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
--
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.
--
--
कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयं (भाग-1।3।28)
dev
>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.
--
--
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.
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
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
----- Original Message -----From: Aditya B.S.ASent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:34 PMSubject: 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:
आशास्महे नूतनहायनागमे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु जनाः सुशान्ताः ।
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
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
प्रफुल्लतां या न गताभिषेकतस्तथा न मम्ले वनवासदुःखतः ।इति श्रुतं मया कदाचित् ।
मुखाम्बुजश्री रघुनन्दनस्य मे सदास्तु सा मञ्जुलमङ्गलप्रदा ॥
--
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.
मम्लौ
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.
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
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
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
--
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.
No this is not my logic; you have misunderstood but I have nothing further to say.