CC:NN - Paper (2) - by Nilesh Oak

[K S Kannan]

Author:  Sri Nilesh Oak

Title of the Chapter: "Astronomy and Epic Chronology" (= pp. 77–104)

In:

Kannan KS and Meera HR (ed.s) 2021

Chronology and Causation : Negating Neo-Orientalism (345pp.)

Chennai : Infinity Foundation India

Preview attachment Nilesh Oak.pdf

Nilesh Oak.pdf

1.7 MB

 

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.

[Ramanujachar P]

Dear Prof. Kannan!

The attachments are not opening. 

Even last time [MM] files were also not opening.

Regards

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm76rKmrQr4z09tTJDktowJwMnrc63ybkfaXcunMhbfWCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. P. Ramanujan
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)

Bengaluru

9449088616

[Madhav Deshpande]

I had the same problem with the files.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CACPsRkaxjDrvVuuoLct8TanEAdKM92XwpwiwQfqR-F3QzUFemA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

There are more articles and books being prepared on this matter, which is quite contentious as many of you know.

This past Sunday there was a book release event in which Dr. Raja Roy's three books were released, and there was a panel discussion in which Prof. Subhash Kak, Dr. Abhaya Asthana, and Shri. Mukesh Chatter participated.

There are also a series of articles by Dr. Raja Roy relevant to this topic, here:

https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzfwbXMXageBFWCARi_odsL58A8vkz6q4UDaKhpyKJf5pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Namaste Dr. Rao, 

I had written a note in BVP to thank you for the organisation of that talk. 

I could attend about an hour of it and I was glad I could join in.

In fact, some of Dr. Roy's work has been cited in some of the papers Manogna Sastry and I have co-authored. 

Dr. Roy's books appear to be clearly non-ignorable recent contributions to the literature on this topic. 

Best,

Megh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2RyYgAXojt%2BWygmaeMyQS2quWn2D6cYjo_Cq_5ijx6vMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

"The files are not opening.":

When I tried to open/preview, they just got downloaded.

Can you please just check once and tell me

whether they are not even downloading.

(Perhaps they are not allowing preview,

but do get downloaded.)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHfVm7eUde78aR5Rv0bQoYWBXdKqfPF%2Bbp%2BW5136%3DBw5xw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[K S Kannan]

Please try this:

[Meera H R]

And this.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4dMPqbf%3D-iG4WuwNOoQuf1yxh%2Bdpf%2Bo%3DawQxJubN4ifw%40mail.gmail.com.

[R. N. iyengar]

Since I am interested in Ancient Indian history, the title of the book made me curious about what is neo-orientalism as per SI doctrines in chronology and how it is negated in the book.  I read through

 "Astronomy and Epic Chronology"  to find that as per the author there are "two poison pills" discovered by him. The first is from MBh the second is from the Ramayana, the latter being more potent than the former. We know how Shiva drank poison and stopped it in his neck to save the world to become Neelakantha. His name sake writer has absorbed the poison pills, digested to spread it around. Now, sample the second pill first [for chronological priority if you like!].

I could not make 'anvaya'  of the above verse to arrive at the  "Gist '' published in the above book, even after going through the commentaries  Govindaraajaiiya and Tilaka. I am attaching the original sloka and vyakhyana for quick reference.  I request scholars of BVP to help me understand how the above "Gist" can be derived from the above verse, with a grammatically acceptable anvaya.

GR: 

[R. N. iyengar]

I forgot to mention that the original and commentaries are from the (Kumbakonam) Krishnacharya Edition printed at the Nirnayasagara Press, 1913.

Regards

RNI

[Nilesh N Oak]

Various translations and commentaries of Brahmarashi Sholk of Valmiki Ramayana

1.
Please see the translation below from Valmikramayan.net.

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/yuddha/sarga4/yuddha_4_frame.htm

[Nilesh N Oak]

Prof. Kannan Ji

Is this paper/proceedings of the conference out in PDF?  I can not download the paper. It shows error.

Nilesh Oak

[Nilesh N Oak]

Thank you Manogna.  

Nilesh

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 9:54:05 AM UTC-5 Meera H R wrote:

[Nilesh N Oak]

Thank you Meera ji
--

Here are multiple translations and commentaries on Brahmarashi by various translators/commentators

1.

Valmikiramayan.net
Please see the translation below from Valmikramayan.net. (also attached)

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/yuddha/sarga4/yuddha_4_frame.htm

2. Gita Press translation of Valmiki Ramayana (vol 2, page 243) (attached)

3. My blog on the identification of Brahmarashi with Abhijit (One see detailed exposition of both poison pills referred to by Prof. R N Iyengar Ji)

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/on-the-identification-of-brahmarashi-with-nakshatra-abhijit/

4.  Translation by Chaturvedi Dwarkaprasad Sharma Ji (attahched)

5. Multiple commentaries (attached)

I have a few more. I will add them as and when found.

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 9:54:05 AM UTC-5 Meera H R wrote:

[R. N. iyengar]

  No discussion is taking place on the Ramayana verse, other than some tangential postings by the writer of the Chapter   "Astronomy and Epic Chronology''.  Hence, I like to take the thread further as the matter is not trivial to be pushed under the rug. When I read the interpretation of the verse I was disappointed to put it mildly. The grammatical construction is quite simple and  I could not convince myself that the poet meant to say Saptarshis are circumambulating Brahmarashi as the Pole Star.  Nonetheless, I liked to know other interpretations, if any, since the work has come with the editorial stamp of two Sanskrit scholars. I would appreciate it if the editors of the volume respond with their translation or interpretation of the  verse under discussion.  

RNI

[Nilesh Oak]

I will be discussing the selective interpretation/commentary suggested by Prof. R N Iyengar for this verse Yuddha 4:48 on my channel (YouTube) and I invite Prof. R N Iyengar to discuss/debate it with me if he is so willing and capable. A reader may notice that I have provided translations by multiple individuals.  I have a few more, again by decorated Sanskrit individuals (not that that is relevant, yet mentioning, since, folks when caught, embrace 'Authority fallacy' in a hurry).

I can also organize an on-camera debate, unedited, uncut, recorded via Sangam Talks, Jaipur Dialogues, or Sattology if Prof. R N Iyengar prefers those outlets.

Prof. Iyengar Ji, do let me know.
--

My work on Valmiki Ramayana dating, based on close to 600+ references from Valmiki Ramayana is available since 2014. I have asked folks to critique it brutally, rationally, and scientifically. No one has taken the challenge, other than this kind of side attack (hit and run).

--
On sattology, I am doing Purva-Paksha series of all existing Mahabharata dating claims.  I have already done on Bharata Savitra, Prof. Ashok Bhatngar (1793 BCE) and beginning today, I will be doing critique and criticism of Prof. R N Iyengar Jis claim of 1478 BCE.  Next would be a critique of Dr. Dieter Koch's claim of 1198 BCE (borrowed wholesale from Dr. Daftari).

Shivoham! Shivoham!

Nilesh Oak

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cmkVuykdBMM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/7da46731-9311-4560-b234-8d06d357feafn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

I agree with Prof. R N Iyengar that the matter related to Yuddha 4:48 is not at all trivial.  In addition to the translations posted by me, there are numerous other epic researchers who have translated this verse in additional ways.

Any input and critique of these various commentaries by other knowledgeable folks here is much appreciated.

Nilesh Oak

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:25 AM R. N. iyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/7da46731-9311-4560-b234-8d06d357feafn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

The paper of mine discusses two poison pills.   Prof. R N Iyengar has discussed in his own way, about the AV observation (first poison pill) before.  Since he did not
see the need to discuss it here, may I take it as his acceptance of Vyasa reference of Bhishma 2:31 and my objective astronomy testing of it along with the
the inference that the Mahabharata war occurred sometime between 10248 BCE and 4636 BCE?

If not, why not?

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cmkVuykdBMM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK3%2B%3DOrQog%3D%3DdYQLH6LH-4--g1UB94UgSuqzVc5wjgPe1Yzg1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

As the role of the editors has been invoked, it must be clearly stated here that

a categorical disclaimer has been issued at the end of the Volume Editorials

that the authors of the respective articles are themselves to be held responsible

for the views expressed in their articles.

The same disclaimer has also been clearly and prominently put in the SI-website.

The editor(s) dons no corrective/judgemental role

in matters he claims no expertise/competency in.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/7da46731-9311-4560-b234-8d06d357feafn%40googlegroups.com.

[Veeranarayanacharya Pandurangi]

"and I invite Prof. R N Iyengar to discuss/debate it with me if he is so willing and capable." i think these are not necessary here. 

however, the discussion should go on

here is my veiw- 

६.००४.०४२ उशना च प्रसन्नार्चिरनु त्वां भार्गवो गतः
६.००४.०४३  ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च शुद्धाश्च परमर्षयः
६.००४.०४३ अर्चिष्मन्तः प्रकाशन्ते ध्रुवं सर्वे प्रदक्षिणम्

words are clear. Ushana is pleasantly shining. Bhargava is following you. Brahmarashi is clearly shining. clear  Saparshis are shining brightly, they are left to the Dhruva. There is no verb to mean that Saptarshis are doing pradakshina of Dhruva. 

here Brahmarashi does not mean saptarshis. because there is separate  परमर्षयः . it does not mean Bhargava also. अनु त्वां भार्गवो गतः here sentence is complete. then there is  cha in ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च. it is not the anvaya here.

 it is probably Shravana which is mentioned in MB as follows

चित्रास्वात्यन्तरे चैव विष्टितः परुषग्रहः॥ 6-3-17
वक्रानुवक्रं कृत्वा च श्रवणं पावकप्रभः।
ब्रह्मराशिं समावृत्य लोहिताङ्गो व्यवस्थितः॥ 6-3-18 Mahabharata.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrqOzVkR-SK7BTxLZ095UWUVMag_est3CENm1FE5Jtkt8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

Shri. Pandurangi makes an apt comment.

Throwing down gauntlets and aggressively and off-puttingly so should not become the modus operandi for discussions and debates.

Research, especially in these matters where astronomy, linguistic analysis, authenticity of historical narratives all coalesce researchers, I believe (having no training or skill in any of these areas but having done research in the social sciences for thirty years), need to  triangulate both data and methods carefully.

In this context, here is the link to a new blog by my friend Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy which might engage the attention of researchers pursuing the dating of the epics and the events mentioned in our epics:

https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/taittir%C4%ABya-br%C4%81hma%E1%B9%87a-was-not-written-in-10-000-bce-5396c69f7561?source=friends_link&sk=44d25cc5b72173f691e897e5e076996b

With regards,

Ramesh Rao

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM%2BoyOfpg1KtBmR6HvhbzCZs5T4Enjm2%2BF2WfjY6%3DP1TGmxaZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

While I agree that the willing-and-capable comment was uncalled for, regarding the interpretation of the Sloka per se, Sri Nilesh Oak has indeed provided enough evidence to support his 'gist'. Regarding the difficulty in parsing the Sloka perceived by Prof. Iyengar, I think the issue is as follows.

The key difficulty is that ब्रह्मराशिः विशुद्धः च is in prathamaa vibhakti, ekavacanma and does not agree with परमसप्तर्षयः (prathamaa, bahuvacanam) or ध्रुवम् (dviteeyaa, ekavacnam). Even if we argue that Dhruva is in neuter and such is an aarshaprayoga, Dhruva is still the karma. 

However, even if we take brahmaraashi as an adjective of paramarshayaH, it does not change the 'gist' of Sri Oak, though the interpretation by most commentators makes it stronger as the connection between Dhruva and the saptarshimandala is more strongly established.

Regards

Senani

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM%2BoyOfpg1KtBmR6HvhbzCZs5T4Enjm2%2BF2WfjY6%3DP1TGmxaZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you Shri V Pandurangi JI and  Sivasenani Nori Ji

Specific question to Pandurangi Ji...

Leaving aside the issue of what 'Brahmarashi' stands for (A pole star, Abhijit, Shravana, another constellation or non-constallation explanation) What could be the meaning of the verse  Brahmarashi......through Pradakshnah.

In the translation, you may substitute Brahmarashi as 'Brahmarashi' or 'X'.

Appreciate your help,

Nilesh Oak

PS:  Folks here can be assumed to be mature enough to ignore the wording that one may find inappropriate or uncalled for.  Thanks.

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 4:14 AM Veeranarayanacharya Pandurangi <dharmayu...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM%2BoyOfpg1KtBmR6HvhbzCZs5T4Enjm2%2BF2WfjY6%3DP1TGmxaZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Thank you, Dr. Rao, for sharing Dr. Roy's recent article. 

Best,

Megh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2SO6nsS3kNS0PzBUp-ge%2BM%2BcYc-ThzWYLJujShvHcTODg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Veeranarayanacharya Pandurangi]

I am certainly not ready to discourage any effort to understand our heritage. We need thousands of people to study these scriptures. 

I would like to study the works of Nilesh ji. Requested Subrahmanya publisher to send me copies.

I don't claim any scholarship in astro things.

But This means to me

६.००४.०४२ उशना च प्रसन्नार्चिरनु त्वां भार्गवो गतः
६.००४.०४३  ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च शुद्धाश्च परमर्षयः
६.००४.०४३ अर्चिष्मन्तः प्रकाशन्ते ध्रुवं सर्वे प्रदक्षिणम्

 Ushana is pleasantly shining. Bhargava is following you(I don't know whom). Brahmarashi is clearly shining. clear  Saparshis are shining brightly, they are left to the Dhruva. There is no verb to mean that Saptarshis are doing pradakshina of Dhruva. Sentence ends with प्रकाशन्ते. Then  ध्रुवं    प्रदक्षिणम्    means left to dhruva.

Or it may mean saparshis are shining around dhruva. There is a chance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTro1bc8pROWVbJY52D_CKACnQDA3T%3D8DEU4ZfWzhEHmcWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Here is one more translation.  Attached.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTro1bc8pROWVbJY52D_CKACnQDA3T%3D8DEU4ZfWzhEHmcWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

For those who may be curious and interested in reading my works + (optional) brutal, scientific, and logical critique of my works, here is the link to the entire enchilada (blogs, books, videos, list of specific accomplishments in the area of Indic research, specifically but not limited to Rigveda, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Sarasvati, Ayurveda, Bhagavad Gita, Nyaya-darshana)

https://subbupublications.com/nilesh-oak/

And here is the Ugadi offer. Best wishes to all on the upcoming Ugadi/Gudhi Padawa (a tradition that is more than 14,000+ years old, although it is been modified - name and form of celebrations through time and geography). Offer attached.

Thank you all for your inputs. Any additional inputs are welcome and are much appreciated.  Thanks to Prof. Kannan Ji for initiating the thread and Prof. R N Iyengar JI for raising pertinent queries.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM%2BoyOetu-wwFkTR5wJCiNEJkz7hvEpU-2LhAQr_Ry0nbL6wTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 19 March, 2021 at 7:55:49 pm UTC+5:30 R. N. iyengar wrote:

  No discussion is taking place on the Ramayana verse, other than some tangential postings by the writer of the Chapter   "Astronomy and Epic Chronology''.  Hence, I like to take the thread further as the matter is not trivial to be pushed under the rug. When I read the interpretation of the verse I was disappointed to put it mildly. The grammatical construction is quite simple and  I could not convince myself that the poet meant to say Saptarshis are circumambulating Brahmarashi as the Pole Star.  Nonetheless, I liked to know other interpretations, if any, since the work has come with the editorial stamp of two Sanskrit scholars. I would appreciate it if the editors of the volume respond with their translation or interpretation of the  verse under discussion.  

RNI

Dear Prof. Iyengar

The two Sanskrit commentaries that you yourself cited clearly supply the ellipsis as आवर्तमाना इति शेषः, just after explaining प्रदक्षिणम्. It is clear that both commentaries suggest that the word आवर्तमाना is to be understood in the verse (by अध्याहार). So with this, the anvaya problem that you raised is resolved: सर्वे शुद्धाः परमर्षयः अर्चिष्मन्तः ध्रुवम् प्रदक्षिणम् [आवर्तमानाः] प्रकाशन्ते seems to be the anvaya as per the commentaries.

What is आवर्तमानाः, as the commentaries say, if not “revolving around”? Monier-Williams explains आवर्तमान as “going round, revolving” and also “advancing, proceeding”. If you argue for the latter meaning, how does one explain the commentary which says प्रदक्षिणं यथा तथा आवर्तमाना इति शेषः.

So while the original verse does not have a word with the sense of circumambulation, at least multiple Sanskrit commentaries seem to strongly suggest that circumambulation/moving is implied, in addition to multiple translations which have taken the sense of circumambulation clearly.

Thanks, Nityananda

[R. N. iyengar]

Yes Sri Misra ji . You are right so far.  The derivable gist/meaning is  Saptarshis are circumambulating  the Pole Star. That much is fine.  Brahmarashi as the Polestar  can not be an अध्याहार and can not be combined with  Dhruva.  This is my understanding of the verse. Prof. Pandurangi also says in his explanation: "ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च. it is not the anvaya here." 

Thanks

RNI

[S.Subrahmanya]

Without having a strong opinion on this .... 

if we consider the verse, the anvaya could be  

विशुद्धः  ब्रह्म-राशि:  - clear brahmaraashi

शुद्धाः परम-ऋषयः च  -  clear paramarishayah also

सर्वे  अर्चिष्मन्तः च  - and all are bright 

ध्रुवम्  - dhruvam 

प्रदक्षिणम्   प्रकाशन्ते - pradakshiNam  shining 

The saptarishis go in a pradakshiNa around (whichever) polestar in a year anyway.  There is nothing special about this. 

Since 'pradakishiNam' is mentioned, the parama-rishayah could be presumed to be to the right-side of Dhruva (i.e. will be seen to the left of -whichever- Dhruva from here on earth) 

If the sapta-rishi is seen from earth to be to the left of the whichever-pole-star, then it could indicate some seasonal time.  

We have to keep in mind, precession would have influenced intensity and time of seasons also...

I guess the question would be about what "brahma-raashi" means - in this case, imho, it indicates just the entire 'night sky'/i.e. the celestial sphere is bright and clear.  

The verses before and after also paint a clear sky, weather with good nimittani.

my 2 naya-paise ...

Regards

Subrahmanya

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 21 March, 2021 at 10:02:46 pm UTC+5:30 R. N. iyengar wrote:

Yes Sri Misra ji . You are right so far.  The derivable gist/meaning is  Saptarshis are circumambulating  the Pole Star. That much is fine.  Brahmarashi as the Polestar  can not be an अध्याहार and can not be combined with  Dhruva.  This is my understanding of the verse. Prof. Pandurangi also says in his explanation: "ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च. it is not the anvaya here." 

Thanks

RNI

Yes, I agree the word brahmarāśiḥ cannot be taken with dhruvam. 

I will leave it to Sh. Oak to answer why he has taken Brahmarāśi as the pole star in the gist, viz. Seven pure sages are making parikrama around fixed Brahmarāśi, the pole star.

 

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you Shri Nityananda Mishra Ji.  Thank you all.

I took Brahmarashi as the pole star for the following reasons.

1. 500+ specific pieces of astronomy evidence, when put together as a jigsaw puzzle (planets, comets, eclipses, phases, and positions of the moons, positions of the Sun, chronology details, seasons, Tithi, Nakshatra) from Valmiki Ramayana leads to 13th millennium BCE as the timing of Ramayana and specifically 12209 BCE as the year of Rama-Ravana Yuddha.

2.  Evidence from Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Parashara Tantra, coupled with Nakshatra and Naishatra deities evidence from ancient Indian narratives lead to the identification of Brahmarashi with nakshatra/Star Abhijit = Vega. 

3. Brahmarashi= Abhijit= Vega was indeed the pole star during the 13th millennium BCE

4. At least one translator of Valmiki Ramayana has identified Brahmarashi as = Very bright pole star.  [ conflict of interest disclaimer - this translator has neither attempted dating of Ramayana and his translation existed before my dating determination of Ramayana to 13th millennium BCE]

5. Mahabharata descriptions of Mars aligned along with the position of Brahmarashi (Abhijit), next to Shravana nakshatra has been corroborated for 16 October 5561 BCE.  8+ specific descriptions of Mars are corroborated for year 5561 BCE and the only year 5561 BCE in the last 15,000+ years.

6. Variant readings of Mahabharata text for 'Brahamarashi' reads 'Bramhya nakshatra', thus additionally corroborating identification of Brahamrashi with Abhijit (Nakshatra Devata - Brahma.

7. All of the above led me to take Brahmarashi = Abhijit= Vega as referring to Pole star in Valmiki Ramayana.

Additional notes are equally pertinent.

8. The evidence of Brahmarashi verse corroborates the dating of the 13th millennium BCE for the timing of Ramayana, however, all evidence SANS Brahmarashi leads to the same conclusion.  [Stating this to clarify that the fallacy of 'circular reasoning' is not in the play.]

9. The choice of AV observation and Bramhamrashi as TWO POISON PILLS was because of the ease associated with their objective testing, demonstration to the participants at the conference and the common background causal phenomenon of 'the precession of the equinoxes as the basis for both observations separated in time by about 7000+ years (i.e. when the observations were made by Indian astronomers, i.e in 12209 BCE and 5561 BCE).

10.  This observation of Brahmarashi as pole star is further corroborated by two-pole star references in Surya Siddhanta (Chapter 12) and an impressive triangulation of additional references from Surya Siddhanta (peak of Grishma, Peak of Hemanta, and the Shighra and manda motions of the Sun) along with the 24-degree obliquity of the earth's axis leading to the specific time of ~12000 BCE. 

This work was presented at the Oxford conference and a summary is published at Indiafacts.org

11. The Surya Siddhanta triangulation in turn corroborated by visibility (location, timing, context) of Brahmarashi/Abhijit/Vega and Agastya/Canopus references from Valmiki Ramayana descriptions.

All of the above works are presented either through books, blogs and presentations (YouTube or otherwise).

Many more corroborations can be added (e.g. seasons and lunar months coordinations, about 225+ season references from Valmiki Ramayana. But the above points are more than enough to make my point.  This is discussed in my book  - The HIstoric Rama (amazon) aka 12209 BCE (Subbu Publications).

Thank you all for your inputs.

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cmkVuykdBMM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c1b7fb4f-e4b7-4af8-bc25-ca11fad30c36n%40googlegroups.com.

[Veeranarayanacharya Pandurangi]

All this on one side, sentence does not read/mean so. It is only brahmarashi is clean, saptarshi are around dhruva. It can not mean more.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrodFJf_wGRTjcN9ToK31yODeeKxLevdsZEMeFL%3DSMfJ5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

प्रसन्नाश्च दिशस्सर्वा विमलश्च दिवाकरः ।
उशनाश्च प्रसन्नार्चिः अनु त्वां भार्गवो गतः ।

ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च सिद्धाश्च परमर्षयः ।

अर्चिष्मन्तः प्रकाशन्ते ध्रुवं सर्वे प्रदक्षिणम् ॥ वा रा , यु कां  48 

अत्र  द्वयोरपि विशेषणयोः --ब्रह्मराशिः विशुद्धश्च  इत्यनयोः विशेष्ये  भार्गवः इत्यस्मिन् अन्वयः  -- प्रत्यासत्तेः --सामीप्यात् -- झटित्युपस्थितेः कारणात्  ।

शब्द is of six types and अर्थ is of eighteen . 

प्रसन्नार्चिः - प्रसन्ना अर्चिः यस्य सः -- मौढ्यदोषरहित  इति यावत् । मौढ्यं च अस्तङ्गतत्वदोषः  रविशुक्रयोः योगे भवतीति ज्योतिषम् । (अर्चिः / अर्चिस् ) ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM%2BoyOcyx-jpuqXFX9sdH6b9k3YWzdaW3wGUXFO1Q9xfod7pHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[R. N. iyengar]

Prof. Korada's  explanation is similar to that of Govindaraja's commentary. 

 Brahmaraashi is used as an epithet for Sage Yaajnavalkya in the BrahmaaNDda puraaNa. 

स विजित्य मुनीश्वरान्  ब्रह्मराशिर्महामतिः | शाकल्यमिति होवाच वादकर्तारमञ्जसा || 1.34.54

In one of the Praatis'aakhya (can not recollect the name) the word   ब्रह्मराशिः is  explained  as  वेदवित् ||

However, MBh, Paraashara and Vrddhagarga mention  ब्रह्मराशिः  as a celestial region or asterism not far away from the ecliptic, but not counted among the 27/28 nakshatras.

Thanks

RNI

[Nilesh Oak]

Prof. Korada ji>

Where can I find more info (detailed verses, explanations, etc.) on the following?

शब्द is of six types and अर्थ is of eighteen . 

Appreciate your help,

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQRC2-C2DqoZ0ww-5cSw%3DotCHA4%3DLJiL7CUeEnHcuTA%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Prof. RN Iyengar JI

What are the specifics of Brahmarashi reference of Vriddha Garga?

I am aware of Brahmarashi from Mahabharata, Ramayana andn Parashara Tantra, but was not aware of its mention by Vriddha Garga.

Appreciate your help,

Warm Regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/bd3457b7-31dd-4e59-ab32-14a91c97293cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Ak,

While I don't contest your dating of the Ramayana, I have difficulty accepting your argument asserted through the quoted stanza..

You need to analyze Valmiki's style of writing to appreciate Koradaji's analysis.  You may cite a reference in Valmiki where he

might have used ब्रह्मराशि as a phrase elsewhere. 

Regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK3%2B%3DOoVW_%3Diom%3DQOU330rY7_7b4ENH6KGGwzO%3DhH%2Bi%2BFVmKJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Dear Shri Bijoy Mishra Ji

I fail to comprehend the logic behind your argument.  AFAIK, Brahamrashi appears once in Mahabharata and once in Ramayana.  It also appears at least once in Parashara Tantra (Prof. R N Iyengar Ji may know of additional occurrences, if any, in Parashar Tantra.  He also states that it is referred to by Vriddha Garga).
--
You are not alone who is facing difficulty in accepting my contextual inference of linking Brahmarahsi with pole star.  That is why precisely this thread discussion is taking place.   

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjUYRw6Sw561qSCkG8jmrdr%3Dz3QfAheczV_PQd-BNdbiCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Vidvāns,

 

A major feature of the Rāmāyaṇa volumes translated by Robert Goldman and Sally Sutherland Goldman is the extensive notes, taking up much more space than the translation itself. These notes give how the various commentators understood particular words in the verses. Here is their note on the verse under discussion, 6.4.43 of the critical edition, preceded by their translation of verses 42 and 43. Lakṣmaṇa is addressing Rāma, saying that he perceives auspicious omens.

 

42. “It is clear in all directions, and the sun, maker of day, is bright. The Bhārgava Uśanas is shining with bright rays behind you.

43. “The constellation Brahmarāśi is clear as are the Great Seers, which, shining brightly, all encircle and illuminate Dhruva, the North Star.

 

Note 43. “The constellation Brahmarāśi is clear” brahmarāśir viśuddhaś ca : The commentators are divided in their opinion as to the significance of this term. Cv [Varadarāja Udāḷi], Cg [Govindarāja], and Cm [Maheśvaratīrtha] (first alternate) take the word brahma in its sense of “vedas,” reading the compound as an epithet of Uśanas in verse 42 above in the sense of “master of the entire veda (adhītasarvavedaḥ).” They then read the following adjective, “clear (viśuddha),” with Uśanas as well. Cg [Govindarāja] takes it to mean “free from conjunction with inimical planets (pāpagrahāsaṃyuktaḥ),” and Cm [Maheśvaratīrtha] takes viśuddha in its sense of “pure,” a quality that he sees deriving from Uśanas’s vedic learning. (brahmarāśir vedānāṃ rāśibhūtaḥ. adhītasarvaveda ity arthaḥ. ata eva viśuddha uśanāś ca tvām anugataḥ.) Ct [Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa], Ck [Mādhava Yogīndra], and Cr [Vaṃśīdhara Śivasahāya] understand the reference to be to the constellation known as the Saptarṣis, here called the Great Seers (Paramarṣis), or Ursa Major. Cr [Vaṃśīdhara Śivasahāya] understands the word brahmarāśiḥ as a bahuvrīhi, referring to Dhruva, in the sense of “that in which there is a collection of the stars known as the Seven Seers (brahmaṇāṃ saptarṣīṇāṃ rāśiḥ samuho yatra saḥ).” Ck [Mādhava Yogīndra] and Ct [Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa] understand, similarly, “that which has for its tail the Seven Seers (pucchabhāgo yasmin sa tathā—so Ck).” They thus take it as a kind of kenning for Dhruva, the North Star (brahmarāśir dhruvaḥ—so Ct). In the second alternate, only Cm [Maheśvaratīrtha]—whom we follow—appears to read it as a tatpuruṣa in the sense of “the collection of seers (teṣāṃ rāśiḥ saṅgaḥ).” Thus, he refers not to the North Star or Saptarṣis but to a different group of stars situated in the southern sky along the path of the pitṛs, which he claims are described in a verse of the Viṣṇupurāṇa (tatrāsate mahātmāna ṛṣayo yo ’gnihotriṇaḥ | bhūtārambhakṛtaṃ brahma śaṃsanto ṛtvigudyatāḥ || prārabhante lokakāmās teṣāṃ panthāḥ sa dakṣiṇaḥ).

“Illuminate” prakāśante : Literally, “they shine.” We agree with Cr [Vaṃśīdhara Śivasahāya] in reading the verb in the sense of the causative (prakāśayante).

 

I was not familiar with the English word “kenning” used in this note, so I had to look it up. Webster’s New World Dictionary gives for the relevant meaning: “in early Germanic, as Old English, poetry, a metaphorical name, usually a compound, for something (Example: “whale-path” for sea).”

 

Best regards,

 

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[K S Kannan]

Dear Prof. David Reigle,

I think "encircle" in the translation is inadequate for what an important commentary explains as

pradakṣiṇam āvartamānāḥ

which would mean "revolving around in a pradakṣiṇa manner"

- the underlined word being taken as "śeṣa"

(what is required for completion of sense but left unstated).

Why has this explanation in the commentary,

which is quite helpful in understanding, been left out/just ignored then,

in the Discussion?  (Of course, not all senses can figure in the Translation part)

Is it possible then to claim that the key ideas of the commentaries

have all been taken into account and considered ?

KSKannan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAPAZekZBuOne3iS5cxXBGMvQoDA%3Dcs8Es03DXN69-afW%2BLNVSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Sri Nilesh,

It is not that.  You seem to be going away from poetic and grammar rules.

In that stanza the adjectives are to भार्गवः as Prof Korada explained.

In case that is your only assertion, it would be erroneous.

This is my opinion, I am not arguing your interpretation.

Further I wish to point out that dating has to be more comprehensive than a signal

to have historical significance.

Thank you.

Bijoy Misra

PS.  I do astronomical detection for a living.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrqaJV%3DjNTWMTjbEdOMMPoyk97NY9TnZyRHNhuHSOFrXXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

ब्रह्मराशिः --

महाभाष्यम्  -  प्रत्याहाराह्निकम्  -----

सो’यम् अक्षरसमाम्नायो वाक्समाम्नायः पुष्पितः फलितः चन्द्रतारकवत् प्रतिमण्डितः वेदितव्यो ब्रह्मराशिः ।

कैयटः -- ब्रह्मराशिः । ब्रह्मतत्त्वमेव शब्दरूपतया  प्रतिभाति इत्यर्थः ।

श्लोके  ’ गतः ’ इति वर्तमाने क्तः -- ’ मतिबुद्धिपूजार्थेभ्यश्च ’  पा 3-2-188 , अत्र चकारः अनुक्तसमुच्चयार्थः ।

पूर्वमीमांसा --

अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत् ? -- इति शाबरभाष्यम् --- when a विशेष्यम् (भार्गवः) is available why should one go  searching for  another विशेष्यम् ?

By doing so one would attract  वाक्यभेददोष ---

अर्थैकत्वात् एकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं  चेद्विभागे स्यात्  -- जैमिनिसूत्रम् , पूर्वमीमांसा , 2-1-14-46

If a group of words denote a single meaning ( or serve a single purpose ) and when separated if found to be wanting that group of words is a वाक्यम् ।

अर्थैकत्वम् - एकवाक्यता - एकार्थबोधकत्वम् ।

Spitting such a वाक्यम् is called वाक्यभेद , which is a दोष / defect --

सम्भवत्येकवाक्यत्वे वाक्यभेदस्तु नेष्यते  -- कुमारिलभट्टः , श्लोकवार्तिकम् , प्रत्यक्षसूत्रम् , 9

So in the present context -- ब्रह्मराशिः अत एव विशुद्धः भार्गवः  -- शुचिर्विप्रः शुचिः कविः ( कृष्णयजुर्वेदः - पुण्याहवाचनमन्त्रेषु ) -- the ब्राह्मण  who learnt वेद is शुचि ।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/bd3457b7-31dd-4e59-ab32-14a91c97293cn%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

Tilaka too states (apart from Govindarāja cited earlier)

pradakṣiṇaṁ kurvāṇāḥ.

So an idea common to two famous commentaries have not been taken into account.

Further, no reason/ground for rejecting the same has been stated.

It would have been desirable to note them, and state the reason for

rejecting the same. It is not the total number of commentaries that is important.

Discussing their key ideas is what is typically expected.

There is a maxim in manuscriptology:

"Weigh the manuscripts, not [just] count them":

It is not sufficient to show off how many mss. have been reckoned with;

rather, indicate what weightage is fair to the particular ms(s),

along with proper justification. Half a dozen highly defective mss.

cannot overrule one highly dependable ms.

So it is with commentaries. More than half-a-dozen have been cited,

but some of their key ideas have not been addressed.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQNRiURG_yRMexfnbWh8_WV4i%2Bnuj_Kcr54FCGmm%3D9htw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you all.

This is very enriching and educational.

I have relied on translations by others (since my Sanskrit knowledge is, at best, rudimentary).

From scientific acumen and logical reasoning speak, any reference/evidence and even a group of evidence can be interpreted or emphasized in at least 4 different ways.

Pictorially, I have demonstrated in the paper as follows.  For the details, please read the paper (in PDF) attached by Meera Ji.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4sYPxgCzuLiSYCBPTJoRpQkH37P0Z-A3tS%2BgCJasXnAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

I was so happy to see this from Purva-Mimansa.

अर्थैकत्वात् एकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं  चेद्विभागे स्यात्  --

 जैमिनिसूत्रम् , पूर्वमीमांसा , 2-1-14-46

Thank you, Prof. Korada Ji.
--

I have employed the above elsewhere (in works) via the metaphor of mathematically regression equation with stepwise regression via variables but also data points, to check the robustness (validity but also sensitivity) of the theory and inference. I became aware of the above through the erudite lectures of Prof. V N Jha, on Indian Knowledge systems. [While on the subject, Prof. V N Jha's lectures and personal communications with me have immensely added to my understanding of Darshana-Shastra.  It is as if when he explains it I understand it, when others explain it, it confuses me.]

I did explain this briefly when I wrote down my rationale behind the specific meaning selection by me for this verse Yuddha 4:48 (rest of the 500+ pieces of evidence allude to the presence of and mention of Brahamarashi in Yuddha 4:48.)

The allusion due to evidence and my assertion being that Brahamarashi aka Abhijit aka Vega was the Pole star at the time of the Ramayana.

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQNRiURG_yRMexfnbWh8_WV4i%2Bnuj_Kcr54FCGmm%3D9htw%40mail.gmail.com.

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Prof. Kannan,

 

I, too, wondered why the views of the various commentators on the word pradakṣiṇam were not cited. I suppose it has to do with what the translators judged to be of interest to most readers. Since Vālmīki is the ādi-kavi and the Rāmāyaṇa is therefore the ādi-kāvya, poetic usages would likely be of most interest, such as the meaning of epithets. After all, the Rāmāyaṇa is not a jyotiṣa-śāstra, and astronomical questions may not be on the mind of most readers. I do not think the Goldmans made any claim that the key ideas of the commentaries have all been taken into account and considered.

 

The initial question raised by Prof. Iyengar was how this verse could be construed. He later clarified that the revolving of the Seven Rishis around the Pole Star was not what he was questioning, but rather whether brahmarāśi could be equated with dhruva. I did not see anyone post from commentators who made this equation, only from the two commentaries initially posted by Prof. Iyengar that did not make this equation. Therefore, after a week, I typed in the Goldmans’ note showing some commentators who did not make this equation and some commentators who did make this equation. I thought this would be a helpful contribution to the point in question.

 

Best regards,

 

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

 

P.S. I am not a professor, but I thank you for your kind thought in addressing me as such.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm67C2EYnUCwpDT5CmK%3DdxpLCKrRQD4Q9ojkHj0ddJqHyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you so much, David Reigle Ji.

The impressive variety in interpretations (width and depth) is, IMHO, due to varied level of knowledge of astronomy, precession and the knowledge of individual commentator about 'Brahmarashi' itself.

Those who were not aware of the identification of Brahmarashi = Abhijit= Vega naturally felt compelled to interpret as related to some other celestial entity in the form of an adjective or referring to that celestial entity itself.

For me, since my journey did not begin with this observation and this was one of the 500+ pieces of astronomy evidence for me.  However, when I did come across this, it was serendipity at its best.

Thank you for quoting comments from Robert Goldman's books.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAPAZekZBuOne3iS5cxXBGMvQoDA%3Dcs8Es03DXN69-afW%2BLNVSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Dear David Reigle Ji

Your quoting of Golman's notes was most useful for me, personally.
--
As a matter of fact, when I saw Yuddha 4:48, to me the connection of Brahmarashi as Dhruva was instantaneous.....not because of the Sanskrit meaning of the Shloka (I have, at best, a rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit) but because of my 30+ years of research work on Mahabharata and Ramayana, and astronomy.

I had encountered Brahamrashi (and Abhijit) twice during my revolutionary dating research on Mahabharata (5561 BCE) and Brahamarashi reference of Mahabharata was impressively corroborated by me for 16 October 5561 BCE.

I was shocked and surprised when I ran into Brahamarashi reference, again, in Valmiki Ramayana.  Thus my journey was experiencing/conviction first and then interpretation/translation.  Thank you again.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cmkVuykdBMM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAPAZekZ-eXbjUErETXkbzm_buL%2BqotKvpdbpHhJLYT30501dPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you Shri Bijoy Mishra Ji

I have duly noted your comments. I am glad you are not arguing with my interpretation.

Since you do astronomical detection for living, you will find all 3 of my works fascinating.  If it picks your interest you may read them and further, critique them, brutally, scientifically, and logically.  I would be delighted to hear your critique and criticism.

https://subbupublications.com/nilesh-oak/

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjWyF_GcngZ4X3EDYHQ_VtBbhyKOAS86u6fb2S%2BC8sykSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nilesh,

I have seen some of them.  The arguments are too gross.

Let me leave at that.

Thank you.

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK3%2B%3DOrYb93rd7B28ag9UiVKXR%3DYJcvoQ_OYYNWD%2BSHb1h8TuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you.

That is the shortest and the cutest feedback I have received on my books.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjVDHcyWLSd84uJwxozfXYfYB7dzoE2i_m92hX4EyY9DDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nilesh,

Since you are young, I do recommend that you invest some time in Sanskrit and Valmiki to develop

scholarship on the matter. Your intention is good, but does need foundation.  You would discover your

own transformation after the rigor of the core studies.

It is a habit of the western researchers to do piece-meal work on India to enunciate theories.  Indian

tradition is more fundamental and analytic.  You can give yourself time in study and research through

the Indian tradition.  Let the ideas get rooted.

Best wishes,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrpmHiOnaHpmV%2BhU5F7yhXCc0%2B9o_ivovL-_qQqcvTHtsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you Prof. Bijoy Misra Ji.

Your advice is right on the money.  I agree that western researchers and their lackeys in India have distorted studies of Indic traditions beyond recognition.  But then we should also be careful to not fall into this western vs Eastern dichotomy.     There are many great researchers in the west and the east and many lousy ones (compromised or incompetent) in the west and the east.

Indian tradition is indeed very analytic.  I do not understand what you mean by it is 'fundamental.'  Via Shraddha, I am rooted in the Bhagavad Gita tradition and thus I consider this a journey of many lifetimes.  Thus, I am in no hurry.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjWB4Hb8iR-U4GPyJWEU8H-ziMmvFo7UP3mp%3Djcvs--HFw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nilesh,

श्रद्धा is a necessary quality, but there is another skill विद्या.

श्रद्धा is local and individual, it is  विद्या that creates scholarship.  The latter is a very slow process.  It is a grace through long तप.

Try Shankara's उपदेशसाहस्री for analysis on instructional scholarship.

I would rather stop here.

Best wishes,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrrqYEjUwb%3DRhH18ai_YfG5Y5yPNB09xug2%3D_zWCgJPTAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Dear Prof. Bijoy Misra JI

Thank you.

You better stop.  You have given me enough Gyan to last many lifetimes.

Let's meet sometime over an Oolong tea.  I do visit, not that often though, the genetics, medicine, business, and biotechnology departments of Harvard.

Best wishes.

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjUmZ6AboqbcWmWNVXDbAa%2B1ZiVogBjFS7v1moLMWs8dTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Misraji says:

The two Sanskrit commentaries that you yourself cited clearly supply the ellipsis as आवर्तमाना इति शेषः, just after explaining प्रदक्षिणम्. It is clear that both commentaries suggest that the word आवर्तमाना is to be understood in the verse (by अध्याहार). So with this, the anvaya problem that you raised is resolved: सर्वे शुद्धाः परमर्षयः अर्चिष्मन्तः ध्रुवम् प्रदक्षिणम् [आवर्तमानाः] प्रकाशन्ते seems to be the anvaya as per the commentaries.

What is आवर्तमानाः, as the commentaries say, if not “revolving around”? Monier-Williams explains आवर्तमान as “going round, revolving” and also “advancing, proceeding”. If you argue for the latter meaning, how does one explain the commentary which says प्रदक्षिणं यथा तथा आवर्तमाना इति शेषः.

My question is simple:

The commentator(s) use the word śeṣaḥ  <आवर्तमाना इति शेषः>

(reg. ध्रुवम् प्रदक्षिणम् [आवर्तमानाः] प्रकाशन्ते)/ प्रदक्षिणं यथा तथा आवर्तमाना इति शेषः.

but Misraji paraphrases it as adhyāhāra.

Are not these two words different in sense in the context of ellipsis

as per Mīmāṁsā terminology/approach?

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 7:42 PM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 19 March, 2021 at 7:55:49 pm UTC+5:30 R. N. iyengar wrote:

  No discussion is taking place on the Ramayana verse, other than some tangential postings by the writer of the Chapter   "Astronomy and Epic Chronology''.  Hence, I like to take the thread further as the matter is not trivial to be pushed under the rug. When I read the interpretation of the verse I was disappointed to put it mildly. The grammatical construction is quite simple and  I could not convince myself that the poet meant to say Saptarshis are circumambulating Brahmarashi as the Pole Star.  Nonetheless, I liked to know other interpretations, if any, since the work has come with the editorial stamp of two Sanskrit scholars. I would appreciate it if the editors of the volume respond with their translation or interpretation of the  verse under discussion.  

RNI

Dear Prof. Iyengar

The two Sanskrit commentaries that you yourself cited clearly supply the ellipsis as आवर्तमाना इति शेषः, just after explaining प्रदक्षिणम्. It is clear that both commentaries suggest that the word आवर्तमाना is to be understood in the verse (by अध्याहार). So with this, the anvaya problem that you raised is resolved: सर्वे शुद्धाः परमर्षयः अर्चिष्मन्तः ध्रुवम् प्रदक्षिणम् [आवर्तमानाः] प्रकाशन्ते seems to be the anvaya as per the commentaries.

What is आवर्तमानाः, as the commentaries say, if not “revolving around”? Monier-Williams explains आवर्तमान as “going round, revolving” and also “advancing, proceeding”. If you argue for the latter meaning, how does one explain the commentary which says प्रदक्षिणं यथा तथा आवर्तमाना इति शेषः.

So while the original verse does not have a word with the sense of circumambulation, at least multiple Sanskrit commentaries seem to strongly suggest that circumambulation/moving is implied, in addition to multiple translations which have taken the sense of circumambulation clearly.

Thanks, Nityananda

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/a02c201d-a5e5-4292-915f-9ea1ac5816ebn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

Let me alert all not to disagree with Sri Oak.  He has some social

media links that he can mobilize negatively without your knowing. 

A young researcher in those lists just let me know. 

Feedback has its repercussions.

Bijoy Misra.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7Wnp0kCUjxi2N5rc5rzL-ws%2Bxftuf_tMwWUtJrt1-t%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 25 March, 2021 at 5:17:03 am UTC+5:30 ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

My question is simple:

The commentator(s) use the word śeṣaḥ  <आवर्तमाना इति शेषः>

(reg. ध्रुवम् प्रदक्षिणम् [आवर्तमानाः] प्रकाशन्ते)/ प्रदक्षिणं यथा तथा आवर्तमाना इति शेषः.

but Misraji paraphrases it as adhyāhāra.

Are not these two words different in sense in the context of ellipsis

as per Mīmāṁsā terminology/approach?

I am no scholar of Mīmāṁsā, but in the general sense the words शेष and अध्याहार have been synonymously. 

An example, 

Paspaśā (Patañjali): ओमित्युक्त्वा वृत्तान्तशः शमित्येवमादीन् शब्दान् पठन्ति

On this, Uddyota (Nāgeśa): पठन्ति तेभ्योऽपि इति शेषः

On this, ṭippaṇī by Bhārgava Śāstrī: शेष इति अध्याहार इत्यर्थः

Please see attached (the print is not very clear in the ṭippaṇī  but we can make out the reading with a little effort). 

More examples can be brought forth, but I thought this one would suffice.  

[K S Kannan]

Thank you for the reference.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/35f8e47c-eddf-41c1-afbb-a11e453f6714n%40googlegroups.com.

[Shrivathsa B]

I know nothing about this discussion. I am responding only to the mail of Śri Kaṇṇan.

Adhyāhāraḥ is when the item we want (most often kriyāpada) is elsewhere (another shloka, generally earlier). Whereas śeṣaḥ is used as "ellipsis" or that which has to be "understood".

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7Wnp0kCUjxi2N5rc5rzL-ws%2Bxftuf_tMwWUtJrt1-t%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

adhyāhāra is what is dittoed from an earlier context (or drawn from

an immediate surrounding in general) to make the wordings complete;

whereas śeṣa is what we supply in order to make the meaning complete,

but had been left out by the author for reasons of metrical exigency,

or even as what can be made good by common sense (or even out of carelessness);

and both happen rather frequently in common conversations.

There are, I faintly remember, Mīmāṁsā definitions of the two terms.

(Prof. Korada may be able to recollect/restate better).

This is the difference I too had in mind. But as we see,

sometimes the two have been somewhat loosely interchanged

or may have an overlapping functional role.

The patākā-sthāna-s in Sanskrit plays have sometimes

exploited this pattern to good dramatic effect.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAL27Zu7n8tKnD7BpUm42ose0m-V6MQh%3D9G_29vduqHcbvxgUhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

I must thank Shrivathsa, no doubt,

for his contribution.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you all.   It is useful learning for me, on multiple fronts, without spending too much effort.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cmkVuykdBMM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7HtbFfDx-%3DSKrFBqgX7%2B9ZiupN8uguX3%2Bmzvgj0%3DGowg%40mail.gmail.com.

[R. N. iyengar]

The initial question raised by Prof. Iyengar was how this verse could be construed. He later clarified that the revolving of the Seven Rishis around the Pole Star was not what he was questioning, but rather whether brahmarāśi could be equated with dhruva. I did not see anyone post from commentators who made this equation, only from the two commentaries initially posted by Prof. Iyengar that did not make this equation. Therefore, after a week, I typed in the Goldmans’ note showing some commentators who did not make this equation and some commentators who did make this equation. I thought this would be a helpful contribution to the point in question.

 Thanks to David ji for reading my posts and responding with useful information. My primary interest in the CC:NN publication was to know how neo-orientalism in epic chronology was negated in the 2nd Chapter. At one point I was elated to see my name  in the august & ethereal company of Mmp. PV Kane and CV Vaidya  cited perhaps as proponents of neo-orientalism in epic studies. This imagined importance was short lived since my paper cited in the bibliography was about eclipses and planets and had nothing to do with the stars of MBh. So much for the due diligence that has gone in the preparation, review and publication of the Book Chapter.  Nevertheless, the Ramayana verse kept me interested because of my long standing interest in Brahmarashi.  Sanskrit words carry multiple meanings and hence the context becomes too important to see whether from the sky descriptions  reliable actionable data can be derived for archaeoastronomical work.  Having spent considerable time searching texts for Brahmarashi, I wanted to draw the scholars into a discussion so as to highlight the importance of primary texts and their  translation and interpretation in chronology studies. After extracting astral configuration with ancient names, their equivalents in modern  catalogues have to be established unambiguously. Then only the computer generated planetarium images are meaningful, otherwise the NN exercise is rhetoric GIGO. Sanskrit Univs can chalk out an important activity for their students in this area. 

The notes of Goldman are quite interesting. I had not known about (Nagesha Bhatta 18th cent.) equating  Brahmarashi with Dhruva. This does not solve the identity of  Brahmarashi in the Epic, for archaeoastronomical work. All seem to accept Brahmarashi as a celestial entity but assign varying identities different from Abhijit, which has been taken to be Vega by SB Dikshit and several others based on the Suryasiddhanta. The regent deity of Abhijit is said to be Brahma; and hence the star is called ब्राह्मनक्षत्रं  but not ब्रह्मराशि :,  which has to be a group.  Again going by the  Suryasiddhanta, the two stars Brahamahrdaya (modern Capella) and nearby Prajaapati (=Brahma) are identified in the constellation Aurige, closer to Rohini, which is called PrAjApatyam. Star Hutabhuk (=agni, Beta-tauri) is also identified to be nearby.  Quite interestingly Atharva Veda Parishishta, (a text neglected in Vedic studies) in the graha-sangraha chapter says

ब्रह्मराशेस्तु ते पुत्रा ग्रहाः संतानसंस्थिताः | सञ्चरन्ति नभः सर्वम् उत्पन्ने पुरुषक्षये || 52.7.1|| This reads like a meteorite shower or some transient objects radiating from  ब्रह्मराशि.

 Is it possible this region Aurige-Taurus away from Rohini-Mrgashira was called  ब्रह्मराशि ?   In this case, ब्रह्मराशिर्विशुद्धश्च makes abundant sense, without further explanation.   संतान is commonly taken in the sense of being 'continuous'. However MW gives  "a particular mythical weapon" as a meaning in the Ramayana. In the Kumbakonam edition I could not find this. Scholars may like to comment.

Regards

RNI

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 25 March, 2021 at 1:31:07 pm UTC+5:30 ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

adhyāhāra is what is dittoed from an earlier context (or drawn from

an immediate surrounding in general) to make the wordings complete;

whereas śeṣa is what we supply in order to make the meaning complete,

but had been left out by the author for reasons of metrical exigency,

or even as what can be made good by common sense (or even out of carelessness);

and both happen rather frequently in common conversations.

There are, I faintly remember, Mīmāṁsā definitions of the two terms.

(Prof. Korada may be able to recollect/restate better).

This is the difference I too had in mind. But as we see,

sometimes the two have been somewhat loosely interchanged

or may have an overlapping functional role.

Dear Prof. Kannan

Here are two more examples worth looking at.

Example 1: Mallinātha on Kumārasambhava 2.3

स्तुतिप्रकारमाह ‘नमः’ इत्यादिभिर्द्वादशभिः श्लोकैः।

नमस्त्रिमूर्तये तुभ्यं प्राक्सृष्टेः केवलात्मने।

गुणत्रयविभागाय पश्चाद्भेदमुपेयुषे॥

नम इति॥ ‘हे भगवन्’ इत्यध्याहार्य व्याख्येयम्। ...

(original text in bold, colour emphasis mine)

Mallinātha gives the explanation after supplying the ‘adhyāhāra’ of ‘हे भगवन्’. The words ‘हे भगवन्’ are not present anywhere in this verse or in the entire twelve-verse ‘stuti’ of Brahmā by the ‘deva’s—not before this verse, not after this verse. ‘हे भगवन्’ does occur in any context prior to this verse in the Kumārasambhava. Yes, the vocative ‘bhagavan’ (भगवन्) is uttered by Bṛhaspati a whole twenty-eight verses later (verse 2.31) while addressing Brahmā, but it would be unreasonable to think that there is an ‘adhyāhāra’ of भगवन् from verse 2.31 in an entirely different speech separated by around thirty verses from 2.3.

Example 2: Sāyaṇa on Ṛksaṃhitā 1.24.7

अबुध्ने राजा वरुणो वनस्योर्ध्वं स्तूपं ददते पूतदक्षः।

नीचीना स्थुरुपरि बुध्न एषामस्मे अन्तर्निहिताः केतवः स्युः॥

पूतदक्षः शुद्धबलः वरुणः राजा अबुध्ने मूलरहिते अन्तरिक्षे तिष्ठन् वनस्य वननीयस्य तेजसः स्तूपं संघम् ऊर्ध्वम् उपरिदेशे ददते धारयति। नीचीनाः स्थुः। ऊर्ध्वदेशे वर्तमानस्य वरुणस्य रश्मय इत्यध्याहार्यम्। ते ह्यधोमुखास्तिष्ठन्ति। एषां रश्मीनां बुध्नः मूलम् उपरि तिष्ठतीति शेषः। तथा सति केतवः प्रज्ञापकाः प्राणाः अस्मे अस्मासु अन्तर्निहिताः स्थापिताः स्युः मरणं न भविष्यतीत्यर्थः॥ 

(original text in bold, colour emphasis mine)

Sāyaṇa says that there must be an ‘adhyāhāra’ of ‘रश्मयः’ (along with ‘ऊर्ध्वदेशे वर्तमानस्य वरुणस्य’). The words ‘ऊर्ध्वदेशे वरुणस्य’ are not dittoed but can are related to the words वरुणः and ऊर्ध्वम् in the previous line. The word ‘रश्मयः’, part of the ‘adhyāhāra’, is not used present in this mantra or in the entire sūkta 1.24. The first occurrence of रश्मयः in the Ṛksaṃhitā is in the mantra 1.50.3 (अदृश्रमस्य केतवो वि रश्मयो जनां अनु), a full twenty-six sūktas later. The word वर्तमानस्य is also not present in either the mantra or the sūkta. Sāyaṇa also says that तिष्ठति is ‘śeṣa’. Why तिष्ठति is ‘śeṣa’ but रश्मयः and वर्तमानस्य are part of what is ‘adhyāhārya’, even though none of the three words are taken from an earlier context or an immediate surrounding? Perhaps because the words ‘adhyāhārya’ or ‘adhyāhāra’ and ‘śeṣa’ were used by commentators interchangeably.

Anyway, with these two examples, we can see that the position that ‘adhyāhāra’ is something “dittoed from an earlier context (or drawn from an immediate surrounding in general)” is definitely not universal. At least commentators like Mallinātha and Sāyaṇa didn’t think so. 

Thanks, Nityānanda

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 25 March, 2021 at 9:33:32 am UTC+5:30 Shrivathsa B wrote:

I know nothing about this discussion. I am responding only to the mail of Śri Kaṇṇan.

Adhyāhāraḥ is when the item we want (most often kriyāpada) is elsewhere (another shloka, generally earlier). Whereas śeṣaḥ is used as "ellipsis" or that which has to be "understood".

Indian and foreign lexicographers on अध्याहार:

Shabda-sagar:  Adding a word or words to complete a sentence, supplying an ellipsis.

Wilson: Adding a word or words to complete a sentence, supplying an ellipsis.

Apte: According to this mode, an incomplete sentence is made to yield complete sense by supplying some extra word or words therein. Supplying an ellipsis.

Monier Williams: act of supplying (elliptical language)

Goldstucker: Adding a word or words to complete a sentence, supplying an ellipsis.

Bernouf: supplément à une ellipse

No mention of another verse or earlier part of text or usually a verbal conjugation in any of the above.

[K S Kannan]

Pretty clear, Misra-ji, and thanks for the efforts.

The force of etymology in adhyāhāra, "bringing something towards"

(comparable somewhat to the modern "drag and drop"), inspired the idea.

There is also a dispute, of course, between Naiyāyika-s and Mīmāṁsaka-s

in this context - as to the propriety of accepting śabdādhyāhāra and arthādhyāhāra.

In addition, the grammatical sense of śeṣa as uktād anyaḥ, "else than what is stated",

(context of kāraka) also reinforced the idea from a different angle.

I had read long ago, and can't remember whether it was in Adhikaraṇakaumudī

or some other Mīmāṁsā text, of some such differentiation between the two.

Anyway, the proofs of Mallinātha and Sāyaṇa clinch the matter.

If men of their calibre evince little care to differentiate the two,

the two can be taken as practically synonymous.

And I admire the profusion of proofs you proffer.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/2bb58c7d-f839-4806-929c-c23e03a70f25n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you Prof. Kannan Ji and Shri NItyananda Misra Ji

Would you point me to additional reading on the following....

"There is also a dispute, of course, between Naiyāyika-s and Mīmāṁsaka-s

in this context - as to the propriety of accepting śabdādhyāhāra and arthādhyāhāra."

I have heard about it from many Sanskrit experts when I seek their help with translations.  However, if a written work(s) exist on this topic  (preferably English) I would like to read it. This is because while I can not compartmentalize my research methodology into any one bucket (in a reductionist fashion), I am told on multiple occasions, "Oh, that is how Nyayayika would think or interpret" etc..

Appreciate your help,
Nilesh Oak

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6sybmtwNCrfraFuVbQ2d0%2B6AASGK_B0B4Oc%3DZ%3DX%3DUsEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Where can I find more info (detailed verses, explanations, etc.) on the following?


शब्द is of six types and अर्थ is of eighteen .      ------- Vid Nilesh Oak

Ref -- Bhartrhari , Vakyapadiyam , Vakyakakanda , verse 83, Pub - Sampurnananda Skt Uni , Varanasi , 2016 ( with Tika and Vyakhyana of Punyaraja and Raghunatha Sarma )

After discussing शेषशेषिभाव , हरि  gives this verse - under which हरि and पुण्यराज  elaborate the above topic . To be frank , it is difficult to understand the terse text  . So for the benefit of those interested , I shall give  a panorama,

which has been long overdue ---

Here the context is -- the twelve न्याय-s of  द्वादशलक्षणी / वाक्यशास्त्रम् / पूर्वमीमांसा , which are essential to understand the meaning of any sentence - वैदिक / लौकिक - and with प्रतिपक्ष-s they will become twenty four -- examples 

are given from  वेद - लोक and व्याकरणम् ।

पदार्थज्ञानम्  is a prerequisite to वाक्यार्थज्ञानम्  --

शब्दः ---  6 types 

1.  साधुशब्दः 

साधुशब्दः --  शास्त्रीयः  .प्रायोगिकः 

शास्त्रीयः -- प्रतिपाद्यः  प्रतिपादकः उभयरूपः

1.प्रतिपाद्यः -- ’ दाधर्ति ’ - etc  offered by शास्त्रम् as निपात ।

2.प्रतिपादकः -- प्रकृतिप्रत्ययरूपः ।

3.उभयरूपः -- ’ इतव्य ' -- शब्दः |  तव्यशब्देन प्रतिपाद्यते इति कृत्वा प्रतिपाद्यशब्द ः  -- ’ भवितव्यम् ’ इत्यादिषु  इतव्यशब्दः प्रतिपादकः । तस्मादुभयरूपः ।

प्रायोगिकः -- 4. लौकिकः 5.वैदिकः 

6. असाधुशब्दः  

अर्थ is of 18 types ---

1. वस्तुमात्रः -- available in लोक as a thing  - बाह्यार्थः ।

2.अभिधेयः -- बौद्धार्थः  -- स च द्विधा --

3.शास्त्रीयः -- शास्त्रीयः प्रक्रुत्यर्थः प्रत्ययार्थ  इति कल्पितः ।

4.लौकिकः -- अखण्डः प्रकृतिप्रत्ययविभागरहितः ।

5.विशिष्टावग्रहसंप्रत्ययहेतुः -- In शास्त्रम् there will be a kind of usage -- कंसं  घातयति । In लोक also if someone is narrating or an actor is acting then also the usage - कंसं घातयति । Since it is not happening now  the अर्थ that is born

in a ज्ञान that is quite opposite to लोकव्यवहार  is called विशिष्टावग्रहसंप्रत्ययहेतुः ।

6. तद्विपरीतः -- The अर्थ  , just like it becomes ज्ञानविषय in लोक , that is denoted by शब्द -- अयं  गौः श्वेतः ।

7. मुख्यः -- सास्नादिमान् गौः ।

8. परिकल्पितरूपविपर्यासः --  सादृश्यादिनिमित्तेन  आरोपितरूपः  -- ’ गौर्वाहीकः ’-- this वाहीक is a bull -- here the  गोरूप is कल्पित ।

9. व्यपदेश्यः -- जातिः , द्रव्यम् etc.

10. अव्यपदेश्यः - जातिद्रव्यादिविभागरहितः अखण्डवाक्यार्थः ।

11. सत्त्वभावं गतः -- द्रव्यसंख्याद्यन्वययोग्यं द्रव्यरूपं प्राप्तः ।

12. असत्त्वरूपः -- वाक्यार्थरूपे वर्तमानः ।

13.स्थिरलक्षणम् -- In a समस्तपदम् , like राजपुरुषः -- पुरुषस्य राजसंबधित्वं स्थिरलक्षणम् ।

14. विवक्षाप्रापितसन्निधानम् -- ’ राज्ञः पुरुषस्य ’ -- here  विशेष्यम्  can be राजा or  पुरुष ः  at times -- depending on विवक्षा the विशेषणविशेष्यभाव may change .

15. अभिधीयमानम् --  In the समास  ’ राजसखः ’ ,टच् प्रत्यय comes as समासान्त in  षष्ठीतत्पुरुषसमास only and therefore - ’ राज्ञः सखा ’ is अभिधीयमानार्थ ।

16. प्रतिपाद्यमानः -- The अर्थ - राजा सखा यस्य सः ।

17. अभिसंहितः -- गोशब्दस्य गोत्वजातिर्वा , गोरूपव्यक्तिर्वा , उभयं वा -- शब्दशक्त्या प्रतिपादयितुम् अभिप्रेतः ।

18. नान्तरीयकम् -- Although व्यक्ति  is being proposed through  शक्ति -- वर्णः , रूपम् etc will also be there in the अर्थ as they  can not be separated from व्यक्ति ।

                                                 

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:47 PM Nilesh Oak <drno.5...@gmail.com> wrote:

Prof. Korada ji>

Where can I find more info (detailed verses, explanations, etc.) on the following?

शब्द is of six types and अर्थ is of eighteen . 

Appreciate your help,

Warm regards
Nilesh Oak

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/cmkVuykdBMM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c1b7fb4f-e4b7-4af8-bc25-ca11fad30c36n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrodFJf_wGRTjcN9ToK31yODeeKxLevdsZEMeFL%3DSMfJ5w%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM%2BoyOcyx-jpuqXFX9sdH6b9k3YWzdaW3wGUXFO1Q9xfod7pHg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQRC2-C2DqoZ0ww-5cSw%3DotCHA4%3DLJiL7CUeEnHcuTA%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK3%2B%3DOr12DeEHee93WX4gAuBf5AxBrvKn3quh0Fb6LFspfcNtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> संतान is commonly taken in the
> sense of being 'continuous'. However MW gives "a particular mythical
> weapon" as a meaning in the Ramayana. In the Kumbakonam edition I could not
> find this. Scholars may like to comment.

As usual, the entry in MW is obviously based on the corresponding
entry in the dictionary of Böhtlingk/Roth (PW = "Petersburger
Wörterbuch" = "Petersburg dictionary"):

संतान [...] m. n. [...] — 9) n. eine best. mythische Waffe [= "a
particular mythical weapon"] Mbh. 5, 3491.

This corresponds to Mahābhārata 5.94.38 according to the numbering of
the critical edition:

tasmād yāvad dhanuḥśreṣṭhe gāṇḍīve 'straṃ na yujyate
tāvat tvaṃ mānam utsṛjya gaccha rājan dhanaṃjayam (5.94.37)
kākudīkaṃ śukaṃ nākam akṣisaṃtarjanaṃ tathā
saṃtānaṃ nartanaṃ ghoram āsyamodakam aṣṭamam (5.94.38)
etair viddhāḥ sarva eva maraṇaṃ yānti mānavāḥ
unmattāś ca viceṣṭante naṣṭasaṃjñā vicetasaḥ (5.94.39)

MW's reference to "R[āmāyaṇa]" is presumably nothing more than a simple error.

Best regards,
Roland Steiner

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste  Prof. Korada garu

 

On a similar line :  information required on How many types of Varna-aksharas considered in Samskruth resources pl ? [ 

भाषा-विषयकः - वर्ण- अक्षर- विभागः कति-प्रकारेण संस्कृत-शिक्षा-शास्त्रेषु  उपल्भ्यते ? कृपया विशदीकरोतु 

 

[ शिवसूत्रगत:  वर्णाक्षरक्रमः  प्रधानतया  व्याकरण-सूत्रोपयोगार्थं  लक्ष्यानुसारेण प्रक्रिया-प्रदर्शनार्थं  इति मम मतिः ।

[ वर्ण-समाम्नायः- अक्षरसमाम्नायः- ब्रह्मराशिः  इति -  उपदेशे  शिवसूत्रान्तर्गत-वर्ण-अक्षरयोः निर्देशः अस्ति खलु ]

[ शिक्षा- प्रातिशाख्येषु तत्तल्लक्ष्यमुद्दिश्य विभागः - यथा  ऋक्-प्रातिशाख्यमिति ऋग्वेद-विशिष्टः उपदेशः  इति |  ]  

 

Regards

 

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELRyHo11X6OYZ%3DrWLs8LteFs4tPDhJbsD4ueRgm2gSUmjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भः

अध्याहारः -- शेषः  ----  वाक्याध्याहारः -- वाक्यशेषः  ----- अध्याहारम्

The terms अध्याहारः - शेषः  are  often  employed  as synonyms .

अध्याहारस्तर्क ऊहः -- अमरकोशः  1-5-3

अध्याहार is a रूढिशब्द  -- अधि आङ्  हृञ् हरणे  भ्वादिः --  घञ्  ’ भावे ’  पा 3-3-18 अध्याहरणम्  अध्याहारः ।

Both are universals -- applicable to all languages .

Where are you coming from ? Hostel ---- here ' Hostel ' is neither a word nor a sentence -- but it is an elliptical sentence .  I am , coming , from  -- are the ellipses . The ellipses are not employed as there is shared knowledge .

 

’ सूत्रम् ’ -  can be translated as an ' elliptical sentence ' . In  शास्त्रम्  , especially like पाणिनीयव्याकरणम् , one should have special  skills to add ellipses -- अधिकार , अनुवृत्ति etc .

पाणिनि   touches this important  aspect  --

उपात् प्रतियत्नवैकृतवाक्याध्याहारेषु  6-1-139  सुडागमः 

वाक्यैकदेशस्य  अर्थप्रकरणादिना  आकाङ्क्षितस्य  पूरणं वाक्याध्याहारः -- उपस्कृतं ब्रूते ।

उपस्कारः -- is the name of a commentary ( वैशेषिकम् ? )

महाभाष्यम् -----

पस्पशाह्निकम् --

न केवलं चर्चापदानि व्याख्यानम् - वृद्धिः , आत् , ऐच् -- इति ! 

किं तर्हि ? 

उदाहरणं - प्रत्युदाहरणं - वाक्याध्याहारः -- इत्येतत् समुदितं व्याख्यानं भवति ।

वाक्यशेषः ---

Patanjali ( अचः परस्मिन् पूर्वविधौ , 1-1-57 )  says that the speaker  is free to have the structure of  his choice and we go for वाक्यशेष  (  this is regarding  ’ स्थानिवत् ’ ) ---

काममतिदिश्यतां वा 

सच्चासच्चापि नेह भारो’स्ति ।

कल्प्यो हि वाक्यशेषो

वाक्यं वक्तर्यधीनं हि ॥

अथवा वतिनिर्देशो’यम् । कामचारश्च वतिनिर्देशे  वाक्यशेषं समर्थयितुम् । तद्यथा -- ’ उशीनरवन्मद्रेषु यवाः ’ - सन्ति , न सन्तीति । ’ मातृवदस्याः कलाः ’  - सन्ति , न सन्तीति । एवमिहापि स्थानिवद्भवति , स्थानिवन्न भवति - इति वाक्यशेषं समर्थयिष्यामहे ।

नागेशः -- विधिशब्दं चेति । अध्याहारमात्रेणिति भावः ।

न्यायदर्शनम् --

शक्तिग्रहं व्याकरणोपमानकोशाप्तवाक्याद्व्यवहारतश्च ।

वाक्यस्य शेषात् विवृतेर्वदन्ति  सान्निध्यतः सिद्धपदस्य वृद्धाः ॥ मुक्तावळी , 4

1. केवलं नाम -- वृक्षः ----  तिष्ठति इति शेषः (अर्थप्रकरणादिना सिद्ध्यति )

2. केवलम् आख्यातम् -- वर्षति (प्रसिद्धेः )

3. ज्ञापकापेक्षम् -- अक्ताः शर्करा उपदधाति  ( ’ घृतम् ’ इति लिङ्गम्-- ’ तेजो वै घृतम् ’ ) -- मीमांसा 

4..सामान्यविशेषभावः -- ब्राह्मणेभ्यो दधि दीयताम्  , माठराय तक्रम्  ( बाधकवचनम् , नियमवचनम् , निषेधवचनम्  - इत्यादिभिः संबन्धः )  -- माठर is suffering from प्रतिश्याय (common cold ) .

Also see वाक्यपदीयम् - वाक्यकाण्डः --  श्लो 346  to 351

More details are available across शास्त्र-s .

अध्याहारम्  (आयुर्वेदे - चरकम् ) --

आहारे इति अध्याहारम्  ( अव्ययीभावसमासः - नित्यसमासत्वात् अस्वपदविग्रहः ) --  many people eat before the food eaten earlier is digested . This is  the cause of many diseases .

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/004a01d721f9%247959caa0%246c0d5fe0%24%40gmail.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you so much, Prof. Korada Gaaru Ji.

Nilesh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQaBLw31BJkw%3D_W-4TBrX7F0UppbQoHGRhe41ayhcbZMA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

शास्त्र-वाक्य-निकुरुम्ब एव नः

      स्थापितो यदिह मङ्क्षु कोरडैः।

भारतीय-परिषज्जनैरिदं

      वन्दनं सहृदयैस्समर्प्यते ॥

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH7mTrrCiCqp97pppEBfXKtkF4-fmHQtGeQ6r1AOT%2Bgx53vqAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

प्रणतो’स्मि  गुणग्राहिण्यै  परिषदे  विशिष्य कण्णन्महाभागाय ।

शुभमस्तु

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4ZOboJEu6JfaOhszV-JNoz9xdOiFHMt8GOeyb4SoRd-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prakash Raj Pandey]

Some points of the translation of Ramayan (https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/yuddha/sarga4/yuddha_4_frame.htm)  need further consideration.  

On Vijaya muhurt translated as moment of success --

Muhurta-chintamani, and other books of similar nature give names of the muhurtas. (Such books are available in print and in internet.). The day and night each are divided into 15 muhurtas, If daylength of a particular day is 12 hours, a muhurta would be of 48 minutes. 

Abhijit is the midday muhurta, and is regarded as auspicious for every type of activity.

दिनमध्यगते सूर्यो मुहूर्तेऽभिजिति प्रभुः ।
चक्रमादाय गोविन्द सर्वान् दोषान् निकृन्तति ॥

(I do not know the source of this shloka,)

The context makes it clear that Ram wants to start his campaign at the midday muhurta -- Vijaya muhurta.  

अस्मिन् मुहूर्ते सुग्रीव प्रयाणमभिरोचये |
युक्तो मुहूर्तो विजयः प्राप्तो मध्यं दिवाकरः ||

 It follows that Vijaya muhurt is the another name for Abhijit muhurta. 

On Uttara-phalguni being translated as the northern planet of Phalguni, and on conjunction of Uttara phalguni with Hasta -- 

उत्तराफल्गुनी ह्यद्य श्वस्तु हस्तेन योक्ष्यते  is translated as -- This northern planet of Phalguni will be in conjunction with the Hasta star tomorrow.

Falguni is not a planet (Graha), but a Nakshatra (asterism). Three  Nakshatras -- Ashadha, Bhadrapada, and Falguni have two parts --  Purva and Uttara. Purva should be understood as the first half, and Uttara as the second half, and not as eastern and northern parts of the star. 

The Nakshatra of a day is the Nakshatra the moon is in. If today's Nakshatra is Uttara-phalguni, it means that the moon is near Uttara-phalguni Nakshatra, In the list of 27 Nakshatras, Hasta comes after Uttara-phalguni. So next day, the moon would be near Hasta. All three Uttaras (Uttara-phalguni, Uttara-ashada, and Uttara-bhadrapada) are regarded as auspicious Nakshtras.

I am not sure if Hasta is regarded auspicious for mounting a campaign.

On identification of Brahma as Abhijit -- (https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/on-the-identification-of-brahmarashi-with-nakshatra-abhijit )

Whenever Brahma mentioned as a Nakshatra, it is taken to be Rohini. Abhijit Nakshatra is supposed to somewhere between Uttara-ashada and Shravana. 

According to  Muhurta-chinatamani, Rohini is a group of 5 stars, Uttara-phalguni of 2 stars, Hasta of 5 stars, and Abhijit that of 3 stars.   

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4ZOboJEu6JfaOhszV-JNoz9xdOiFHMt8GOeyb4SoRd-A%40mail.gmail.com.