वागर्थाविव

223 views
Skip to first unread message

K.N.RAMESH

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:08:41 AM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तयॆ / जगत: पितरौ वन्दे  पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ "
    पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ -Can this be split into 
    पार्वतीप & रमॆश्वरौ ? 
    thanks

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:11:23 AM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Why not. It can be split. But whether Kalidasa is intended two fathers or parents of the world is the nut of the verse to be decided. 

Both Vishnu and Shiva would be the two fathers independently or as parents(?). Please explain.

--
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.



--
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


Sita Raama

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 7:26:11 AM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
I always had this doubt, thanks for asking here. Why does पार्वतीप  mean?

--
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.



--

सुलभाः पुरुषा राजन् सततम् प्रिय वादिनः | \\

अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः || Ramayanam || ३-३७-२ ||  & || ६-१६-२१ ||


Arvind_Kolhatkar

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 9:11:05 AM3/26/12
to samskrita
< Why does पार्वतीप mean?>

It is as in भूप (Protector of the Earth), क्षत्रप (Protector - Leader
- of the military) etc.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 26, 2012.

P.K.Ramakrishnan

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 9:59:10 AM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
According to Mallinatha Suri, the well known commentator of Kalidasa gives the
meaning of Pravatiparameswarau as Parvati and Parameswara.
 
-----------------------------------
P.K.Ramakrishnan
http://peekayar.blogspot.com
From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] वागर्थाविव

Why not. It can be split. But whether Kalidasa is intended two fathers or parents of the world is the nut of the verse to be decided. 

Both Vishnu and Shiva would be the two fathers independently or as parents(?). Please explain.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM, K.N.RAMESH <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तयॆ / जगत: पितरौ वन्दे  पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ "
--
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.



--
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


Hnbhat B.R.

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 11:05:53 AM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM, P.K.Ramakrishnan <peek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to Mallinatha Suri, the well known commentator of Kalidasa gives the
meaning of Pravatiparameswarau as Parvati and Parameswara.
 



There is no question about the meaning of पार्वती and परमेश्वर = शिवः (in this case).

It is a variant splitting of the compound as पार्वतीप and रमेश्वर.
 

ajit namboothiri

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 8:50:23 AM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
how can it split as Parvathipa and rameshwaraou? Rameshwara means vishnu,ok. But parvathipa means what? Can anybody explain?

Sita Raama

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 3:43:11 PM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
As it was explained earlier 
It is as in भूप (भू पProtector of the Earth), क्षत्रप ( क्षत्र पProtector - Leader 
पार्वतिप  ( पार्वति प )

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:50 AM, ajit namboothiri <ajit...@gmail.com> wrote:
how can it split as Parvathipa and rameshwaraou? Rameshwara means vishnu,ok. But parvathipa means what? Can anybody explain?

--
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.

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 9:15:55 PM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Sita Raama <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
As it was explained earlier 
It is as in भूप (भू पProtector of the Earth), क्षत्रप ( क्षत्र पProtector - Leader 
पार्वतिप  ( पार्वति प )



It cannot be पार्वति प - but only पार्वतीप as in the text and explained as पार्वतीं पातीति - पार्वतीपः = शिवः, परमेश्वरः, भवानीपतिः - परमेश्वर इत्येवार्थः। = Shiva. 

 

Aarathi Bala

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 8:47:53 PM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Namaste,
There is a specific reason why this sloka is addressed only to पार्वती
and परमेश्वर. If Kalidasa wanted to offer salutations to the
God/Goddess of वाक्, it should have naturally been offered to सरस्वती.
But here it is not the case. The reason being found in वायवीयसंहिता -

शब्दजातम् अशेषं तु धत्ते शर्वस्य वल्लभा।
अर्थरूपं यदखिलं धत्ते मुग्धेन्दुशेखरः॥

Visalakshi.


--
Take a look at
http://asankaran.blogspot.com
http://paintingsdisplay.blogspot.com
http://samskrute.blogspot.com

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 11:30:22 PM3/26/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Aarathi Bala <aarath...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste,
There is a specific reason why this sloka is addressed only to पार्वती
and परमेश्वर. If Kalidasa wanted to offer salutations to the
God/Goddess of वाक्, it should have naturally been offered to सरस्वती.
But here it is not the case. The reason being found in वायवीयसंहिता -

शब्दजातम् अशेषं तु धत्ते शर्वस्य वल्लभा।
अर्थरूपं यदखिलं धत्ते मुग्धेन्दुशेखरः॥

Visalakshi.



Thanks for the source of Kalidasa's intention.

P.K.Ramakrishnan

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 1:13:36 AM3/27/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Mallinatha has given a foot note for this.   Kaalidasa means the servant of Kaali.
Kaali is another name of Parvati. He has quoted Amara in support of this.
"umaa kaatyaayanii gaurii kaalii haimavatiiswarii".

So Parvatii here refers to Kaalii only and cannot be changed to Parvatiipa etc.
 
-----------------------------------
P.K.Ramakrishnan
http://peekayar.blogspot.com
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] वागर्थाविव

murthy

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 1:52:41 AM3/27/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
How old is this Vayaviya samhita? Could it not be post-Kalidasa?
Regards
Murthy

K.N.RAMESH

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 7:33:59 AM3/27/12
to sams...@googlegroups.com
S/Shri HN.Bhat, Arvind Kolhotkar, Aarathi bala & others
Thanks a lot for all your inputs and help
knr

2012/3/27 <sams...@googlegroups.com>

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita/topics



    वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तयॆ / जगत: पितरौ वन्दे पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ
    "
     
    पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ -Can this be split into

     
     
    पार्वतीप & रमॆश्वरौ ?
     
     
    thanks

     



      Why not. It can be split. But whether Kalidasa is intended two fathers or
      parents of the world is the nut of the verse to be decided.
       
      Both Vishnu and Shiva would be the two fathers independently or as
      parents(?). Please explain.
       
       
      --
      *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

       

        Sita Raama <raam...@gmail.com> Mar 26 07:26AM -0400  

        I always had this doubt, thanks for asking here. Why does पार्वतीप mean?

         
         
        --
         
        सुलभाः पुरुषा राजन् सततम् प्रिय वादिनः | \\
         
        अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः || Ramayanam || ३-३७-२ || & ||
        ६-१६-२१ ||

         



            According to Mallinatha Suri, the well known commentator of Kalidasa gives the
            meaning of Pravatiparameswarau as Parvati and Parameswara.
             
            Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012 1:41 PM
            Subject: Re: [Samskrita] वागर्थाविव

             
            Why not. It can be split. But whether Kalidasa is intended two fathers or parents of the world is the nut of the verse to be decided. 
             
            Both Vishnu and Shiva would be the two fathers independently or as parents(?). Please explain.
             
             
            On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM, K.N.RAMESH <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
             
            वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तयॆ / जगत: पितरौ वन्दे  पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ "
            --



              > According to Mallinatha Suri, the well known commentator of Kalidasa gives
              > the
              > meaning of Pravatiparameswarau as Parvati and Parameswara.
               
              There is no question about the meaning of पार्वती and परमेश्वर = शिवः (in
              this case).
               
              It is a variant splitting of the compound as पार्वतीप and रमेश्वर.
               
              --
              *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

               



                how can it split as Parvathipa and rameshwaraou? Rameshwara means
                vishnu,ok. But parvathipa means what? Can anybody explain?

                 



                  As it was explained earlier
                  It is as in भूप (भू पProtector of the Earth), क्षत्रप ( क्षत्र पProtector -
                  Leader
                  पार्वतिप ( पार्वति प )
                   
                   
                  --
                   
                  सुलभाः पुरुषा राजन् सततम् प्रिय वादिनः | \\
                   
                  अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः || Ramayanam || ३-३७-२ || & ||
                  ६-१६-२१ ||

                   



                    > It is as in भूप (भू पProtector of the Earth), क्षत्रप ( क्षत्र पProtector
                    > - Leader
                    > पार्वतिप ( पार्वति प )
                     
                    It cannot be पार्वति प - but only पार्वतीप as in the text and explained as
                    पार्वतीं पातीति - पार्वतीपः = शिवः, परमेश्वरः, भवानीपतिः - परमेश्वर
                    इत्येवार्थः। = Shiva.
                     
                     
                    --
                    *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

                     



                      Namaste,
                      There is a specific reason why this sloka is addressed only to पार्वती
                      and परमेश्वर. If Kalidasa wanted to offer salutations to the
                      God/Goddess of वाक्, it should have naturally been offered to सरस्वती.
                      But here it is not the case. The reason being found in वायवीयसंहिता -
                       
                      शब्दजातम् अशेषं तु धत्ते शर्वस्य वल्लभा।
                      अर्थरूपं यदखिलं धत्ते मुग्धेन्दुशेखरः॥
                       
                      Visalakshi.
                       
                       



                        > शब्दजातम् अशेषं तु धत्ते शर्वस्य वल्लभा।
                        > अर्थरूपं यदखिलं धत्ते मुग्धेन्दुशेखरः॥
                         
                        > Visalakshi.
                         
                        Thanks for the source of Kalidasa's intention.
                         
                        --
                        *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

                         

                          "murthy" <murt...@gmail.com> Mar 26 10:29AM +0530  

                          1.“वान्तश्चन्द्रोऽयमित्पार्ततरं ररासऽ “
                           
                          Perhaps that should read
                           
                          “वान्तश्चन्द्रोऽयमित्यार्ततरं ररास”
                           
                          2. In regard to use of वान्तः, normally in good poetry use of “वम्” and its derivatives are eschewed
                           
                          Regards
                           
                          Murthy
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Vimala Sarma
                          To: sams...@googlegroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 6:50 AM
                          Subject: RE: [Samskrita] Call for poetry submissions
                           
                           
                          Is it form MeghadUta?
                           
                          Vimala
                           

                           
                          Vimala Sarma
                           
                          My new e-mail is sarma...@gmail.com
                           
                          +612 9699 4414
                           
                          +61 409 690 220
                           

                           
                          From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hnbhat B.R.
                          Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2012 10:07 PM
                          To: sams...@googlegroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Call for poetry submissions
                           

                           
                          One more beautiful night:
                           

                           
                          निरीक्ष्य विद्युन्नयनैः पयोदो मुखं निशायामभिसारिकायाः ।
                           
                          धारानिपातैः सह किं नु वान्तश्चन्द्रोऽयमित्पार्ततरं ररासऽ
                           

                           
                          full of metaphoric expression, the faces of अभिसारिका-s during the night, conceived by the cloud as the moon effused from mouth of the cloud along with its pouring out of rain water and seeing it fell down, it cried aloud (with thunders).
                           

                           

                           
                          Sorry for inadvertent translation with crept in error for face of अभिसारिका - the face of the अभिसारिका, seen by the cloud during the night, and it mistook the face for the moon fell along with its rain from the sky and cried aloud. This is the idea of the metaphor.
                            "Hnbhat B.R." <hnbh...@gmail.com> Mar 26 03:22PM +0530  


                            > 2. In regard to use of वान्तः, normally in good poetry use of “वम्” and
                            > its derivatives are eschewed ****
                             
                            > Regards****
                             
                            Thanks for pointing out the typo error. For the other blemish, see the
                            modification in respect of popular usages the commentary by Mallinatha on
                            the usage by उद्गिरन्तौ - :
                             
                            उद्गिरन्तौ वमन्तौ । बहिर्निस्सारयन्ताविव स्थितावित्यर्थः
                            अत्रोद्गिरतेर्गौणार्थत्वान्न ग्राम्यतादोषः प्रत्युत गुण एव । यथाह दण्डी-
                            "*निष्ठ्यूतोद्गीर्णवान्तादि* गौणवृत्तिव्यपाश्रयम् ।
                            अतिसुन्दरमन्यत्र ग्राम्यकक्षां विगाहते ।
                             
                            अन्यत्र, वमनरूपादि वाच्यार्थे, ग्राम्यकक्ष्यां विगाहते इति तात्पर्यम्।
                             
                            Here too fell out along with the water raining from the cloud is intended
                            and one need not stick to the denotative meaning.
                             
                             
                            --
                            *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

                             

                              "अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः" <sanskr...@gmail.com> Mar 27 12:38AM +0530  

                              नमो नमः श्रीमन् "किरण परांजपे"-महोदय !
                              साधु श्लोकः सुष्ठु लिखितः अपि ।
                              अस्य वृत्तस्य विश्लेषणम् भवति -
                              शशिना च निशा निशया च शशी । १२ वर्णाः
                              (१-१-२) (१ १-२) (१-१-२) (१ १-२) इति मात्राः ।
                              स-स-स-स इति गणाः ।
                              शशिना निशया च विभाति नभः।
                              कविना च विभुर्विभुना च कविः ।
                              कविना विभुना च विभाति सभा ॥
                               
                              यथा आपटे-महाभागस्य शब्दकोषे विवृतं एतत् ताटक-वृत्तम् । अस्य लक्षण-पदम् - वद
                              ताटकमब्धिसकारयुतम् ।
                              अस्तु ।
                              सस्नेहम्
                              *अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।
                              "श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"*
                              **संस्कृताध्ययनम् । <http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com/>*
                              http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com *
                              *गीतान्वेषणम् http://study1geetaa2sanskrit.wordpress.com
                              *उपनिषदध्ययनम् <http://upanishat.wordpress.com/>
                              http://upanishat.wordpress.com
                              http://slez-musings.blogspot.com
                              संस्कृत-प्रसृतिः http://sanskritaprasruti.wordpress.com/
                               
                               
                               
                              2012/3/26 Kiran Paranjape <kiranpa...@gmail.com>
                               

                               

                              bayaryn <bay...@gmail.com> Mar 26 11:27AM -0700  

                              धन्यवादाः
                               
                              On Saturday, March 24, 2012 10:23:13 PM UTC+3, Raama wrote:

                               

                            You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group samskrita.
                            You can post via email.
                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
                            For more options, visit this group.

                            Arvind_Kolhatkar

                            unread,
                            Mar 27, 2012, 4:49:05 PM3/27/12
                            to samskrita
                            There is yet one more way to appreciate the import behind what
                            Kalidasa has said. पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ are described as संपृक्तौ
                            (similarly as) वागर्थौ इव. वागर्थौ is a union between the feminine
                            and the masculine. For पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ to have a similar union that
                            samaasa must be resolved as पार्वती च परमेश्वरश्च and not as
                            पार्वतीपश्च रमेश्वरश्च.

                            Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 27, 2012.

                            Vimala Sarma

                            unread,
                            Mar 27, 2012, 10:01:09 PM3/27/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            Please note the date Kālidāsa lived.  Saraswathi emerged as a later goddess from the name of an ancient river which has since dried up.

                            I am not sure why this thread is being pursued, surely it is clear that the split is Pārvati Paramesvara.

                            In Vedic times the devata of speech was agni.

                            Vimala

                             

                             

                             

                            Nityanand Misra

                            unread,
                            Mar 27, 2012, 6:35:54 PM3/27/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            It is not necessary that the उपमान and the उपमेय have the same gender. Many a time the female is compared to a चातक to her lover who is compared to the मेघ - चातक and नायिका do not have the same gender. Furthermore, even if one were to enforce the common gender on the उपमान and the उपमेय, Kalidasa himself says in Kumarasambhava that the feminine and masculine aspects are the aspects of the same Brahman.

                            स्त्रीपुंसावात्मभागौ ते भिन्नमूर्तेः सिसृक्षया   ।
                            प्रसूतिभाजः सर्गस्य तावेव पितरौ स्मृतौ   । । २.७  । ।


                            "The feminine and the masculine are the divisions of Your own, of One whose form was split (into two) out of a desire to sire. These two came to be known as the mother and the father of the creation forming a part of the (process of) generation.[2.7]"


                            The alternate parsing of the Samaasa as पार्वतीपः शिवः रमेश्वरश्च तयोरितरेतरद्वन्द्वः पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ is acceptable. In addition to father, पिता can mean the protector - पातीति रक्षतीति पिता (पा + तृच्). A question may arise as to why Shiva and Vishnu could be called as fathers (progenitors), or how Shiva could be called as protector if that is the meaning. My answer would be Kalidasa says in Kumarasambhava that the देवत्रयी of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva - the progenitor, protector and destroyer are essentially aspects of the same Brahman.


                            तिसृभिस्त्वमवस्थाभिर्महिमानमुदीरयन्  ।
                            प्रलयस्थितिसर्गाणामेकः कारणतां गतः   । । २.६  । ।

                            "Bringing forth your glory by the means of your three states (of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva), You, Who is the One, become the cause of generation, protection and destruction.[2.6]

                            There could be multiple interpretations of the same verse. This only enhances poetic beauty by the श्लेष figure of speech. In fact, पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ could also be parsed as

                            पार्वतीपर - मेश्वरौ - पार्वत्याः परः इति पार्वतीपरः शिवः (the Supreme Lord of Parvati) किंवा पार्वती परा येन इति पार्वतीपरः शिवः (with whom or due to whom Parvati is परा or supreme), मायाः लक्ष्म्याः ईश्वरः इति मेश्वरः, तयोरितरेतरद्वन्द्वः पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ. 

                            Other parsings are also possible but I will save that for another day.

                            --
                            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

                            unread,
                            Mar 27, 2012, 7:49:23 PM3/27/12
                            to Nityanand Misra, sams...@googlegroups.com

                            PS: Just realized that the example to illustrate different genders of and was not quite right as the नायिका is usually compared to the चातकी. However, the eye of the (लोचनम्or नेत्रम् ), having the neuter gender, is often compared to the चातक. Here is a better example, also from the Kumara epic, where the उपमेय वाच्, is feminine while the उपमान हविष् (हविस्), has the neuter gender.

                             

                            तमन्वगच्छत्प्रथमो विधाता श्रीवत्सलक्ष्मा पुरुषश्च साक्षात् ।

                            जयेति वाचा महिमानमस्य संवर्धयन्तौ हविषेव वह्निम् । । ७.४३  । ।


                            Sent from my iPhone

                            Vimala Sarma

                            unread,
                            Mar 27, 2012, 11:14:22 PM3/27/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            In dvandva compounds where there are two members of different genders, the compound takes the gender of the last member in dual. Usual to put the feminine noun first - eg mātāpitarau.  Sometimes it is sufficient just to put the masculine last member - putrau, to designate both son and daughter.

                            Vimala

                             

                             

                            Nityanand Misra

                            unread,
                            Mar 27, 2012, 11:58:52 PM3/27/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com, <samskrita@googlegroups.com>

                            That is not true. The seventh canto of the Kumarasambhavam epic describes the marriage of Parvati and Shiva  which is attended by all deities. Saraswati is present and she greets the newlyweds after Brahma and Lakshmi. This means Saraswati was included in the Hindu pantheon in the time of Kalidasa. Furthermore, she greets the newlyweds in both Sanskrit and Prakrit. Her expertise with Sanskrit and Prakrit speech as described by Kalidasa means her association with the presiding deity of speech may predate Kalidasa. Here is the verse (7.90):

                             

                            द्विधा प्रयुक्तेन च वाङ्मयेन सरस्वती तन्मिथुनं नुनाव ।

                            संस्कारपूतेन वरं वरेण्यं वधूं सुखग्राह्यनिबन्धनेन ।। ७.९० ।।

                             

                            The association with Sanskrit speech is too clear to be ignored, Mallinatha explains:

                             

                            द्विधेति । अथ सरस्वती वाग्देवी द्विधा संस्कृतप्राकृतरुपेण द्वैविध्येन प्रयुक्तेनोच्चारितेन वाङ्मयेन शब्दजालेन तन्मिथुनं नुनाव तुष्टाव । `णु स्तुतौ' इति धातोर्लिट् । केन कमित्याह-संस्कारेति । संस्कारेण शास्त्रव्युत्पत्त्या पूतेन प्रकृतिप्रत्ययविभागशुद्धेन । संस्कृतेनेत्यर्थः । वरेण्यं वरणीयम् । श्लाघ्यमित्यर्थः । वृणोतेरौणादिक एण्यप्रत्ययः । वरं वोढारं शिवम् । सुखेन ग्राह्यं सुबोधं निबन्धनं रचना यस्य तेन वाङ्मयेन प्राकृतभाषयेत्यर्थः । वधूं नुनावेत्यनेन सम्बन्धः ।। ७.९० ।।


                            Sent from my iPhone

                            Vimala Sarma

                            unread,
                            Mar 28, 2012, 8:58:38 PM3/28/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            Thanks for the verse.

                            It has been debated if the later chapters of Kumarasambhavam (ie after chapter 6) were written by Kalidasa, but this is a matter of individual opinion.  His nandis are to Siva, and I think he lived around 500 CE.

                            Vimala

                             

                             

                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Mar 29, 2012, 1:03:29 AM3/29/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            Brahma chasing his daughter in lust into the sky and shot by rudra with arrow the legend behind mRugavyAdha and mRugASHIRsHA (CONSTELLATION) could be traced back to Aitareya brahmaNa.

                            This episode has been interpreted differently according to astronomical position of that time by Vedanga Jyotisha who do not like this kind of "ashleela" narration in the holy veda-s.

                            I am not sure of name there. 

                            Nityanand Misra

                            unread,
                            Mar 29, 2012, 7:04:23 AM3/29/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com, <samskrita@googlegroups.com>
                            Vimala Ji

                            To the best of my knowledge, the authorship of cantos nine to seventeen of Kumarasambhavam is disputed and they are mostly considered to be work of a later poet. Eighth is disputed by some authors and shunned by many Samskrta Gurus but most accept Kalidasa as the author, even Mallinath commented on it. Cantos one to seven are universally attributed to Kalidasa. 

                            I would be interested to refer any studies that doubt the authorship of cantos six and seven.

                            Sent from my iPhone

                            murthy

                            unread,
                            Mar 29, 2012, 10:47:05 AM3/29/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            I agree with Misraji. Cantos 1-8 of KS are certainly of Kalidasa.

                            Vimala Sarma

                            unread,
                            Mar 29, 2012, 8:49:49 PM3/29/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            Canto six is not doubted  - it is definitely Kalidasa, but I will get you a ref re canto 7.

                            Viswanath B

                            unread,
                            Apr 2, 2012, 4:11:46 AM4/2/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            I can't recall off my head the exact location, but a reference to saraswati exists in Taittiriya Samhita, 5th Kanda. I will confirm the location. I don't know though that it is the goddess saraswati, or the river.

                            The popular prayer - praNodevi saraswati, vajebhirvajinivati, dhinamavitryavatu is a mantra from vedic literature [ upanishad, brahmana, samhita].

                            Viswanath

                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Apr 3, 2012, 1:47:25 AM4/3/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            There are many contexts in which the word सर्स्वती is used in the Vedic Literature, not onlly in one saMhitA - 

                            •aChinnaM tantuM payasaa sarasvatii # VS.20.43c; MS.3.11.1c: 

                            •atho devi sarasvati # AVP.2.63.1b.

                            •adya devi sarasvati # AVÇ.4.4.6b; AVP.4.5.8b.

                            •anumatiH sarasvatii # AVP.1.50.3a.

                            •apaataam ashvinaa sarasvatiindraH sutraamaa vRRitrahaa somaan 

                            •apur ashvinaa sarasvatiindraH sutraamaa suraasomaan # VS.21.60.

                            •ayam u te sarasvati vasiShThaH # RV.7.95.6a; MS.4.14.7a: 226.7.

                            •ayam u te sarasvati vasiShThaH # RV.7.95.6a; MS.4.14.7a: 226.7.

                            •ashvineDaa (VSK. °laa) sarasvatii # VS.21.54b; VSK.23.53b; 

                            •ashvinendraM sarasvatiim # VS.21.29b; MS.3.11.2b: 141.2; TB.2.6.11.1b

                            •ashvinobhaa sarasvatii # VS.20.56b,69b; MS.3.11.3b: 143.11; 

                            •ashvinau sarasvatiim indraM sutraamaaNaM yaja # ÇB.5.5.4.25.

                            These are only lines selected from the Vedic Concordance of Bloomfield. There will be many more and one can invent the meaning in all the occurrences and check them with traditional Bhashya-s or modern English Translations which differ in degrees of approach..

                            hnbhat

                            unread,
                            Apr 3, 2012, 6:26:00 AM4/3/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            On 28 Mar, 2012, at 6:35 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

                            It is not necessary that the उपमान and the उपमेय have the same gender.

                            It has been accepted generally by the rhetoricians though some consider the similarity of genders used in respect of उपमान and उपमेय are contributing to the beauty of the उपमा, and in certain cases they may be impoverish the beauty of the poetry in which case it is considered as a poetic blemish. This is the general standard.

                             न लिङ्गवचने भिन्ने न हीनाधिकतापि वा|
                             उपमादूषणायालं यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमताम् । । |२.५१ । ।  
                            काव्यादर्श of दण्डिन्,
                            retaken by Bhoja also:

                            यद्भिन्नलिङ्गमित्युक्तं विभिन्नवचनं च यत् ।
                            उपमादूषणं तन्न यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमताम् ।। १.१२० ।। 

                            in his सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण with enough examples where they are considered as poetic blemishes. 

                            I don't think the present case does come within the rule or the exception as both are in masculine gender पार्वती-परमेश्वरौ  (उपमेय) and वागर्थौ (उपमान). I don't see any occasion for the invoking the rule and its exceptions here.

                            Ajit Gargeshwari

                            unread,
                            Apr 3, 2012, 4:40:48 AM4/3/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            Vac, Sanskrit, vac, "speech," Hindu (Vedic), is the goddess of the spoken word. In certain texts she is a daughter of Daksa and the consort of Kasyapa. Alternatively she is the daughter of Ambhrna, and, also, is known by the epithet "queen of the gods." She is the personification of speech and oral communication and, is believed, to be able to lead a man to become a Brahman. Vac also personifies truth and sustains soma, the liquid essence of vision and immortality.

                            This Hindu goddess' manifestation is thought to have come from the early reliance on the sacred oral teachings "heard" by the rsis (holy men) properly intoned and accented, thrust the folk-divinity Vac into prominence. Since effective service depended upon effective speech, the supreme vehicle of knowledge and ritual power… Vac even gained precedence over Agni. As the "Word," Vac is somewhat like the Neo-platonic "logos": Vac is the source of creation, and the mother of the Veda. In the Tantric tradition she is celebrated as Para-vac, Transcendental speech, the mother of all sacred mantras. Later she was associated with the river goddess Sarasvati, whose banks of the sacred river served as fertile soil for the growth of culture.

                            Vac, although prominent in the Rg Veda, almost completely disappears from Hindu mythology later when being syncretized with Sarasvati. She is generally depicted as an elegant womanly figure, dressed in gold, but in a secondary capacity as a mother goddess, who is also drawn as a cow. A.G.H.


                            Jordan, Michael, Encyclopedia of Gods, New York, Facts On File, Inc. 1993, p. 275
                            Bowker, John, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 1011


                            Vāk or Vāc (stem vāc-, nominative vāk) is the Sanskrit word for "speech", "voice", "talk", or "language", from a verbal root vac- "speak, tell, utter".

                            Vāk is often identified with Sarasvati
                            Personified, Vāk is a goddess; most frequently she is identified with Bharati or Sarasvati, the Goddess of speech. In the Veda she is also represented as created by Prajapati and married to him; in other places she is called the mother of the Vedas and wife of Indra.
                            In the  Rigveda (books 2 to 7), vāc- refers to the voice, in particularly the voice of the priest raised in sacrifice. She is personified only RV 8 and RV 10, in RV 10.125.5 speaking in the first person (trans. Griffith)

                            The intimate connection with speech, sacrifice and creation in  Rigvedic thought is expressed in RV 10.71.1-4:
                            1. bŕhaspate prathamáṃ vācó ágraṃ / yát praírata nāmadhéyaṃ dádhānāḥ
                            yád eṣāṃ śréṣṭhaṃ yád ariprám âsīt / preṇâ tád eṣāṃ níhitaṃ gúhāvíḥ
                            2. sáktum iva títa'unā punánto / yátra dhîrā mánasā vâcam ákrata
                            yátrā sákhāyaḥ sakhyâni jānate / bhadraíṣāṃ lakṣmîr níhitâdhi vācí
                            3. yajñéna vācáḥ padavîyam āyan / tâm ánv avindann ŕṣiṣu práviṣṭām
                            tâm ābhŕtyā vy àdadhuḥ purutrâ / tâṃ saptá rebhâ abhí sáṃ navante
                            4. utá tvaḥ páśyan ná dadarśa vâcam / utá tvaḥ śṛṇván ná śṛṇoty enām
                            utó tvasmai tanvàṃ ví sasre / jāyéva pátya uśatî suvâsāḥ
                            RV 8.100:
                            10. yád vâg vádanty avicetanâni / râṣṭrī devânāṃ niṣasâda mandrâ
                            cátasra ûrjaṃ duduhe páyāṃsi / kvà svid asyāḥ paramáṃ jagāma
                            11. devîṃ vâcam ajanayanta devâs / tâṃ viśvárūpāḥ paśávo vadanti
                            sâ no mandréṣam ûrjaṃ dúhānā / dhenúr vâg asmân úpa súṣṭutaítu
                            Vak also speaks, and is described as a goddess, in RV 8.100:
                            10. yád vâg vádanty avicetanâni / râṣṭrī devânāṃ niṣasâda mandrâ
                            cátasra ûrjaṃ duduhe páyāṃsi / kvà svid asyāḥ paramáṃ jagāma
                            11. devîṃ vâcam ajanayanta devâs / tâṃ viśvárūpāḥ paśávo vadanti
                            sâ no mandréṣam ûrjaṃ dúhānā / dhenúr vâg asmân úpa súṣṭutaítu
                            RV 1.164.45 has:
                            catvâri vâk párimitā padâni / tâni vidur brāhmaṇâ yé manīṣíṇaḥ
                            gúhā trîṇi níhitā néṅgayanti / turîyaṃ vācó manuṣyā̀ vadanti


                            Regards

                            Ajit gargeshwari

                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Apr 3, 2012, 9:03:48 AM4/3/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            The question was the word whether "Sarasvati" is identified with the वाच् in the Vedic Period. 

                            ":देवीं वाचमजनयन्त देवाः"  etc. could easily be interpreted as the human language playing an important part in men's life as the media of communication, in linguististic terms the faculty of speech, or living language (by which people live).

                            Deification and identification with the Puranic goddess of Sarasvati is the focus of the discussion in this topic and Ajit's explanations all focus the importance of वाच् as one of the देवता-s if supported by the देवतानुक्रमणी related to the सूक्त or सर्वानुक्रमणी relating to each ऋक्.

                            Lexicographers mingle both the idea of speech faculty in general and the Goddess सरस्वती, the presiding deity of learning as developed in PurANa-s. Classical writers refer to वाक् also:

                            "यं ब्रह्माणमियं देवी वाग्वश्येवान्ववर्तत।" भवभूति,
                            "देवीं वाचमुपासते हि बहवः सारं तु सारस्वतं जानीते नितरामसौ गुरुकुलक्लिष्टो मुरारिः कविः।" मुरारिः 

                            Also follow the same learning and the deity identified by वाच् and सरस्वती, follow the identification with Brahma (?):

                            1. ३५२) ब्राह्मी तु भारती भाषा गीर्वाग्वाणी सरस्वती।

                              as Amara considers synonymous terms.

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

                            Pramod Kulkarni

                            unread,
                            Apr 3, 2012, 11:02:31 AM4/3/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            In addition to the reasonable paarvatii-parameshwarau and acceptable paarvatiipa-ramesharau referring to shaMkara and viSNu I remember splitting the compound with vi as bird the haMsa and referring to the tio brahmaa, viSNu and mahesha. But I have forgotten the exact split.
                            auddhav 

                            2012/3/26 K.N.RAMESH <knra...@gmail.com>
                            वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तयॆ / जगत: पितरौ वन्दे  पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ "
                              पार्वतीपरमॆश्वरौ -Can this be split into 
                              पार्वतीप & रमॆश्वरौ ? 
                              thanks

                            --

                            Vimala Sarma

                            unread,
                            Apr 5, 2012, 4:43:15 AM4/5/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            NityAnanda Mahodaya.

                            R K Panda " KumAra sambhava of kAlidAsa:' opines on pg 40 of his book that some parts of  7th canto shows clear influence of kAmasUtra, and other parts resemble shivapuraNa.  However I do not want to start a controversy so I will not be commenting on any responses to this thread.

                             

                            Bhatt Mahodaya.

                            Sarasvati - both as the name of the river and as the personification of vAk - is mentioned several times in the Rigvedic brahmana - Aitareya.

                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Apr 5, 2012, 5:49:56 AM4/5/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            Bhatt Mahodaya.

                             

                            Sarasvati - both as the name of the river and as the personification of vAk - is mentioned several times in the Rigvedic brahmana - Aitareya.

                            Vimala





                            The below is the extract of your earlier message.


                            Please note the date Kālidāsa lived.  Saraswathi emerged as a later goddess from the name of an ancient river which has since dried up.


                            By goddess you might not have meant the Goddess as depicted in the PurAna-s as वीणापुस्तकधारिणी female goddess called सरस्वती, This is certainly a later development from the personified form of वाच् in the ऋग्वेदसंहिता (yajus -have got different deities than ऋग्. both have compendiums called देवतानुक्रमणी  and the ब्राह्मण-texts (the forerunners of Puranic legends.)

                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Apr 5, 2012, 6:11:53 AM4/5/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            R K Panda " KumAra sambhava of kAlidAsa:' opines on pg 40 of his book that some parts of  7th canto shows clear influence of kAmasUtra, and other parts resemble shivapuraNa.  However I do not want to start a controversy so I will not be commenting on any responses to this thread.




                            Inline image 2





                            The disputed one is the Canto 8th and the remaining are not accepted as of Kalidasa by RV Krishnamacharya because of the language and as they are not commented by any commentator.

                            The amorous plays of Shiva and Parvati is in Canto VIII unless Panda is missing one Canto from the generally commented Text by commentators. And Narayana, in his Vivarana, argues against this view, and established Canto VIII is also by Kalidasa. This makes it clear the description according to Kamasutra, makes it doubtful in its ascription to Kalidasa and accepted as Kalidasa's by the commentators. This is the focus of the dispute. 

                            I don't know why Panda has this description in Canto 7 while the others have it in 8. The above screen shot of V Krishnamacharya's history of Literature makes this clear.


                            With regards

                             

                            -- 

                            image.png

                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Apr 5, 2012, 11:07:41 AM4/5/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com

                            |p1  prajāpatir vai svāṁ duhitaram abhyadhyāyad,
     divam ity anya āhur uṣasam ity anye.

                            This is the forerunner of the Puranic legend of ब्रह्मा marrying his own daughter सरस्वती who is absent in this phase of the story as can be seen from the above extract. It is said to be द्यौः, or उषस्. and not सरस्वती as in the Puranic legend.
                                 tām .rṣayo bhūtvā rohitam bhūtām abhyait.
     taṁ devā apa/ṣyann: āk.rtaṁ vai prajāpatiḥ karotīti.
     te tam aichan ya enam āriṣyaty, etam anyonyasmin nāvindaṁs.
     teṣāṁ yā eva ghoratamās tanva āsaṁs, tā ekadhā samabharaṁs.
     tāḥ sambh.rtā eṣa devo \\\'bhavat, tad asyaitad bhūtavan nāma
|p2  bhavati vai sa yo \\\'syaitad evaṁ nāma veda
|p3  taṁ devā abrūvann:
     ayaṁ vai prajāpatir ak.rtam akar, imaṁ vidhyeti.
     sa tathety abravīt, sa vai vo varaṁ v.rṇā iti. v.rṇīṣveti.
     sa etam eva varam av.rṇīta: pa/ṣūnām ādhipatyaṁ.
     tad asyaitat pa/ṣuman nāma
|p4  pa/ṣumān bhavati yo \\\'syaitad evaṁ nāma veda
|p5  tam abhyāyatyāvidhyat, sa viddha ūrdhva &0 udapravata,
     tam etam m.rga ity ācakṣate.
     ya u eva m.rgavyādhaḥ sa u eva sa, yā rohit sā rohiṇī,
     yo eveṣus trikāṇḍā so eveṣus trikāṇḍā

                            The above is the forerunner of the episode of रुद्र becoming मृगव्याध, विव्याधिन्, of मृग as depicted in iconography and Puranic picture of शिव.
                            In शैव Purana-s, he cuts the 5th head of ब्रह्मा as punishment to him. Here he shoots arrow at him. The मृग is called रोहिणी, मृगरोहिणी as popular name of the constellation is given derivation in this episode. 

                            |p6  tad vā idam prajāpate retaḥ siktam adhāvat, tat saro \\\'bhavat.
     te devā abruvan: medam prajāpate reto duṣad iti.
     yad abruvan: medam prajāpate reto duṣad iti, tan māduṣam abhavat,
     tan māduṣasya māduṣatvam.
     māduṣaṁ ha vai nāmaitad yan mānuṣaṁ,
     tan māduṣaṁ san mānuṣam ity ācakṣate parokṣeṇa,
     parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ

                            The above gives the etymology of the word मानुष in its own style as connected with this legend.
                            I am sorry this is off the topic, but this is in reply to the reference to prajaapati and his daughter resembling Brahma and his wife सरस्वती the goddess of learning in Puranic phase.

                            murthy

                            unread,
                            Apr 5, 2012, 11:48:52 AM4/5/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            I have read that Mrigavyadha corresponds to the Orion constellation. Perhaps Rohini is Betelguese.
                            Regards
                            Murthy
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:37 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Samskrita] वागर्थाविव


                            Hnbhat B.R.

                            unread,
                            Apr 6, 2012, 3:52:02 AM4/6/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM, murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:
                            I have read that Mrigavyadha corresponds to the Orion constellation. Perhaps Rohini is Betelguese.
                            Regards
                            Murthy


                            Thanks for the correction.  
                            -- 

                            Nityanand Misra

                            unread,
                            Apr 6, 2012, 12:43:57 AM4/6/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            Vimala Ji

                            Thanks for the reference. Can you help with the publisher, ISBN, year,
                            et cetera. Would be interesting to read this in detail, especially if
                            the author points out verses that show influence of Kama Sutra or Shiv
                            Purana in his opinion.

                            By itself, the influence of Kama Sutra or resemblance to Shiv Purana
                            does not imply doubs in authorship of seventh canto. Vatsyayana and
                            Kalidasa both are dated around the same time. If I remember correctly
                            even Kale has pointed out similarities in the narrative of Kumara epic
                            and Shiv Purana.

                            Essentially, I would be interested if Panda doubts authorship of
                            seventh canto of Kumara building on these two observations.

                            Thanks, Nityanand


                            --

                            Ajit Gargeshwari

                            unread,
                            Apr 6, 2012, 9:35:43 AM4/6/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com


                             Tiltle: Kumarasambhavan of Kalidasa ( Fifth canto text & english translation )
                            Author : R.K. Panda


                            ISBN No. : 81-86050-23-x

                            Format : Hardbound

                            Edition : 2006

                            http://www.bkpbooks.com/kumarasambhavan-of-kalidasa/270/book-details.html

                            Regards
                            Ajit Gargeshwari

                            Vimala Sarma

                            unread,
                            Apr 6, 2012, 10:14:29 PM4/6/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            nityānanda mahodaya
                            "Kumārasaṃbhavam of Kālidāsa - Fifth Canto text and English translation". Editor - Dr Rabindra Kumar Panda, Publishers BKP (Bharatiya Kala Prakashan), 2nd Edition, 2006, Printed by BDH Printers at Salasar Imaging System, Delhi 35. ISBN 81-86050-23-x. I think he is strongly implying it, by saying it is different from the elegant and subtle imagery language of K. But Bhat Mahodaya is questioning if he has mistaken chapter 7 for chapter 8.
                            Vimala

                            Vimala Sarma
                            My new e-mail is sarma...@gmail.com
                            +612 9699 4414
                            +61 409 690 220


                            Jaideep Joshi

                            unread,
                            Apr 7, 2012, 5:01:05 AM4/7/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            Rohini is not Betelguese but Al-deberan, the brightest star in present day Taurus.

                            Regards,
                            Jaideep
                            --------------



                            On 7 April 2012 07:44, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:
                            nityānanda mahodaya
                            "Kumārasaṃbhaam of Kālidāsa - Fifth Canto text and English translation". Editor - Dr Rabindra Kumar Panda, Publishers BKP (Bharatiya Kala Prakashan), 2nd Edition, 2006, Printed by BDH Printers at Salasar Imaging System, Delhi 35. ISBN 81-86050-23-x.  I think he is strongly implying it, by saying it is different from the elegant and subtle imagery language of K.  But Bhat Mahodaya is questioning if he has mistaken chapter 7 for chapter 8.

                            murthy

                            unread,
                            Apr 7, 2012, 11:25:28 AM4/7/12
                            to sams...@googlegroups.com
                            Thanks for correcting. I was not sure when I wrote.

                            Haripriya Eyunni

                            unread,
                            Mar 26, 2024, 7:58:53 AMMar 26
                            to samskrita
                            Namaste to all the scholars of the group, 
                            coming back to this discussion, we have always considered Brahma as the Creator, Vishnu as the Sustainer and then Shiva as the Destroyer. But, does this shloka mean Kalidasa considered Parvati and Parameshvara as the creators of the Universe ?

                            Regards, 
                            Haripriya

                            Vishvas Vasuki (Vishvas)

                            unread,
                            Mar 28, 2024, 5:55:01 AMMar 28
                            to samskrita
                            On Tuesday 26 March, 2024 at 5:28:53 pm UTC+5:30 Haripriya Eyunni wrote:
                            Namaste to all the scholars of the group, 
                            coming back to this discussion, we have always considered Brahma as the Creator, Vishnu as the Sustainer and then Shiva as the Destroyer. But, does this shloka mean Kalidasa considered Parvati and Parameshvara as the creators of the Universe ?


                            कालिदासदृष्ट्या त्रिषु मूर्तिषु भेदो न पारमार्थिकः, यत आह - 

                            नमस् त्रिमुर्तये तुभ्यं
                            प्राक्-सृष्टेः **केवलात्मने** ।
                            गुण-त्रय-विभागाय
                            पश्चाद् **भेदम् उपेयुषे** ॥ 2.4 ॥
                            Reply all
                            Reply to author
                            Forward
                            0 new messages