आश्रयकर्तृक vs विषयकर्तृक

[Rishi Goswami]

।। श्रीहरिः ।।

रुच्यार्थानां प्रीयमाणः इत्यस्य पदमंजरी-टीकायाम् स्वाश्रयकर्तृकव्यापारवाचक-विषयकर्तृकव्यापारवाचक-भेदेन धातुः द्विविधः उक्तः।
तत्तु मया ज्ञातं सम्यक्। यन्न ज्ञातम्, तदयं अंशः यत्र 'दृशेः' 'प्रकाशतेः' च भेदः उक्तः।

तद्यथा =

【 कोऽभिलाषो लषेर्वाच्यः, रुचेस्तु विषयकर्तृकः। द्दष्टश्चायमभिधानप्रकारनियमोऽन्यत्रापि, तद्यथा-घटः पश्यतीति द्दशेराश्रयकर्तृ कं ज्ञानं वाच्यम्। घटः प्रकाशते इत्यत्र प्रकाशेर्विषयकर्तृकम्। विषय एव हि स्पष्टालोकमध्य वर्तित्वादिना सौकर्येण देवदताश्रये ज्ञाने कर्तेति व्यपदिश्यते, न तु ज्ञानेन कश्चिदतिशयो विषयो जन्यते। कोऽयं प्रकाशो नाम, यं प्राकठ।ल्माचक्षते भाट्टाः, तत्र कारकशेषत्वेन षष्ठीप्रसङ्गे वचनम्। 】

इत्यस्य यदि अर्थंं कोपि प्रकाशते चेत् धन्यो भविष्यामि।

प्रणमामि _/\_

[K S Kannan]

Here is my guess, for whatever it is worth:

The key word is abhidhAna-s'akti-vaicitrya.

Both the roots las" and ruc indicate desire or abhilAs"a.

But there is a difference:

The abhilAs"a in the case of las" is As'raya-kartRka.

The abhilAs"a in the case of ruc is vis"aya-kartRka.

Consider the sentences which convey the same idea ultimately:

devadattaH modakam abhilas"ati,

and

devadattAya rocate modakaH.

--
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/733b173b-8818-42b5-9290-0fd1bc68a34d%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

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.

[K S Kannan]

The next issue is of the two sentences:

1. ghaTaH pas'yati

and

2. ghaTaH prakAs'ate.

These two sentences also mean the same thing, ultimately.

Both mean

3. Devadatta sees(=knows) the ghaTa.

Yet, there is a subtle difference.

4. The real meaning of 1 is "The ghaTa appears".

5. The real meaning of 2 is "The ghaTa shines".

This is stated technically thus:

6. In 1, ie. with dRs', the knowledge (jn"Ana) is As'raya-kartRka.

7. In 2, ie. with pra+kAs', the knowledge (jn"Ana) is vis"aya-kartRka.

When do we say ghaTaH prakAs'ate?

It is when the ghaTa is present in a place (madhya-varti)

which has good illumination (spas"TAloka).

What is the speciality here? What difference does it make?

There is a certain ease (saukarya) in generating the jn"Ana for Devadatta.

And Devadatta is the As'raya of the jn"Ana.

The issue is dealt with by BhATTa-mImAmsaka-s

under the heading of prAkaTya.

All this is my guesswork.

atra vidvAMsaH pramANam||!

I look forward to better and more complete explanations.

(The problem is : we rarely come across the ghaTaH pas'yati type of usages.)

KSKannan

I

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Professor Kannan,

Is the usage ghaṭaḥ paśyati attested anywhere?  Which text discusses this usage?  It would be useful to have some textual references to read the discussion in the original sources.  Thanks.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm47gZzJHuoGDd4zm77j_tUNGnRvnBAii%3DSh8pM9ineX8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Dear Prof. Deshpande,

I faintly remember I have come across such a usage.

I will look for it.

But may I first know whether my explanation makes some sense?

Or is there a strong implausibility in my explanation?

or do you have a better explanation?

Thanks.

KSKannan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzfb4RFfRWQ%3DcCfU4KFQ1kC%2BYkn-kr5QaMhLf985j0Oa8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Prof. Kennan, 

     Your explanation sounds good to me. But I have some doubt about this particular example. The semantic contrast between अभिलषति  and रोचते was nicely explained by you, and the categories of आश्रयकर्तृक and विषयकर्तृक. With best regards. 

Madhav Deshpande 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7f6%3DQgxOL2S%3DWicaD64Eu0U%2Big5Uzts5uF4TiAW_PuFA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Rishi Goswami]

Thankyou Prof. Kannan Mahoday for a good explanation.

घटः पश्यति is some अकर्मक type of usage I suppose, because when we say पश्यति,we have an आकांक्षा of कर्म, as in कं पश्यति?।

The same could be better explained by "देवदत्तः घटम् पश्यति।"
But I'm confused here as well. This is what I think the शाब्दबोध might be. स्वं = चाक्षुषज्ञानम्,तदाश्रयः =(आधेयतासम्बन्धेन देवदत्तः), (विषयतासम्बन्धेन घटः)। ज्ञानं विषयतानिरूपकम्। ज्ञाननिरूपितविषयता।

So "देवदत्त-निष्ठ-ज्ञाननिरूपित-विषयताश्रयो घटः" something like that sort. Or
"घटनिष्ठविषयतानिरूपकज्ञानाश्रयो देवदत्तः।"

In रुचि, आश्रय and कर्ता are different। रुचेराश्रयः देवदत्तः, रुचेः कर्ता मोदकः।
But in लषि, आश्रय and कर्ता are same = देवदत्त।
__

In देवदत्तः घटंं पश्यति। ज्ञानाश्रय is देवदत्त and ज्ञानकर्ता is also देवदत्त। so आश्रयकर्तृक।

___
in घटः प्रकाशते, it is possible for काश धातु is अकर्मक।
lets take "घटः प्रकाशते" as घटः ज्ञायते। here as कन्ननमहोदय explained घट is ज्ञानकर्ता (how?) and देवदत्त is ज्ञानाश्रय। so विषयकर्तृक।

not completely getting it but okay।

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

1.  This is an interesting thread, which has connection to classical deliberation  covering themes like :

 

            (i)  (Vak-Artha), ( Vivakshita-Artha), (Anvaya-Artha), (Tatparya-Artha).

            (ii)  mind-processes ( = vyaapaaras) of abhidaa, lakshanaa, vyanjanaa.

            (iii) saamarthya- yogyataa -shakti of 'pada', pratyaya', and 'prakriyaa'.

            (iv) Dhatvartha-prakashana ( Power of communication from verb which is different from noun)

            (v) Pratayartha- prakashana ( The power of communication of different pratyaya's of sup, Ting, Krit, Taddhita  and processes like 'samasa, svara).

 

The understanding of what 'Samskrutha- Padam / vakyam'  means a total  deliberation on all these factors along with ' level of consciousness (chaitanya-avasthaa)'. This is the big-picture of 'Yoga-Samskrutham' as Vak-Yoga given by Panini-Patanjali- Yaska unified teaching under Vedanga language modeling. We have  in this deliberation opinions, text -statement positions, classical interpretations  and expectations from the text. Responses in each model is different.

 

2.  The analysis of sentences/ usage like < ghaṭaḥ paśyati  > which is a  sentence structure ( vakya) made up of two words (Subanta  pada - tinganata  pada) put together cannot be simplified for analytics  by abstraction of logic like (N-V) generic combination for programming. Language grammar is different from the logic of mathematics.

 

      The language expressions like the one under discussion, where meaning construction has involved mind-processes are analyzed in traditional schools, under the ' lakshanaa- vyanjanaa' mind-processes. This deliberation covers cases  

            (a)  where the Noun word is 'not a conscious being like devadatta'

            (b) how such sentences still serves the purpose of  practical communication.

There  are illustrated and analyzed examples involving the technicality of ' upaadaana- lakshanaa' ( Mammata's Kavya Prakasha- Chap.2- Kariaa -10:  illustrated example kuntaaH pravishanti).

           

            The  involved processes are analyzed in detail. The contrast between a vedic expression and worldly expression are also explained in such a case. The classical traditions have a total clarity on how to keep 'Veda-Artha' in the frame of 'Vedanga (Vision, Darshana) ' and keep  out of the ' Vyanjana-Vyapara' as ' kavya-artha ( literature, poets license and freedom to portray self experience and creativity) '. This sacred line is violated in several translations and  ' academic exercises of what veda means'.

   

3.    This is on the 'given ground of language-grammar-meaning convention-usage (vruddha-vyavahara)' in the framework of  Paninian Language : Samskrutham (Chandas and Bhashaa) and related language tools of Kosha's.  

 

            This analysis is not fully portable for Non-Samskruth languages, Prakruths, Social language usage beyond ' Shishta vyavahara'. The additional factor to be analyzed would be  the ' distancing-difference- deviation ( = praak- krutatva) between architecture of 'Samskrutham (Chandas and Bhashaa)  and  Prakrutha family of languages.

 

4.     When there is Ground-Shift of  language-grammar-meaning convention-usage (vruddha-vyavahara)' beyond the framework of  Paninian Language,  bringing in the challenges of  translation , specifically  in to a language like 'english', there are deeper additional factors to  be analyzed.  This phase is called ' apa-bhramsha ( fallen ) and mlecchita (corrupted)  state of language.  

        The deliberation  goes to the level of language architecture, basic units of character  set and phonemes (= Varna-maalaa, Shikshaa ),  challenging the basics of  the grammar processing rules (= vyakarana) and Word-Meaning derivation process (= Kosha and Nirukti).

 

5.     Progressing on this,  when  there is  Alien axiomatic ground- mounted on  'given communicative expression' which already has suffered ' ground-shift deterioration due to translation'  impacting  language architecture -grammar- meaning convention-usage (vruddha-vyavahara)' beyond the framework of  native language, and analyst is a 'Techno-Linguist' who is planning to extract the ' Universal human Communication model' using the 'language-analytics in Samskrutham ( = Vak-Artha Jijnyaasaa), there are more complexities. The primary issue being the clarity on '  what differentiates a conscious being ( = kartaa, vaktaa jnaataa - sachetanah)- and ' mind-less machine' . The unqualified axioms at this level between the schools provide different perspectives.

 

      Samskruth analysts are comfortable in explaining mind-processes ( chitta -vrutti- vyaapaara) in ' gangayam ghoshah, devadatah pashyati'. When the question shifts to debate why/ how  'Devadatta is different from 'ghata', the explanation becomes challenging. These are the questions debated in a different discipline with the theme lines like: Virtual Consciousness,  Does robots  have emotions' et al.  Tradition discusses this under 'Veda- Shabda-Artha'. When Techno-Linguist / indologist corrupts the meaning of 'Veda', the rest of the discussion becomes meaningless.

 

6.  If one were to take the route of <self experience> and < explanation for it from first principles>,  keeping aside all the language frames, terminologies and previous traditions, it is an exploration of the classical form of the question in Vedanta  like :  Bruhadaranayaka:  मन्त्र ३[III.ii.3]  वाग्वै ग्रहः । स नाम्नातिग्राहेण गृहीतो वाचा हि नामान्यभिवदति ॥ ३॥ 3.2.3 . This deliberates on Origin of the Universe & Conscious being/ consciousness in the deliberating person , the name- form association in language activities.  It is here we get the  hidden skeletons of theological axioms and spiritual discussions roll out ! to explain religion from  modern science !

 

         If the discussion is on this layer, then the topic is beyond the scope of public forum discussion . It is a personal inward exploration, a yoga- journey exploring ' Vak', and  'Vak- Indriya'.  

            There will be no need to explain the experience to others; or seek validation of experience with other textual resources. The Sutra of Panini < रुच्यार्थानां प्रीयमाणः >  is a 'Darshana- Aakhyana' :: Vision and articulation of the  Mind-processes and articulation processes, the analysis and articulation of giving a name to an experience at this layer of consciousness, saying the seeing, the  experience as  self observation.  The user of Paninian rule has the freedom of choice to experience the process as vak-yoga  or   imitate the process to generate the final word form ( like  devAya, devadattAya  is similar to  ramAya because of a-ending and masculine gender tag).  

 

7.   It is at this level one needs to see the two sentences : <devadattaH modakam abhilas"ati, and devadattAya rocate modakaH.>  supposed to < convey the same idea ultimately: > . Apparently this looks so; but when two different 'Dhatu's are used in expression, with different processing ( dhatu -pratyaya -prakriyaa) the idea conveyed is NOT the same ! nor similar. Each expression is unique ! Because  the speaker intends to convey different experiences.  The difference in dhatu-artha is placed below:

 

ruch | bhvA0 seT A0 | rucha.N॒ dIptA॑va॒bhiprI॑tau cha 1.847 |  रुच् । भ्वा० सेट् आ० । रुचँ॒ दीप्ता॑व॒भिप्री॑तौ च १.८४७ ॥

 

laSh | bhvA0 seT u0 | laSha.N॑ kAntau॑ 1.1033 || लष् । भ्वा० सेट् उ० । लषँ॑ कान्तौ॑ १.१०३३ ॥

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

 

​

[Rishi Goswami]

Thank you shastryji for explanation.

Is there any Spanish scholar here or has anyone of the scholars who is a lingusit read about any such explanation?

In Spanish, there are many such विषयकर्तृकव्यापारवाचक Dhatus, take for example रुच only = gustar.

Te gusta. ते रोचते।
Me gusta. मे/मह्यम् रोचते।
(te and me = ते + मे यथावत्।
Gusta is प्र.पु.1वचन।).

Similarly, Spanish uses many such Dhatus, take for example despertar जागरणे।
In common usage, anyone would say "tu despiertas?" "त्वं जागर्षि?" 【Where tu means त्वम् and any root with स् in end is मध्यम-पु-1वचन, same like Sanskrit. Despiertas is म-पु-1.】
But this usage is wrong. It should be "te despiertas?" "तुभ्यं जागर्षि?" if literally translated.

Another example would be "No Me Acuerdo" which means "अहं न स्मरामि" but it literally translates to "नो मे स्मरति"।

There is a long list of such verbs they probably call "reflexive verbs"(?).

If any Spaniard/Linguist out here who can help explain such concepts if he has it in his language.

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Does "घटः पश्यति" mean "घडा दिखता है" ?

[Rishi Goswami]

Yes that's what it's supposed to mean, but दृश धातु isnt अकर्मक so how घटः पश्यति can be a usage?

Also,I don't think it can be compared to कुंताः प्रविशन्ति because the usage is probably अकर्मक i think.

[K S Kannan]

Dear Prof Chaitanya-ji,

I suppose it means just that.

In Kannada, it is like "ghaTavu toruttade".

Regards

KSKannan

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:39 PM Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes that's what it's supposed to mean, but दृश धातु isnt अकर्मक so how घटः पश्यति can be a usage?

Also,I don't think it can be compared to कुंताः प्रविशन्ति because the usage is probably अकर्मक i think.

--
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/52087ad2-d443-4240-aaea-cb1fe7496ac5%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

We have usages such as 'घटो भाति, सविता प्रकाशते, पटः स्फुरति...'

regards

subrahmanian.v 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7Y2uyzfrU8LTtS0Kp%3D0-BqByB7swunnE2Zh-JMUk17eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

तण्डुलः पचति is another usage. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te1KhwV5wxUazr40YFeCdA%3DzBXSEEVQO6N2aAXnyYC06oA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

The idea as I read is this.

1. In the two (pairs of) cognate actions that we are looking into,

viz. (a) "to like"/"to desire"

and (b) "to appear"/"to shine",

there is the difference of what spurs the action.

2. Needless to say, it means, what the speaker intends to represent it as.

In other words, it is an issue of vivaks"A.

3. kartRtva is indeed pre-eminently a matter of vivaks"A.

4. And vivaks"A, as we know, controls the kAraka-s, which in turn control the vibhakti-s.

5. Sometimes the initiative for the action issues from the As'raya (= here, the kartR himself).

6. Sometimes the initiative for the action issues from the vis"aya (= here, the karman).

7. In the case of the root rocate and abhilas"ati,

the kartR-s are modaka and Devadatta respectively,

even though the same action - of Devadatta liking the modaka - is described.

8. If the speaker wants to portray the desire as initiating from Devadatta,

he will choose the root abhilas".

9. If the speaker wants to portray the desire as triggering from modaka,

he will choose the root ruc.

10. In fine, in the case of 8, it is as though a "weakness"/"idiosyncrasy" of Devadatta is portrayed/underlined/suggested.

11. And similarly, in the case of 9, it is as though the "delectability" of the modaka is portrayed/underlined/suggested.

12. Of course, if the modaka is not delectable, Devadatta's desire would not be triggered, and

if Devadatta has weakness for sweets, he would not be drawn towards the modaka.

A mutuality can be discerned in situations such as this.

13. The indriya and the indriyArtha are thus as though made for each other.

This is one mutuality.

14. At another level, the words rocate and abhilas"ati have their own idiosyncrasies

- in the sense that what sense one word conveys, the other cannot.

This is another mutuality.

15. The first one (=13 above) lays bare the yogyatA, as it were, between indriya and indriyArtha .

(Devadatta being a proxy for the indriya (= his rasanA)).

16. The next one (=14 above) lays bare the yogyatA between s'abda and artha.

17. The notion of irreplaceability  figures in rhetorics as parivRtty-asahatva/pAka (which we will not go into here).

18. In effect, there is in Sanskrit grammar (as in Sanskrit poetics),

a keen observation of what happens in the world, as well as what language does:

this, then, is an issue of reality and representation,

of what is  and what is (sought to be) expressed.

So with "pas'yati" and "prakAs'ate".

I hope I have not overstated my case.

[K S Kannan]

The three examples of Sri Subrahmanyan-ji are all cases of mere akarmaka roots and the actions they involve in.

The issue can easily get confounded with the common-sensically expected caitanya of the kartR of any action.

Animation is no pre-condition of agency. In no language.

What we are discussing here is unique to Sanskrit in the sense that

in no other grammar have subtleties of observation and expression taken to such depths.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAATwsQCTh4VmmWdEE3ObT32uf5EAFBJ5VhCphzGb2c5Xnqi3VA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Prof. HNBhat's example is, I guess, quite close.

[K S Kannan]

typo:

have been taken to such depths.

[K S Kannan]

I would like to write a few words about pas'yati and prakAs'ate.

For this is the more subtle issue - even though Haradatta has placed it as an exact parallel to rocate and abhilas"ati.

The parallel is one no doubt of utter lexicality, but the issue of confusibles must be raised and discussed.

I do not have time right now.

I will perhaps resume after a few hours.

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Prof.Dr.George Cardona is basically a Spanish or should I say Spaniard.You can contact him on his email. He is a very good and close friend of mine.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

--
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/5823995d-bf23-495c-bc0c-d207f8def24f%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

Sorry, I noticed another typo in 12 in my earlier post.

I should have said

if Devadatta had no weakness for sweets...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGjfHuxHXy8_MLM6ejAMv%3DeYpT45dNo%3DKE%3DGSTrprpNJhLvv4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ragini Sharma]

हरये नमः🙏🏽

देवदत्त: घटम् पश्यति -

अत्र वैयाकरणरीत्या व्यापारमुख्यविशेष्यके शाब्दे "देवदत्तवृत्तिघटनिष्ठविषयतानिरूपकवर्तमानकालिकज्ञानानुकूलो व्यापार:" इति भवति।

न्यायरीत्या च

"घटनिष्ठविषयतानिरूपकज्ञानाश्रयो देवदत्त:" इति। किन्तु - "देवदत्तनिष्ठज्ञाननिरूपितविषयताश्रयो घट:" इति यद्भवद्भिः अन्यत्र मेल् मध्ये प्रदर्शितं तत् केषां नये सम्भवति? इति मे जिज्ञासा ।

अस्तु

'देवदत्त: मोदकमभिलषति' इत्यत्र धातुः स्वभावेन आश्रयकर्तृकः,

'देवदत्ताय मोदकं रोचते' इत्यत्र तु विषयकर्तृकः।

तथैव

घट: पश्यतीत्यत्र धातोः आश्रयकर्तृकत्वम्।

घट: प्रकाशते इत्यत्र च विषयकर्तृकः धातुः।। एवञ्च

घट: पश्यतीत्यस्य वैयाकरणमते- घटनिष्ठज्ञानानुकूलो व्यापारः इत्यर्थः, न्यायनये च-

ज्ञानाश्रय: घट: इति बोध: ।

यद्यप्यत्र चेतनाहीनस्य घटस्य दृशिक्रियायाः कर्तृत्वेनाश्रयत्वं कथं सम्भवतीति जिज्ञासा जायते, अतोत्र चेतनत्वारोपः कार्य:।

पुनश्च घट: पश्यतीत्यत्र दृशिर् धातोः सकर्मकत्वं नैव कथनीयं यतः सर्वेषामपि धातूनां कर्मबोधकपदराहित्ये अकर्मकत्वमस्त्येव।।

नमामि

--
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/733b173b-8818-42b5-9290-0fd1bc68a34d%40googlegroups.com.

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Thank you very much Kannan ji.

In that case English frequently uses "घटः पश्यति" kind of constructions quite regularly, for example:

The lock opened.

The pot broke. etc.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7Y2uyzfrU8LTtS0Kp%3D0-BqByB7swunnE2Zh-JMUk17eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramanujachar P]

I think karma-kartari prayogas are to be distinguished from some of the examples you have given

During Sri Krishna’s birth shackles doors etc opened by themselves (due to Bhagavat samkalpa)

Pot broke is like भिद्यते काष्ठ: स्वयमेव (कर्मकर्तरि)

रामानुज:

Get Outlook for iOS

 

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:30 PM
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} आश्रयकर्तृक vs विषयकर्तृक

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK5aoVm1Ts1Y6C3NKGyZa6jYFCsUCF1HwcLdGNWv4rWWmMQHeA%40mail.gmail.com.

[G S S Murthy]

तेनालिरामं घटगूढवक्त्रं पश्यन् मुमोहेवाप्रतिमप्रभावः ।

द्राग्व्याजहारार्तरवेण राजा भटाः घटः पश्यति पश्यतीति ॥

क्षम्यतां विनोदः

भवदीयः

मूर्तिः    

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/DM6PR07MB6571875540DE2DEAB5B96863F4A20%40DM6PR07MB6571.namprd07.prod.outlook.com.

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Rishi Goswami]

श्रीमति, रागिनि महोदये,
अहं नैयायिकशाब्दम् एव जानामि, न वैयाकरणशाब्दमपि। अतः मया घटादि-मुख्यविशेष्यकशाब्दः भ्रान्त्या लिखितम्। अकारणम् एव नैयायिकशाब्दस्य वैपरीत्यंं व्यवाहरम्।

So, should we consider घटः पश्यति as कर्मकर्तृ? Like, लकड़ी कटती है,कपड़ा फटता है, शाखा टूटती है, गाडी रुकती है इत्यादि। वैसे घटः पश्यति = घट दिखता है।
But personally, it doesn't feel so right to me, it seems more like अकर्मक that कर्मकर्तृप्रयोग।

प्रणमामि।

[G S S Murthy]

द्वितीयपादः सदोषः दृश्यते ।

“ पश्यन् मुमोहाप्रतिमप्रभावः” इति समीचीनः ।

क्षमां याचे ।

मूर्तिः

--
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/2e14ef6f-1da8-485f-ab70-1d6c3b3bec79%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

I agree with Dr. Ramanujachar.

In the case of karmakartari, the form is invariably Atmane.

Is there a karmakartari usage where the form is Parasmai?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRjeV62T0_LUdr8eenX9WRJcXrxeay37%2BdgDOvbx%3DZb7KA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

A try on plain literal translation  on <   "घटः पश्यति" mean "घडा दिखता है" ? >

 

"घटः पश्यति"  =  (Samskruth to English/ Hindi) = Pot sees ( now)/ Pot is seeing now ; घडा देखता है

 

 

"घडा दिखता है" ? = (Hindi to Samskruth) = घटः  दृश्यते - ( I, You, People) see the pot / ( I, You, People) can see the pot; it is visible.

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Vineet Chaitanya
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:45 PM
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} आश्रयकर्तृक vs विषयकर्तृक

 

Does "घटः पश्यति" mean "घडा दिखता है" ?

 

[Irene Galstian]

This is a brilliant thread. I made 4 pages of notes and still going strong. Thank you!

Since Rishi Goswami asked for examples in other languages, in ordinary Russian usage the situation is as follows:

If you want to say that the pot broke, you can't say 'gorshok slomal', where gorshok=pot, slomal=broke, since the listener will understand that the pot broke something else and will wait for you to finish the sentence and tel; him what the por broke. But you can say 'gorshok slomalSYA', which means 'the pot broke itself'.

However, if you want to say 'the pot looks good', you can say 'gorshok khorosho vyglyadit', just as you would with a living object.

However, there exists, both in English and Russian, the sentence  'I broke my hand', 'Ya slomal/a ruku'. It's understood that you didn't break your hand on purpose and that it just happened by accident.

[Irene Galstian]

Sorry, and another thing.
You'd never say ' U menya slomalas' ruka' = 'My hand broke itself',
But you would say 'U menya slomalsya komputer'='My computer broke itself'.

> --
> 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/uil32DnV_-o/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/12c1501d-eeaf-4a0f-af0a-877b7bd0528b%40googlegroups.com.
>

[Madhav Deshpande]

I do appreciate this theoretical discussion.  However, while I have seen extensive discussions on examples like ओदन: पच्यते [स्वयमेव] going all the way back to Kātyāyana and coming down to Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa and Nāgeśabhaṭṭa, I do not remember coming across the example घट: पश्यति.  Can someone point to me a textual reference where this example is discussed?  I have been looking into Laghumañjūṣā of Nāgeśa and Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇa of Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, but I have not seen a discussion of this example.  Perhaps I am missing some sources.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

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/CAFPaCQNbmB0j3TLfJu00%3DiyLaCymjjEEVL-WrJk2GvQ694DbpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

I am sorry I could not resume. Am travelling and so cannot write much of value as I cannot have access to my books or notes.

I appreciate Prof. Deshpande's putting svayameva within square brackets. Haradatta says somewhere that it is added to indicate kartrantarAbhAva, and is not to be taken as a part of the illustration.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzd6RN9%2BTtmonmQ8cyptwpOLeawUbrMXxe6VmxqWVYU8OQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

When I am back, I will give the reference to the text where pas'yati in the sense I have given is discussed. Possibly someone will locate it by then. Prof. Korada surely can. Perhaps he is too busy.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

दृष्टश्चायमभिधानप्रकारनियमोऽन्यत्रापि, तद्यथा-घटः पश्यति इति दृशेराश्रयकर्तृकं ज्ञानं वाच्यम् । घटः प्रकाशते इत्यत्र प्रकाशेर्विषयकर्तृकम् । विषय एव हि स्पष्टालोकमध्यवर्तित्वादिना सौकर्येण देवदताश्रये ज्ञाने कर्तेति व्यपदिश्यते , न तु ज्ञानेन कश्चिदतिशयो विषयो जन्यते । कोऽयं प्रकाशो नाम । यं प्राकट्यमाचक्षते भाट्टाः ।  तत्र कारकशेषत्वेन षष्ठीप्रसङ्गे वचनम्। 】

अन्यकर्त्तृकस्यापि व्यापारस्यान्यकर्त्तृकत्वेनाभिधानं विवक्षावशात् भवति इति प्रतिपादयितुं दृष्टान्तोयम् ।

घटः पश्यति इतिपाठे ग्रन्थान्वये कश्चन क्लेशो भाति । तद्यथा --- घटः पश्यति इत्ययं प्रयोग आश्रयकर्त्तृकज्ञानमादाय इत्युक्तम् , आश्रयत्वञ्च धात्वर्त्थज्ञाननिरूपितम् एव । तच्च नोपपद्यते चैतन्यारोपम् अन्तरेण , अत एव आरोपितचैतन्यमादाय ज्ञानवत्त्वम् आदाय घटः पश्यति इतिप्रयोगे उपपादिते घटः प्रकाशते इतिप्रयोगस्य देवदत्ताश्रयत्वे सत्यपि सौकर्य्यविवक्षाप्रयुक्तत्वोक्तिर्न्न युज्यते । अत एव मन्मते घटं पश्यति इत्येव पाठः । तथा च तत्र देवदत्तरूपो यो धात्वर्त्थज्ञानाश्रयः तत्कर्त्तृक एव दृशधात्वर्त्थव्यापारः , घटः प्रकाशते इत्यत्र च देवदत्ताश्रये ज्ञाने सौकर्य्यविशेषमादाय धात्वर्त्थज्ञानविशेषानाश्रयस्यापि घटस्य काशधात्वर्त्थज्ञानकर्त्तृत्वं विवक्षाविशेषेण कथ्यते इति लभ्यते । इदञ्च शास्त्रान्तरप्रसिद्धमेव इति न किमपि विशिष्य वक्तव्यम् अस्ति । अत एव विदुषाम् अत्र चिन्ताक्लेशोपाकृतो भवति । प्राचीनानां संस्करणानां दर्शनेनेदं ज्ञायते यत् सम्पादकैः व्यग्रतया तत्सम्पादनं कृतम् इति ग्रन्थांशविभागोपि न समीचीनोस्ति इति । तद्यथा तत्र कारकशेषत्वेन इत्याद्यंशः रुच्यर्त्थानाम् इतिसूत्रांशषष्ठीविभक्त्यर्त्थबोधनायास्ति , परं सम्पादकस्यानवधानात् अकौशलाद् वा स असम्बद्धग्रन्थांशे योजितः ।

मदीयपाठभेदकल्पनं शास्त्रान्तरप्रसिद्ध्यनुकूलम् इत्येव मयेदानीं वक्तुं शक्यते , मातृकानाम् अलाभात् । काश्चन दृष्टाः परं प्रथमचतुर्त्थो न लब्द्धः ।

 

lets take "घटः प्रकाशते" as घटः ज्ञायते।

घटः प्रकाशते इत्यस्य घटः ज्ञायते इतिसमानार्त्थकत्वं नास्ति , प्रकाशते इत्यस्याकर्म्मकत्वात् ज्ञायते इत्यस्य च सकर्म्मकत्वात् । तथा च प्रकाशते इत्यत्र कर्त्ता घट एव विवक्षितः , ज्ञायते इत्यत्र घटः कर्म्म एव भवति तथैव प्रयोगात् । अत एव टीकोक्तविभागानुकूल्यं न भवति ।

We have usages such as 'घटो भाति, सविता प्रकाशते, पटः स्फुरति...'

तत्र वेदान्तरीत्याविचारे किञ्चिद् वैलक्षण्यम् अस्ति । अस्मद्रीत्या घटादिकर्त्तृकभानादिव्यापारः अनावृतस्वावच्छिन्नचैतन्यात्मकं ज्ञानमादायोपपद्यते । घटादेः स्वावच्छिन्नचैतन्यं प्रति कर्त्तृत्वं तु कथञ्चिद् व्यवहारानुोध्यद्ध्यासविशेषम् आदाय उपपादनीयम् ।

तण्डुलः पचति is another usage. 

अयं प्रयोगोपि घटः प्रकाशते इतिसमानार्त्थक एव शास्त्रान्तरप्रसिद्धः ।

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:10 PM Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote:

।। श्रीहरिः ।।

रुच्यार्थानां प्रीयमाणः इत्यस्य पदमंजरी-टीकायाम् स्वाश्रयकर्तृकव्यापारवाचक-विषयकर्तृकव्यापारवाचक-भेदेन धातुः द्विविधः उक्तः।
तत्तु मया ज्ञातं सम्यक्। यन्न ज्ञातम्, तदयं अंशः यत्र 'दृशेः' 'प्रकाशतेः' च भेदः उक्तः।

तद्यथा =

【 कोऽभिलाषो लषेर्वाच्यः, रुचेस्तु विषयकर्तृकः। द्दष्टश्चायमभिधानप्रकारनियमोऽन्यत्रापि, तद्यथा-घटः पश्यतीति द्दशेराश्रयकर्तृ कं ज्ञानं वाच्यम्। घटः प्रकाशते इत्यत्र प्रकाशेर्विषयकर्तृकम्। विषय एव हि स्पष्टालोकमध्य वर्तित्वादिना सौकर्येण देवदताश्रये ज्ञाने कर्तेति व्यपदिश्यते, न तु ज्ञानेन कश्चिदतिशयो विषयो जन्यते। कोऽयं प्रकाशो नाम, यं प्राकठ।ल्माचक्षते भाट्टाः, तत्र कारकशेषत्वेन षष्ठीप्रसङ्गे वचनम्। 】

इत्यस्य यदि अर्थंं कोपि प्रकाशते चेत् धन्यो भविष्यामि।

प्रणमामि _/\_

--
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/733b173b-8818-42b5-9290-0fd1bc68a34d%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:40 PM K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Dr. Ramanujachar.

In the case of karmakartari, the form is invariably Atmane.

Is there a karmakartari usage where the form is Parasmai?

Will this suit the above requirement:  https://sa.wikisource.org/s/b0n

स्फुट, त् क विसरणे । इति कविकल्पद्रुमः ॥

(अदन्तचुरा०-पर०-अक०-सेट् ।) विसरणं

विकमनम् । स्फुटयति चम्पककलिका । अपु-

स्फुटत् । इति दुर्गादासः ॥  

regards

 

[Harunaga Isaacson]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:15:15 PM UTC+2, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

I do appreciate this theoretical discussion.  However, while I have seen extensive discussions on examples like ओदन: पच्यते [स्वयमेव] going all the way back to Kātyāyana and coming down to Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa and Nāgeśabhaṭṭa, I do not remember coming across the example घट: पश्यति.  Can someone point to me a textual reference where this example is discussed? 

We can expect Professor Kannan to provide a reference when he is back. I notice that in Abhinavagupta's Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛtivimarśinī the example घट: पश्यति is briefly mentioned on p. 21 of vol. 1 of the KSTS edition.

 

[Ragini Sharma]

हरये नमः

'घटः पश्यति' इत्यत्र न कर्म्मवद्भावः इति ज्ञेयम्, तथात्वे तु आत्मनेपदेन भाव्यम्।

किमर्थं न कर्मकर्तृ* इत्यत्र भाष्यमेव मानम् ।

वैयाकरणभूषणसारः -

"निर्वर्त्ये च विकार्य्ये च कर्म्मवद्भाव इष्यते।

न तु प्राप्ये कर्म्मणीति सिद्धान्तोत्र व्यवस्थितः।।

ईप्सितं कर्म्म त्रिविधम्- निर्वर्त्यम्, विकार्यम्, प्राप्यञ्च। तत्राद्ययोः कर्म्मवद्भावः, नान्त्ये। प्राप्यत्वञ्च- क्रियाकृतविशेषानुपलभ्यमानत्वमिति सुबर्थनिर्णये वक्ष्यते। नह्ययं घटः केनचिद् दृष्टो ग्रामोयं केनचिद् गत इति शक्यं कर्म्मदर्शनेनावगन्तुम् ।" इति

धात्वर्थनिर्णये सर्वमिदं प्रपञ्चितं ग्रन्थकृता।

कर्मवत् सूत्रस्थभाष्ये च।

किञ्च

हरिरप्याह -

विशेषदर्शनं यत्र क्रिया तत्र व्यवस्थिता। इति ..

उभयोः पूर्वोक्तवचनयोः प्रमाणभूते चित्रे अत्र वर्तेते।

"घटः पश्यति" इत्यस्य शाब्दः नैयायिक-वैयाकरण-मीमांसकसमयानुसारेण कीदृग्  भविष्यतीति जानामि, किन्तु भाषायां कथं वचनतात्पर्यम् अवधार्यमिति बुधां वचनमेवात्र मानम्।

नमामि

--
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/2e14ef6f-1da8-485f-ab70-1d6c3b3bec79%40googlegroups.com.

[Rishi Goswami]

This has taken me by storm.

I'm trying to read Karmakartri Prakriya since morning of Siddhanta Kaumudi.

I'm still on Yagn-lugnant in my studies. with Guruji. Will reach Karmakartri soon, but trying to figure out still. Kartristha Kriya and Karmastha Kriya still made the concept much better.
Inwas actually skeptical about drish, since the beginning that this Dhatu differs from the likes of chhid, bhid etc but just didn't know the actual term of it.

Now I am satisfied and kinda proud of myself hehe 😅.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Harunaga,

     Thanks for pointing to this attestation of घट: पश्यति in Abhinavagupta's Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivr̥tivimarśinī.  After reading Abhinavagupta's Vimarśinī with Bhāskarī [ed by K. C. Pandey, Vol I, p. 77], it appears that घट: पश्यति has a special interpretation within the system of Kashmir Shaivism.  Some of this special interpretation is found in the Vimarśinī [with a quote from Śivadr̥ṣṭi] and Bhāskarī, where the perceived external object is truly a projection of the perceiver, and not substantively different from it.  

Here is K. C. Pandey's translation of the quoted Śivadr̥ṣṭi verses:

"Jar (is one with myself at the time of my desire to know and therefore) knows as one with myself.  And I am one with jar in knowing. Sadāśiva knows as myself.  And I know as Sadāśiva.  Śiva alone shines, knowing himself through the multiplicity of objects."

Again, thanks for referring to this very special instance of घट: पश्यति, which has a very special interpretation.  With best wishes,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

--

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/4ad144cd-f310-416c-8e5a-411a010a3c8c%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Madhav ji,

Thanks for producing this image from the book. On reading it I get the 'pratyabhijnaa' of the prakriyaa for perception in Advaita as taught in the Vedanta Paribhasha:  Since the entire world is a superimposition on Brahman according to Advaita, during the act of perception, the knower, pramaataa (pramaatr-chaitanyam), the pramaana chaitanyam (the knowing/instrument) and the prameya chaitanyam (the object, ghaTa, for example) become 'one.'  This is called 'ekaloleebhaavah'.  In the image you have provided, the ghaTa's 'knowing' is nothing but its becoming the vishaya chaitanyam for this pramiti that is generated from the vyaapaara of knowing. It is not actually the ghaTa knowing anything as one would think/expect when one hears the expression 'ghaTah pashyati/vEtti'.  Thus, ultimately, it is 'अहमेव मदात्मना मामेव वेद्मि'.  There is no kartr-karma virodha here since all the three, triputee, involved here are designated as different upadhi-s, तेषाम् औपाधिकभेदात् |   

Interesting indeed.

warm regards

subrahmanian.v  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzeMRAr25AJMOuQwoArHOQSwiNWxzfB%2BRgOez%3DEMtsj%3DmA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Subrahmanian Ji,

     You got the essential point.  From the point of view of Kashmir Pratyabhijñā or Advaita, in an example like this, the distinction of आश्रयकर्तृक vs विषयकर्तृक is no longer relevant.  That is what the verse from Śivadr̥ṣṭi is saying: घटो मदात्मना वेत्ति वेद्म्यहं च घटात्मना.  Best regards,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0g0Tw5LFdNc3gzTKsDx8wHbA70vZ0GJ7URG5tYWL_MfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rishi Goswami]

There is still a problem over here.

Siddhanta Kaumudi made a big clarification I'd like to explain in brief. (In case my understanding is flawed.)

Here, all Karmakartri, where the कर्मणा-तुल्यक्रियाककर्ता is लकारवाच्य, it gains कर्मवद्भाव hence भिद्यते काष्ठम् काष्ठः भिद्यते etc will carry यक्-आत्मनेपद-चिण् etc।

These are all कर्मस्थक्रिया where there is significant वैलक्षण्य after कर्म is done. like विक्लित्ति in पाक and द्वैधीभाव in छिदि।

But in गच्छति ग्रामः or स्मरति शास्त्रार्थः, there is no वैलक्षण्य in प्राप्ताप्राप्त ग्राम aur स्मृतासमृत शास्त्रार्थ। so this isnt कर्मस्थ क्रिया and doesnt accept any कर्मवद्भाव (यगात्मनेपदादि)।
this means without any श्रम of कर्ता "ग्रामः प्राप्त्याश्रयो भवति" and "शास्त्रार्थ स्मृतिविषयो भवति"।

same with घटः पश्यति।
घटः दर्शनविषयो भवति।

_____
So, one huge problem has been solved by letting us understand the meaning and construction of घटः पश्यति as a valid प्रयोग. But giving birth to another set of problem.
______

मोदकः रोचते = मोदकः रुचिविषयो भवति। स एव रुचेः कर्ता। इति विषयकर्तृकव्यापारः।
रुचेः आश्रयः देवदत्तः।

similarly, घटः चाक्षुषज्ञानविषयः। स एव ज्ञानकर्ता। (कथं स ज्ञानकर्ता इत्युक्ते कौमुदीकार आह "स्वव्यापारे स्वतन्त्रत्वात्" इति। ghat is also विवक्षित as कर्ता and कर्मादि are also स्वतन्त्र in their respective actions)।

So problem arises that घट is ज्ञानविषय and घट is ज्ञानकर्ता while देवदत्त is ज्ञानाश्रय।

so विषयकर्तृकव्यापार is दृशेः वाच्य not आश्रयकर्तृकव्यापार। how then should we consider the शाब्दबोध of घटः पश्यति?

घटनिष्ठविषयतानिरूपकं ज्ञानम् is not विवक्षित here. घट cannot बे विषयताश्रय(विषय)।।

[Rishi Goswami]

Thank you Raginiji I will ponder on your write-up now.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Rishi,

     Does the Siddhānta-Kaumudī discuss घट: पश्यति?  Where?  Please give me a textual reference.  Thanks.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

--
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/4838b5e0-8982-4072-aea2-e277179f486b%40googlegroups.com.

[Rishi Goswami]

Namaskar guro..

It doesn't refer Ghatah Pashyati. But says about a Karika in Karmakartri Prakriya where a similar example is seen.

अधिगच्छति शास्त्रार्थः स्मरति श्रद्दधाति वा

स्मरति शास्त्रार्थः is not कर्मस्थक्रिया because no वैलक्षण्य is seen in शास्त्रार्थ (स्मृतास्मृत)।

घटः पश्यति is same type.

[Madhav Deshpande]

OK, thanks. 

Madhav Deshpande 

--
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/57a1dfcf-7a64-4296-b3dc-b25957bb2f95%40googlegroups.com.

--

[Rishi Goswami]

My दृष्टि just fell over this कारिका after i started looking for answers seeing Raginiji's short guidelines.

किन्तूत्पादनम् एवातः कर्मवत् स्यात् यगाद्यपि।
कर्मकर्तर्यन्यथा तु न भवेत् तद् दृशेरिव ।।६।।

This is 6th कारिका from वैयाकरणभूषणसार which confirms prayogas like घटः पश्यति।

But my problem was never with घटः पश्यति, it lies within विषयकर्तृकव्यापरः दृशेर्वाच्यः or आश्रयकर्तृकव्यापारः दृशेर्वाच्यः।
if it is द्वितीय, how it's possible, Vidvansah please explain.

[K S Kannan]

To resume from where I left off.

I did not know about the nice and actual attestation from Abhinavagupta's work

of the peculiar expression of ghaTah pas'yati.

Thanks to Prof. Isaacson for drawing attention to this.

Here is the case of an experience of the mAtR, mAna, and meya - all seen as one,

and any one of these being spoken of as the kartR being equally valid.

Such expressions can issue

- from the great experience of the essential unity of everything

  such as vAsudeaH sarvam (BG(=bhagavadgItA)7.19 )

- from the realisation of how the One is the many,

   - as an assertion issuing from the Lord,

       as in BG9.16 aham kratur aham yajn"aH etc.

   - or as a model of value to the yogic aspirant,

        as in BG 4.24 brahmArpaNam brahma haviH etc.

       (already anticipated in the opening Vedic verse

        where agni is the all in the yajn"a : the purohita, deva, the Rtvij etc.)

- from the philosophical perception that what is outside is a projection of what is within,

   viz. the inner faculty : a concept famous as figuring in Buddhistic idealism,

   but equally well in vyAkaraNa-dars'ana itself  - as in vAkyapadIya 3.7.41

   dyauH ks"amA vAyur Adityas sAgarAs sarito dis'aH/

   antaHkaraNa-tattvasya bhAgA bahir-avasthitAH  //

When speaking from special/exalted states, it is possible to identify one with the other,

a mystical experience as it were. This kind of "worldly" transaction can occur

in a state of absolute surrender when one relinquishes doership too:

sva-s'es"a-bhUtena mayA svIyais sarva-paricchadaiH/

vidhAtum prItam AtmAnam devaH prakramate svayam //

or nAham kartA hariH kartA.

There is not much new then in Kashmir S'aivism on this issue.

Whatever the details and specifics be, as remarked by Prof. Deshpande,

the discussion of vis"aya-kartRka and As'raya-kartRka become no longer relevant

- which is to say these do not answer in any manner the question first raised.

ghaTah pas'yati taken in this sense does not explain

the issue raised by Haradatta in the context of grammar.

The expression being discussed pertains thus to ordinary transactions of the world,

and not to exalted states of consciousness or very special viewpoints

where even ordinary occurrences take on a different hue.

We need to look, then, into the way our thoughts find expressions in Sanskrit

(or even other languages of the world).

This issue needs to be taken up next.

The last mail of Sri Goswami has yet raised a part of the original question.

--
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/d3778913-72f5-4ac5-8070-32b19124ec61%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

1. The question boils down to how exactly do we express our thoughts.

2. The flow obviously is from manas and its desire to speak.

"The Atman, united with buddhi, enjoins the manas with the intention to speak"

"AtmA buddhyA sametyArthAn mano yun'kte vivaks"ayA".

3. Now, vAc is said to be but a canal for manas:

"manasaH kulyA vAk."

4. What happens in the external world is filtered through the saMskAra-s in the manas of the perceiver.

Thus, there is no pratyaks"a which is not shaped by the saMskAra-s, present and past.

To use the words of philosophers of science, "there is no observation that is not theory-laden".

SaMskAra-s are not limited, of course, just to the theory known to the experiencer.

5. Upon vivaks"A, the primary urge to speak, two filters happen to play their role.

The two are  LaukikI vivaks"A and PrAyoktrI vivakSA.

6.  LaukikI vivaks"A is the regulation of the speech by the world.

This is what meant by what Patan"jali often dismisses certain expressions simply as - anabhidhAnAt,

the s'is"Ta-s do not speak so (more or less equivalent to "native speakers would not speak it that way").

7. This is also where figures the non-equivalence across languages,

whether in terms of syntax or vocables.

Each language thus has "her own" genius, and her own limitations.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has enough material to be invoked here

(even though there are certain views counter to this).

The concepts of Areal Linguistics are also similarly relevant here

(Masica-Emeneau-Shapiro-Schiffman).

Studies of kinship terms and colour terms (made by linguistic anthropologists)

lay bare the underlying linguistic relativism.

8. PrAyoktrI vivaks"A, while fully conforming to LaukikI  vivaks"A (of which it is but a subset, so to say),

makes certain choices - so as to to reveal something, or just veil something,

to underscore something, or to underplay something.

It is the sweet will of the speaker to withhold something or overstate something.

(This is an area of overlap between grammar and rhetorics.

Rhetorics takes over from where grammar leaves off).

9. It is this domain - of what the speaker intends to express that pANini has to handle

whence the archetype of his sUtra-s is:

"In this sense (the same as "In order to express this sense"), this item is prescribed."

10. The kAraka Theory is as it were the hinge on which the system of pANini turns.

vivaks"A settles the kAraka-representation (whence ends the essential role of semantics),

and thereafter commences the mundane role of syntactics : the vibhakti presentations.

11. It is here, in the kAraka to vibhakti mapping stage, that "ghaTaH pas'yati",

sounding so counter-intuitive - so as to be easily suspected of being merely a metaphorical

(or even hazily connotative, or plain irregular/just unacceptable) construction :

from being of the types of s'rNota grAvANaH to kuntAH pravis'anti to jarbharI turpharI tu,

(or even naming somebody as Mr. GhatTa - say, for the sake of a story).

12. Against the above background, what exactly can impel one to say ghaTaH pas'yati

can now be seen more clearly. In other words, it is a clearer understanding of kAraka-s that is called for.

The evidence for this is also plain: Haradatta does not invoke any concept herein

from the field of Kashmir S'aivism or Tantra, with which Abhinavagupta is so much associated,

and whose ideas have links, parallels, or kinship with many of those of BhartRhari.

Haradatta is very plain:  He starts the discussion with the prefatory words such as abhidhAna-s'akti-vaicitrya

or what is more or less the same, said alternatively as, abhidhAna-niyama-prakAra,

meaning, "the idiosyncrasy of the power of expression" or "the mode of regulation of expression".

(Obviously, this rules out the realm of rhetorics, of the need of invoking laks"aNA or vyan"janA).

We often come across the word s'abda-s'akti-svAbhAvya (the nature of the (primary) power of the word)

also in the same sense.

13. To meet what idea is the expression ghaTaH pas'yati designed

can now be more easily grasped.

[K S Kannan]

typo: the sentence in section 11 went incomplete,

but the sense can be figured out from the succeeding sentence.

[Bijoy Misra]

We compiled the attached model in 2018 and are working to get a physical understanding.

There are various time delays and neural processes involved.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7WOs-YOp2c5RCmtgar7E%3DSA0WF-SBj_3Bbu2WuTbWkeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste Sir,

Beautiful post; enjoyed thoroughly, despite certain concepts were beyond my grasp. This paragraph of yours:

//4. What happens in the external world is filtered through the saMskAra-s in the manas of the perceiver.

Thus, there is no pratyaks"a which is not shaped by the saMskAra-s, present and past.

To use the words of philosophers of science, "there is no observation that is not theory-laden".

SaMskAra-s are not limited, of course, just to the theory known to the experiencer. //

brings to my mind the chapter 'द्वैतविवेकः'  of the Panchadashi of Swami Vidyaranya:

ईशेन यद्यप्येतानि निर्मितानि स्वरूपतः ।
तथापि ज्ञानकर्माभ्यां जीवो कार्षीत्तदन्नताम् ॥ १६॥

ईशकार्यं जीवभोग्यं जगद्द्वाभ्यां समन्वितम् ।
पितृजन्या भर्तृभोग्या यथा योषित्तथेष्यताम् ॥ १७॥

मायावृत्त्यात्मको हीशसंकल्पः साधनं जनौ ।
मनो वृत्त्यात्मको जीवो संकल्पो भोगसाधनम् ॥ १८॥

ईशनिर्मितमण्यादौ वस्तुन्येकविधे स्थिते ।
भोक्तृधीवृत्तिनानात्वात्तद्भोगो बहुधेष्यते ॥ १९॥

हृष्यत्येको मणिं लब्ध्वा क्रुद्ध्यत्यन्यो ह्यलाभतः ।
पश्यत्येव विरक्तोऽत्र न हृष्यति न कुप्यति ॥ २०॥

प्रियोऽप्रिय उपेक्ष्यश्चेत्याकारा मणिगास्त्रयः ।
सृष्टा जीवैरीशसृष्टं रूपं साधारणं त्रिषु ॥ २१॥

भार्या स्नुषा ननान्दा च याता मातेत्यनेकधा ।
प्रतियोगिधिया योषिद्भिद्यते, न स्वरूपतः ॥ २२॥

ननु ज्ञानानि भिद्यन्तामाकारस्तु न भिद्यते ।
योषिद्वपुष्यतिशयो न दृष्टो जीवनिर्मितः ॥ २३॥

मैवं, मांसमयी योषित्काचिदन्या मनोमयी ।
मांसमय्या अभेदेऽपि भिद्यतेऽत्र मनोमयी ॥ २४॥

. Through personal relationships, one and the same woman appears differently as a wife, a daughter-in-law, a sister-in-law, a cousin and a mother; but she herself remains unchanged.

. (Objection): These different relationships may be seen, but no changes in the woman's appearance are seen to result from other people's ideas about her.

. (Reply): Not so. The woman has a subtle body as well as a physical body composed of flesh etc. Although other people's ideas about her may not affect her physical body, yet they can change the way she is conceived of by others.

भ्रान्तिस्वप्नमनोराज्यस्मृतिष्वस्तु मनोमयम् ।
जाग्रन्मानेन मेयस्य न मनोमयतेति चेत् ॥ २५॥

बाढं माने तु मेयेन योगात्स्याद्विषयाकृतिः ।
भाष्यवार्तिककाराभ्यामयमर्थ उदाहृतः ॥ २६॥

मूषासिक्तं यथा ताम्रं तन्निभं जायते तथा ।
रूपादीन् व्याप्नुवच्चित्तं तन्निभं दृश्यते ध्रुवम् ॥ २७॥

व्यञ्जको वा यथा लोको व्यङ्ग्यस्याकारतामियात् ।
सर्वार्थव्यञ्जकत्वाद्धीरर्थाकारा प्रदृश्यते ॥ २८॥

How theory-laden are/can be perceptions is brought out well. 

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7WOs-YOp2c5RCmtgar7E%3DSA0WF-SBj_3Bbu2WuTbWkeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Prof. Kannan,

     Please give me a textual reference to Haradatta's discussion.  Is it his commentary on the Vākyapadīya or his Padamañjarī?  Thanks.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7WOs-YOp2c5RCmtgar7E%3DSA0WF-SBj_3Bbu2WuTbWkeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

This discussion seems to be hopping all around , going away from the starting  point and frame in which the post seems to have started.

 

The  starting was  from < घटः पश्यति। .. विषयकर्तृकव्यापरः दृशेर्वाच्यः or आश्रयकर्तृकव्यापारः दृशेर्वाच्यः। > in the frame of supposed worldly usage and classical grammar school.

The discussion elevated to touch the issues of  Yogyataa- Indriaya- anaadi  related. The scope  now has further extended to touch  western theories,  Vishishtaadvaita/ Vaishnava -view based on a 'method of worship, where the practitioner faith-believes in specific guidance from Acharya,   views from  Kashmir Saivism ( refering to abhinavagupta) and Vedanta views.  

 

Surely this kind of discussion is a Kaleidoscopic perspective analysis of a given issue, which does yield a plurality of 'perceptions and explanations', but may not resolve the primary issue raised. Prof. Deshpande is right in pointing out < it appears that घट: पश्यति has a special interpretation within the system of Kashmir Shaivism>. The ' plank of ' Pratyabhijna' is a different explanation and stands on different principles compared to ' Triputi in Shankara-vedanta'.

 

Here are my submissions in this regard:

 

1. Links to two volumes of Ishvara Pratyabhijna Vivruti vimarshini of Abhinavagupta : ( Total  close to 800 pages Samskruth Text)

 

            https://archive.org/details/IshvaraPratyabhijnaVivritiVimarshiniAbhinavaguptaPart1KashmirSanskrit/page/n2

            https://archive.org/details/IshvaraPratyabhijnaVivritiVimarshiniAbhinavaguptaPart2KashmirSanskrit/page/n2

 

2.  The term 'ghata' has a special meaning in the above text of Ishvara Pratyabhijna vimarshini, pointing to anything that is manifest-finite entity that can be cognized and connoted with a name.

 

     Two references from abhinavaguptas work are placed below- First one is from volume -1 where the pointer to ' ghatah pashyati' comes in; second reference almost at the end of the second volume, where the return is made to very concept of   what is a 'ghata', what is 'ghata-jnana' and the involved processes.  The discussions throughout the text also covers -' wrong and doubtful perception,  Self-perception of Knowledge and memory-recall-recognition', where the ' ashraya and vishaya' analysis is deeper and complex, without postulating the ' state of consciousness ( avashtaa-traya) element in linguistics'.

 

    The discussion covers two kinds of expressions  which came in for a translation issue :

    The Pot sees (ghatah pashyati).   The Pot is visible/ shines/ The pot is seen as pot ( ghatah avabhasate).

     :< "घटः पश्यति" mean "घडा दिखता है" ? > ; "घटः पश्यति"  =  (Samskruth to English/ Hindi) = Pot sees ( now)/ Pot is seeing now ; घडा देखता है ;  "घडा दिखता है" ? = (Hindi to Samskruth) = घटः  दृश्यते - ( I, You, People) see the pot / ( I, You, People) can see the pot; it is visible.

 

     Through the discussions the textual segments views with illustrations from Veda, gita, Nyaya shastra, Vyakarana, Vedanta and alamkara are  discussed.

 

     It is next to impossible to bring out the complex nature of discussion in the two volumes and explain the gist of the discussion without building  a base of ' Pratyabhijna - (saiva- advaita) vimarsha : Terminology and fundamental concepts, for which this is not the occasion. What is technically presented is the unified philosophy as  seen in  Bhartruhari and Sri-vidya- Tantra  and Aagama  schools. 

 

     The key concept is analysis of 'Vak' as Yoga-Samskrutham / Shabda-Brahma /  (vak)-raso vai Saha .  The technicalities of ashraya karturka, Vishaya, Vyaapaara- kriyaa are all explained within the frame work of 'Paninian rules'.  

 

3.    Here below is the first reference of the 'ghataH pashyati' in this work: (https://archive.org/details/IshvaraPratyabhijnaVivritiVimarshiniAbhinavaguptaPart1KashmirSanskrit/page/n30)

 

 

    This discussion goes through the volume-1 to volume -2 almost to the end where the concept of  'ghata' is again introduced with a different model of ' poorva-paksha'.

(https://archive.org/details/IshvaraPratyabhijnaVivritiVimarshiniAbhinavaguptaPart2KashmirSanskrit/page/n293)

 

 

4.  The  views under the term Aerial linguistics does not cover or come any way close to the linguistic concepts of bharateeya darshana shaastras. Aerial linguistics is explained in Wiki as : In linguistics, areal features are elements shared by languages or dialects in a geographic area, particularly when such features are not descended from a proto-language, or, common ancestor language. That is, an areal feature is contrasted to genealogically determined similarity within the same language family.

 

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is partial in its application to this care, where 'Samskrutham'  does not fit in to the range of  languages  as the philosophical axioms and premise are totally non-matching.  The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is explained in Wiki as:     The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, part of relativism, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism is a principle claiming that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken language.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[K S Kannan]

1. ghaTaH pas'yati generated much questioning as it can be suspected of violating LaukikI vivaks"A itself 

(which can evoke questions like "What does it mean at all?" "Who would make such a sentence?" )

2. We are all used to sentences like devadattaH pas'yati, but not ghaTaH pas'yati.

It is a question of violation of yogyatA, it was strongly suspected.

How can a pot see, after all?

3. It offends our sensibilities both ways - if we assert that the pot sees,

and worse, if it were to be an expression of - a Devadatta seeing a pot - being described.

(Of course, there is no Devadatta in the actual sentence itself,

but the context (taken up in the original i.e. Haradatta's treatment of the issue) indicates the same).

4. The confusion can happen to even those who may be native speakers,

or those who come close to being native speakers - by virtue of, say,

living in a country where the language is spoken, or is acquired

in the company of fairly good and articulate speakers of the language.

5. (In languages like English, so dynamic, so unstable, it is not just that

new lexemes keep coming into into operation,  but that

even extant lexical items can acquire newer denotations and connotations,

- which is also to say acquiring/generating even newer yogyatA-s !).

6. (An easy example would be the recent advertisement : "Drink an apple".

A solid (that the apple is) has no yogyatA to "be drunk",

as one can only drink liquids. The advertised has "tampered with" the yogyatA here,

(by virtue of extending the sense of apple, famously a fruit, to the special apple juice)).

(In Sanskrit (as in many languages) a single word normally standing for the tree,

can also denote the fruit of the tree, some part/product of the tree etc.))

7. On the other hand, expressions that very well resemble ghaTaH pas'yati,

actually present in languages we are used to,

will just not be suspected of such violations !

We shall discuss some English examples also in order to show

our partial (in)sensitivity to certain issues and phenomena.

8. The essential "jarring" is - how can the same form pas'yati mean

two "opposite" things viz. "to see" and "to appear"?

The two appear opposed primarily because the first sense is transitive,

while the second sense is intransitive.

9. But this in itself should not be a cause for worry, for there are verbs

which are either transitive or intransitive, depending on the sense they convey.

Take for example root tap. In constructions like caNDAms'us tapati, it is intransitive.

However, in constructions like pas'yAmi tvAm ...vis'vamidam tapantam, it is transitive.

"to burn" in English is an easy parallel.

10. In Sanskrit we have many roots that have an antarbhAvita-Nyartha

-as with root ks"ar, for example

tapaH ks"arati, but

es"aH tasya  payaH ks"arati, ( ks"arati has the sense of ks"Arayati).

In English we have the parallel in

The army marches.

The C-in-C marches the army.

The latter has the Causative  in built.

11.The question in such cases is whether we have polysemy or homonymy,

and it can remain ambiguous.

12. In our case,

in devadattah ghaTam pas'yati, Root dRs' is sakarmaka;

and in ghaTaH pas'yati, it looks akarmaka.

Such cases of the same root looking now transitive and now intransitive

can be puzzlesome. But the issue has been handled  in Sanskrit grammar as nowhere else.

13. Consider the stock example of devadattaH odanam kAs:ThaiH sthAlyAm pacati.

Devadatta cooks. As a result, raw and hard rice becomes soft rice.

Suppose the rice is excellent. One will then say odanaH  pacyate svayam eva.

where odanaH is in the Nominative. Rice cooks by itself (called karmakartari).

the extreme facility of cooking is emphasised here.

The role of odana as undergoing viklitti,

and the role of Devadatta imparting vikledana - are indicated by the same Root pac

(dvyarthaH paciH).

15. It is up to the speaker's vivaks"A to highlight this or the other aspect in the sentence.

If he wants to emphasise the ease with which the high quality rice cooks,

with almost no effort as it were on the part of the cook,

then the speaker makes the karman behave like the kartR.

The original kartR just does not figure in the sentence now:

see how Devadatta in (a)(b)(c)(d) below disappears in (a')(b')(c')(d'),

with no role to play - as decided/intended by the speaker.

16. Roots are of four types viz.

(a) karmastha-bhAvaka  ex. devadattaH odanam pacati. Devadatta cooks rice.

(b) karmastha-kriyaka ex. devadattaH kAs"Tham bhinatti. Devadatta splits wood.

(c) kartRstha-bhAvaka ex.  devadattaH mAsam Aste. Devadatta stays for a month.

(d) kartRstha-kriyaka. ex. devadattaH grAmam gacchati. Devadatta goes to the village.

17. In (a), the result of the action (bhAva) resides in the karman, viz. the rice.

In (b), the action (kriyA) resides in the karman, viz. the wood.

In (c), the result of the action (bhAva) resides in the kartR,  not the karman (viz. the month).

In (d), the action (kriyA) resides in the kartR, not the karman (viz. the village).

18. Only (a) and (b) can have karmakartari-prayoga, whence we have

(a') odanaH pacyate svayam eva.

(b') bhidyante kAs"THAni svayam eva.

19. In the case of (c) and (d), we cannot have the karmakartari-prayoga,

as the bhava and the kriyA reside in the kartR. We can thus have

(c') mAsa Aste svayam eva, and

(d) grAmo gacchati svayam eva.

20. In all of the above four (ie. a', b', c', d') svayam eva is only for elucidation,

to indicate that Devadatta has no role to play.

21. The last sentence here must be noted.

Root gam is sakarmaka (in Sanskrit).

The ease with which one goes to the village is being expressed.

(The root does not take the Atmane construction as it is not karmakartari).

22. Now it is to this last category that

devadatto ghatam pas'yati belongs.

The ease with which the pot is seen, which is to say

the pot appears on its own or of itself, is represented as

ghaTaH pas'yati.

23. The discussion presented in padaman"jarI of Haradatta on kAs'ikA on 1.4. 33

shows the classification of  vis"aya-kartRka and As'raya-kartRka varities.

24. Further, he says that the svAtantrya can be as per the reality outside (kvacid vAstavikam)

or as per the intention of the speaker (kvacid vaivaks"ikam)

In the case of devadattAya rocate modakaH,

modaka has become the kartR because, as per the speaker,

the modaka has triggered the desire (abhilas"a) which is in Devadatta (devadattAs'raya),

on account of its high delectability (mAdhuryAtis'ayena).

25. The question next asked is why this happens with ruc, and not with las".

It is here that Haradatta says it is on account of abhidhAna-s'akti-vaicitrya:

the abhilAs"a in the case of As'raya-kartRka,

and the abhilAs"a in the case of ruc is vis"aya-kartRka.

26. It is here that Haradatta introduces the example of ghaTaH pas'yati.

In the case of DevadattaH ghaTam pas'yati,

if the speaker intends to elevate ghaTa to the level of the kartR,

eliminating the role of Devadatta thereby,

then he would say ghaTaH pas'yati.

27. In the case of the root dRs', the jn"Ana is As'raya-kartRka.

In the case of a construction like ghaTaH prakAs'ate,

the jn"Ana is vis"aya-kartRka.

28. Actually speaking, Haradatta is taking up the example of ghaTaH pas'yati as an analogy,

which means it is more easily understood!

Of the two, the upamAna and the upameya,

the upamAna is the more famous, and more easily understood.

We give an upamAna to illustrate and elucidate.

It is almost a pity that we are insensitive to it.

29. Another example discussed by grammarians is

(a) pas'yanti bhavam bhaktAH.(The devotees behold S'iva)

(b) pas'yati bhavaH (S'iva gets seen).

The first verb, pas'yanti, is explained as cAks"us"ajn"Anena vis"ayIkurvanti.

The second verb, pas'yati, is explained as [bhavaH] vis"ayIbhavati.

The reason for (b) is given is

 saukaryAtis'aya-vivaks"ayA preraNAms'as tyajyate

30. In English, as pointed out aptly by Dr. Vineet Chaitanya-ji,

such constructions are common.

We lose sensitivity when we quite commonly come across such usages,

as we get less observant with taken-for-granted feeling.

31. Consider the role of the verb in the following passages:

(a)Devadatta reads the passage.

(b)The passage reads.

(a)Devadatta is cooking the dinner.

(b)The dinner is cooking.

(a)Devadatta broke the pot.

(b)The pot broke.

(a)Devadatta opened the lock.

(b)The lock opened.

32. Sanskrit grammarians have gone to subtler levels

as when discussing bhidyate kusUlaH svayam eva.

33. In other words, such types of karmakartR-prayoga are universal.

Grammars of other languages are yet to take note of this phenomenon.

(Some ideas had to be repeated as there seemed to be no clarity yet for some of the readers).

[G S S Murthy]

Prof.Kannan’s analysis is simply brilliant. That so much of analysis is possible in understanding certain sentences is an eye-opener to me.

I had always brushed aside these strange constructions as quirks of the language. Some specimens have withered [ ghaTaH pashyati] and some are still alive [odanaH pacati]. “Bhave prayoga” is perhaps a similar quirk of Sanskrit. There are verbs in English which can only be expressed as a causal in Sanskrit. [shows=darshayati]. There are certain common English nouns for which there do not appear to be suitable equivalents in Sanskrit. [“back” in “my back is paining”=pRShThaH?]  I  

 Poets of course merrily use their freedom to express their imagination. Valmiki says, “vahanta iva dRushTibhiH”. What a way of expressing! Kalidasa says “vegadhIrghIkRtaangaH”. As it is said,

“ ta eva padavinyaasaaH taa evaarthavibhUtayaH | tathaapi kaavyaM navyaM syaat kavergrathanakaushalaat”. Even proverbs in Indian languages amply demonstrate brilliance in expression.

Thanks and regards,

Murthy    

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6ooGJ%2BTzARn0jgEi-NT726KLLo8XtLed-v_dpVkgOSmw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[K S Kannan]

Thank you very much, Dr Murthy.

I must attribute my sensitisation to issues like this to

Dr. Vineet Chaitanya during my stay at IIT-Kanpur.

It is Dr. Chaitanya who has put Linguistics in India back on track - on Indian lines.

A quiet and dedicated worker, he has revolutionised the field of Natural Language Processing in India,

serving as a model for work across languages, not merely Indian ones.

Ask any figure in the departments  of linguistics in any university in India.

They would only be eager to show off their smattering of understanding of Chomsky.

They have hardly any knowledge of the glorious Indian linguistic tradition of a few thousand years!

(Laying waste a whole city, a glorious city at that - like Vijayanagar - hurts many.

But laying waste a huge and deep intellectual tradition is horrendous and abominable

- thanks to the British, the Macaulay-Minutes, the Nehru Dynasty.)

Whereas Panini's grammatical foundation has stayed on unshaken for millennia,

numerous models of Western grammars have come and gone

- so much so as to give rise to a proverb in the field of Linguistics:

Do not run behind a bus, a woman, and a Transformational Grammar;

another one will soon follow !

I was going through some pages of Is'vara-pratyabhijn"A-vivRti-vimarsinI,

kindly referred to/sent by our scholarly friends. The kind of ardour and fervour they had

for the various s'Astra-s (for example, even VyAkaraNa) is so well reflected in this verse at the outset

(pasted below):

What a fall we have had! And from where!!

The vast majority (even among scholars) is not even aware what they are missing.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRidr07LFDrpfC4LSrpevRRrcyfFRP6Zv%3DCRL4vSk6fvZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof. Kannan,

Through my years on earth, I do see two approaches to life and knowing.

One is scientific understanding where you are aware of your ignorance at every step,

a lot remains to be known than what is known.  Knowledge becomes an exploration.

The other is engineering understanding in order to wrap up and create workable theories.

Our daily living gets engineered since we have little scope to understand, we ride the train.

What you have said in the post is that there did exist a time where pure knowledge was

explored and waited upon.  People appreciated the process of foundational understanding.

From our analysis of history in our India Discovery Center, we are coming to the conclusion

that such a foundational state was possible because of total security of food in the land.

Food security brought security to society which in turn helped propel independent thinking.

Food insecurity was imposed artificially by about 1600AD because of land redistribution.

This brought in engineering methods some of which were also imposed through language,

religion and customs.  Many tried engineering regimentation through caste, cult and

social assumptions.  The free India is still struggling to recover, but political regimentation

also lurks.

The good news is that the foundational science is alive.  We salute all the remote scholars

who have retained the tradition of exploring knowledge through debate, analysis and understanding.

Some brand this as Hindu to create a caricature. As I see Indian दर्शन is pure science and

all scholars (including me) need a through grinding to appreciate the neural work in analysis. 

Sorry for this digression. 

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5-FnYr%2B32bL%2B52iwZe-vCacoV04a%3DjHbMbJDKV4uXchg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thanks, Professor Kannan, for a brilliant analysis and references to Haradatta.  As G. S. S Murthy Ji observed "Some specimens have withered [ ghaTaH pashyati] and some are still alive [odanaH pacati]."  This is what makes a usage like घट: पश्यति somewhat unusual.  As Bhāsa said in his Svapnavāsavadattam: "अपरिचयात्तु न श्लिष्यते मे मनसि."  Otherwise, the Śāstric explnations are fine.  With best regards,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6ooGJ%2BTzARn0jgEi-NT726KLLo8XtLed-v_dpVkgOSmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Is it so unusual as the following verse:

"एष वन्ध्यासुतो याति खपुष्पकृतशेखरः । मृगतृष्णाम्भसि स्नातः शशशृङ्गधनुर्धरः " ।।

or 

अस्य क्षोणिपतेः परार्धपरया लक्षीकृताः संख्यया प्रज्ञाचक्षुरवेक्ष्यमाणतबधिरप्रख्याः किलाकीर्तयः ।
गीयन्ते स्वरमष्टमं कलयता जातेन वन्ध्योदरान्मूकानां प्रकरेण कूर्मरमणीदुग्धोदधे रोधसि ॥ १२.१०६ ॥ नैषधीयचरिते। 

There few variants in the verses quoted which do not alter the intended sense.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzdZfYPhKmJQ_JutK7N%3D1hjhgv4ZL2Ej6Sed656FYmsBiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 7:02 PM Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is it so unusual as the following verse:

"एष वन्ध्यासुतो याति खपुष्पकृतशेखरः । मृगतृष्णाम्भसि स्नातः शशशृङ्गधनुर्धरः " ।।

Dear Sri Bhat ji,

Do you have the reference of the above verse, which is cited by Shankaracharya in the Taittiriya bhashya:

‘मृगतृष्णाम्भसि स्नातः खपुष्पकृतशेखरः । एष वन्ध्यासुतोयाति शशशृङ्गधनुर्धरः’ इतिवत् शून्यार्थतैव प्राप्ता सत्यादिवाक्यस्येति चेत्  ....

It must be much older and hence my interest of the text.

warm regards

subrahmanian.v  

[Madhav Deshpande]

The technical term for usages which are never found in actual prayoga is अनभिधान going back to Kātyāyana and Patañjali.  But in a poetic context, such usages can occur and have great poetic effect.  For example, here is a verse by Kabir: "माटी कहे कुम्हार से तू क्या रोंदे मोय , एक दिन एसा आएगा मैं रोंदूगी तोय."  Here is my poem using घट: पश्यति.

कुम्भकारगृहे तिष्ठन् घट: पश्यति बान्धवान् । 

निर्मितान् पतितान् भग्नान् कम्पते शङ्कया हृदि ।।     

Enjoy!

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAATwsQC-v-v8GUcxaVDjp2xmJ5%2BcE6E0o1Y-zg85%2BBAqH7JJ%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thank  you for your beautiful poetry!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzfh3_7FqY5vg42DavU2L8fa2Ur%3DF1oZnqyCPM41KvGM4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thank you, Dr. Bhat.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAATwsQBUx6AoX3Cu1-gyE_Uk%2BC7eG_7LbJEK%2BbUyhLVnPYHgPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste,

A very apt example. 

This verse reminds me of Omar Khayya's potter and the pot verses: for example,

After a momentary silence spake

Some Vessel of a more ungainly Make;

     "They sneer at me for leaning all awry:

What! did the hand then of the Potter shake?"

regards..........................yoga

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzc5pSVtQZY9OPZUfJ1PBmWekxTvtngftbxYLni0YLA8pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Prof Deshpande's verse can stir some deep feelings:

of shuddering at the tottering of towering figures!

Yogananda has taken us to another continent.

In prayoga texts (and in jyotis"a texts too perhaps), as too in yogic works,

ghaTa stands for the human body itself.

A simple example from literature is

chinne rajjau ke ghaTam dhArayanti?

(Svapna-vAsavadatta of BhAsa).

ghaTa-s'rAddha is a ritual.

The ups and downs of our fate is well reflected in:

etAn prapas'yasi ghaTAn jala-yantra-cakre

riktA bhavanti bharitA bharitAs' ca riktAH

And who will not remember

ghaTAnAm nirmAtus tribhuvana-vidhAtus' ca kalahaH !

- cited in Vakrokti-jIvita?

Here is one from ParamArtha-sAra of abhinavagupta -

nijam anyad atha s'arIram

ghaTAdi vA tasya deva-gRham.

plus the famous

nAnAcchidra-ghatodara-sthita-mahA-dIpa-prabhA-bhAsvaraM

Good friendship and bad friendship contrasted:

mRd-ghaTa iva sukha-bhedyo dussandhAnas'ca durjano bhavati/

sujanas tu kanaka-ghaTa iva durbhedyas sulabha-sandhAnas' ca//

- Just a few of the verses that came to my mind

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFChueja-JZLFmvsi9snXMC_WmX4oqKA2GPZ9aJ_LVGw9boig%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

The pot-simile for the body has not left Tamil literature. Here is one:

http://www.narayanmurti.com/4_38_nanndhavanathil.php  

Nandhavanathil Ore Aandi Avan
Naalaaru maathamai Kuyavanai Vendi
Kondu Vandhan Oru Thondi
Adhai Koothadi Koothadi Pottudaithaandi"

the meaning at the first look would seem funny. It means that a poor man in the garden begged for a pot for ten months from the potter. And he got it finally after ten months, but the poor man carelessly played and played with the pot and broke it. The above meaning might look as if the poor man's effort was a waste as he could not save the pot he begged, but the actual meaning is different and has an indepth meaning, but before that let us meaning of the words in the song.

Nandhavam - Garden, Earth
Ore - one
Aandi - Man without anything with him
Avan - Personal Pronoun
Naalaaru - Naalu + Aaru - Four + Six that is ten
Maatham - Month
Kuyavan - Potter, Creator
Vendi - Beg, Ask
Kondu - Bring
Vandhan - Refers to the Aandi
Oru - One
Thondi - Pot, Container
Adhai - Pronoun referring the pot
Koothadi - Play
Pottu - Drop
Udaithaan - Breaking

And the Kannada song of Purandara dasa:

ತಾರಕ್ಕ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆ ನಾ ನೀರಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುವೆ ತಾರೇ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆಯ,
ಬಿಂದಿಗೆ ಒಡೆದಾರೆ, ಒಂದೇ ಕಾಸು, ತಾರೇ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆಯ

ರಾಮನಾಮವೆಂಬೋ ರಸವುಳ್ಳನೀರಿಗೆ ತಾರೇ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆಯ
ಕಾಮಿನಿಯರ ಕೂಡೆ ಏಕಾಂತವಾಡೆನು ತಾರೆ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆಯ

ಬಿಂದುಮಾಧವನ ಘಟ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗುವೆ ತಾರೆ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆಯ

ಪುರಂದರ ವಿಠ್ಠಲಗೆ ಅಭಿಷೇಕ ಮಾಡುವೆ, ತಾರೆ ಬಿಂದಿಗೆಯ

regards 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Yogananda Ji,

    Thanks for an excellent example from Omar Khayyam.  Omar Khayyam's pot is far more expressive than mine.  A true genius.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFChueja-JZLFmvsi9snXMC_WmX4oqKA2GPZ9aJ_LVGw9boig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Professor Kannan,t 

     Thanks for all these beautiful examples of ghaṭa=body poems.  What I had on my mind was Kabir's bhajan: घट घट में पंछी डोलता.  Here is my next Krishna verse using a related concept:

कुम्भकारोऽद्वितीयोऽसि तुष्टो निर्माय सर्वदा ।
निर्वेतन: स्वलीलार्थं कुम्भानस्मादृशान् मुधा ।।८४९।।

"You are a unique potter who is always happy to make pots like us for his own play without any payment."

With best wishes,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6b8zqt0Vkuo5F_ZeYgg9RiHiR8P_3BwSjkF%2BqSgdHxLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

A photo-shot, as it were,

but by no means a pot-shot!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzfohdKmt-MV3SSxsYXnZZCGsJui7QCz7jfeU-hmCDJ84A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste,

Such a wonderful thread. Proves: काव्य शास्त्र विनोदेन कालो गच्छति धीमताम् 

regards.......yoga

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm78VZTxT0DO4%2BSRUJFv0njmmpeF9LAJuscrsSKEhOSn3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[G S S Murthy]

I wonder if this is remotely relevant:

उत्सवदीपः

रूपं न मे पूर्वमधः सरस्याः कस्याश्चिदासं किल पङ्कपिण्डम्।

चन्द्रं न सूर्यं न कदाप्यजानां रावो हि सर्वत्र जलेचराणाम्॥१॥

पद्मिन्यथैका मयि लग्नमूला व्याजेन मन्मार्दवघोषणस्य।

पीत्वा रसं मे बहिरागता च प्रसह्य सूर्यं खलु पर्यणैषीत्॥२॥

सूर्यांशुसंस्पर्शनलभ्यबोधश्चिराय नासीन्मम मन्दभाग्यात्।

अव्यक्तहेतोः सलिलं सरस्याः क्रमेण नष्टं जलजा हताश्च॥३॥

रवेरपश्यं खलु तीक्ष्णरश्मीन् क्षुद्रत्वमुर्व्याश्च तदैककाले।  

चूर्णोऽभवं मार्दवभावहीनः श्रुता मया निष्ठुरवाग्जनानाम्॥४॥

कश्चिन्नरो मां किल मर्दयित्वा पद्भ्यां अवादीन्नरमन्यमुच्चैः।

अत्रैव पद्मं कमनीयमासीत् तन्नाद्य खल्वित्यह मामुपेक्ष्य॥५॥

दीर्घं विनिश्वस्य वचो निशम्य सूर्यस्य रश्मीन् हि विगर्हमानः।

अयापयं नैकदिनानि दीनः सम्मर्दितो मर्त्यगणैश्च पद्भिः॥६॥

वरं जलं जीवनधारणाय वाय्वोः प्रभो मेऽस्तु जले हि वासः।

इतीश्वरं प्रार्थयमानमेत्य कृषीवलो मामनयत् तटान्तम्॥७॥

दिनेषु गच्छत्सु ववर्ष पाशी दिष्ट्या तटाकाः नववारिपूर्णाः।

जले मिमङ्क्षुः प्रसभं ह्यवाञ्छं जलप्रवृत्तिं मृदुतामवाप्तः॥८॥

अहं तटान्ते सलिलं त्वधस्तात् क्रूरो विधिः किं करवाण्यशोचम्।

मां पिण्डितं कश्चन कुम्भकारो निनाय हन्त स्वगृहं सलीलम्॥९॥

घटाश्च केचित् घटिकाश्च काश्चित् प्राप्तं मया  दीपकरूपमत्र।

क्लेशो गतः कापि मनोज्ञतासीत् तप्तोऽप्यभूवं किलनष्टतापः॥१०॥

स्नेहार्द्रवर्त्या प्रससार दीप्ति

-र्लब्धो मया भासुरभास्करांशः।

जानन्तु दीप्तिं न तु मां कदाचि

-ज्जना इतीर्षा मयिखल्वभासीत्॥११॥

भूयात्तमो नाशयितुं समर्था

-मद्दीप्तिवीच्युत्सवदीपपङ्क्तौ।

द्युतिस्तु दृश्येत न मत्स्वरूपम्

ह्रिया विनम्रं च भवेददृश्यम्॥१२॥

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFChucMBDxcfwUk-YWSaQdoX-qYZ9rZczUHr_hSRHEqwTTkyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Amazingly beautiful, Murthy Ji.  The idea that God (Vitthala) is a crazy potter is beautifully expressed in this Marathi poem by the Late G. D. Madgulkar and it was sung by Sudhir Phadke.  [My Sanskrit verse was inspired by this Marathi poem.]

VITHALA TU VEDA KUMBHAR

फिरत्या चाकावरती देसी मातीला आकार
विठ्ठला, तू वेडा कुंभार!

माती, पाणी, उजेड, वारा
तूच मिसळसी सर्व पसारा
आभाळच मग ये आकारा
तुझ्या घटांच्या उतरंडीला नसे अंत, ना पार!

घटाघटांचे रूप आगळे
प्रत्येकाचे दैव वेगळे
तुझ्याविना ते कोणा नकळे
मुखी कुणाच्या पडते लोणी कुणा मुखी अंगार!

तूच घडविसी, तूच फोडिसी
कुरवाळिसि तू, तूच ताडिसी
न कळे यातुन काय जोडिसी?
देसी डोळे, परि निर्मिसी तयांपुढे अंधार!

Here is the YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeNd0JJbM-U

With best wishes,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRjprHeZJ%3Dp%3DC%3DdpiosA1EumLg_LnRHoxw2u9QCVFXDMMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Even ghaTah pas'yati verse of GSSMurthy

was quite charming and humorous!

Those who know the context of Tenali Rama

will admire it the most.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzct3N3s0v%3DXq01FGwGVDxc2Tuke4QhPdJrfSNoX0Bn1mA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Hudli]

Namamsi,

Indeed, ghaTa as body, and ghaTAkAsha as Jeeva, have been used as examples in advaitavedAnta to illustrate the Unity of Brahman-AkAsha. Here is my verse:

घटः पश्यति आकाशं स्थितं घटे घटे यदि।
 नानाघटेषु एको हि आकाशो भाति भिन्नवत्॥

Anand 

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:32 PM K S Kannan <ks.kan...@gmail.com> wrote:

<div

[K S Kannan]

Utter vacuity and utter plenitude are similarly stated in Yogic texts

(with a "mediation" of the pot):

antas'-s'Unyo bahis'-s'Unyo

      s'UnyaH kumbha ivAmbare |

antaH-pUrNo bahiH-pUrNo

      pUrNah kumbha ivAmbudhau ||

--

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/302b0373-f812-41af-b13b-f5d768c8b04a%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

2 typos:

1st line ending:

s'Unyas'

(not s'Unyo)

3rd line ending:

pUrNaH

(not pUrNo)

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Kannan,

Where did you get this gem?

Beautiful!

BM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4LMNNYhKtHhkp8KziCh-RDNhxFR4LF3JjERX_y3qPj-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> Where did you get this gem?

antaśśūnyo bahiśśūnyaś śūnyakumbha ivāmbare
antaḫpūrṇo bahiḫpūrṇaḫ pūrṇakumbha ivārṇave

Mokṣopāya 6.155.25 = "Laghuyogavāsiṣṭha" 6.15.79 = "Yogavāsiṣṭha"
6.126.68cd-69ab

Vidyāraṇya quotes the "Laghuyogavāsiṣṭha" stanza in his
Jīvanmuktiviveka (ed. S. Subrahmanya Sastri/T. R. Srinivasa Ayyangar,
Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre 1978, p. 137). It is to be
found in the Maitreya-Upaniṣad (II,3,18:118,8-9) and the
Varāha-Upaniṣad (IV.2.18), too.

RS

[G S S Murthy]

I am thankful to Prof. Deshpandeji and Prof. Kannanji for their kind words. I wish I knew Marathi to enjoy the poem posted by Prof.Deshpandeji. I am aware of my insignificance in this group where scholars of international repute, poets of eminence, Mahamahopadhyayas, President's award winners are all there. What am I if not a gadfly.

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6Eveho1BCFoy67-WcM7CRxwt2xYVBBUcNh%2BCSJv-pEJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Dear Murthy-ji,

Who indeed will not enjoy the spontaneity of your poetry?

That you still involve in it with zest despite your age and any concomitant frailty

is the good fortune indeed of the rasika-s and sahRdaya-s!

Of course, we can all irritate each other at times,

though none may love to do it on purpose.

bhinna-rucir hi lokaH !

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRifZk%3Dyv9wma6EVyo1VNvwM%2BL8z4FJM8fW59ac7fFHPWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

We must also thank Rishi Goswami-ji for initiating the interesting and challenging discussion,

and Ragini Sharma-ji for the clarity she brought to bear early on on even abstruse issues.

[K S Kannan]

Prof. Roland Steiner has kindly furnished half a dozen references to the verse I cited.

But I had read it in yet another source.

[G S S Murthy]

Thanks, Prof.Kannan.

Now that Prof. Kannan has not so subtly revealed my age, I am privileged to say that we have been friends- though hopelessly unequal- ever since our participation in WSC, Vancouver.

Regards,

Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm4QVdj2M4gLRBpCcVwXuv5BV%2BAPQjh6T1MnHzLb-SJjig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sir

The Kanchi  Kamakoti Sampradayin says he is अन्तःशाक्तो बहिःशैवो व्यवहारे तु वैष्णवः

What is the source of this?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7Pg7KkDhCFAtJKuOfzLet6hG58L3uONLkCqDa6632p%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Harunaga Isaacson]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 7:01:57 AM UTC+2, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

Prof. Roland Steiner has kindly furnished half a dozen references to the verse I cited.

But I had read it in yet another source.

Roland Steiner's list of references is indeed very helpful. As for further sources where the verse can be found, one well-known one is the Haṭhayogapradīpikā (4.56). But there are surely others, and perhaps the one in which Prof. Kannan read the verse has still not been named.

 

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:12 AM K S Kannan <ks.kan...@gmail.com> wrote:

We must also thank Rishi Goswami-ji for initiating the interesting and challenging discussion,

and Ragini Sharma-ji for the clarity she brought to bear early on on even abstruse issues.

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This question from Venkatesh Murthy-ji deserves a separate new thread. Sir, please send this again as a new topic. I request members not to respond here. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMUsp964kaeCn9%2BpLBSvW-dyxDxuPEZvTMGUrm-7HB1Xdw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre , Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

1. All poetry and technical discussions that have appeared in this thread are highly appreciated.

 

2.   The link below gives several extended usage and meaning of 'Ghata- pata' ( pot and cloth) debate in traditional texts !  'Ghata' is endorsed in use also as a ' speaker - individuals name' in non-sanskrit literature, in the link below.

 

                               https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/ghata 

 

The accuracy of Samskruth term gets mixed with proximate sounding Romanized transliteration causing some effort to identify- filter the needed material !

And all this could certainly inspire more creative writing on ' ghata' followed with ' pata'.

 

3.  To end on a humor note: another subhashita:

 

घटं भिद्यात्  पटं छिद्यात्  कुर्यात्  रासभ निस्वनम् / कुर्याद्रासभरोहणम् ।

येन-केन प्रकारेण  प्रसिद्ध-पुरुषो भव ॥

 

गुणेष्वनादरं भ्रातः पूर्णश्रीरपि मा कृथाः । सम्पूर्णोऽपि घटः कूपे गुणछेदात्पतत्यधः ॥

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm47T%2B%2BWF0SpUZVih4Bo7MbGRXXYARK25TdPZi%2BD3qZ7%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

ghaTa is also one of the four avasthA-s in Yogic practice.

I have encountered the verse in HYP, but also elsewhere.

Will locate and give the same shortly.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5d71fe7c.1c69fb81.a07dc.cad4%40mx.google.com.

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste Kannan Sir,

This may perhaps be the one:

अथ घटावस्था -
द्वितीयां घटीकृत्य वायुर्भवति मध्यगः ।
दृढासनो भवेद्योगी ज्ञानी देवसमस्तदा ॥

Here are other references to ghaTa in HYP:

https://kymyogavaisharadi.org/search/advanced?searchType=sutra&searchIn=vyasa-bhashyam%7Chathayoga-pradipika%7Cbhagavadgita&stringData=%E0%A4%98%E0%A4%9F&submit=Search

regards.....yoga

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm45uWfXBDoSO-KtieewTp2b9TTZUMFfOqb-MSn_HZ_5PQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Dear Yogananda,

Exactly.

First word to be rectified, I guess.

Nice search.

Thank you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFChufAUzKj13Emw5NQS5Uxt0PdXRLpW-MHCz81oBL78a-O9w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste,

Just so that we don't miss recording this famous one:

नानाच्छिद्रघटोदरस्थितमहादीपप्रभा भास्वरं
ज्ञानं यस्य तु चक्षुरादिकरणद्वारा वहिः स्पन्दते ।
जानामीति तमेव भान्तमनुभात्येतत्समस्तं जगत्
तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूर्तये नम इदं श्रीदक्षिणामूर्तये ॥४॥

I mention with pride that Prof Kannan was our Sanskrit teacher when I was in B.Sc. class (1977-80) in National college, Bangalore. A part of Janakiharana by Kumaradasa was part of the syllabus he taught. I still remember a verse from that:

तटेऽपि तस्या घटपूरणस्य श्रुत्वा रवं वृंहितनादशङ्की |
शरं शरण्योऽपि मुमोच बाले मुनिस्तनूजे मनुवंशकेतुः ||

regards......yoga

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste Kannan sir,

Yes, exactly - it should be द्बितीयायां . Thanks a lot, ever a teacher!

regards....yoga

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7JhNkos9TEdGpQnk_AB_9fAXUrbSDC6PyK5JMSMuWt_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Thank you, Dr Yogananda.

I admire your memory which is better than mine!

I think I did not miss nAnAcchidra- .

You may check once!

But you have made the list more exhaustive.

Thank you.

[K S Kannan]

Lucky is the teacher whom students remember

( - for what was taught well/properly, that is !) !

[K S Kannan]

Located: The verse antas'-s'Unyo etc. is

Sarva-VedAnta-SiddhAnta-SAra-San'graha, Verse 166.

(The last word is arNave, however.)

--

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/c11f9806-fe2b-4d04-be29-1ff72ae663f1%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

Sorry,  Verse 966

[Yogananda CS]

Namaste, 

This is in the other site we maintain:

https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/prakarana/sarvavedantasiddhantasarasangraha

Regards. . . Yoga

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7aV_Vstrzhrf0Soigya1UvHUBBy6AV9KeMWSZCvX3eEg%40mail.gmail.com.