Re: "संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः" @ A Subhashita A Day

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमन् "उज्ज्वल लामिछाने"-महोदय !
"संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः" अस्य वाक्यस्य अन्वयः व्याकरणम् च विचारणीयौ इति दृश्यते ।
(१) "संस्कृतम्" इति नपुंसकलिङ्गी शब्दः । "दैवी वाक्" स्त्रीलिङ्गिनौ शब्दौ । "अन्वाख्यातम्" नपुंसकलिङ्गी । "नाम"-शब्दस्य लिङ्गम् किम् ?
(२) "संस्कृत-नाम्नी दैवी वाक्" अथवा "संस्कृतनाम्ना दैवी वाक्" अथवा "संस्कृतनामा दैवी वाक्" एवंविधाः वाक्प्रयोगाः अपि शक्याः ? कः वाक्प्रयोगः सुष्ठुतमः खलु ?
(३) "नाम" इति अव्ययमपि "खलु"-इत्यर्थेन ?!
(४) "संस्कृतम्" इति भाषायाः नाम । अतः विशेषनाम । "संस्कृतम्" इति विशेषणमपि ?!
(५) संस्कृतभाषायाः "गीर्वाणभाषा" इति अन्यमपि नाम । अस्याः भाषायाः "संस्कृतभाषा"-इति नामाभिधानं अतिप्राचीनतः कुत्र प्राप्यते ?
(६) "महर्षिभिः अन्वाख्यातम्" इति । किम् अन्वाख्यातम् ? अथवा कथम् अन्वाख्यातम् ? "संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक्"- इति अन्वाख्यातम् । अथवा "महर्षिभिः अन्वाख्यातं संस्कृतम् नाम दैवी वाक् ।" अथवा "महर्षिभिः अन्वाख्यातं संस्कृतम् दैवी वाक् नाम ।" एताविधाः अन्वयाः शक्याः ?
(७) अन्वयस्यापि अनेकाः पर्यायाः भवन्ति खलु ? यथा अन्वयः तथा अनुवादः । भवतः अनुवादः केन अन्वयेन ?
अस्तु ।
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/9 Subhashita Sangraha (सुभाषिता संग्रहः) - A Subhashita A Day <ujjwolla...@gmail.com>

Subhashita Sangraha (सुभाषिता संग्रह) - A Subhashita A Day

---

Sanskrit is the divine language Posted: 08 Dec 2010 08:36 PM PST संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः।१-३२। दण्डिनः काव्यादर्शः “What we call Sanskrit is the divine language, as commented upon by the great sages.”

You are subscribed to email updates from Subhashita Sangraha (सुभाषिता संग्रहः) - A Subhashita A Day To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

--
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

[hn bhat]

भोः अभयंकर महाभाग,

संस्कृतसाहित्ये अहमेकमेवाभयंकरमहाभागं गुरुत्वेनाङ्गीकृतवान् - वासुदेव अभयंकरमहाभागम्। तत्सजातीय इति गौरवेणेदमुच्यते येन महाभागेन गुरुमहोदयेनानेके ग्रन्थाः व्याख्याता यथा बालानामपि सुबोधास्ते भवन्ति, तद्गोत्रजेन भवता कथमीदृशं व्याख्यानं क्रियते? 

संस्कृतं नाम

दैवी वागन्वाख्याता महर्षिभिः। \

इति पूर्वापरपरित्यागेन व्याख्यातं भवता कथम्?

ततः पूर्वमेव संस्कृतम्, प्राकृतम्, इति भाषाभेदमुपक्रम्य, तयोः संस्कृतं नाम किमिति आकाङ्क्षायाम्, संस्कृतं नाम तद्, दैवी वाक् या महर्षिभिः पाणिनीयादिभिः, अन्वाख्याता - अनुशिष्टा इति सुग्रहे अन्वये, अन्वयक्लेशादिकमुत्पादयितुं प्रयत्नः कथं क्रियते?

"नाम प्राकाश्य-संभाव्य-क्रोधोपगम-कुत्सने"(२५२) इति नानार्थवर्गे अव्ययप्रकरणे नामलिङगानुशसनप्रामाण्यात्, अत्र नामेत्यव्ययं प्रकाशे प्रयुक्तमव्ययम्। अन्येषामत्राप्रसक्तत्वात्। संस्कृतं नाम प्रसिद्धं भाषाभेदं प्रकाशयति = निर्वक्ति, अग्रेतननिर्वचनेन। देवानामियं दैवी वाग् - भाषा, दैवी वाक्। या महर्षिभिः पूर्वमन्वाख्याता इति। संस्कृतमिति नियतलिङ्गं पदम्, देवानां भाषायाः। यथा चाग्निपुराणे -

देवादीनां संस्कृतं स्यात् प्राकृतं त्रिविधं नृणां । 8ab 

इति यदुक्तं तदेवात्र संस्कृतमिति नाम्ना व्यवहृता भाषा। यदि भाषापरविशेषणत्वेन गृह्यते, तदा संस्कृता, संस्कृती वा भवत्येव। संस्कृती प्राकृती इत्यपि 

कथं देवानां भाषा इति चेत्--

देवीं वाचमजनयन्त देवास्तां विश्वरूपाः पशवो वदन्ति।

इति श्रुतिप्रामाण्यादिति गृहाण।

अन्वयक्लेशः परिहृतो वा? अग्रे महान्तो विद्वांसः समादधीरन्। प्रकृते एतावता उपरमामि। आङलभाषायामनुवादः समीचीन एवान्वयार्थमनुगच्छति।

2010/12/13 S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com>

नमो नमः श्रीमन् "उज्ज्वल लामिछाने"-महोदय !
"संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः" अस्य वाक्यस्य अन्वयः व्याकरणम् च विचारणीयौ इति दृश्यते ।

संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः।१-३२। दण्डिनः काव्यादर्शः

“What we call Sanskrit is the divine language, as commented upon by the great sages.”

You are subscribed to email updates from Subhashita Sangraha (सुभाषिता संग्रहः) - A Subhashita A Day To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

--
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

--
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.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[hn bhat]

Dear Friend,

When I wrote last, I didn't have the text of Kavyadarsha. It is very perfect qualification for Vaangmaya and not the reverse as you suggested to vaak. And that is how samskrita is used in general in  neuter gender even without the noun to be qualified, but cannoted by the word. 

Here is the precedent portion dividing Language into four types: संस्कृतं  प्राकृतं अपभ्रंश and मिश्र used in literature. It is संस्कृतं that refers to the preceding Vangmaya which denotes language in general speech. Svaarthe mayat. It is explained as the divine speech standardized by the sages (like Panini in Paaniniiya) and not the reverse.

It is better to go through the entire context before criticizing any text. Otherwise, such things would happen as posed by you.

I apologize for some inadvertent errors occured in my previous passage.

2010/12/13 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमान् "हरि नारायण भट"-महोदय !

भवता प्रथमे संदेशे मह्यं "अभयंकर"-इति संबोधितमासीत् । यथा मया ज्ञातम् अस्माकं कुलनाम "अभ्यंकर"-इत्येव अस्ति । कदाचित् अस्माकं कुलग्रामं कोंकण-प्रदेशे "आम्भेर" इति अस्ति । ततः आम्भेरकराः "अभ्यंकराः" अभवन् । अस्तु ।

संस्कृतभाषा-विषये अहम् केवलं एकः विद्यार्थी अस्मि, न आचार्यः न प्राचार्यः । भाषायाः अभ्यसने विचक्षणा-नीतिः मह्यं अतीव रोचते । ततः प्रश्नाः उद्भवन्ति । मया तु "संस्कृतम् नाम दैवी वाक् _ _ _ " इति उद्धरणस्य विषये प्रश्नाः विकल्पाः एव प्रकटीकृताः । अ कदापि मम आग्रहः यत् मम विचाराः एव ग्राह्याः ।
भवद्विधानां विद्वसां आलोचनैः मम ज्ञानं वर्धते । अन्ये जनाः अपि लाभं प्राप्नुवन्ति इत्यहं मन्ये ।
अत एव भवतः आलोचनेभ्यः धन्यवादान् कथयितुमिच्छामि ।

यतः भवता ज्ञापितं,  यत् काव्यादर्शे भाषाणां "संस्कृतं  प्राकृतं अपभ्रंश and मिश्र" इति चत्वारः प्रकाराः निर्दिष्टाः, तेन "संस्कृतम्"-इति भाषायाः भाषाणां वा एकः प्रकारः, न केवलं एकस्याः एव भाषायाः नाम । किम् एतद्विधः विचारः अपि योग्यः खलु ? कृपया अधिकेन ज्ञापयतु ।

धन्यवादाः ।

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/13 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Group.

Do we know in the historical sense the first instance when Sanskrit
was called 'Sanskrit'? Do we know who coined this word? What was it
called before that? Or did it not have any name?

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, December 13, 2010.
http://arvindkolhatkar.blogspot.com/

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः !
संस्कृतं इति भाषायाः वाचः वा अभिधानं आसीद्वा न वा ।
श्रीमद्रामायणे महाकविना वाल्मीकिना "संस्कृत"-शब्दस्य प्रयोगः सुन्दरकाण्डे कृतः दृश्यते । यथा -
      (१) बहुप्रकारैर्विविधैर्वरसंस्कारसंस्कृतैः ।

मांसैः कुशलसंयुक्तैः पानभूमिगतैः पृथक् ।।९-१८।।

     (२) अहं ह्यतितनुश्चैव वानरश्च विशेषतः ।

वाचं चोदाहरिष्यामि मानुषीमिह संस्कृताम् ।।२८-१७।।

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम् ।
रावणं मन्यमाना मां सीता भीता भविष्यति ।।२८-१८।।
अवश्यमेव वक्तव्यं मानुषं वाक्यमर्थवत् ।
मया सान्त्वयितुं शक्या नान्यथेयमनिन्दिता ।।२८-१९।।

विशेषेण अत्र "संस्कृताम् वाचम्"-इति वाक्प्रयोगः लक्षणीयः ।
अत्र अस्मिन् "संस्कृताम् वाचम्"-इति वाक्प्रयोगे "संस्कृताम्"-इति विशेषणमपि कथ्यते खलु ?
तस्याः "मानुषीम्" "द्विजातिरिव" एतौ विशेषणौ अपि लक्षणीयौ ।
कथंविधा वाक् उपयोजितव्या इति हनूमानस्य मनसि कश्चित् संभ्रमः । संस्कृता मानुषी द्विजातिरिव वाक् अयोग्या इति तेन मनसि कृतम् ।
कदाचित् तथाविधायाः भाषायाः नाम "संस्कृता" इति रामायणादनन्तरं रूढं अभवत् ।

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/14 Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com>

[S. L. Abhyankar]

"हनूमानस्य" इति शब्दप्रयोग्यः सदोषः । कृपया "हनुमतः" एवम् पठितव्यम् ।

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

2010/12/14 S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com>

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमन् "अविनाश साठये"-महोदय !

नूतनं ज्ञानं गम्यते भवतः निवेदनम् ".... BTW, if you are imagining that the name of the language became established by the influence of  रामायण then it is not a very old reference. The book is considered to be a relatively late construction. ..." ।
 
वाल्मीकि-महर्षिणः श्रीरामायणम् न प्राचीनम् ? इतिहासकाराणां  मतेन कः अस्य काव्यस्य कालः खलु ?

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/14 Avinash Sathaye <so...@ms.uky.edu>

I think this citation does not establish the संस्कृत as a language name.

In verse 1, clearly it is not a language.
In verse 2, the discussion seems to be whether to use the monkey language or human language.

Then he contemplates that if I use the sophisticated language of the द्विज, then सीता might suspect me to be रावण in disguise. Let us remember that रावण was an eminent Vedic scholar. I have heard some Vedic experts attribute the वेदविकृति पद, क्रम, जटा, घन  etc. to be designed by him. There is certainly the शिवताण्डव स्तोत्र.
So, he settles on human and meaningful speech, but not the sophisticated kind not संस्कृत.

BTW, in संस्कृताम् वाचम् the word संस्कृताम् is indeed an adjective, but not necessarily of a "language". It simply could denote "speech".

One should also  remember the dramatic  tradition that  women and children always speak प्राकृत in a drama. In one interesting example of this, a prince speaks in प्राकृत  as a child and later as a brave warrior, speaks in संस्कृत.

Yesterday, I looked in the well known  "history of the Sanskrit language"  by  Burrow. He discusses numerous layers of the language and its position in the IE tree, but never discusses where the "name" comes from(:-))

BTW, if you are imagining that the name of the language became established by the influence of    रामायण then it is not a very old reference. The book is considered to be a relatively late construction.

Incidentally, I also looked in पतंजलि. He does not use the word भाषा, but discusses that there are words शब्दाः , some वेदिक and some लौकिक. He suggests that the words of the the so-called संस्कृत  are simply the "proper words" properly used. All others are mistaken अपभ्रंश and have to be regulated by grammar. However, the main purpose of words is communication and he does recognize that non brahmins do use other words, but a brahmin must study the proper words to understand the scriptures!

P.S. Yesterday, I meant to add to my mail a proper मराठी meaning of नाम, namely म्हणजे! That is exactly the sense of your verse.

-- 


--
With Best Regards,
Avinash Sathaye

Web: www.msc.uky.edu/sohum

[hn bhat]

You can see the word संस्कृतम्   in the Natyashastra of Bharata, used in the sense of Sanskrit Language. Earlier references may be available if a search in view of this point is conducted. 

2010/12/14 Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com>

--
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.

[Vimala Sarma]

Kolhatkar Mahodaya

Do you mean the script or the language?
The spoken language developed out of the vedic language which had an easier but more ambiguous grammar, and many monosyllabic words. Vedic in turn was related to Persian spoken at about the time of the KushAn empire. The classical Sanskrit language of the epics and kavyas developed after the grammar was regularised by Pannini maybe about the 5th BCE, and was spoken as Sanskrit by some strata of society at the same time as Prakrits were spoken by the majority, from the time of Pannini. In Gandhara where Pannini lived the Prakrit was gAndhArI, written in KharoSTI script. The word sam + kR means elaborated, well formed, etc. Monier Williams gives one meaning as a word formed according to accurate rules, a regular derivation (I am guessing that this refers the more elaborated grammar of Pannini). This means that this word was used to refer to the language after the time of Pannini. Not sure when this word was first used to refer to the language, but will get back to you on this (maybe in the Shiva sUtras thought to be written by Pannini?).

The devanagari script is thought to have developed from a precursor called siddhamAtRka which was written around 1000 CE which in turn developed from brAhmI thougth to have been developed by Asoka or his predecessors, which is turn is thought by Western scholars to derive from Aramaic and Phoenician. But equally brAhmI could be influenced by the Semitic scripts and not derived from it. The Indic scripts - KharoSTI and BrAhmI were the first scripts anywhere to use diacritical marks to denote the vowels following consonants - an innovation still used in all Indian scripts to-day, and makes the scripts completely phonetic.

Hope this helps
Vimala

Dear Group.

--

[Jay]

Vimlaji,

A remark about marks for vowels.

Linear B was another script to use it, time line being 13-17 century BC.

Organization of alphabets in Talavya Dantya etc classification is unique.

As far as closeness to other languages, similarity with Avestan used in Zorostrian Zend Avestha is striking. The most striking is this verbatim one.

Atharva Veda 7:66; Zend Avesta Prishni, Chapteer 8, Gatha 12

yadi antareekshe yadi vaate aasa yadi vriksheshu yadi bolapashu
yad ashravan pashava ud-yamaanam tad braahmanam punar asmaan upaitu

[Vimala Sarma]

Thanks for these references to  the word Sanskrit in vAlmIki’s rAmayana.

Vimala

[hn bhat]

Thanks for all the scholars who contributed to the history of Sanskrit Language and Literature throwing light on the development and script.

A question was raised by Abhyankar needs to be drawn attention. If Ramayana, considered by Indian Tradition as the Aadikavya, the first classical poetry (composed in Anushtup metre, differentiated from the Vedic compositions) is not considered as the earliest by the western scholars, what would be the date assigned by the western scholars at the latest? According to M. Krishnamachariar, the western scholars differ in dating fantastically from 13th - 14th century BC to 937 BC. and now our young scholar claims it to be too latest composition. 

And, even if it is said to refer the standardization of the language, Panini is not only the earliest Grammarian, as he himself refers to many earlier grammarians by name explicitly and implicitly. 

Some more light can be thrown on the use of the word samskrita used in respect of language for the first time. Even brahmnins spoke Sanskrit purely in Yaga occasions, and otherwise used to speak the native or regional common language. "Yaajne karmani vai naapabhaashante" is a quotation from Mahabhashya. So "Dvijatir iva samskritaam" can be interpreted in both ways. Like the brahmin, speak sanskrit language or refined language. 

धारयन् ब्राह्मणं रूपम् इल्वलः संस्कृतं वदन् / (54.1) 
आमन्त्रयति विप्रान् स श्राद्धम् उद्दिश्य निर्घृणः // (54.2) 

आमन्त्रय् विप्र तद् श्राद्ध उद्दिश् निर्घृण
भ्रातरं संस्कृतं भ्राता ततस् तं मेषरूपिणम् / (55.1) 
तान् द्विजान् भोजयामास श्राद्धदृष्टेन कर्मणा // (55.2) 

Even if the quotation cited by Abhyankar is not enough to prove the use of the word in the sense of a language, the above two usages in the citation above from Ramayana itself, from Aranyakanda, would throw some light. The first of above two usages, seems to be used to Sanskrit language, as the context suggests and as per the quotation from Mahabhashya seems to suggest. Even if there is no unanimity of opinion regarding the date of the composition of Ramayana, here it seems to be the reference to the language. According to Indian tradition, it is the first poem and Valmiki is honoured by Indian traditional scholars as the first poet.

काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा।

क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः॥

as attested by Anandavardhana, the propounder of Dhvani school of Indian school of Criticism.

With regards

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Group

The Ramayana is earlier than the Mahabharata and is considered the earliest epic to be written with shloka meter.  Arthur MacDonald dates it about 500 BC, and says the older parts deviate from Panninean grammar.  There were  minstrel bards who sang songs telling stories of heros, battles, kings, famous sacrifices,  and myths, such as the story of Rama before the whole epic was composed as a coherent story, by Valmiki.   These wandering bards, called sUtas,  sang in Sanskrit.  Much later in the time of the Mahabharata, they were looked down upon (as we know from the story of Karna) and identified with chariot drivers.

 

Sanskrit was originally used by a ruling and cultured class of people – this does not necessarily mean Brahmins spoke it, but more likely what we would now call Ksatriyas and wealthy people who formed the  audiences who went to see drama.  Brahmins continued to used the older Vedic chants in yajnas.

Vimala

 

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hn bhat
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2010 6:11 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: "संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः" @ A Subhashita A Day

 

Thanks for all the scholars who contributed to the history of Sanskrit Language and Literature throwing light on the development and script.

--

[murthy]

Dear group,

Dating ValmikiRamayana:

There are internal evidences which show the countries, nationalities and peoples Valmiki was aware of and from which one could infer a lower bound for Ramayana’s date.

 

tasyaa humbhaaravotsRuShTaaH pahlavaaH SataSo nRupa |1/54/18||

 

bhUya evaasRujat ghoraan Sakaan yavanamiSritaan |1/54/21||

 

taiste yavanakaambojaa barbaraaScaakulIkRutaaH |1/54/23||

draaviDaaH sindhu souvIraaH souraaShTraa dakShiNaapathaaH |

va~Ggaa~Ggamagadhaa matsyaaH samRuddhaaH kaaSikosalaaH ||2/10/37 ||

tatra mlecCaan pulindaanSca SUrasenaanstathaiva ca |

prasthalaan bharataanScaiva kurUnSca saha bhadrakaiH ||

kaambojayavanaanScaiva SakaanaaM pattanaani ca |4/43/11-12||

 

tathaivaandhraanSca puNDraanSca colaan paaNDyaanSca keralaan |4/41/13||

 Again the Buddha is clearly referred to:

yathaa hi coraH sa tathaa hi buddhaH

tathaagataM naastikamatra viddhi| 2/109/34||

 

Regards

Murthy

 

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Murthy - Ji

Does it say mAtra and not matra in the last verse you cited?

“Know the tathagata (the way of the Buddha) to be only nihilism (believing nothing exists).”

 

sourAsthrAtrA – land of the  sun-worshippers?

I guesss mlecca and yAvana refer to Greeks.

What about yavanakAmbojA –  central asian?

 

The other names are places in India.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमति "विमला शर्मा"-महोदये !
संपूर्णं रामायणम् विश्व-विस्तृत-जाले देवनागर्यां पठ्यते यथा
http://wikisource.org/wiki/बालकाण्डे_चतुःपञ्चाशः_सर्गः_॥१-५४॥
एतस्मिन् जालपुटे पठ्यते ।
दुर्भाग्यतः अयोध्याकाण्डस्य नवाधिकशततमः सर्गः न केनापि wikisource-मध्ये उपरीकृतः इति दृश्यते ।
भवत्याः प्रश्नः २-१०९-३४ श्लोकस्य विषये अस्ति । मूर्ति-महाशयेन यथा अयं श्लोकः उद्धृतः तमहं देवनागर्यां एवं पठामि -

yathaa hi coraH sa tathaa hi buddhaH = यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धः

tathaagataM naastikamatra viddhi = तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि ।

नास्तिकमत्र = नास्तिकम् + अत्र ।
अनेन सन्धि-विच्छेदेन भवत्याः प्रश्नः "Does it say mAtra and not matra in the last verse you cited?" उत्तरितः भवति खलु ?

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/17 Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com>

-

[Sunder Hattangadi]

Namaste,                    This may help:   http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga109/ayodhya_109_frame.htm   yathaa hi choraH sa tathaa hi buddhaH | stathaagataM naastikamatra vidhhi | tasmaaddhi yaH shaN^kyatamaH prajaanaam | na naasti kenaabhimukho budhaH syaat ||          2-109-34   34. yathaahi tathaa hi= It is an exact state of the case; saH= that; buddhaH= a mere intellection; choraH= (is deserves to be punished) as a thief; viddhi= and know; naastikam= an atheist; atra= here; tathaagatam= to be on par with a mere intellectual; tasaat= therefore; yaH= he who; shaN^kya tamaH= is the most suspectable; prajaanaam= (should be punished in the interest of) the people; na syaat= In no case; buddhaH= should a wise man; abhimukhaH= consort; naastikaa= with an atheist.   "It is an exact state of the case that a mere *intellection deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the poeple. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist."   Regards,   sunder --- On Fri, 12/17/10, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[murthy]

Dear Sri. Sundar Hattangadi,

The meaning quoted by you appears contrived. I quote relevant portion of commentary by Maheswaratirthapada

"pratyakShapramaaNavaadI buddhamataavalmbI raajye yadi kaScit sambhavet so&pi niraakaraNIyaH"

Regards

Murthy

--

[hn bhat]

Instead this will be helpful to understand the text in the context:

<2.109.34> 

*यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धः 

तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि। 

तस्माद्धि यः शक्यतमः प्रजानां 
1न नास्तिकेनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् ।। 34 ।। 

Amrutakataka  commentary of Madhava:

अथ अतिकोपात् नास्तिकोऽपि बौद्धवद्दण्डार्हो राज्य इत्याह-यथा हीत्यादि। यथा हि चोरो दण्ड्यः प्रसिद्धः, बुद्धोऽपि तथा दण्ड्यः प्रसिद्धः। नास्तिकं चार्वाकमपि अत्र-वेदमार्गविषये तथा-गतमेव विद्धि, तेनापि वेदप्रामाण्यं न स्वीक्रियते, तथा नास्तिकेनापीति। तस्माद्धि-तत एव हेतोः प्रजानां अनुग्रहाय राज्ञा चोरवदेव दण्डयितुं शक्यतमः, द्विजोऽपीति शेषः। ततश्च `कथाऽपि खलु पापानाम् अलमश्रेयसे यतः' इति न्यायेन बुधः-विद्वान् नास्तिकेनाभिमुखो न स्यात्। एवञ्च दण्डाशक्तैर्ब्राह्मणैः नास्तिकः सम्भाषणीयो न भवतीत्युक्तं भवति ।। 34 ।। 

{*यथा हि चोरः प्रजानां बाह्यं धनं अपहरति, तथा केवलबुद्धिवादरतोऽपि जनानाम् उत्तमसंस्कारादिरूपम् आन्तरं धनम् अपहरति। अतः तादृशः बुद्धिवादरतः शून्यवादी यावच्छक्ति दूरतः परिहरणीय इत्यर्थः। अधिकं रामायणभूमिकायां स्पष्टीभविष्यति।} 
{1स-ङ.} 

Bhushana by Govindaraja 

प्रत्यक्षैकप्रमाणवादी यदि कश्चिद्राज्ये स्यात् सोपि बहिष्करणीय इत्याह--यथेत्यादिना । चोरो यथा निराकरणीय: स: वेदबाह्यत्वेन प्रसिद्धोपि । तथाहि तथैव । अत्र अस्मिन् लोके । नास्तिकं चार्वाकं तथागतं बुद्धतुल्यं विद्धि तस्माद्य: प्रजानां शङ्क्यतम: अवैदिकत्वेन शङ्कनीय: । तेन नास्तिकेन बुधो ऽभिमुखो न स्यात् ।। 2.109.34 ।। 

Tilaka by Nagoji Bhatta or Ramavarma (1730-1810)

बौद्धादयो राज्ञश्चोरवहण्ड्या इत्याह-यथा हीति । बुद्धो बुद्धमतानुसारी तथा चोरवद्दण्ड्य इति हि प्रसिद्धम् । नास्तिकं चार्वाकं तथागतं तत्सदृशं चोरवद्दण्ड्यं विद्धि । नास्तिकविशेषस्तथागतः तमपि चोरवद्दण्ड्यमिति शेष इत्यन्ये । वेदप्रामाण्यापहर्तृत्वेन तेषामपि चोरत्वात् । हि निश्चयेन तस्मात्प्रजानामनुग्रहाय राज्ञा चोरवदेव दण्डयितुं शक्यतमो यः स चोरवदेव दण्ड्यः दण्डायोग्ये तु बुधो ब्राह्मणो नास्तिके ऽभिमुखो न स्यात् तत्संभाषणादि न कुर्वितेत्यर्थः, तुल्यन्यायाद्दण्डासमर्थो ब्राह्मणो ऽपि तद्विमुखः स्यादिति सूचितम् ।। 2.109.34 ।। 

Tirtha or Tattvadipa by Mahesvara Tirtha 

प्रत्यक्षैकप्रमाणवादी चार्वाकमतानुसारी जाबालिरिव प्रत्यक्षमात्रप्रमाणवादी बुद्धमतावलम्बी राज्ये यदि कश्चित्सम्भवेत्सोपि निराकरणीय इत्याह-यथाहीति । चोरो यथा निराकरणीयः स वेदबाह्यत्वेन प्रसिद्धा बुद्धः तथैव निराकरणीयः । अत्र अस्मिंल्लोके नास्तीकं चार्वाकमपि तथागतं विद्धि बुद्धतुल्यं विद्धि, तस्मात्प्रजानां यः शङ्क्यतमः अवैदिकत्वेन परिहर्तव्यः । तेन नास्तिकेन बुधः अभिमुखो न स्यात् । शक्यतम इति पाठे बहिष्कर्तुं च योग्य इत्यर्थः ।। 2.109.34 ।। 

Siromani by Sivasahaya 

यथेति । यथा चोर: तथैव बुद्ध: चोरवत् बुद्धो दण्ड्य इत्यर्थ: । अत्र अस्मिन् चोरसादृश्ये विद्यमानं तथागतं लोकायतिकं नास्तिकं चार्वाकं च विद्धि जानीहि एतावपि चोरवद्दड्यावित्यर्थ:, तस्माद्धेतो: प्रजानां मध्ये य: शक्यतम: दण्डदाने अत्यन्तं समर्थ: स एव बुद्ध: नास्तिकेन बौद्धादिना अभिमुख: स्यात्, एतेन यो दण्डदाने असमर्थ: स नास्तिकं दूरत: परिवर्जयेदिति सूचितम् ।। 2.109.34 ।।

One more commentary Dharmakuta By Tryambaka-Raja Makhi 

is still being uploadedm not available for the portion.

Here is the link for the complete data base for Ramayana:

http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/index.php

With regards

By the way, the words buddha and tathaagata both are considered as synonymous to Gautamabuddha and shankyatama or shakyatama or shaakyatama reading may also refer to buddha himself. The commentators differ in their interpretation. 

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Sri Abyankar Mahodaya

Thank you for the link and the correction.

It is a very useful link.

Like Shakuntala, I am responding in the vernacular – English in this case, because it takes me time to compose in Sanskrit.

 

Going back to the original question re the date of the rAmayaNa, I guess  this shows that that when this particular verse was written, Buddhism had spread and was becoming a threat (perhaps at the period of Asoka?).

I agree with Murthy-ji that tathagata and the word Buddha refer to the Sakymuni Buddha and not to “the intellectual”.

The verse is equating the Buddha to a thief “For as a thief, so indeed is the Buddha.........” perhaps because a Buddhism was making a lot of converts (stealing away the followers of Brahmanical religion and undermining the  power of the priests)

“Now know the tathagata Buddha to be a nAstika”.

And also equating  them to nAstikas  (a philosophical movement which says nothing exists in the real sense – what the West would call philosophical idealism, as opposed to realism).

 

I thought it might be worthwhile to attach what we are responding to below so things are seen as a discussion and not as I an isolated comment. Sorry if I am violating any rules.

 

Over here, we all take a holiday this time of the year – so season’s greetings to everybody on this group.

 

Shubham

Vimala

[murthy]

Dear Sri.Abhyankar,

When Vimalaji says that “when this particular verse was written, Buddhism had spread and was becoming a threat (perhaps at the period of Asoka?)” I do not know if it is implied that the verse could be an extrapolation. Unless there are sufficient grounds to treating a passage as an extrapolation, like marked change in style and diction, obvious discontinuity etc. it would not be correct to treat any passage that does not suit a specific viewpoint to be an extrapolation. One has to concede that a clever extrapolator can get away with his mischief.

There are other time-posts in Valmiki like mention of Cholas, Pandyas, Sakas, Yavanas,Hunas etc which do not encourage us to treat the poet’s time as pre-buddhic.

Regards

Murthy

--

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमति "विमला शर्मा"-महोदये !

एताविधैः श्लोकैः प्रश्नः उद्भवति, "अपि किम् वाल्मीकि-महर्षिणा नास्तिकता-वादिनः बुद्ध-धर्मस्य प्रभावात् सनातन-धर्मम् रक्षितुं रामायण-कथा विरचिता ?" एतत् तु शक्यं न दृश्यते । तेन मनसि जायते एताविधाः सर्वे श्लोकाः प्रक्षिप्ताः इति मन्तव्याः निष्कासितव्याः एव ।

एकः प्रसङ्गः स्मृत्यां आगच्छति - "डिसेम्बर-१९९२" मध्ये "बाबरी-मस्जिद" ध्वंसिता । "जानेवारी-१९९३"-मध्ये प्रवासात् प्रत्यागमने यान-चालकः एकः मुस्लिम-युवकः आसीत् । आवयोः सुष्ठु संभाषणमपि अभवत् । तदा तेन मह्यं पृष्टं "भवतः धर्मग्रन्थे अस्माकं धर्मस्य विषये किम् लिखितमस्ति ?" मम मनसि विचारः संजातः "किम् भवति कारणम् यत् अनेन एवंविधः प्रश्नः पृष्टः ?" कथ्यते कुराणे अस्ति आदेशः "काफिराणां विनाशः कर्तव्यः ।" यदि अस्ति सत्येन कुराणे एवंविधः कोऽपि आदेशः, एषः आदेशः तु अन्य-धर्मीय-जनानां विषये एव । कदाचित् तस्य प्रश्नः अपि तथाविधेन कुराणस्थितेन आदेशेन एव प्रेरितः ! मया तु तं स्पष्टी-कृतम् "पश्यतु, भवतः हिजरी-कालगणनायाः चतुर्दश-शत वर्षाणि व्यतीतानि । "जानेवारी-१९९३"-मध्ये ख्रिस्ती-कालगणनायाः द्विसहस्र-सार्ध वर्षाणि व्यतीतानि । तेन ख्रिस्ती-कालगणना हिजरी-कालगणनायाः षट्-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना । १९६५-ख्रिस्ताब्दे भगवतः बुद्धस्य तीर्थंकरस्य महावीरस्यापि द्वि-सहस्र-पञ्च-शत-वर्षीयः जन्मोत्सव-समारोहः मानीतः आसीत् । तेन बुद्ध-धर्मस्य जिनधर्मस्य च कालगणना ख्रिस्ती-कालगणनायाः अपि षट्-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना । तीर्थन्करः महावीरः तु चतुर्विंशति-तमः तीर्थन्करः । ततः जिनधर्मस्य कालगणना ख्रिस्ती-कालगणनायाः एक-सहस्र-द्वि-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना भवति । जिनधर्मस्य मन्त्रेषु सन्ति मन्त्राः "ॐ नमो सिद्धाणं । ॐ नमो अरिहन्ताणं ।..." एताविधाः । एतेषु मन्त्रेषु यत् "ॐ नमो" इति उच्चार्यते, तत्तु सनातन-धर्मतः एव । एवं प्रकारेण सनातन-धर्मस्य अनुसृतिः त्रि-सहस्र-सप्त-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना तु अस्त्येव । कदाचित् तस्मिन् प्राचीने काले न कोऽपि अन्यः धर्मः प्रचलति स्म । यद्येवं, तर्हि सनातन-धर्मस्य ग्रन्थेषु अन्यान् धर्मान् गृहीत्वा किमपि लिखितं भवति एताविधः संभवः एव न दृश्यते ।" सः युवकः तु मम स्पष्टीकरणेन समाहितः ।

एताविधः विचारः अत्रापि मननीयः इति मे मतिः ।

अन्यः अपि एकः विचारः मनसि जायते - भवभूतेः उत्तररामचरितं तु वाल्मीकि-रामायणादनन्तरं एव ? अस्ति उत्तर-रामचरिते कश्चित् एताविधः उल्लेखः ? परीक्षणीयम्  खलु ?

मम विचारेण तु मूर्ति-महोदयेन उल्लेखिताः श्लोकाः प्रक्षिप्ताः एवमेव मन्तव्याः । अस्तु ।

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

[G S S Murthy]

A correction: I notice now that in my last Email, I have inadvertantly used "extrapolation" while I really meant "interpolation". I regret the error.
Murthy

--
Have you visited my web site? http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Sir Abyankar Mahodaya

Thank you for your long e-mail.  I appreciated getting it.  It was good practise for me to translate it accurately.

Yes I agree that Valmiki could not have written those verses and that they are inserted later.

There should be tolerance between all religions and the destruction of the Babri mosque cannot be justified by anything written in any dharma.

I got a little confused re your discussion about the dates.  Are you saying that the Ramayana was written at the time of the time of the Mahavira?

And that we got the formula “Om nano.............” from the Jains?

Warm regards

[Krishnamachary]

Brahma Sutras of Vyasa has taken Bhoudha matam as poorva paksha ( as opposed to Shruthi) and vehmently negated it.Does it mean Vyasa and his sutras  are latterday occurence of Buddha.It appears so because boudha mata nirakarana  means Buddha preceeds Vyasa.It is not so.Then how do we justify? Vyasa as darshanika foresees possible opposing darshana which on latter days were identified as Boudha matam and simply negated it.It does not mean vyasa came only after Budhdha. Mr.V.Krishnamachary Retired Civil Engineer Samskrutha Abhimaani Email: vedantha...@yahoo.com --- On Wed, 12/22/10, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

[Vasuvaj .]

Namaste
Asya 'google-group' ganasya charchaa vishayah naasti.

Tathaa api mama abhipraayam prakatikartum vaancchaami.
 Vimala Sharma mahaabhaagaayaah patrasya etat vaakyam aham sampoornatayaa angikaromi:

There should be tolerance between all religions and the destruction of the Babri mosque cannot be justified by anything written in any dharma.

------

I fully agree that destruction of any religious buildings cannot be justified by anything written in any dharma.

Destruction and construction of structures  in the same place  is also not justified by anything written in any dharma:

We just cannot justify the following structures:

Qawwat al-Islam Mosque ,

Hammam Darwaza Masjid

Jami Masjid at Ghoda in the Poona District of Maharashtrat Jaunpur ,

Mosque at Qanauj ,

Jami (Masjid) at Etawah ,

Mosques of Alamgir ,

Masjid at Manvi in the Raichur District of Karnataka ,

Jami Masjid at Malan, Palanpur Taluka, Banaskantha District of Gujarat ,

Gachinala Masjid at Cumbum in the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh,......

 ..... the list goes on and on.

Itopi adhikam jnaatum icchati chet krupayaa etat  jaalaputam pashyatu:

 

http://www.voi.org/books/htemples1/

---

[Hera Moon]

Dear All,

 

I am afraid I would rather not be led to believe that Vyasa and Valmiki predicted - as “darshanika” - future events and took stance against someone who came after them. Otherwise, just imagine the insurmountable difficulty with determining/guessing the dates of ancient scriptures! Therefore, I am rather comfortable with the guess that those passages were added at later dates for some understandable reasons. But this is only a personal feeling, not even an opinion.

 

Just for curiosity, if you don’t mind this small diversion (if you do, please be generous and ignore it):

Why was Buddha so negated? The essence of his teachings is, as far as I can discern, any bit deviated from the Truth spoken and shared by all sincere minds of all times. I personally like Buddha very much, especially because he negated himself as an absolute authority. He said, for instance, that we should not believe anything only because he said it unless it agrees with our own reason. Truth, if we do not understand it, would be indeed like a lamp to the blind. Buddha also said that we should work out our own liberation. And listen to this kind request of his: “Teach this triple truth to all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity.”

 

My deep reverence and love to all those nice people on the mailing list who live a life of service with generous heart and kind speech! I am lucky to find myself profiting from their selfless services. Thanks to them, my Sanskrit is improving and my spiritual horizon is broadening.

 

Hera

 

---

[Vimala Sarma]

Vasuvaj Mahodaya

I was only commenting on what I had received from Sri Abyankar Mahodaya.

I fully understand what you are saying, one dharma has caused a lot of destruction because of their ideas about images, not only in India but also in Afghanistan, Persia and Central Asia.

You may be interested in film I saw recently called Agora set in ancient Alexandria – the same things happened but with other dharmas - Christians destroying the old deities of the Greek religion.

But this is now going beyond the scope of this group.

 

Best wishes for the New Year

Vimala

--

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमति "विमला शर्मा"-महोदये !

(१) मया तु लिखितमासीत् - ""ॐ नमो सिद्धाणं । ॐ नमो अरिहन्ताणं ।..."......एतेषु मन्त्रेषु यत् "ॐ नमो" इति उच्चार्यते, तत्तु सनातन-धर्मतः एव ।" कथम् भवत्या विपरीतः अर्थः प्राप्तः येन भवती लिखति "Are you saying that the Ramayana was written at the time of the time of the Mahavira?"
मया अभिप्रेतमासीत् सनातन-धर्मः बुद्ध-जैन-धर्मयोरपि प्राचीनः । अत एव सनातनधर्मग्रन्थेषु अन्य-धर्माणां विषये किमपि लिखितं भवेत् एताविधा शक्यता नास्ति ।
(२) श्रीमता  "कृष्णम्माचारी"-महोदयेन लिखितमस्ति ब्रह्मसूत्रेषु बौद्धमतम्  "पूर्व-पक्षः" इति मानीतमस्ति । मया तु ब्रह्मसूत्राणि न अभ्यसितानि ।
परन्तु ब्रह्मसूत्राणां उल्लेखः श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतायां "ब्रह्मसूत्रपदैश्चैव हेतुमद्भिर्विनिश्चितैः (१३-४) अत्र दृश्यते । अतः ब्रह्मसूत्राणि तु महाभारतादपि पूर्वमेव रचितानि ! कथम् शक्यम् यत् ब्रह्मसूत्रेषु बौद्ध-मतस्य चर्चा ? ब्रह्मसूत्रेष्वपि प्रक्षिप्तानि सूत्राणि ?
(३) श्रीमता "वासुवाज"-महोदयेन कतिपयानां "मस्जिद"-स्थानानां सूचिः निवेदितास्ति । मुस्लिम-धर्मानुसारिणैः  राज्यकर्त्रुभिः तेषां कालेषु तत्सर्वं कृतम् एतत्तु स्पष्टमेव । किमस्मिन् काले अपि तथाविधाः कृतयः कर्तव्याः ?
(४) "धर्म"-इति शब्दस्य भाषान्तरं क्रियते तदेव मह्यं अमान्यम् । एतद्विषये मम विचाराः मया एवंविधा संगठिताः ।

sarva-dharmān parityajya

māmekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja

ahaṁ tvā sarvapāpebhyo

mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

 Bhagavad-gītā 18:66

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।
अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ।।भगवद्गीता १८-६६

सामान्यतः अस्य श्लोकस्य भाषान्तरं क्रियते - Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.
मम विचारेण भाषान्तरं एवम् कर्तव्यम् - Set aside all codes of conduct related to various interpersonal relationships and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sins which may get committed due to violation of those codes of various interpersonal relationships. Have no doubt.
The word “dharma” is not to be translated as “religion”.

I strongly contend that here it means “codes of conduct related to interpersonal relationships”. The word is used here in plural. A person’s conduct is regulated or is desired to be regulated by codes related to a variety of interpersonal relationships. A person has various codes of conduct to follow towards his wife, brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends, precepts and even towards enemies !

In the battle, Arjuna was facing BheeShmaachaarya and DroNaachaarya and all through his life he had revered them as his great grandfather and precept respectively. But in the battle, they had chosen to be in the enemy camp. That caused the dilemma in Arjuna’s mind about what code he should observe. That was precisely his संमोहः - "न चैतद्विद्मः कतरन्नो गरीयो यद्वा जयेम यदि वा नो जयेयुः ?" (२-६)

Lord KriShna unequivocally advises him to set aside all codes of conduct whatsoever are related to all interpersonal relationships and just be asurrender to Him. In turn Lord also assures Arjuna that He will get Arjuna the pardon for whatever sins will be indulged into, due to breaking the codes related to previous concepts or previous interpersonal relationships.

Interestingly this advice also connotes an advice that one should be open-minded to accept change of interpersonal relationships in a given situation ! In the battle Arjuna’s relationship with भीष्म-पितामह had changed to being enemies of each other ! So the code of conduct has to change ! And the change had not been forced by Arjuna. It was भीष्म-पितामह and द्रोणाचार्य who had opted to be in the enemy camp by their own volition.

मम धर्मः = my religion एताविधं भाषान्तरं यदि विलीयते तेन सर्वे वादाः अपि विलीयन्ते । न कस्यापि कोऽ पि एकः धर्मः । प्रत्येकस्य बहवः धर्माः भवन्त्येव । ते सर्वे यथाविधाः व्यक्ति-संबन्धाः तथाविधाः धर्माः । "Religion" इति विचारः एव सदोषः पाश्चिमात्यः विचारः, शब्दः अपि । तत्रस्थितैः जनैः "religion-related" religion-prompted" संघर्षाः वारंवारं अनुभूताः । तेनैव तेषाम् मनसि religion एताविधः शब्दः संजातः । तैः "धर्म"-शब्दस्य योग्यः अर्थः न कदापि ज्ञातः एव इति दृश्यते । अतः एव  मम धर्मः = my religion एताविधं भाषान्तरं तैः प्रसृतम् । मह्यं तु तथाविधं भाषान्तरमेव अमान्यम् ।

भवतु ।

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/22 Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com>

[Shobha Saraiya]

namo namaH shri Abhyankar mahodaya,   How nicely you have put these explanations. thank you !. I really feel blessed to be in this Samskrita group among all these learned people. looking forward to  more of your insight in the new year! thank you mahodaya.   I was actually able to read all and understand all sanskritam as well. Your daily lessons are  wonderful. not able to finish all of them yet.   bhavadIyA shobhA

--- On Thu, 12/23/10, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] RE: Buddha and dates To: sams...@googlegroups.com, "Vimala Sarma" <vsa...@bigpond.com>, vas...@hotmail.com, vedantha...@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 8:42 PM नमो नमः श्रीमति "विमला शर्मा"-महोदये ! (१) मया तु लिखितमासीत् - ""ॐ नमो सिद्धाणं । ॐ नमो अरिहन्ताणं ।..."......एतेषु मन्त्रेषु यत् "ॐ नमो" इति उच्चार्यते, तत्तु सनातन-धर्मतः एव ।" कथम् भवत्या विपरीतः अर्थः प्राप्तः येन भवती लिखति "Are you saying that the Ramayana was written at the time of the time of the Mahavira?" मया अभिप्रेतमासीत् सनातन-धर्मः बुद्ध-जैन-धर्मयोरपि प्राचीनः । अत एव सनातनधर्मग्रन्थेषु अन्य-धर्माणां विषये किमपि लिखितं भवेत् एताविधा शक्यता नास्ति । (२) श्रीमता  "कृष्णम्माचारी"-महोदयेन लिखितमस्ति ब्रह्मसूत्रेषु बौद्धमतम्  "पूर्व-पक्षः" इति मानीतमस्ति । मया तु ब्रह्मसूत्राणि न अभ्यसितानि । परन्तु ब्रह्मसूत्राणां उल्लेखः श्रीमद्भगवद्गीतायां "ब्रह्मसूत्रपदैश्चैव हेतुमद्भिर्विनिश्चितैः (१३-४) अत्र दृश्यते । अतः ब्रह्मसूत्राणि तु महाभारतादपि पूर्वमेव रचितानि ! कथम् शक्यम् यत् ब्रह्मसूत्रेषु बौद्ध-मतस्य चर्चा ? ब्रह्मसूत्रेष्वपि प्रक्षिप्तानि सूत्राणि ? (३) श्रीमता "वासुवाज"-महोदयेन कतिपयानां "मस्जिद"-स्थानानां सूचिः निवेदितास्ति । मुस्लिम-धर्मानुसारिणैः  राज्यकर्त्रुभिः तेषां कालेषु तत्सर्वं कृतम् एतत्तु स्पष्टमेव । किमस्मिन् काले अपि तथाविधाः कृतयः कर्तव्याः ? (४) "धर्म"-इति शब्दस्य भाषान्तरं क्रियते तदेव मह्यं अमान्यम् । एतद्विषये मम विचाराः मया एवंविधा संगठिताः । sarva-dharmān parityajya

māmekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ahaṁ tvā sarvapāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ  Bhagavad-gītā 18:66

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।

अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ।।भगवद्गीता १८-६६सामान्यतः अस्य श्लोकस्य भाषान्तरं क्रियते - Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Abhyankar Mahoday

Namo namaH

I think you said that for three thousand years there was no other dharma, but I may have misunderstood the context.   Dharma is really untranslatable and there are a number of approximations in English.  In the famous verse in the GItA 18.66, people have also translated that in different ways.  Your translation is a good one.

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Hera Mahodaya

After the development of the Mādhyamika school of Buddhism by Najārjuna – with the idea of sūnyata (non-existence) replacing realism (of all things), no absolutes including God (dependent origination), and the doctrine of no-abiding Self (replacing the eternal ātman),  - about 5th century CE, - the Vaidikas fought back to defend upanisadic concepts.  There were  several vārttikas (MW_ the exposition of the meaning , of that which is said , of that which is left unsaid , and of that which is ill or imperfectly said )written.  These texts were criticisms of Buddhist concepts using the system of philosophical dialectics developed by the Nyāya school.  This sort of dialectics is also used by the Buddhists but developed into a unique form by Dinnāga.  The position of the opponent is first put – called the pūrvapakṣa - and then this position is refuted using rules such observation (pramāṇas) and inference (pratyakṣa) and validating these by reference to the Vedas.  This was a very interesting time for Indian philosophy. The main work, Mimāmsā ślokavārttika, was written by Kumārila but there were others who followed in his wake, in including Adi Śankaracārya.  There was also a healthy counter movement criticising the Vaidika schools, by Vācaspati Miśra.  Unfortunately although this was a very interesting time intellectually, it led to Buddhism dying out in India, so I guess history has given victory to the vaidikas.  However Buddhist thinkers such as Dinnāga, Najārjuna, Dharmakīrti and others contributed greatly to Indian philosophical thought, ontology, metaphysics and logic.

Many good wishes for the new year.

Vimala

--

[hn bhat]

I will join you all in the interesting discussion soon.

Sorry I was not able to access net for some reason.

Thanks for all the participants keeping the discussion in move. Better if new points are introduced, the subject line can be changed so that a separate discussion from that point can be started.

With regards

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected Shri Abhyankar-ji,
As I had heard from my childhood and now I have rechecked with some of my Jain friends (highly educated as well as some grocery shop owners..(dANAwAlA-s),as also on google 'Jain Prayers', there is no 'om' in the Jain mantra "NamokAr mantra", called 'navkar mantra' perhaps by non-Jains. I am told, no word in Sanskrit or its daughter languages has retroflex nasal as the word-initial sound. The mantra begins with Namo (not namo, the first sound being a retroflex nasal, not a dental nasal). Lata Mangeshkar has also sung it. "om' seems to be a later addition by some non-Jain, perhaps a Vedanta obsessed Hindu. So I wonder if it is appropriate to deduce "तत्तु सनातन-धर्मतः एव ।" because एतेषु मन्त्रेषु यत् "ॐ नमो" इति उच्चार्यते! This is my humble submission.
...Shreyas

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:20:31 +0530 wrote

Dear Sir Abyankar MahodayaThank you for your long e-mail.  I appreciated getting it.  It was good practise for me to translate it accurately.
Yes I agree that Valmiki could not have written those verses and that they are inserted later.There should be tolerance between all religions and the destruction of the Babri mosque cannot be justified by anything written in any dharma.

I got a little confused re your discussion about the dates.  Are you saying that the Ramayana was written at the time of the time of the Mahavira?

And that we got the formula “Om nano.............” from the Jains?Warm regards

Vimala 
From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of S. L. Abhyankar

Sent: Monday, 20 December 2010 1:01 AM
To: Vimala Sarma
Cc: sams...@googlegroups.com; GSS Murthy
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] RE: Buddha and dates
 नमो नमः श्रीमति "विमला शर्मा"-महोदये !


एताविधैः श्लोकैः प्रश्नः उद्भवति, "अपि किम् वाल्मीकि-महर्षिणा नास्तिकता-वादिनः बुद्ध-धर्मस्य प्रभावात् सनातन-धर्मम् रक्षितुं रामायण-कथा विरचिता ?" एतत् तु शक्यं न दृश्यते । तेन मनसि जायते एताविधाः सर्वे श्लोकाः प्रक्षिप्ताः इति मन्तव्याः निष्कासितव्याः एव ।


एकः प्रसङ्गः स्मृत्यां आगच्छति - "डिसेम्बर-१९९२" मध्ये "बाबरी-मस्जिद" ध्वंसिता । "जानेवारी-१९९३"-मध्ये प्रवासात् प्रत्यागमने यान-चालकः एकः मुस्लिम-युवकः आसीत् । आवयोः सुष्ठु संभाषणमपि अभवत् । तदा तेन मह्यं पृष्टं "भवतः धर्मग्रन्थे अस्माकं धर्मस्य विषये किम् लिखितमस्ति ?" मम मनसि विचारः संजातः "किम् भवति कारणम् यत् अनेन एवंविधः प्रश्नः पृष्टः ?" कथ्यते कुराणे अस्ति आदेशः "काफिराणां विनाशः कर्तव्यः ।" यदि अस्ति सत्येन कुराणे एवंविधः कोऽपि आदेशः, एषः आदेशः तु अन्य-धर्मीय-जनानां विषये एव । कदाचित् तस्य प्रश्नः अपि तथाविधेन कुराणस्थितेन आदेशेन एव प्रेरितः ! मया तु तं स्पष्टी-कृतम् "पश्यतु, भवतः हिजरी-कालगणनायाः चतुर्दश-शत वर्षाणि व्यतीतानि । "जानेवारी-१९९३"-मध्ये ख्रिस्ती-कालगणनायाः द्विसहस्र-सार्ध वर्षाणि व्यतीतानि । तेन ख्रिस्ती-कालगणना हिजरी-कालगणनायाः षट्-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना । १९६५-ख्रिस्ताब्दे भगवतः बुद्धस्य तीर्थंकरस्य महावीरस्यापि द्वि-सहस्र-पञ्च-शत-वर्षीयः जन्मोत्सव-समारोहः मानीतः आसीत् । तेन बुद्ध-धर्मस्य जिनधर्मस्य च कालगणना ख्रिस्ती-कालगणनायाः अपि षट्-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना । तीर्थन्करः महावीरः तु चतुर्विंशति-तमः तीर्थन्करः । ततः जिनधर्मस्य कालगणना ख्रिस्ती-कालगणनायाः एक-सहस्र-द्वि-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना भवति । जिनधर्मस्य मन्त्रेषु सन्ति मन्त्राः "ॐ नमो सिद्धाणं । ॐ नमो अरिहन्ताणं ।..." एताविधाः । एतेषु मन्त्रेषु यत् "ॐ नमो" इति उच्चार्यते, तत्तु सनातन-धर्मतः एव । एवं प्रकारेण सनातन-धर्मस्य अनुसृतिः त्रि-सहस्र-सप्त-शत-वर्षैः प्राचीना तु अस्त्येव । कदाचित् तस्मिन् प्राचीने काले न कोऽपि अन्यः धर्मः प्रचलति स्म । यद्येवं, तर्हि सनातन-धर्मस्य ग्रन्थेषु अन्यान् धर्मान् गृहीत्वा किमपि लिखितं भवति एताविधः संभवः एव न दृश्यते ।" सः युवकः तु मम स्पष्टीकरणेन समाहितः ।


एताविधः विचारः अत्रापि मननीयः इति मे मतिः ।


अन्यः अपि एकः विचारः मनसि जायते - भवभूतेः उत्तररामचरितं तु वाल्मीकि-रामायणादनन्तरं एव ? अस्ति उत्तर-रामचरिते कश्चित् एताविधः उल्लेखः ? परीक्षणीयम्  खलु ?


मम विचारेण तु मूर्ति-महोदयेन उल्लेखिताः श्लोकाः प्रक्षिप्ताः एवमेव मन्तव्याः । अस्तु ।


सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |

"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365

चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Vimala Sarma wrote:
Dear Sri Abyankar MahodayaThank you for the link and the correction.
It is a very useful link.Like Shakuntala, I am responding in the vernacular – English in this case, because it takes me time to compose in Sanskrit.

 Going back to the original question re the date of the rAmayaNa, I guess  this shows that that when this particular verse was written, Buddhism had spread and was becoming a threat (perhaps at the period of Asoka?).
I agree with Murthy-ji that tathagata and the word Buddha refer to the Sakymuni Buddha and not to “the intellectual”.
The verse is equating the Buddha to a thief “For as a thief, so indeed is the Buddha.........” perhaps because a Buddhism was making a lot of converts (stealing away the followers of Brahmanical religion and undermining the  power of the priests)

“Now know the tathagata Buddha to be a nAstika”.And also equating  them to nAstikas  (a philosophical movement which says nothing exists in the real sense – what the West would call philosophical idealism, as opposed to realism).

Dear Murthy - JiDoes it say mAtra and not matra in the last verse you cited?

“Know the tathagata (the way of the Buddha) to be only nihilism (believing nothing exists).” 

sourAsthrAtrA – land of the  sun-worshippers?I guesss mlecca and yAvana refer to Greeks.

What about yavanakAmbojA –  central asian? 
The other names are places in India.Vimala 
 
From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of murthy

Sent: Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:53 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: "संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः" @ A Subhashita A Day

 Dear group,Dating ValmikiRamayana:

There are internal evidences which show the countries, nationalities and peoples Valmiki was aware of and from which one could infer a lower bound for Ramayana’s date.
 tasyaa humbhaaravotsRuShTaaH pahlavaaH SataSo nRupa |1/54/18||
 bhUya evaasRujat ghoraan Sakaan yavanamiSritaan |1/54/21||
 taiste yavanakaambojaa barbaraaScaakulIkRutaaH |1/54/23||
draaviDaaH sindhu souvIraaH souraaShTraa dakShiNaapathaaH |
va~Ggaa~Ggamagadhaa matsyaaH samRuddhaaH kaaSikosalaaH ||2/10/37 ||tatra mlecCaan pulindaanSca SUrasenaanstathaiva ca |
prasthalaan bharataanScaiva kurUnSca saha bhadrakaiH ||kaambojayavanaanScaiva SakaanaaM pattanaani ca |4/43/11-12||
 tathaivaandhraanSca puNDraanSca colaan paaNDyaanSca keralaan |4/41/13|| 
Again the Buddha is clearly referred to:yathaa hi coraH sa tathaa hi buddhaHtathaagataM naastikamatra viddhi| 2/109/34||
 RegardsMurthy 
----- Original Message ----- From: Vimala Sarma
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:35 AMSubject: RE: [Samskrita] Re: "संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् अन्वाख्यातं महर्षिभिः" @ A Subhashita A Day
 Dear GroupThe Ramayana is earlier than the Mahabharata and is considered the earliest epic to be written with shloka meter.  Arthur MacDonald dates it about 500 BC, and says the older parts deviate from Panninean grammar.  There were  minstrel bards who sang songs telling stories of heros, battles, kings, famous sacrifices,  and myths, such as the story of Rama before the whole epic was composed as a coherent story, by Valmiki.   These wandering bards, called sUtas,  sang in Sanskrit.  Much later in the time of the Mahabharata, they were looked down upon (as we know from the story of Karna) and identified with chariot drivers.

 Sanskrit was originally used by a ruling and cultured class of people – this does not necessarily mean Brahmins spoke it, but more likely what we would now call Ksatriyas and wealthy people who formed the  audiences who went to see drama.  Brahmins continued to used the older Vedic chants in yajnas.
Vimala  
  

--
>
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.
>

____________________________

Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः श्रीमन् "श्रेयस मुन्शी"-महोदय !
धन्यवादाः यत् भवतः संदेशः मह्यं प्रेरकः अभवत् "णमोकार मंत्र"-विषये अधिकं ज्ञातुम् ।
ते मन्त्राः मया http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namokar_Mantra एतस्मिन् जालपुटे निम्नविधाः प्राप्ताः ।
यद्यपि मन्त्राणां भाषा "संस्कृतम्" नास्ति, तथापि संस्कृतस्य समीपता तु अस्त्येव । पश्यतु ।
प्रथमतः मन्त्र-शब्दः तु पूर्णतः संस्कृत-भाषायाः अस्ति ।

णमो अरिहंताणं = नमो अरिहन्तम् ?

णमो सिद्धाणं = नमो सिद्धान् ?

णमो आयरियाणं = नमो आचार्यान् ?

णमो उवज्झायाणं = नमो उपाध्यायान् ?

णमो लोए सव्व साहूणं = नमो --- सर्व-साधून् ? (लोए = ?)

एसो पंच णमोक्कारो, सव्व पावप्प णासणो = एषाः पञ्च नमस्काराः सर्व-पाप-नाशनाः ?

मंगलाणं च सव्वेसिं, पडमम हवई मंगलं = मंगलं च सर्वेषाम् प्रथमं --- मङ्गलम् ?

सुष्ठु एतत् किल ?
अत्र "ॐ" न उल्लेखितम् एतत्तु सत्यमेव ।

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/26 Shreyas P. Munshi <shreya...@rediffmail.com>

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected Shri Abhyankar-ji,
You ask "सुष्ठु एतत् किल ?"
I have to say I agree hundred percent.And it shows in a way that Sanskrit predates the language used by the Jains (and for that matter even the Buddhists)!
It's very intriguing to estimate how many decades or centuries it takes for a language to 'die', that is, to no longer remain the spoken language of common people (and get replaced by another language or by a very very different and distinct variety of the same language). It would seem that for quite a long of period time, the stansard form of the language (say Sanskrit)and its simplified or modified variety would remain in use side by side, the modified variety progressively replacing the standard variety, till the modified variety ultimately throws the standard varity out from the usage by the masses.

Is not the emergence of "Bambaiyya Hindi" a pointer in that direction?
Regards...Shreyas



On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:49:25 +0530 wrote

>नमो नमः श्रीमन् "श्रेयस मुन्शी"-महोदय !
धन्यवादाः यत् भवतः संदेशः मह्यं प्रेरकः अभवत् "णमोकार मंत्र"-विषये अधिकं ज्ञातुम् ।
ते मन्त्राः मया http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namokar_Mantra एतस्मिन् जालपुटे निम्नविधाः प्राप्ताः ।

यद्यपि मन्त्राणां भाषा "संस्कृतम्" नास्ति, तथापि संस्कृतस्य समीपता तु अस्त्येव । पश्यतु ।
प्रथमतः मन्त्र-शब्दः तु पूर्णतः संस्कृत-भाषायाः अस्ति ।
णमो अरिहंताणं = नमो अरिहन्तम् ?
णमो सिद्धाणं = नमो सिद्धान् ?

णमो आयरियाणं = नमो आचार्यान् ?
णमो उवज्झायाणं = नमो उपाध्यायान् ?
णमो लोए सव्व साहूणं = नमो --- सर्व-साधून् ? (लोए = ?)
एसो पंच णमोक्कारो, सव्व पावप्प णासणो = एषाः पञ्च नमस्काराः सर्व-पाप-नाशनाः ?

मंगलाणं च सव्वेसिं, पडमम हवई मंगलं = मंगलं च सर्वेषाम् प्रथमं --- मङ्गलम् ?
सुष्ठु एतत् किल ?
अत्र "ॐ" न उल्लेखितम् एतत्तु सत्यमेव ।
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365


चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/12/26 Shreyas P. Munshi

[Hera Moon]

Many thanks, Vimalaji, for the kind explanation. Now, given the fact that Buddha negated the authority of vedas and vaidikas succeeded in limiting his influence in India to quasi zero (regarding the judgement of history, please allow me to point out that Buddhism became the main religion of almost all Asian countries after that), I do wonder why he was given the status of Vishnu’s 9^th Incarnation. My yoga students in Berlin and Drummondville keep asking me that, but I do not have an answer. I only say that it may have “political” reasons. Best wishes, Hera

 

---

Von: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von Vimala Sarma
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. Dezember 2010 06:51
An: sams...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: RE: [Samskrita] RE: Buddha and dates

 

Dear Hera Mahodaya

After the development of the Mādhyamika school of Buddhism by Najārjuna – with the idea of sūnyata (non-existence) replacing realism (of all things), no absolutes including God (dependent origination), and the doctrine of no-abiding Self (replacing the eternal ātman),  - about 5th century CE, - the Vaidikas fought back to defend upanisadic concepts.  There were  several vārttikas (MW_ the exposition of the meaning , of that which is said , of that which is left unsaid , and of that which is ill or imperfectly said )written.  These texts were criticisms of Buddhist concepts using the system of philosophical dialectics developed by the Nyāya school.  This sort of dialectics is also used by the Buddhists but developed into a unique form by Dinnāga.  The position of the opponent is first put – called the pūrvapakṣa - and then this position is refuted using rules such observation (pramāṇas) and inference (pratyakṣa) and validating these by reference to the Vedas.  This was a very interesting time for Indian philosophy. The main work, Mimāmsā ślokavārttika, was written by Kumārila but there were others who followed in his wake, in including Adi Śankaracārya.  There was also a healthy counter movement criticising the Vaidika schools, by Vācaspati Miśra.  Unfortunately although this was a very interesting time intellectually, it led to Buddhism dying out in India, so I guess history has given victory to the vaidikas.  However Buddhist thinkers such as Dinnāga, Najārjuna, Dharmakīrti and others contributed greatly to Indian philosophical thought, ontology, metaphysics and logic.

Many good wishes for the new year.

Vimala

 

--

[Vimala Sarma]

Hera Mahodaya

Yes of course Buddhism flourished outside India and continued to develop.  The vaidikas were only interested in keeping maintaining  dominance in India.  They were not concerned about China, etc.  So history shows that they won.  Regarding making him an avatar – this is a good way of sabotaging the power (or emasculating) of an opponent .  This brings it under the umbrella of Hinduism and Hinduism has assimilated many sects over the years.  So what this is doing is telling people “You don’t have to be a Buddhist is believe in the Buddha – you can still be Hindu – he is just another form of Vishnu”.  Of course this is just a bit of sophistry – the Buddha is not a deity and is not again reincarnated in any form.  Since he is a perfected Being,  he will not be re-born, so he cannot be an avatar of Vishnu. The Buddha rejects the authority of the Vedas, and the idea of the ultimate consciousness being Vishnu.

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hera Moon

Sent: Tuesday, 28 December 2010 5:27 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

[kamalesh pathak]

sorry to interrupt you all,

Heeraji writes that Buddha was declared the 9th incarnation of Vishnu though he denied to honour the vedic concepts .

my thinking is that - during the rule of buddhism in india - some wise men had had some tricky idias to survive with hinduism - and for that reason may possible- they started to declare buddha as an incarnation of vishnu.

there could be another reason full of wisdom that resulted so powerfully that for atleast 18centuries the budhdhism disappeared from india and Adi ShankarAchArya within that era established the SanAtan dharma and advaitism and his work we all know were tremendous and beyond explanation today.

in india Buddism recently has reborned with perhaps Dr. ambedkar time known as nav bauddha,

                                                           but

i am proudful         to                      write  here                          with the forum    of

samskrit lovers             that

 

the vedic concepts and vedic philosophy are highly and purely scintific, all time great.and genuine eco friendly, truly dedicated to naure in its most natural way, .

 

sorry i expressed my thinking but yet thinking that this is the right palce to say or to talk what i think about my favourite Samskrit  the cosmo divine language.

 

regards to all you elders,

kamalesh pathak from somanth          

[hn bhat]

Very Good topic round and round Budha to Rama , Prakrita to Sanskrit.

The same concern in all aspects discussed. The question of Ramayana, Brahmasutra, Bauddhamata are repeated all along, which had been discussed in pages and pages of renowned writers of history of Indian Philosophy and Indian Religons and Indian Literature and Sanskrit Language. We are touching here and there to put forward our flashing ideas like putting an elephant in a nutshell. 

I may just add that whether Rama and Jabali lived in Tretayuga discussed the points of Gautama Buddha (to be born in Kali Yuga) or preceding it (consider buddha is considered an avatara of Vishnu) later than Rama in order. If this can be accepted, then there certainly is the indication of later interpolation to add the name of Buddha among the Nastika- discussion found in the context. Whether we consider Rama as historical legends hero or hero of the epic (mythology), this question raises some doubt about the originality of the source.

And to add to this, Ashoka is also defended to be two personalities with identical names. One Ashoka the Mauryan king, who fought the Kalinga war (found in the inscriptions) and the other one who spread Buddhism beyond in Inida.  I had read this fact in some webpage discussing the date of Sri Sankara. 

Now coming to the point in discussion whether Sanskrit borrowed from Prakrit or Prakrit borrowed from Sanskrit the words common for both. There are two streams of though among the scholars of Indology on the relationship of these two.

According to the dictionary of Monier Monier-Williams, the most frequent meanings of the Sanskrit term prakṛta, from which our "prakrit" is derived, are "original, natural, normal" and the term is derived from prakṛti, "making or placing before or at first, the original or natural form or condition of anything, original or primary substance". In linguistic terms, this is used in contrast with saṃskṛta, "refined". This is the reason why many scholars^[who?] believe that the Prakrits are older than Sanskrit. It was on the Prakrits that Sanskrit was refined.

Some scholars^[who?] restrict the Prakrits to the languages used by Hindu and Jain writers; others^[who?] include the Buddhist languages, such as Pali and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, and the inscriptional Prakrits. Other Prakrits include the Gāndhārī, and Paisāci, which is known through grammarians' statements^{[citation needed]}. The modern languages of Northern India developed from the Prakrits, after the intermediary stage of the Apabhramsa language.

Without going into the discussions on both the sides, I have quoted the relevant portion of the article on Prakrit languages. The emphasis on the point is that according one group, praak-kritam or prakritir eva prak.rtam with both these etymologies of the word praak-k.rita the earliest form of both Vedic and classical sanskrit from which the refined language saMs=kruta is derived. This is supported by the linguists also.

On the other hand, Indian school of thinking, believe prakRitiH = saMskRutam, tatra bhavam praak-kRitam Praakrit language is a later form stemmed from SaMskRutam. Sanskrit grammarians also consider Samskruta and Prakrita at par excellence for rhetorical reasons. Agnipurana quoted earlier by me, clearly states Sanskrit is the language of Gods, daivI vAk and PrAkkruta is the language of human beings.

This is the gist of the two schools of thinking. Now, to claim SanAtana dharma  is the origin of all dharma-s is another point of view concurrent  with the claim that Sanskrit is the mother of all the language is currently prevailing among scholars and this school nullify the theories of Indo-Aryan and proto PIE as imaginary and dismiss with them.

Within our group, we have to be careful not to make any overstatement or over emphasis on any aspect. This is my humble opinion and other members are free to differ from this view.

And, the examples quoted by Abhyankar are not correctly translated into Sanskrit. The concurrent existence of these two languages always make it feasible for exchange of words and even grammatical structures and need not be due to one predating the other or otherwise.

Scholars expert opinions are always welcome in this regard.