda-s AND PurANa-s which project the avatara-s of personal deities we worship. One cannot sail in two boats at a time. Either follow a chronology acceptable to the "corporate" world or to the Vedic Literature and Shastra-s in terms of yuga, manvantara, etc. or follow the faith in them being created by God. All could not be followed with equal footing in the three steams at a time and blame others for pointing out one or the other way of thinking.

This much only can be said in reply to Adithya's objection or remark. Anyway this doesn't have any bearing with the original query unless a formidable position is accepted. It is still unexplained why the name was omitted. 

[Aditya B.S.A]

नमो नम:

I thank you all for giving me the opportunity to explore your claims and my position further. 

<this doesn't have any bearing with the original query...>

Reply to original query: In the Vishnu-Sahasranamam, names 391 to 421 (parardhih to parigrah) are Lord Rama's attributes. 

A question may arise regarding the fact that most of these names are yougika, and need not necessarily connote Rama. There is plenty of material to explain how they connote this  very avatar of Vishnu, viz. Dasaratha's son, Rama. 

As to why Krishna's names find precedence, I think it would be rather obvious, given that the Vishnu Sahasranama was delivered by Bhishma, in the presence of Krishna and the Pandavas. 

<...unless a formidable position is accepted>

I believe I have stated my formidable position now. I am capable of providing the details to one who is willing to explore it. I respect differing views, while being firm in my understanding. 

I maintain very clearly that one cannot reasonably consider the Dasavataram a 'created concept,'  especially from an epistemological point of view, as it is incapable of being justified as such. 

<It is still unexplained why the name was omitted. > 

It is very clearly explained that the name was not omitted. If anyone choose to assume differently, I have no qualms about it. 

Regards,

Aditya. 

[Aditya B.S.A]

Quick addendum:

Original query was about Amarakosha. I took the original query to mean Mr. Murthy's post, where he mentioned that Rama's epithets were largely missing from Vishnu Sahasranamam. 

Apologies to Dr. Bhat for misconstruing his statement as referring to Mr. Murthy's post.

Regards. 

[Nityanand Misra]

Ram Kumar Krishnan Ji

The verse which says one utterance of the name राम is equivalent to chanting the विष्णुसहस्रनाम is in the श्रीरामरक्षास्तोत्र and not the विष्णुसहस्रनाम. The verse is the last verse and goes thus (Shiva precepting Parvati - )

राम रामेति रामेति रमे रामे मनोरमे |
सहस्रनामतत्तुल्यं रामनाम वरानने ||

O the one with a beautiful face (वरानने). I regale (रमे) in the enchanting (मनोरमे) Rama (रामे) [by repeating] - Rama, Rama, Rama, thus (राम रामेति रामेति). The name of Rama (रामनाम) is equivalent to the Sahasranama (सहस्रनामतत्तुल्यं).

Some renditions have सहस्रनामतातुल्यं instead of सहस्रनामतत्तुल्यं.

[murthy]

Dear Sri. Aditya,

It is a matter of regret that views of some of us has caused you discomfort. I believe this is a forum with broad shoulders that can suffer errors and divergence of views over a broad spectrum.

As to Vishnusahasranamam, I am aware of the interpretations of Shankara and Parasharabhatta and the divergence between them. You have rightly pointed out that the names interpreted as relating to Ramavatara have broad meanings. Quite clearly, in the manner in which episodes of Krishnavatara find a place in VSN, episodes of Ramavatara do not. Your observation that Bhishma was influenced by Krishna's presence is interesting. What we have in VSN is how Vyasa conveys in his words to one and all what Bhishma is supposed to have spoken.

Warm regards

Murthy

----- Original Message -----

From: Aditya B.S.A

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:34 PM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear PanDitAs

The rAmayana was written over a period starting from about 500 BCE.  The basic  story existed in song form before this time and was sung by the bards before it was written.  It was about a king and a hero but not about a deity.  It was written as the first epic and the Mahabharatha was written later.  The latter  contained stories in which kRSNa was ambiguously depicted – both as a man and as a deity (example in the gItA).  The Harivamsa, written as an appendix to MB, unequivocally made kriSHNa a deity with avathAras.  Date for this is not clear, but could be early in the first millennium.  At this time rAma was still considered a man.  When  idea of the avataras were first developed (perhaps from the Jaina tIrthankas), these avataras perhaps did not include either rAma or Buddha in the early stages.  Rama was deified in the middle ages and became one of ViSNu’s  avatAras.  Parts of the Ramayana were changed or added to, reflecting  this change in status. I think the first scheme to take kRSNa out (making him identical with ViSNu) and listing Buddha was in Jayadeva’s song.

Happy New year

Vimala

 

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Aditya B.S.A
Sent: Thursday, 29 December 2011 8:15 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

 

Quick addendum:

[Nityanand Misra]

Vimala Ji

What you have mentioned below is only an opinion of some people and not necessarily true - it may have a lot of appeal to the rationalists and their ilk but it has no proof. To me this opinion is nothing but conjecture (in the language of non-believers) and मोह (in the language of believers). How can anybody possibly date an oral tradition like Vedas and Ramayana? There is no proof that Rama was deified later, or that Ramayana was written over several hundreds of years. There is no proof of the converse as well - no proof that Rama was deified in the Ramayana or that it was written by one person. In statistics, in absence of any significant evidence, ones conclusion is to not reject one's null hypothesis (or initial belief). The rationalists have a different null hypothesis, while the believers have a different one. That's the only difference.

The concept of अवतार is noteworthy. The word means descension, when a deity descends to take a human form. If you believe in the concept (in other words, if your null hypothesis is that Avatara exists), then in the रामायण, the अवतार of श्रीराम is called नरहरि - He is both नर and हरि at the same time - poets like Valmiki (रामायण), Bhatti (भट्टिकाव्य) and Kalidasa (रघुवंश) focussed more on the नर part while poets like Vishwamitra (श्रीरामरक्षास्तोत्र), Agastya (अगस्त्यसंहिता), Vyasa (अध्यात्मरामायण), Sanatkumara (श्रीरामस्तवराजस्तोत्र), Kamban and Tulsidas focussed more on the हरि aspect. Some of these works are much older than middle ages). Even despite its focus on Rama as the human, there are numerous places in Ramayana where Valmiki directly or indirectly says that Rama is the complete Brahman.

Meanwhile, the अवतारत्व or Avatarhood of Rama has been doubted by many characters in Ramayana itself which include Sati, Garuda, Jayanta (son of Indra), Ravana, et cetera, and has been doubted by many modern people like Kabir, Dayanand Saraswati, et cetera. But the doubts have been contradicted repeatedly by the likes of Ramanuja, Tulsidas, Jwalaprasad Mishra et cetera. The debate continues to this date, so what you have below is only one side of the argument.

Regarding Krishna and Rama, both Sampradayas have existed for a long time and its incorrect to say that Krishna worship precedes Rama worship.

[murthy]

Dear Vimalaji,

Much of what you have written about the origin of Ramayan is all conjecture and theorizing, which most would have read about. Internal evidences in Raamayan definitely point out that at the time the poet lived civilization was quite advanced and there were many kingdoms and cities whose dates can be fixed otherwise fairly accurately. Excepting Uttara Ramayan, bulk of the other six cantos would have been composed by one poet.

Jayadeva lived around 12th century. By that time dasavatara concept had crystallized. Bhagavata which was earlier refers to Buddha too. Trivikrama avatar is of Vedic origin. Alwars of South India sang about Krishna and Rama around 8th-9th century.Kshemendra who was much earlier to Jayadeva refers to Dasavatara including Buddha. In fact he has composed a kavya on the theme.

Wish you a Very Happy New Year.

आशास्महे नूतनहायनागमे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु जनाः सुशान्ताः ।

निरामयाः क्षोभविवर्जितास्सदा मुदा रमन्तां भगवत्कृपाश्रयाः ॥

Regards

Murthy

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Murthy Mahodaya and Misra Mahodaya

Thank you both for your inputs to this thread.

I am just giving a chronological and historical explanation as to why rAma’s name and epithets do not occur as synonyms for Vishnu in Amarakosa.  This is not to be interpreted as whether  I personally believe in the rAma avatar or not.

I agree that in the absence of firm dates we have to go by internal evidence.

rAma story is told in brief in the MB, but not vice versa,  and Hanuman is referred to also - as in the story of the flower garden where Arjuna meets him (both sons of vAyu) and he on the flag of Arjuna’s chariot etc.  So one can assume rAmAyaNa  came first.

The is much evidence also for thinking that the story of rAma was originally a secular story and even at the time of kAlidAsa, it must have been secular because the raghuvamsa by K is also written as a secular story.

Anyway the fact of the epics being written at a set date by either one person or more does not detract from its significance for Hindus living at the present time.

Best wishes

[Subrahmanian R]

Dear All,

 

Al Biruni in his travelogue written in the 11th Century about India - mentions Rama. There are several references to Krishna/ vasudeva, Mathura. Mahabharata, Harivamsa and 18 Puranas [including Vishnu Purana] are mentioned but there is no mention of Ramayana nor of Bhagavata. Among the festivals Janmashtami is mentioned [though not by that name], reference to Bali Pratipada as Diboli but not of Naraka chaturdasi, nor Deepavali the day of return of Vicotorious Rama.

 

There is no doubt that Ramayana and Rama worship were there prior to Al Biruni. Perhaps it was not as popular as Krishna to attract his attention.

 

Namaskaram

R Subrahmanian

[Vimala Sarma]

I must add that the trivikrama Vishnu in the Vedas is not the vAmana avatar. It is a description of the vedic Vishnu  - ie “Vishnu of the three strides”.  He is thought to stride across the heavens as a sun deity.

Vimala

[Viswanath B]

Both amara-singha and kalidasa are part of the navratnas, in Vikramaditya's court. Kalidasa writes a big epic on rama's dynasty [where rama is shown as Vishnu's avatar, canto 10, shloka 44]. It clearly shows Rama is worshipped at that time.

So it makes no sense to say amara-singha doesn't know about rama, or doesn't find it useful to put in his work.

May be there must be some other thing that we are missing [ as to why rama is not mentioned in amara-kosha], may be there are prakshipta's, may be there are some lost parts ....i am just speculating...

Viswanath

[murthy]

The traditional story of navaratna's is largely not accepted. We cannot take that as a base for any further coclusions.

[Nityanand Misra]

Vimala Ji

First of all it the Ramayana is not a "story" - calling it so would be trivializing it. It is not for nothing that the Ramayana and Mahabharata are called इतिहास (इति ह आस - thus definitely happened) to distinguish them from Puranas.

Secondly, Valmiki's Ramayana is not a simplistic work that one can understand with Apte, Monier-Williams and Google Translate. The very first shloka by Valmiki मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां has been subject of centuries of thoughts and commentaries - what to talk about the गूढार्थ of the 24,000 verses! Vyasa and Tulsidas, et cetera, were not con-men to state that their works the अध्यात्मरामायण and रामचरितमानस were based Valmiki's work and still have Rama depicted as Brahman and episodes of Maya Sita, Kevata, et cetera revealed.

Thirdly and finally, the Ramayana is secular only for the secularists and eminent historians on whom Sh. Arun Shourie has written in much detail in a book so I would not delve into that. For a neutral observer, there is tomes of evidence to show that the Rama of Valmiki Ramayana is the same as the औपनिषद ब्रह्म. Below are just some verses from Valmiki Ramayana (all references from Gita Press edition ) - I could find many more but then again अति सर्वत्र वर्जयेत् 

१) व्यक्तमेष महायोगी परमात्मा सनातनः ।
    अनादिमध्यनिधनो महतः परमो महान्  ॥ ६-१११-११ ॥
    Valmiki is no MBA to use hot-air words just like that, when he uses them he means them. It is not for nothing that he calls Rama as परमात्मा.

२) सूर्यस्यापि भवेत्सूर्योह्यग्नेरग्निः प्रभोः प्रभोः ।
   श्रियश्च श्रीर्भवेदग्र्या कीर्त्याः क्षमाक्षमा ॥ २-४४-१५ ॥
   दैवतम् दैवतानाम् च भूतानाम् भूतसत्तमः ।
   तस्य केह्यगुणा देवि वने वाप्यथवा पुरे ॥ २-४४-१६ ॥
Rama is the Surya for even the Surya, the God for the Gods, .... and so on.

३) The whole canto 117 of Yuddha Kanda is the glorious divinity of Rama, revealed at the end of the मूलरामायण (six cantos). It has many important Sutras like जगत्सर्वं शरीरं ते which echo the औपनिषद proclamations in बृहदारण्यक like यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं, यस्यापः शरीरं, यस्यान्तरिक्षः शरीरं, यस्य वायुः शरीरं and which form the basis of विशिष्टाद्वैत which considers the entire universe to be an embodiment of Brahman.

So what do you call such verses Vimala Ji? Valmiki's figment of imagination? Coincidence? Interpolation by Manuwadis?

The proof is right there if one wants to see it, but if one's eyeglasses are tinted with secularism then everything will appear secular. For the आस्तिक, no proof is required and for the नास्तिक, no proof is sufficient.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

Again that is one side of the debate. The Arya Samajis too deny any अवतारवाद (and भक्ति) in Vedas. Adi Shankara said Bhakti is अनुपलब्ध (note the difference from अविद्यमान).

The प्रतिपक्ष is that अवतारवाद and भक्ति is present in all four Vedas and the Vishnu of the Vedas is the same as the Vishnu of the Puranas. For a detailed view of this position, please refer the work दयानन्दतिमिरभास्करः by ज्वालाप्रसादमिश्र in the 19th century - it is available on Archive.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Incomplete sentence: I meant "Adi Shankara said Bhakti is अनुपलब्ध (note the difference from अविद्यमान) in the Vedas, but Ramanuja, Madhwa and Vallabha trace it to the Vedas themselves."

[Vimala Sarma]

Niyananda Mahodaya

So what do you call such verses Vimala Ji? Valmiki's figment of imagination? Coincidence? Interpolation by Manuwadis?

See my earlier post:

Parts of the Ramayana were changed or added to, reflecting  this change in status.

 

I am not saying that Ramayana is now a secular work – I am saying that it was when it was first written.

I have no more to say on this subject.  You are entitled to you views

 

Vimala

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Niyananda Mahodaya

So what do you call such verses Vimala Ji? Valmiki's figment of imagination? Coincidence? Interpolation by Manuwadis?

See my earlier post:

Parts of the Ramayana were changed or added to, reflecting  this change in status.

 

I am not saying that Ramayana is now a secular work – I am saying that it was when it was first written.

I have no more to say on this subject.  You are entitled to you views

 

Vimala

 

If these verses in introduction to Ramayana are considered as part of the original Balakanda written by Valmiki, Mm. could be correct:

तपःस्वाध्यायनिरतं तपस्वी वाग्विदां वरम् । 
नारदं परिपप्रच्छ वाल्मीकिर्मुनिपुङ्गवम् ।। 1.1.1 ।। 

को न्वस्मिन् साम्प्रतं लोके गुणवान् कश्च वीर्यवान् । 
धर्मज्ञश्च कृतज्ञश्च सत्यवाक्यो दृढव्रतः ।। 1.1.2 ।। 

The first introductory conversation between Narada and Valmiki. The answer reply is quite clear a description of any king, which in turn can be applied to any diety, or avatara, यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित् the ideal embodiment of all the merits. This is the beginning of the rift also.

बहवो दुर्ल्लभाश्चैव ये त्वया कीर्त्तिता गुणाः । 
मुने वक्ष्याम्यहं बुद्ध्वा तैर्युक्तः श्रूयतां नरः ।। 1.1.7 ।। 


इक्ष्वाकुवंशप्रभवो रामो नाम जनैः श्रुतः । 
नि.......यतात्मा महावीर्यो द्युतिमान् धृतिमान् वशी ।। 1.1.8 ।। 

......

which continues with the same tone:

ज्येष्ठं श्रेष्ठगुणैर्युक्तं प्रियं दशरथः सुतम् । 
प्रकृतीनां हितैर्युक्तं प्रकृतिप्रियकाम्यया ।। 1.1.20 ।। 


यौवराज्येन संयोक्तुमैच्छत्प्रीत्या महीपतिः । 
तस्याभिषेकसम्भारान् दृष्ट्वा भार्याथ कैकयी ।। 1.1.21 ।। 


पूर्वं दत्तवरा देवी वरमेनमयाचत । 
विवासनं च रामस्य भरतस्याभिषेचनम् ।। 1.1.22 ।। 

and concludes it as a story:

एतदाख्यानमायुष्यं पठन् रामायणं नरः । 
सपुत्रपौत्रस्सगणः प्रेत्य स्वर्गे महीयते ।। 1.1.99 । 

with religious fervor.

 

I too have no more to offer.

[Vimala Sarma]

Vishvanath Mahodaya:

 

Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa – canto 10 verse 44 says

44. I, therefore, being born as the son of Dasaratha, will make

the heap of the lotuses of his heads become a fit oblation to the

battle-field with my sharp arrows.

 

RAvaNa was given a boon whereby he can only be killed by a mortal and not by the gods.

 

This is followed by:

51. He held in his hands rice boiled with milk placed in a

vessel of gold, which was difficult to be borne even by him on

account of the entrance of the Primeval Being ( VishUu ) into it.

52. The king accepted the food which was offered by that

Being of (connected with) PrajSpati, just as Indra did the essence

of the waters (AmVita), laid bare (manifested) by the ocean.

53. That the merits of that king were such as were unattainable by others was declared by the fact that even He, the source

of the three worlds, desired to be his progeny.

54. He divided the energy of VishVu designated as (in the

form of ) the sacrifical food between his two wives, just as the

lord of day (the Sun) divides the morning sunshine between the

Sky and the Earth.

55. Kausaly^ was respected by him and Kaikeyi was his beloved (or favourite). He, therefore^ wished that Sumitri should

be honoured by them (by giving her a portion thereof ).

56. The two wives of the king, knowing the mind (divining

the wish) of their husband, who was possessed of great

knowledge, gave (each) a half of their share of the Cham to her.

 

This is not the same thing as saying Rama was a avatara of Vishnu.  Vishnu entered the payasam, which came out of the yajna.   This  was divided equally in half between Kausalya and Kaikeyi – these two wives then both gave a half of their share (a quarter each of the total) to Sumitri.

All four brothers together are Vishnu, each is a quarter of Vishnu.

The Dasavatharam idea is not evident at all in this story. I believe this developed later.

 

Vimala

[Viswanath B]

Hi Vimalaji,

I was not trying to say anything about dasavatara at all, I was just mentioning that Raghuvamsa does portray Rama as Vishnu himself. Like your translation said, Vishnu says ,  " I being born as son of Dasaratha ....", does mean this. If there is a different definition of avatar, i stand excused for not knowing :-).

on the topic that the 'navaratna' is not commonly agreed upon, I note with humor, that in a nation of more than a billion different minds, hardly anything is commonly accepted. I agree.  We have no agreed upon history. In fact Vikramaditya himself is debated, despite the fact that we have been counting years every year for Vikrama shaka to celebrate him (or his victories).

I was just trying to see if there is some other way to look at "why amara-singha doesn't mention rama".

Viswanath

[Hnbhat B.R.]

For a believer, Rama is also an "avatar" of Vishnu, just like Parasurama and Balarama or Buddha. No more discussion is warranted with the poems which draw upon the Puranic outset of incarnation theory profusely, each Purana representing avatara-s - Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha, Kalki etc. (but there is no other Purana, for Parasurama or Srirama except Ramayana, under discussion, which makes it different from the group and the exception of Bhagavata along with other 18 + 18 Purana-s ascribed to single authority Veda-vyasa) which do not withstand any discussion on the basis of commonly accepted x"ian Era but only Brahma created them at the time of creation along with the 4 Veda-s including Vedanga-s, Upaveda-s and allied Dharmasastra etc. 

The question about not mentioning by Amarasimha, while he considers Krishna parallel to Vishnu, a Mahabharata and Bhagavata character or Purnavatara, as such, the name of Rama. The co-existence of Navaratna-s is a feeble base and even if it is accepted, as Vishwanath says, there is not any answer why he left him out of the names of God while Kalidasa considered him as the incarnation of Vishnu like that of Krishna.

The question has not moved any inch further and wrangling with the Avatara- concept or belief or a fact for long.

[Nityanand Misra]

While this thread has strayed, I cannot resist writing this.

Vimala Ji, you are contradicting yourself. First you give an [unsourced] meaning which quotes Vishnu saying "I being born as Dasaratha, will make ...". Then you say Rama [and the three brothers] are Vishnu. Then you say, this is not an Avatara. That is self-contradictory.

Please refer Mallinatha's Sanjivani commentary introducing verse 10.44. Mallinatha says "तर्हि का गतिरित्याशङ्क्य मनुष्यावतारेण हनिष्यामीत्याह". Mallinatha, who is an authority on Kalidasa, unambiguously uses the word मनुष्यावतारेण and says that the purport of the following verse is "I will slay him by the means of a human Avatara."

You are free to interpret Valmiki and Kalidasa in your own way but without any grammatical derivation, citations or convincing arguments your interpretations do not hold any weight.

[Priya]

Along the lines of this discussion, I found the Bhagavata Purana's
account of
the avataras also very curious. While saying there are innumerable
descents
of the Lord, it does mention 22 avataras individually. Most of these
are mentioned
by name, but not Rama. We just infer that he is the one being referred
to because
the bridging of the ocean is mentioned. It seems like somewhat cursory
treatment.
In fact, an avatar by name Rama is mentioned, but it refers to
Balarama.
Also, Vedavyasa is mentioned as an earlier incarnation of the Lord
(prior to his
descent as Rama), messing up the chronology as we know it. Perhaps
someone
here can throw some light on the account of the avataras in the
Bhagavata.

Regards,
Priya

On Jan 3, 7:20 am, "Hnbhat B.R." <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For a believer, Rama is also an "avatar" of Vishnu, just like Parasurama
> and Balarama or Buddha. No more discussion is warranted with the poems
> which draw upon the Puranic outset of incarnation theory profusely, each
> Purana representing avatara-s - Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha,
> Kalki etc. (but there is no other Purana, for Parasurama or Srirama except
> Ramayana, under discussion, which makes it different from the group and the
> exception of Bhagavata along with other 18 + 18 Purana-s ascribed to single
> authority Veda-vyasa) which do not withstand any discussion on the basis of
> commonly accepted x"ian Era but only Brahma created them at the time of
> creation along with the 4 Veda-s including Vedanga-s, Upaveda-s and allied
> Dharmasastra etc.
>
> The question about not mentioning by Amarasimha, while he considers Krishna
> parallel to Vishnu, a Mahabharata and Bhagavata character or Purnavatara,
> as such, the name of Rama. The co-existence of Navaratna-s is a feeble base
> and even if it is accepted, as Vishwanath says, there is not any answer why
> he left him out of the names of God while Kalidasa considered him as the
> incarnation of Vishnu like that of Krishna.
>
> The question has not moved any inch further and wrangling with the Avatara-
> concept or belief or a fact for long.
>
> --

> *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
> **Research Scholar,
> *

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Nityananda Mahodaya

No this is not a contradiction – Vishnu said he will be born as son of Dasaratha in order to be mortal and kill rAvaNa – but he does not say which son.  He is fact all four sons!!  Nowhere is it stated in K’s  poem that rAma is an avatar.  People are free to make whatever interpretations they like in commentaries.. 

See translation by MR Kale in this link; raghuvamsaofkali00kliduoft.pdf

But I cannot convince you – so please agree to disagree, and we can end this thread.

Vimala

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Murthy Mahodaya

What you said about the incorporation of Buddha in Dasavathara is of interest to me.

“Kshemendra who was much earlier to Jayadeva refers to Dasavatara including Buddha”.

Could you please send me the sloka or the reference to Kshemendra’s Dasavatharam and approximate date?

Thank you

Vimala

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Here is the relevant verse enumerating the ten incarnations in Dasavatara Carita by Kshemendra:

Kavyamala No.26, Ed. Pt.Durgaprasad & KP Parab, 2nd Edn., NSP, Bombay, 1930.

The work was composed in 1065 AD:

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Notes by the Editor on the colophon verses:

which gives the date of composition of this work.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

As for Inscriptional evidence for the first reference of Buddha as the incarnation of Vishnu, I am told that there is one inscription of Pallavan Period at Mahabalipuram which contains a Dasavatara stotra. I am not able to get the source of this reference. If it is attested, the first reference would be in the 7th century AD. much earlier than Kshemendra.

I will revert on confirmation of the information soon or later.

[Vimala Sarma]

Thank you – that is most interesting – where exactly is the inscription on the temple or raths?  – is there a photo of the inscription?

Vimala

 

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hnbhat B.R.
Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2012 5:50 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

 

As for Inscriptional evidence for the first reference of Buddha as the incarnation of Vishnu, I am told that there is one inscription of Pallavan Period at Mahabalipuram which contains a Dasavatara stotra. I am not able to get the source of this reference. If it is attested, the first reference would be in the 7th century AD. much earlier than Kshemendra.

--

[DEV RAJ]

On Dec 28 2011, 7:18 am, Subrahmanian R <subrahmani...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> While Adi Sankara wrote commentaries on Bhagavadgita, Vishnu Sahasranama
and Sanatsujatiya - all from Mahabharata, he has not composed any
commentary for any portion of Valmiki Ramayana [like the Aditya
hridayam -
Agastya's advice to Lord Rama] <<<<


In VSN commentary, Sri Adi Sankara mentions one of Sri Rama's kalyANa
guNas.

Commentary of Adi Sankara on the Vishnu Sahasranama - सुमुखः

Sumukhah : of good countenance

Kaikeyi received the boon from Dasaratha that Rama was to go to the
forest and
her own son Bharata should rule the kingdom instead. So she called
Rama and
told him about the boon she received from king Dasaratha.

Rama, on hearing that he was to go to the forest and not be crowned
king,
accepted it as if nothing had changed. There was absolutely no change
of
expression on his face !!

Hence the name "Sumukhah".


http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1995_12/msg00331.html


dev


On Dec 28 2011, 7:18 am, Subrahmanian R <subrahmani...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Themes from Ramayana have been used and elaborated by Poet Bhasa (variously
> estimated between 1st and 4th Century AD) in Pratimanataka and by Kavi
> Kalidasa [age probably 4th to 6th Century AD] in his famous Raghuvamsa. It
> is possible that Amarakosa preceded these. Though the Ramayana incident is
> much older than the Mahabharata event, it appears that Ramayana is later to
> Mahabharata or at least, Ramayana became popular after popularity of
> Mahabharata.
>
> While Adi Sankara wrote commentaries on Bhagavadgita, Vishnu Sahasranama
> and Sanatsujatiya - all from Mahabharata, he has not composed any
> commentary for any portion of Valmiki Ramayana [like the Aditya hridayam -
> Agastya's advice to Lord Rama]
>
> R Subrahmanian
>
> On 28 December 2011 07:19, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The deification of  seems to be deep rooted by the time of this anonymous
> > verse was composed:
>
> > वेदवेद्ये परे पुंसि जाते दशरथात्मजे।
> > वेदः प्राचेतसादासीत् साक्षाद् रामायणात्मना॥
> > (attributed to अगस्त्यसंहिता)
> > glorifying रामायण the classical composition only next to वेद-s as it is
> > claimed by many poets and honored with the title आदिकाव्य.
>
> > The  work  दशावतारचरित of क्षेमेन्द्र however,   has  great   importance
> > as it contains the  earliest  known  reference  to the  Buddha being
> > considered as  an  incarnation of विष्णु and  the   narration
> > of  the Buddha's life is an  abridgment of the  story  as told  in
> > Buddhist works.  The style shows maturity of conception, and is easy and
> > flowing.  The  work  was finished  in  the  Laukika  era  41 i.e.  1066
> > A.D.  on  the Tripurea Mountain."
> > The Kshemendra Studies - Suryakanta.
>
> > It  may  be the  first known  work to present  the ten  incarnations in
> > the
> > exact  order  in which they arc  enumerated in the  49th  verse of the
> > Vishnupadadikesastotra of Sri Shankara.
>
> > Anyhow  the concept of Dasavatara is to some extent discussed in Wikipedia
> > link:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashavatara
>
> > Here is a book on personal deity:
>
> >http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepag...
>
> > in Google Books.
>
> > --
> > *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
> > **Research Scholar,
> > *

[Viswanath B]

I'd like to add something, I mentioned Kalidasa, not for proof that Rama is an avatar. It was to say that Kalidasa mentions him so, but his alleged contemporary doesn't mention it.

Priya,

Bhagavata, does mention Rama as an avatar, infact brief story of ramayana is part of it.

Thanks
Viswanath

[Rajagopalan Ayilam]

There is another popular verse on Dasavatara as told by my Guru which is as follows

मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नारसिंहश्च वामनः
रामो रामश्च रामश्च बुद्धः कल्किरेव च

It is interesting to note that Krishna is not mentioned as one of the avatara of Vishnu in this sloka. My Guru doesn't know the source of this sloka, but he says it is quite popular.


Rajagopalan

[Nityanand Misra]

Reference please? Do you mean Bhagavata 1.3.22? Then all preceding and following Avataras are also referred to in passing in canto 1.3

Bhagavata 2.7.23 uses the word Kalesha (lord of all Kalaas) when alluding to Rama Avatara.

Bhagavata 9.10 and 9.11 cover Rama Avatara in detail.

Sent from my iPhone

[murthy]

Vimalaji,

I am sorry. My reply is delayed. Bhatji has already replied to you.

Dasavataracaritam of Kshemendra is published in Kavyamala series and is dowloadable (Scanned version). He has described Bauddhavatara in 74 verses and runs from page 151 to page 157. I am unable to send a copy. You could google for "Kavyamala series" and download it.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

प्रफुल्लतां या न गताभिषेकतस्तथा न मम्ले वनवासदुःखतः ।
मुखाम्बुजश्री रघुनन्दनस्य मे सदास्तु सा मञ्जुलमङ्गलप्रदा ॥

इति श्रुतं मया कदाचित् ।

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

[murthy]

Aditya hrudaya, in spite of its being very popular, is largely accepted as
an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayan. In fact one of the commentators, not a
modern one, does not comment on it.

Regards
Murthy
----- Original Message -----

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2012/1/4 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@lalitaalaalitah.com>

प्रफुल्लतां या न गताभिषेकतस्तथा न मम्ले वनवासदुःखतः ।
मुखाम्बुजश्री रघुनन्दनस्य मे सदास्तु सा मञ्जुलमङ्गलप्रदा ॥

इति श्रुतं मया कदाचित् ।

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

 

आहूतस्याभिषेकाय विसृष्टस्य वनाय च।

 न मया लक्षितस्तस्य स्वल्पोप्याकारविभ्रमः।।

अयमनुवादस्तस्याभिप्रायस्य।

--

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

Research Scholar,

[Nityanand Misra]

The correct verse is 

प्रसन्नतां या न गताभिषेकतस्तथा न मम्लौ वनवासदुःखतः 

मुखाम्बुजश्री रघुनन्दनस्य मे सदास्तु सा मञ्जुलमङ्गलप्रदा 

It is the second mangalacharan shloka of Ayodhyakanda in Ramcharitmanas of Goswami Tulsidas.

The contrast is between prasannata and mlaana. 

--
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.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:15, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

 मम्लौ

Thanks for correction and providing name of it's source.

[krishnaprasad]

Please refer in Trikandasesa kosa( written only to fulfill the missing
words in Amara Kosha) prathama kanda 29 Sloka

Also refer Vaijayanti Kosa prathama kanda prathama adhyaya sloka 20

Krishna Prasad


On Dec 31 2011, 10:19 pm, Subrahmanian R <subrahmani...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Al Biruni in his travelogue written in the 11th Century about India -
> mentions Rama. There are several references to Krishna/ vasudeva, Mathura.
> Mahabharata, Harivamsa and 18 Puranas [including Vishnu Purana] are
> mentioned but there is no mention of Ramayana nor of Bhagavata. Among the
> festivals Janmashtami is mentioned [though not by that name], reference to
> Bali Pratipada as *Diboli* but not of *Naraka chaturdasi,* nor Deepavali
> the day of return of Vicotorious Rama.
>
> There is no doubt that Ramayana and Rama worship were there prior to Al
> Biruni. Perhaps it was not as popular as Krishna to attract his attention.
>
> Namaskaram
> R Subrahmanian
>
> On 31 December 2011 12:46, murthy <murthy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > **

> > Dear Vimalaji,
> > Much of what you have written about the origin of Ramayan is all
> > conjecture and theorizing, which most would have read about. Internal
> > evidences in Raamayan definitely point out that at the time the poet lived
> > civilization was quite advanced and there were many kingdoms and cities
> > whose dates can be fixed otherwise fairly accurately. Excepting Uttara
> > Ramayan, bulk of the other six cantos would have been composed by one poet.
> > Jayadeva lived around 12th century. By that time dasavatara concept had
> > crystallized. Bhagavata which was earlier refers to Buddha too. Trivikrama
> > avatar is of Vedic origin. Alwars of South India sang about Krishna and
> > Rama around 8th-9th century.Kshemendra who was much earlier to Jayadeva
> > refers to Dasavatara including Buddha. In fact he has composed a kavya on
> > the theme.
> > Wish you a Very Happy New Year.
>

> > आशास्महे नूतनहायनागमे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु जनाः सुशान्ताः ।****

> > निरामयाः क्षोभविवर्जितास्सदा मुदा रमन्तां भगवत्कृपाश्रयाः ॥

> > Regards
> > Murthy
>
> > ----- Original Message -----

> > *From:* Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com>
> > *To:* sams...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 31, 2011 10:00 AM
> > *Subject:* RE: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu
>
> >  Dear PanDitAs****

>
> > The rAmayana was written over a period starting from about 500 BCE.  The
> > basic  story existed in song form before this time and was sung by the
> > bards before it was written.  It was about a king and a hero but not about
> > a deity.  It was written as the first epic and the Mahabharatha was written
> > later.  The latter  contained stories in which kRSNa was ambiguously
> > depicted – both as a man and as a deity (example in the gItA).  The
> > Harivamsa, written as an appendix to MB, unequivocally made kriSHNa a deity
> > with avathAras.  Date for this is not clear, but could be early in the
> > first millennium.  At this time rAma was still considered a man.  When
> >  idea of the avataras were first developed (perhaps from the Jaina
> > tIrthankas), these avataras perhaps did not include either rAma or Buddha
> > in the early stages.  Rama was deified in the middle ages and became one of
> > ViSNu’s  avatAras.  Parts of the Ramayana were changed or added to,
> > reflecting  this change in status. I think the first scheme to take kRSNa
> > out (making him identical with ViSNu) and listing Buddha was in Jayadeva’s

> > song.****
>
> > Happy New year****
>
> > Vimala****
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > *From:* sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] *On
> > Behalf Of *Aditya B.S.A
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 29 December 2011 8:15 PM
> > *To:* sams...@googlegroups.com
> > *Subject:* Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu****
>
> > ** **
>
> > Quick addendum:****
>
> > ** **

>
> > Original query was about Amarakosha. I took the original query to mean Mr.
> > Murthy's post, where he mentioned that Rama's epithets were largely missing

> > from Vishnu Sahasranamam. ****
>
> > ** **

>
> > Apologies to Dr. Bhat for misconstruing his statement as referring to Mr.

> > Murthy's post.****
>
> > ** **
>
> > Regards. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Aditya B.S.A <amrda...@gmail.com> wrote:*
> > ***
>
> > नमो नम:****
>
> > ** **

>
> > I thank you all for giving me the opportunity to explore your claims and

> > my position further. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > <this doesn't have any bearing with the original query...>****
>
> > ** **

>
> > Reply to original query: In the Vishnu-Sahasranamam, names 391 to 421

> > (parardhih to parigrah) are Lord Rama's attributes. ****
>
> > ** **

>
> > A question may arise regarding the fact that most of these names are
> > yougika, and need not necessarily connote Rama. There is plenty of material
> > to explain how they connote this  very avatar of Vishnu, viz. Dasaratha's

> > son, Rama. ****
>
> > ** **

>
> > As to why Krishna's names find precedence, I think it would be rather
> > obvious, given that the Vishnu Sahasranama was delivered by Bhishma, in the

> > presence of Krishna and the Pandavas. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > <...unless a formidable position is accepted>****
>
> > ** **

>
> > I believe I have stated my formidable position now. I am capable of
> > providing the details to one who is willing to explore it. I respect

> > differing views, while being firm in my understanding. ****
>
> > ** **

>
> > I maintain very clearly that one cannot reasonably consider the
> > Dasavataram a 'created concept,'  especially from an epistemological point

> > of view, as it is incapable of being justified as such. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > <It is still unexplained why the name was omitted. > ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > It is very clearly explained that the name was not* *omitted. If anyone
> > choose to assume differently, I have no qualms about it. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > Regards,****
>
> > ** **
>
> > Aditya. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:*
> > ***
>
> > ** **
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:*
> > ***
>
> > Aditya Mahodayta****

>
> > This is an OK way of phrasing things.  Dasavatharam was an idea which must
> > originated at sometime. If the corporate world has taken over some phrases,

> > i can’t be helped but I am sure no disrespect was intended. ****
>
> > Bhat Ji suggested this book – there is much information and facts here..**
> > **
>
> >http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepag...
> > ****
>
> > Vimala****
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **

>
> > The same tone. If we consider history in BC or AC it would not be
> > compatible with the Belief and Faith in our religious literature, created
> > by Brahma, along with Veda-s AND PurANa-s which project the avatara-s of
> > personal deities we worship. One cannot sail in two boats at a time. Either
> > follow a chronology acceptable to the "corporate" world or to the Vedic
> > Literature and Shastra-s in terms of yuga, manvantara, etc. or follow the
> > faith in them being created by God. All could not be followed with equal
> > footing in the three steams at a time and blame others for pointing out one

> > or the other way of thinking.****
>
> > ** **

>
> > This much only can be said in reply to Adithya's objection or remark.
> > Anyway this doesn't have any bearing with the original query unless a
> > formidable position is accepted. It is still unexplained why the name was

> > omitted. ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > --
> > *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,**
> > **Research Scholar,*****
>
> > Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry****
>
> > 16 & 19, Rue Dumas****
>
> > Pondichéry - 605 001****
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **

>
> > --
> > 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.****
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **

>
> > --
> > 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.****

[Nityanand Misra]

Can you please post the shlokas here? Not many may have access to the sources you have cited. 

Thanks, Nityanand

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Vaijayanti 1.1. स्वर्गकाण्ड - आदिदेवाध्यायः - verses 20c-d  to 22c-d give the synonyms of राम. Yadavaprakasha, the author has been identified with the preceptor of SriRamanujacharya, the founder of Vishishtadvaita philosophy and is said to have lived in Kanchipuram:

Though त्रिकाण्डशेष refers to दशावतार, it there are not clear epithets of राम as in Vaijayanti:

The verse 29 does not contain specific mention of राम or  दाशरथि. The next portion also do not contain 37-42 any reference explicitly to राम, though they collect many unknown epithets of Krishna and Balarama.

Thanks for pointing out to these two lexicons. Like Amarasimha, Purusshottamadeva also is said to be Buddhist by the editors of Trikandashesha. (c.14th century).

With regards

--

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

[shankara]

Namaste,

Vaijayanti Kosa is available online at http://www.archive.org/details/Vaijayanti

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Both the texts are available for download online from archives.org or DLI. I don't remember which one I had downloaded, but Sri lalitaalaalita had given me the links.

Halayayudha doesn't mention राम, though he refers to बलराम and कृष्ण in his अभिधानरत्नमाला (cir.13 century AD)-

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 21:56, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Both the texts are available for download online from archives.org or DLI. I don't remember which one I had downloaded, but Sri lalitaalaalita had given me the links.

See here :

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=lalitaalaalitah

[krishnaprasad]

Trikandasesa refers to Dashavataraaha (bahuvachana) so it all contains
ten avataraas including Sri Rama
Refer Dashavataracaritam of Kshemendra Sri Rama included in
Dasavataram (11th Century AD) according to some scholars he is a
converted Buddhist

On Jan 6, 9:26 pm, "Hnbhat B.R." <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both the texts are available for download online from archives.org or DLI.
> I don't remember which one I had downloaded, but Sri lalitaalaalita had
> given me the links.
>
> Halayayudha doesn't mention राम, though he refers to बलराम and कृष्ण in his
> अभिधानरत्नमाला (cir.13 century AD)-
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> --

> *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
> **Research Scholar,
> *

> Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry
> 16 & 19, Rue Dumas
> Pondichéry - 605 001
>

>  image.png
> 34KViewDownload

[Nityanand Misra]

And you are also entitled to your opinion that anything that is contrary to your belief is a later interpolation, even though there is no conclusive way to prove which part of Ramayana was composed when (unless one is a trikaaladra.s.taa or trikaaladra.s.tree).

Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Jan, 2012, at 10:46 AM, "Vimala Sarma" <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Niyananda Mahodaya

So what do you call such verses Vimala Ji? Valmiki's figment of imagination? Coincidence? Interpolation by Manuwadis?

See my earlier post:

Parts of the Ramayana were changed or added to, reflecting  this change in status.

 

I am not saying that Ramayana is now a secular work – I am saying that it was when it was first written.

I have no more to say on this subject.  You are entitled to you views

 

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 2:11 AM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

 

Vimala Ji

First of all it the Ramayana is not a "story" - calling it so would be trivializing it. It is not for nothing that the Ramayana and Mahabharata are called इतिहास (इति ह आस - thus definitely happened) to distinguish them from Puranas.

Secondly, Valmiki's Ramayana is not a simplistic work that one can understand with Apte, Monier-Williams and Google Translate. The very first shloka by Valmiki मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां has been subject of centuries of thoughts and commentaries - what to talk about the गूढार्थ of the 24,000 verses! Vyasa and Tulsidas, et cetera, were not con-men to state that their works the अध्यात्मरामायण and रामचरितमानस were based Valmiki's work and still have Rama depicted as Brahman and episodes of Maya Sita, Kevata, et cetera revealed.

Thirdly and finally, the Ramayana is secular only for the secularists and eminent historians on whom Sh. Arun Shourie has written in much detail in a book so I would not delve into that. For a neutral observer, there is tomes of evidence to show that the Rama of Valmiki Ramayana is the same as the औपनिषद ब्रह्म. Below are just some verses from Valmiki Ramayana (all references from Gita Press edition ) - I could find many more but then again अति सर्वत्र वर्जयेत् 

१) व्यक्तमेष महायोगी परमात्मा सनातनः ।
    अनादिमध्यनिधनो महतः परमो महान्  ॥ ६-१११-११ ॥
    Valmiki is no MBA to use hot-air words just like that, when he uses them he means them. It is not for nothing that he calls Rama as परमात्मा.

२) सूर्यस्यापि भवेत्सूर्योह्यग्नेरग्निः प्रभोः प्रभोः ।
   श्रियश्च श्रीर्भवेदग्र्या कीर्त्याः क्षमाक्षमा ॥ २-४४-१५ ॥
   दैवतम् दैवतानाम् च भूतानाम् भूतसत्तमः ।
   तस्य केह्यगुणा देवि वने वाप्यथवा पुरे ॥ २-४४-१६ ॥
Rama is the Surya for even the Surya, the God for the Gods, .... and so on.

३) The whole canto 117 of Yuddha Kanda is the glorious divinity of Rama, revealed at the end of the मूलरामायण (six cantos). It has many important Sutras like जगत्सर्वं शरीरं ते which echo the औपनिषद proclamations in बृहदारण्यक like यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं, यस्यापः शरीरं, यस्यान्तरिक्षः शरीरं, यस्य वायुः शरीरं and which form the basis of विशिष्टाद्वैत which considers the entire universe to be an embodiment of Brahman.

So what do you call such verses Vimala Ji? Valmiki's figment of imagination? Coincidence? Interpolation by Manuwadis?

The proof is right there if one wants to see it, but if one's eyeglasses are tinted with secularism then everything will appear secular. For the आस्तिक, no proof is required and for the नास्तिक, no proof is sufficient.

Thanks, Nityanand

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Dear Murthy Mahodaya and Misra Mahodaya

Thank you both for your inputs to this thread.

I am just giving a chronological and historical explanation as to why rAma’s name and epithets do not occur as synonyms for Vishnu in Amarakosa.  This is not to be interpreted as whether  I personally believe in the rAma avatar or not.

I agree that in the absence of firm dates we have to go by internal evidence.

rAma story is told in brief in the MB, but not vice versa,  and Hanuman is referred to also - as in the story of the flower garden where Arjuna meets him (both sons of vAyu) and he on the flag of Arjuna’s chariot etc.  So one can assume rAmAyaNa  came first.

The is much evidence also for thinking that the story of rAma was originally a secular story and even at the time of kAlidAsa, it must have been secular because the raghuvamsa by K is also written as a secular story.

Anyway the fact of the epics being written at a set date by either one person or more does not detract from its significance for Hindus living at the present time.

Best wishes

Vimala

 

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of murthy
Sent: Saturday, 31 December 2011 6:17 PM

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

 

Dear Vimalaji,

Much of what you have written about the origin of Ramayan is all conjecture and theorizing, which most would have read about. Internal evidences in Raamayan definitely point out that at the time the poet lived civilization was quite advanced and there were many kingdoms and cities whose dates can be fixed otherwise fairly accurately. Excepting Uttara Ramayan, bulk of the other six cantos would have been composed by one poet.

Jayadeva lived around 12th century. By that time dasavatara concept had crystallized. Bhagavata which was earlier refers to Buddha too. Trivikrama avatar is of Vedic origin. Alwars of South India sang about Krishna and Rama around 8th-9th century.Kshemendra who was much earlier to Jayadeva refers to Dasavatara including Buddha. In fact he has composed a kavya on the theme.

Wish you a Very Happy New Year.

आशास्महे नूतनहायनागमे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु जनाः सुशान्ताः ।

निरामयाः क्षोभविवर्जितास्सदा मुदा रमन्तां भगवत्कृपाश्रयाः ॥

Regards

Murthy

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Vimala Sarma

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 10:00 AM

Subject: RE: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

 

Dear PanDitAs

The rAmayana was written over a period starting from about 500 BCE.  The basic  story existed in song form before this time and was sung by the bards before it was written.  It was about a king and a hero but not about a deity.  It was written as the first epic and the Mahabharatha was written later.  The latter  contained stories in which kRSNa was ambiguously depicted – both as a man and as a deity (example in the gItA).  The Harivamsa, written as an appendix to MB, unequivocally made kriSHNa a deity with avathAras.  Date for this is not clear, but could be early in the first millennium.  At this time rAma was still considered a man.  When  idea of the avataras were first developed (perhaps from the Jaina tIrthankas), these avataras perhaps did not include either rAma or Buddha in the early stages.  Rama was deified in the middle ages and became one of ViSNu’s  avatAras.  Parts of the Ramayana were changed or added to, reflecting  this change in status. I think the first scheme to take kRSNa out (making him identical with ViSNu) and listing Buddha was in Jayadeva’s song.

Happy New year

Vimala

 

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Aditya B.S.A
Sent: Thursday, 29 December 2011 8:15 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Amarakosa - Lord Vishnu

 

Quick addendum:

 

Original query was about Amarakosha. I took the original query to mean Mr. Murthy's post, where he mentioned that Rama's epithets were largely missing from Vishnu Sahasranamam. 

 

Apologies to Dr. Bhat for misconstruing his statement as referring to Mr. Murthy's post.

 

Regards. 

 

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Aditya B.S.A <amrd...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमो नम:

 

I thank you all for giving me the opportunity to explore your claims and my position further. 

 

<this doesn't have any bearing with the original query...>

 

Reply to original query: In the Vishnu-Sahasranamam, names 391 to 421 (parardhih to parigrah) are Lord Rama's attributes. 

 

A question may arise regarding the fact that most of these names are yougika, and need not necessarily connote Rama. There is plenty of material to explain how they connote this  very avatar of Vishnu, viz. Dasaratha's son, Rama. 

 

As to why Krishna's names find precedence, I think it would be rather obvious, given that the Vishnu Sahasranama was delivered by Bhishma, in the presence of Krishna and the Pandavas. 

 

<...unless a formidable position is accepted>

 

I believe I have stated my formidable position now. I am capable of providing the details to one who is willing to explore it. I respect differing views, while being firm in my understanding. 

 

I maintain very clearly that one cannot reasonably consider the Dasavataram a 'created concept,'  especially from an epistemological point of view, as it is incapable of being justified as such. 

 

<It is still unexplained why the name was omitted. > 

 

It is very clearly explained that the name was not omitted. If anyone choose to assume differently, I have no qualms about it. 

 

Regards,

 

Aditya. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Aditya Mahodayta

This is an OK way of phrasing things.  Dasavatharam was an idea which must originated at sometime. If the corporate world has taken over some phrases, i can’t be helped but I am sure no disrespect was intended.

Bhat Ji suggested this book – there is much information and facts here..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nAQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vimala

 

 

 

The same tone. If we consider history in BC or AC it would not be compatible with the Belief and Faith in our religious literature, created by Brahma, along with Veda-s AND PurANa-s which project the avatara-s of personal deities we worship. One cannot sail in two boats at a time. Either follow a chronology acceptable to the "corporate" world or to the Vedic Literature and Shastra-s in terms of yuga, manvantara, etc. or follow the faith in them being created by God. All could not be followed with equal footing in the three steams at a time and blame others for pointing out one or the other way of thinking.

 

This much only can be said in reply to Adithya's objection or remark. Anyway this doesn't have any bearing with the original query unless a formidable position is accepted. It is still unexplained why the name was omitted. 

 

--

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

Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

 

 

--

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Vimala Ji

If I use your logic, whenever the wordपार्थ or कौन्तेय occurs in Gita, Krishna is talking to all three sons of Kunti!! And whenever भारत occurs, Krishna is talking to all the princes in the battlefield as all are descendants of Bharata! That is not correct, there is something called context and something called traditional meaning. In सोऽहं दाशरथिर्भूत्वा, दाशरथि refers to Rama, and moreover it is used in the singular, not plural. There has been a thread on दाशरथि where it has been brought out that दाशरथि refers to Rama – it refers to the other brothers only when used in plural (Bhat Ji has quoted enough examples from Ramayana).

 

As for M R Kale’s commentaries on Kalidasa’s works, they draw heavily from commentaries by Mallinath which are to the epics what Mahabhashya is to Panini grammar. So it is laughable that you give credence to Kale’s notes but not to Mallinath Tika. If you want to trivialize the commentary of Mallinath by saying any commentator can make any interpretation, be my guest, but that does not help your argument one bit. Mallinath’s interpretations are logical, grammatically derived, have stood test of time. Guess why? Because his commentaries were true to the text, fair to the authors and without any bias followed the principal of नामूलं लिख्यते किञ्चित्. It is evident from the fact that despite being a Jaina, his commentaries on epics based on Hindu themes have become authorities.  

 

अलं पिष्टपेषणेन. Please consider the context, please use some logic and please interpret according to Paninian Grammar. I don’t have any issues with disagreeing with you, but if your interpretation is not supported by logic and grammar, it only provides entertainment value and nothing more.

Sent from my iPhone

[Vimala Sarma]

No this is not my logic;  you have misunderstood but I have nothing further to say.