pāṣaṇḍa

[L Srinivas]

I find this word 'pāṣaṇḍa' rather problematic. As per Apte's Lexicon, it means 'heretical' among related senses. It cites the line 'पाषण्डमाश्रितानां चरन्तीनां ... सुरापीनां च योषिताम् ' from Manu (5.90). Down to the modern times, this sense and another related sense 'hypocrite' continue to be associated with this word. (Hindi पाखंडी for hypocrite, Tamil pācāṇḍi பாசாண்டி for heretic - just to give a couple examples)

However one reference not seen in Sanskrit dictionaries is the use of this word in Asoka's inscriptions. In particular, Rock Edict 12 which seems to use this term many times rather neutrally in the sense of sect or tradition (e.g., ātpa pāsaṃḍa, para pāsaṃḍa - one's own sect, other sect respectively). Are Manu and Asoka far removed in time that there's this difference in meaning?

In any case, does this word have a derivation?

Thanks in advance,

Srini

[Sivasenani Nori]

Ashoka and Sanskrit are at best, not in agreement about meaning of certain words or at worst, deliberately opposed. Example: devaanaampriyaH. Sishtas say it means murkha (with some justification, let me add - the lack of lopa of sup affix) but Ashoka calls himself devaanaampiya. 

Regards 

N Siva Senani

--
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/c70079c6-30e5-4e8c-a5db-bfcf324fb411%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

I guess there is an article by Prof Palsule on devAnAmpriya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZOmqWSoQ3yXaLEw5YJofMoUf-p0JHAWrn3j%2BX-SddjwSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

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

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

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

[Hnbhat B.R.]

देवानां प्रिय इति मूर्खे इति पाणिनीये सिद्धान्तकौमुद्यां वार्त्तिकम्। 

तस्य व्यख्या -

देवानामिति। मूर्खा हि देवानां प्रीतिं जनयन्ति देवपशुत्वादिति मनोरमा। अयं भावः-- ब्रह्मज्ञानरहितत्वात्संसारिणो मूर्खाः। ते तु यागादिकर्माण्युनुतिष्ठन्तः पुरोडाशादिप्रदानद्वारा देवानामत्यन्तं प्रीतिं जनयन्ति। ब्रह्मज्ञानिनस्तु न तथा, तेषां यागाद्यनुष्ठानाऽबावात्। अतो गवादिस्थानापन्नत्वान्मूर्खा एव देवपशव इति।

इति तत्त्वबोधिन्याम्।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZOmqWSoQ3yXaLEw5YJofMoUf-p0JHAWrn3j%2BX-SddjwSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Srini,

     This is perhaps similar to the interpretation of the compound श्रमणब्राह्मणम् in the Mahabhashya verses its use in Ashokan inscriptions.  For Patanjali, this comes under येषां च विरोध: शाश्वतिक:, while the use in Ashokan inscriptions is neutral.  I think Manu wants to draw a sharp contrast between Vedic and non-Vedic schools, while Ashoka perhaps intends to keep peace among the different sects within his empire.  This is my guess.  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]

--

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Thanks for pointing to 'devanampiya' and other references. Is the reference in  Mahabhashya  P 2.4.56 also ironical? Is the charioteer calling the 'vaiyakarana' a fool to his face, for calling  a desired form an apaśabda?

एवं हि कश्चिद्वैयाकरण आह ‐ कोऽस्य रथस्य प्रवेतेति।। सूत आह ‐ अहमायुष्मन्नस्य रथस्य प्राजितेति।। वैयाकरण आह ‐ अपशब्द इति।। सूत आह ‐ प्राप्तिज्ञो देवानांप्रियः, न त्विष्टिज्ञः इष्यत एतद्रूपमिति।। वैयाकरण आह ‐ अहो नु खल्वनेन दुरुतेन बाध्यामह इति।। सूत आह ‐ न खलु वेञ्ञः सूतः, सुवतेरेव सूतः। यदि सुवतेः कुत्सा प्रयोक्तव्या, दुःसूतेनेति वक्तव्यम्।।

In any case 'devaanaampiya' has not come down to us in our languages in the same way 'paakhaMDa' has come down in all Indian languages. That's so surprising.

Srini

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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/CAB3-dzdkQuijK7_aoEjAH%3DMf4J-UyET34Pf5hW2iy6BG_j8v-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

I am attaching my article on the expression Devānāṃpriya in Ashokan inscription, which also incidentally deals with śramaṇabrāhmaṇam.  With 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]

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Thanks for this, Prof Deshpande.

Thanks also to Prof Kannan, Dr Bhat and Dr Nori.

Srini

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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/CAB3-dzfRpvumsMNB162-OLFH8dMgP1nCvqrp8xwo9ReMJo1K8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:36 PM Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

देवानां प्रिय इति मूर्खे इति पाणिनीये सिद्धान्तकौमुद्यां वार्त्तिकम्। 

तस्य व्यख्या -

देवानामिति। मूर्खा हि देवानां प्रीतिं जनयन्ति देवपशुत्वादिति मनोरमा। अयं भावः-- ब्रह्मज्ञानरहितत्वात्संसारिणो मूर्खाः। ते तु यागादिकर्माण्युनुतिष्ठन्तः पुरोडाशादिप्रदानद्वारा देवानामत्यन्तं प्रीतिं जनयन्ति। ब्रह्मज्ञानिनस्तु न तथा, तेषां यागाद्यनुष्ठानाऽबावात्। अतो गवादिस्थानापन्नत्वान्मूर्खा एव देवपशव इति।

इति तत्त्वबोधिन्याम्।

The basis of the above, I think, is this mantra (part) of the Brihadaranyaka Upanshad 1.4.10:

अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ १० ॥

This is the Shaankara Bhashya for the above:

यस्मादेवम् , तस्मादविद्यावन्तं पुरुषं प्रति देवा ईशत एव विघ्नं कर्तुम् अनुग्रहं च इत्येतद्दर्शयति — यथा ह वै लोके, बहवो गोऽश्वादयः पशवः मनुष्यं स्वामिनमात्मनः अधिष्ठातारं भुञ्ज्युः पालयेयुः, एवं बहुपशुस्थानीयः एकैकः अविद्वान्पुरुषः देवान् — देवानिति पित्राद्युपलक्षणार्थम् — भुनक्ति पालयतीति — इमे इन्द्रादयः अन्ये मत्तो ममेशितारः भृत्य इवाहमेषां स्तुतिनमस्कारेज्यादिना आराधनं कृत्वा अभ्युदयं निःश्रेयसं च तत्प्रत्तं फलं प्राप्स्यामीत्येवमभिसन्धिः । तत्र लोके बहुपशुमतो यथा एकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमाने व्याघ्रादिना अपह्रियमाणे महदप्रियं भवति, तथा बहुपशुस्थानीय एकस्मिन्पुरुषे पशुभावात् व्युत्तिष्ठति, अप्रियं भवतीति — किं चित्रम् — देवानाम् , बहुपश्वपहरण इव कुटुम्बिनः । तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियम् ; किं तत् ? यदेतद्ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वं कथञ्चन मनुष्या विद्युः विजानीयुः । तथा च स्मरणमनुगीतासु भगवतो व्यासस्य — ‘क्रियावद्भिर्हि कौन्तेय देवलोकः समावृतः । न चैतदिष्टं देवानां मर्त्यैरुपरिवर्तनम्’ (अश्व. १९ । ६१) इति । अतो देवाः पशूनिव व्याघ्रादिभ्यः, ब्रह्मविज्ञानाद्विघ्नमाचिकीर्षन्ति — अस्मदुपभोग्यत्वान्मा व्युत्तिष्ठेयुरिति । यं तु मुमोचयिषन्ति, तं श्रद्धादिभिर्योक्ष्यन्ति, विपरीतमश्रद्धादिभिः । तस्मान्मुमुक्षुर्देवाराधनपरः श्रद्धाभक्तिपरः प्रणेयोऽप्रमादी स्यात् विद्याप्राप्तिं प्रति विद्यां प्रतीति वा काक्वैतत्प्रदर्शितं भवति देवाप्रियवाक्येन ॥ 

 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

[K S Kannan]

VishvaguNAdarsha-campU has a usage of pAShaNDa

--
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/CAKk0Te21Zb9qN-Dsq62j3%3DmyAOX-X6FRGG_iBB0McACfCYuKfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subodh Bhat]

The word 'Pashanda' is loosely used for non-vaidic Indian Systems, as used by Manu and other traditional works. 'एषः पाषाण्डवादः', 'पाषाण्डमतखण्डनम्' etc. are common usage.

--

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/c70079c6-30e5-4e8c-a5db-bfcf324fb411%40googlegroups.com.

--

K, Subodh Bhat

Vision Automation

#1281, 33rd Cross,

Kumaraswamy Layout,

Bangalore 560078, India

 

TeleFax:+91-80-26609765

Mob: +91-9845756611

 

[G S S Murthy]

May I seek answers for 2 supplementaries?

1. Is it possible that "devaanaampriya" was made a derogatory word just to discredit Ashoka and Buddhism?

2. Which are the Sanskrit texts which deal with Ashoka's reign and his fame?

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAHzFRLpJkcd3wR0ydJAkk_GkYrnjV9u_P-_gneKq1s8-fh-ZxA%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

[L Srinivas]

Oh, thanks. But I dont have access to a searchable text of this work.

I did check Manu however. All references to 'heretics' , 'heretical' etc are uniformly expressed with 'पाषण्ड' or a word derived from it.  'devaanaampiya' is interesting in its own way and despite my familiarity with it, my query had to do with 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Srini

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:10:17 PM UTC-4, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

VishvaguNAdarsha-campU has a usage of pAShaNDa

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:14 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:36 PM Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

देवानां प्रिय इति मूर्खे इति पाणिनीये सिद्धान्तकौमुद्यां वार्त्तिकम्। 

तस्य व्यख्या -

देवानामिति। मूर्खा हि देवानां प्रीतिं जनयन्ति देवपशुत्वादिति मनोरमा। अयं भावः-- ब्रह्मज्ञानरहितत्वात्संसारिणो मूर्खाः। ते तु यागादिकर्माण्युनुतिष्ठन्तः पुरोडाशादिप्रदानद्वारा देवानामत्यन्तं प्रीतिं जनयन्ति। ब्रह्मज्ञानिनस्तु न तथा, तेषां यागाद्यनुष्ठानाऽबावात्। अतो गवादिस्थानापन्नत्वान्मूर्खा एव देवपशव इति।

इति तत्त्वबोधिन्याम्।

The basis of the above, I think, is this mantra (part) of the Brihadaranyaka Upanshad 1.4.10:

अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ १० ॥

This is the Shaankara Bhashya for the above:

यस्मादेवम् , तस्मादविद्यावन्तं पुरुषं प्रति देवा ईशत एव विघ्नं कर्तुम् अनुग्रहं च इत्येतद्दर्शयति — यथा ह वै लोके, बहवो गोऽश्वादयः पशवः मनुष्यं स्वामिनमात्मनः अधिष्ठातारं भुञ्ज्युः पालयेयुः, एवं बहुपशुस्थानीयः एकैकः अविद्वान्पुरुषः देवान् — देवानिति पित्राद्युपलक्षणार्थम् — भुनक्ति पालयतीति — इमे इन्द्रादयः अन्ये मत्तो ममेशितारः भृत्य इवाहमेषां स्तुतिनमस्कारेज्यादिना आराधनं कृत्वा अभ्युदयं निःश्रेयसं च तत्प्रत्तं फलं प्राप्स्यामीत्येवमभिसन्धिः । तत्र लोके बहुपशुमतो यथा एकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमाने व्याघ्रादिना अपह्रियमाणे महदप्रियं भवति, तथा बहुपशुस्थानीय एकस्मिन्पुरुषे पशुभावात् व्युत्तिष्ठति, अप्रियं भवतीति — किं चित्रम् — देवानाम् , बहुपश्वपहरण इव कुटुम्बिनः । तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियम् ; किं तत् ? यदेतद्ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वं कथञ्चन मनुष्या विद्युः विजानीयुः । तथा च स्मरणमनुगीतासु भगवतो व्यासस्य — ‘क्रियावद्भिर्हि कौन्तेय देवलोकः समावृतः । न चैतदिष्टं देवानां मर्त्यैरुपरिवर्तनम्’ (अश्व. १९ । ६१) इति । अतो देवाः पशूनिव व्याघ्रादिभ्यः, ब्रह्मविज्ञानाद्विघ्नमाचिकीर्षन्ति — अस्मदुपभोग्यत्वान्मा व्युत्तिष्ठेयुरिति । यं तु मुमोचयिषन्ति, तं श्रद्धादिभिर्योक्ष्यन्ति, विपरीतमश्रद्धादिभिः । तस्मान्मुमुक्षुर्देवाराधनपरः श्रद्धाभक्तिपरः प्रणेयोऽप्रमादी स्यात् विद्याप्राप्तिं प्रति विद्यां प्रतीति वा काक्वैतत्प्रदर्शितं भवति देवाप्रियवाक्येन ॥ 

 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

--
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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te21Zb9qN-Dsq62j3%3DmyAOX-X6FRGG_iBB0McACfCYuKfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

1. Kalpadruma

पाषण्डः

, पुं, (पापं सनोति दर्शनसंसर्गादिना ददातीति । षणु ञ दाने + ञमन्तात् डः । पृषो- दरादित्वात् साधुः । यद्वा, पाति रक्षति दुष्कृतेभ्य इति । पा + क्विप् । पा वेदधर्म्मस्तं षण्डयति खण्डयतीति । यदुक्तम् । “पालनाच्च त्रयीधर्म्मः पाशब्देन निगद्यते । तं ष(ख)ण्डयन्ति ते यस्मात् पाषण्डास्तेन हेतुना ॥ नानाव्रतधरा नानावेशाः पाषण्डिनो मताः ॥ ”) वेदविरुद्धाचारवान् सर्व्ववर्णचिह्नधारी । बौद्ध- क्षपणकादिः । इति भरतः ॥

2. Shabda Sagara

पाषण्ड

m. (-ण्डः)

१. A heretic, an impostor, one who not conforming to the orthodox tenets of Hindu faith, assumes the external characteristics of tribe or sect, a Jain, a Bauddha &c.

२. Any sect not Hindu.

E. पाप sin, षण् to give, ड aff., deriv. irr.

Also पाखण्डः

Shabda Sagara

पाखण्ड

m. (-ण्डः) A heretic, a heterodox Hindu, adopting the exterior marks of the classes, but not respecting the ordinances of the Vedas.

E. पा for पाल what nourishes, (mankind, as virtue may be said to do,) and खडि to subvert or destroy, aff. अण्; also पाषण्ड.

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/ad184aff-3afe-41bd-84e8-54ff70f3ae2a%40googlegroups.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Manfred Mayrhofer assumes "despite phonetic difficulties" a connection with parṣat (pariṣád-) and its derivations pāriṣada- "Participants in an assembly" (epic, classical), pārṣada- "Participants in an assembly", also "companions (especially of a god)" (Upaniṣads, epic, classical); please see attachment.

With best regards,
Roland Steiner

[K S Kannan]

Quoting from memory,

the verse begins with

veda-vaidika-vidveSha-dUShitA bhasmarUShitAH |

--

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/20200417141321.Horde.DBG-i8WuuWbgmIVZIpv_fPS%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[K S Kannan]

- the verse from Venkatadhvarin's work

[K S Kannan]

Another place to look for possibly is the play

Sankalpa-suryodaya

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

I see one of the queries in the first post of this thread as being quite Olivelle'sque. 

A subsequent point that "this is perhaps similar to the interpretation of the compound श्रमणब्राह्मणम् in the Mahabhashya verses its use in Ashokan inscriptions" is, in the above context, interesting to me. 

If one were to simply connect these two dots, without necessarily endorsing any, I wonder if one might next see the question: are Patanjali and Asoka, hence, "far removed in time that there's this difference in meaning" (of श्रमणब्राह्मणम्)?

Even Dr. Olivelle had once written: “Patañjali can be dated with some precision and certainty to the middle of the second century bce.” (Olivelle 1999:xxxiii) 

More fundamentally, how methodologically sound and reasonable is it to use differences in usage of a term to infer anything conclusive (even if only as supporting evidence) about the difference in time between the different usages?  

If B uses a term very differently from A, can just that data-point alone:

1. tell anyone anything, to any reasonable degree, about the quantum of time elapsed between the usages of B and A?

2. tell anyone anything whose usage was earlier? 

(These questions are not directed at anyone in this thread)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7tbdAayPBoJaK74cAXX%3D8vZ5wAvi0trvByhNnDX54tmA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Appreciate this share, Dr. Steiner. Thank you. 

Best,

Megh

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:43 PM Roland Steiner <ste...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

--

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/20200417141321.Horde.DBG-i8WuuWbgmIVZIpv_fPS%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thanks, Roland, for the pages from Mayrhofer.  While pārṣada does not seem to have a negative meaning as it is used in the Nirukta or in Aśokan inscriptions, the words pāṣaṇḍa/pākhaṇḍa developed a negative meaning.

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/CAJypMHf2St%3Du4jXY2j2bBmxCdo7V6HBtUNa6KHVyTnUyVW-ieQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> While pārṣada does not seem to have a negative meaning as it is used in the Nirukta or in Aśokan
> inscriptions, the words pāṣaṇḍa/pākhaṇḍa developed a negative meaning.

Yes, Madhav, the meanings given by Mayrhofer also correspond to this:

German "Ketzer, Ketzerei" = English "heretic, heresy".

But:

"aśok. (girnār) pāsaṁḍa-, (kālsī) pāśaṁḍa-, (shāhbāzgaṛhī) praṣaṁḍa-, (mānsehrā) prasada- (etc.) Sekte [= Engl. "sect"]."

Best,
Roland

[K S Kannan]

Patanjali calls shabda-shastra as sarva-pArShada.

The sense of pArShada here is anything but pejorative.

--

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/20200417153716.Horde.Y8__UQNvIYbdLlGLmRnYu8a%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[K S Kannan]

(pArShada=pAriShada from) pariShad

has a high and positive significance,

evidenced in Manu and elsewhere.

Cf. expressions like aShTAvarA pariShad,   dashAvarA pariShad

[Roland Steiner]

> Patanjali calls *shabda-shastra* as *sarva-pArShada.*
> The sense of *pArShada *here is anything but pejorative.

Did anybody say that?

RS

[Madhav Deshpande]

That is true, Kannan Ji.  Patanjali's words echo the words of Nirukta: "पदप्रकृतीनि सर्वचरणानां पार्षदानि ।"  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/CAN47gm6gZmpx7_-UWZm%2B8gVkVt3%3D3bSuB981TbrqpQ6zCWfQtw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

I am only confirming what Prof. Deshpande noted.

"sarva-pArShadaM hIdaM shastram" occurs more than once.

To link pASha(kha)NDa with pArShada,

is to fly on wings of wild fancy.

To derive a word of a very negative connotation

from a word reflecting high honour,

some basis needs to be shown.

Has Mayrhofer attempted that?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzdJmi%3D79cwcFAcO9N7TDBOk9C0rr-ksQw5ha_nfbkATMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

Mayrhofer sees a possible etymological connection between aśok. (girnār) pāsaṁḍa-, (kālsī) pāśaṁḍa-, (shāhbāzgaṛhī) praṣaṁḍa-, (mānsehrā) prasada- (etc.) meaning "sect" with parṣat (pariṣád-) "assembly" and its derivatives pāriṣada- "participant in an assembly" (epic, classical), pārṣada- "participant in an assembly", also "companion (especially of a god)" (Upaniṣads, epic, classical). Furthermore, another line leads from the neutral meaning "sect" to the pejorative meaning "heretic, heresy". For this, he refers to further literature, that one should read before judging this etymological approach. Anyone who can make a better suggestion should voice it.

Best,
Roland Steiner

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:40 PM K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am only confirming what Prof. Deshpande noted.

"sarva-pArShadaM hIdaM shastram" occurs more than once.

Is this a rephrasing of the famous 'kaaNaadam pANinIyam ca sarva-shAstro/loko-pakArakam? 

regards

subrahmanian.v  

[K S Kannan]

No, Patanjali's statement is not a paraphrase of the statement you have cited.

His concern is that vyAkaraNa must take into account usages in all domains,

and account for them all. It is not fair to be selective of some and rejective of others.

--
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/CAKk0Te1sHUTEd9h_ogf6UJ5%3DHfULoaSQTB%2BBK%3DGh-NcarhzbgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Mayrhofer's suggestion could have been acceptable

had he shown some grounds (such as attestations etc.)

to mark a transition of sense through time.

To assert wild links and ask for better answers

may not be the best way to progress.

[Roland Steiner]

> No, Patanjali's statement is not a paraphrase of the statement you have
> cited. His concern is that vyAkaraNa must take into account usages in all domains,
> and account for them all. It is not fair to be selective of some and
> rejective of others.

This is not at all about Pataṅjali, but about the etymology of aśok. (girnār) pāsaṁḍa-, (kālsī) pāśaṁḍa-, (shāhbāzgaṛhī) praṣaṁḍa-, (mānsehrā) prasada- (etc.) meaning "sect".

Skt. pārṣada has several different meanings,  like many other Sanskrit words. Sometimes these meanings (of one and the same word) are closely related, sometimes not. What is the problem? The expectation that two etymologically related words must share all attested meanings is wrong.

RS

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

इदमत्र ब्रह्मवैवर्त्तवाक्यं हेमाद्रिणोद्धॄतं

पाशब्देन त्रयीधर्म्मः पालनाज्जगतां स्मृतः ।
तं षण्डयन्ति यस्मात् ते पाषण्डास्तेन हेतुना ॥

वेदविरुद्धग्रन्थेषय सम्प्रदायेषु वा पाषण्डशब्दप्रयोगोप्यस्ति । तथा हि

नग्नादीन् भगवन् सम्यक् ममाद्य परिपृच्छतः ।\\
            आचक्ष्व सर्व्वथा सर्व्वान् विस्तरेण यथातथम् ॥\\
            एवमुक्तो महातेजाः बृहस्पतिरुवाच तम् ।\\
            पुरा देवासुरे युद्धे निर्ज्जितेष्वसुरेष्वथ ॥\\
            पाषण्डाधिकृताः सर्व्वे ह्येते सृष्टाः स्वयम्भुवा ।

अत्र पाषण्डशब्देन शास्त्रविशेषो ग्राह्यः ।

कौर्म्मे चेदं पठितं

वृद्धश्रावकनिर्ग्रन्थाः पञ्चरात्रविदो जनाः ।\\
            कापालिकाः पाशुपताः पाषण्डा ये च तद्विधाः ॥

अत्र पाषण्डशब्देन वेदविरुद्धसम्प्रदायानुगता जना ग्राह्याः ।

इदमपि तत्रैव

पाषण्डिनो विकर्म्मस्थान् वामाचारांस्तथैव च ।
पाञ्चरात्रान् पाशुपतान् वाङ्मात्रेणापि नार्च्चयेत् ॥

इति ।

पाषण्डेषु तथान्येषु मार्ग्गेष्वश्रौतकेषु च ।\\
            श्रद्धया दीक्षिता यूयं भवत ब्राह्मणाधमाः ॥४१॥

इत्यत्र स्कान्दे तु वेदविरुद्धशास्त्रोपदिष्टमार्ग्गः पाषण्डः ।

इदञ्च तथैव पाराशरे

पाञ्चरात्रे च कापाले पाषण्डेष्वपरेषु च ।\\
                दीक्षिताश्च भवन्त्येव मनुष्याः पापकर्म्मिणः ॥

केवलं वाक्यान्यत्र पातितानि । कालाभावात् किमपि नान्यत् लिख्यते ।

[K S Kannan]

As it happened with Prof. Deshpande in another thread, just a few minutes ago,

Dr. Steiner too has mixed up.

I was responding to Sri Subramanian's mail

that immediately precedes my last-but-one mail.

--

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/20200417165339.Horde.7cJq9EyrrKGzbIclFuNf16u%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[K S Kannan]

The expectation of attestation etc. is only to avoid anavasthA-doSha.

One could as well allay all apprehensions by saying all is yAdRcchika too!

One can start a hypothesis only upon some real/sensible/plausible foundation.

Or else add a caveat that the proposition is at best conjectural.

Wild guesses may not be best placed in dictionaries.

Is it too difficult to throw a mild hint by adding a question mark

after a wild suggestion?

[Roland Steiner]

> Dr. Steiner too has mixed up.
> I was responding to Sri Subramanian's mail
> that immediately precedes my last-but-one mail.

My apologies.

Roland Steiner

[Roland Steiner]

> Mayrhofer's suggestion could have been acceptable
> had he shown some grounds (such as attestations etc.)
> to mark a transition of sense through time.

> To assert wild links and ask for better answers
> may not be the best way to progress.

There is no question of that. Mayrhofer's  "A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary" comprises in three volumes more than 2500 pages and presents and discusses the state of research of its time. Of course, Mayrhofer gives information about the literature in which a word is testified, and in what form and in what meaning. He does not give exact references to individual texts but instead references to the relevant secondary literature where everything else can be found. - Imagine how voluminous his "concise" dictionary would have been if he had also given all the references of a word. And besides, it would never have been completed. To my knowledge, there is no comparable modern etymological dictionary on Sanskrit, apart from his own later dictionary "Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen" in two volumes (Heidelberg 1992 and 1996) of more than 1700 pages.

And please remember: this is not an essay or a monograph on the etymology of pāṣaṇḍa, but a dictionary. On the contrary, I find it quite amazing how much information there is about this single word. I think this is an excellent starting point for further reflection and research on the etymology of this word.

> Wild guesses may not be best placed in dictionaries.

It is not a wild guess.

> Is it too difficult to throw a mild hint by adding a question mark after a wild suggestion?

He actually uses question marks very often. In the case of the pāṣaṇḍa entry, he does not make a positive assertion, but expresses a presumption. Therefore, I wrote:

"Manfred Mayrhofer assumes 'despite phonetic difficulties' a connection with [...]".

In his own words: "wohl kaum von parṣat [...] zu trennen" ("is hardly separable from parṣat [...]").

So from his point of view it is not a matter of assured facts, but of a strong presumption despite certain problems.

Best,
Roland Steiner

[K S Kannan]

What I said was not to underrate the enormity of the task he undertook.

If due precaution is taken so that a user is not misled, it is fine.

But the task expected of his commenders and recommenders is

to carry things to logical/more logical conclusions if possible;

to supplement and complement his work,

rather than merely compliment, and rest at that.

--
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/20200417180745.Horde.XkU0aUoFZrTyLzlRBK5__LT%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[Roland Steiner]

> But the task expected of his commenders and recommenders is
> to carry things to logical/more logical conclusions if possible;
> to supplement and complement his work,
> rather than merely compliment, and rest at that.

References to secondary literature or newspaper articles or YouTube videos are given here on this list constantly, which is sometimes useful, sometimes less useful. Since Mayrhofer's dictionary had not yet been mentioned in this thread, I thought it useful to point it out. I myself have not researched the etymology of the word pāṣaṇḍa, so I cannot say more about it than what Mayrhofer says.

But if the prerequisite for being allowed to give a special bibliographical reference is own research on this particular topic, then there will be far fewer contributions on this list in the future.

Best,
Roland Steiner

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Well, it's not an exact science. Let me explain why I had said 'removed in time'.

In many loci when a word gets associated with it a more restricted meaning and in particular, a pejorative or other sense connoting opprobrium, it is reasonable to assume that it has taken some time to get that meaning and also, that the earlier meaning might have been of a general nature.

To me it appeared that 'पाषण्ड'  and as the thread showed 'देवानाम्प्रिय' probably belong to this category. We can find many such words in our modern language too. Words in Hindi like 'गन्ध', 'वास' denoting 'fragrance', 'good smell' are more or less nowadays exclusively tending to mean 'bad odor'.  Same with Tamil word nāṛṛam meaning 'fragrance' classically today stands for 'stench', as is the case with English words like 'knave', 'villain'. Their archaic sense tend to be non-negative.

So if you think it's not time difference but space or cultural remove that's at play here, just spell it out. It should be interesting.

Srini

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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/CAJypMHdBtMfOHEKDwDDi2x2sEAuAiO-VfWgv4gZBBkAMw%3Dq8qA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Thanks, Dr Bhat.

Srini

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:49 AM Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Kalpadruma

पाषण्डः

, पुं, (पापं सनोति दर्शनसंसर्गादिना ददातीति । षणु ञ दाने + ञमन्तात् डः । पृषो- दरादित्वात् साधुः । यद्वा, पाति रक्षति दुष्कृतेभ्य इति । पा + क्विप् । पा वेदधर्म्मस्तं षण्डयति खण्डयतीति । यदुक्तम् । “पालनाच्च त्रयीधर्म्मः पाशब्देन निगद्यते । तं ष(ख)ण्डयन्ति ते यस्मात् पाषण्डास्तेन हेतुना ॥ नानाव्रतधरा नानावेशाः पाषण्डिनो मताः ॥ ”) वेदविरुद्धाचारवान् सर्व्ववर्णचिह्नधारी । बौद्ध- क्षपणकादिः । इति भरतः ॥

2. Shabda Sagara

पाषण्ड

m. (-ण्डः)

१. A heretic, an impostor, one who not conforming to the orthodox tenets of Hindu faith, assumes the external characteristics of tribe or sect, a Jain, a Bauddha &c.

२. Any sect not Hindu.

E. पाप sin, षण् to give, ड aff., deriv. irr.

Also पाखण्डः

Shabda Sagara

पाखण्ड

m. (-ण्डः) A heretic, a heterodox Hindu, adopting the exterior marks of the classes, but not respecting the ordinances of the Vedas.

E. पा for पाल what nourishes, (mankind, as virtue may be said to do,) and खडि to subvert or destroy, aff. अण्; also पाषण्ड.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, 5:05 pm L Srinivas, <lns2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, thanks. But I dont have access to a searchable text of this work.

I did check Manu however. All references to 'heretics' , 'heretical' etc are uniformly expressed with 'पाषण्ड' or a word derived from it.  'devaanaampiya' is interesting in its own way and despite my familiarity with it, my query had to do with 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Srini

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:10:17 PM UTC-4, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

VishvaguNAdarsha-campU has a usage of pAShaNDa

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:14 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:36 PM Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

देवानां प्रिय इति मूर्खे इति पाणिनीये सिद्धान्तकौमुद्यां वार्त्तिकम्। 

तस्य व्यख्या -

देवानामिति। मूर्खा हि देवानां प्रीतिं जनयन्ति देवपशुत्वादिति मनोरमा। अयं भावः-- ब्रह्मज्ञानरहितत्वात्संसारिणो मूर्खाः। ते तु यागादिकर्माण्युनुतिष्ठन्तः पुरोडाशादिप्रदानद्वारा देवानामत्यन्तं प्रीतिं जनयन्ति। ब्रह्मज्ञानिनस्तु न तथा, तेषां यागाद्यनुष्ठानाऽबावात्। अतो गवादिस्थानापन्नत्वान्मूर्खा एव देवपशव इति।

इति तत्त्वबोधिन्याम्।

The basis of the above, I think, is this mantra (part) of the Brihadaranyaka Upanshad 1.4.10:

अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ १० ॥

This is the Shaankara Bhashya for the above:

यस्मादेवम् , तस्मादविद्यावन्तं पुरुषं प्रति देवा ईशत एव विघ्नं कर्तुम् अनुग्रहं च इत्येतद्दर्शयति — यथा ह वै लोके, बहवो गोऽश्वादयः पशवः मनुष्यं स्वामिनमात्मनः अधिष्ठातारं भुञ्ज्युः पालयेयुः, एवं बहुपशुस्थानीयः एकैकः अविद्वान्पुरुषः देवान् — देवानिति पित्राद्युपलक्षणार्थम् — भुनक्ति पालयतीति — इमे इन्द्रादयः अन्ये मत्तो ममेशितारः भृत्य इवाहमेषां स्तुतिनमस्कारेज्यादिना आराधनं कृत्वा अभ्युदयं निःश्रेयसं च तत्प्रत्तं फलं प्राप्स्यामीत्येवमभिसन्धिः । तत्र लोके बहुपशुमतो यथा एकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमाने व्याघ्रादिना अपह्रियमाणे महदप्रियं भवति, तथा बहुपशुस्थानीय एकस्मिन्पुरुषे पशुभावात् व्युत्तिष्ठति, अप्रियं भवतीति — किं चित्रम् — देवानाम् , बहुपश्वपहरण इव कुटुम्बिनः । तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियम् ; किं तत् ? यदेतद्ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वं कथञ्चन मनुष्या विद्युः विजानीयुः । तथा च स्मरणमनुगीतासु भगवतो व्यासस्य — ‘क्रियावद्भिर्हि कौन्तेय देवलोकः समावृतः । न चैतदिष्टं देवानां मर्त्यैरुपरिवर्तनम्’ (अश्व. १९ । ६१) इति । अतो देवाः पशूनिव व्याघ्रादिभ्यः, ब्रह्मविज्ञानाद्विघ्नमाचिकीर्षन्ति — अस्मदुपभोग्यत्वान्मा व्युत्तिष्ठेयुरिति । यं तु मुमोचयिषन्ति, तं श्रद्धादिभिर्योक्ष्यन्ति, विपरीतमश्रद्धादिभिः । तस्मान्मुमुक्षुर्देवाराधनपरः श्रद्धाभक्तिपरः प्रणेयोऽप्रमादी स्यात् विद्याप्राप्तिं प्रति विद्यां प्रतीति वा काक्वैतत्प्रदर्शितं भवति देवाप्रियवाक्येन ॥ 

 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

--
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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te21Zb9qN-Dsq62j3%3DmyAOX-X6FRGG_iBB0McACfCYuKfA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

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

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

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

--
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/ad184aff-3afe-41bd-84e8-54ff70f3ae2a%40googlegroups.com.

--
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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/CAATwsQB7b%3D-dVx3_q%3DhXANAOHJCSeXq5bDinU9DM_Ztz-u0w_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Thank you, Dr Steiner for the reference to Mayrhofer. I was looking for some lexical references  as Apte didnt mention anything by way of derivation.

Srini

--
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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/20200417180745.Horde.XkU0aUoFZrTyLzlRBK5__LT%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

"Words in Hindi like 'गन्ध', 'वास' denoting 'fragrance', 'good smell' are more or less nowadays exclusively tending to mean 'bad odor'.  Same with Tamil word nāṛṛam meaning 'fragrance' classically today stands for 'stench', as is the case with English words like 'knave', 'villain'. "

Interesting to know that Tamil nāṟṟam meant fragrance in the ancient days.  Like Tamil, in modern times Malayalam nāṯṯṯam (നാറ്റം, spelt with a geminate ṟ but pronounced with a geminate ṯ) also means stench.  To say “good smell” in Malayalam, either we have to use the Sanskrit “sugandham” or pure Malayalam “nalla maṇam”.  “Maṇam” actually means just “smell”, hence the need to add the adjective “nalla” meaning good.  But Maṇam has acquired a sense of good smell, so that you can say "maṇam alla nāṯṯṯam" meaning it is not good smell but stench. I have a faint memory of a Malayalam teacher telling us that nāṯṯṯam originally meant good smell, not bad smell.

Regards,

Radhakrishna Warrier

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Srinivasakrishnan ln <lns2...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:45 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} pāṣaṇḍa

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFhgeVm%2BurhXCL56vid4Pq%3DgqSVVn7eHR0sAPD%3DB7eXymmEWAg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> I was looking for some lexical references

If by lexical references you mean references in literature, you will find something on this web page if you enter pāṣaṇḍa or pASaNDa. ("lemma search").

https://nws.uzi.uni-halle.de/search?lang=en

If you drag the mouse cursor over individual details, further information is displayed.


See also:
https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWGScan/2013/web/webtc/servepdf.php?page=4-0698
https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWGScan/2013/web/webtc/servepdf.php?dict=pwg&page=4-0699

I have also scanned the two relevant pages from Woolner's "Asoka Glossary" (please see the attached file).

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Yes. For example, the tiruppāvai song #10 goes 'nāṛṛat tuḻāy muṭi nārāyaṇaṉ' meaning 'Narayana wearing the fragrant tulasi (garland)' . Most people not familiar with pre modern Tamil keep wondering why's the poet calling the tulasi garland 'stinking'? And why's Narayana wearing it?

😉

Srini

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/BN6PR04MB0916EB55BC0B381ABE341810D0D90%40BN6PR04MB0916.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

I don't, at all, mean to nitpick but the first post had included "far removed in time": "Are Manu and Asoka far removed in time that there's this difference in meaning"? 

I hope it is not too unreasonable, even without invoking exact science (which, in my view, was not invoked by me in my previous post in this thread), to be skeptical about the rigour of any attempt to postdate the chronological epoch of Manu (and by implication, Manusmrti) based only on the meaning-of-pāṣaṇḍa-in-edicts-versus-Manusmrti hypothesis. This may or may not be the attempt of anyone in this thread but the "far removed in time" got me thinking on these lines.  

 

It is also is in the same thread that we had this example from Dr. Deshpande: "This is perhaps similar to the interpretation of the compound श्रमणब्राह्मणम् in the Mahabhashya verses its use in Ashokan inscriptions. For Patanjali, this comes under येषां च विरोध: शाश्वतिक:, while the use in Ashokan inscriptions is neutral.". If this example can be admitted as-is, even if only  argument's sake, then should there be any ground to require the difference between epochs of Manu and Edicts to be any more than the difference between epochs of Patanjali and Edicts? 

To reiterate (and apologies in advance for anyone who does not require it): how methodologically sound and reasonable is it to use differences in usage of a term to infer anything conclusive (even if only as supporting evidence) about the difference in time between the different usages? If B uses a term very differently from A, can just that data-point alone:

1. tell anyone anything, to any reasonable degree, about the quantum of time elapsed between the usages of B and A?

2. tell anyone anything whose usage was earlier? 

Can it not be possible that different meanings were used for the same word simultaneously (or nearly so) for which evidence is now either 'lost' or 'undiscovered'? 

Pranaam, 

Megh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFhgeVm%2BurhXCL56vid4Pq%3DgqSVVn7eHR0sAPD%3DB7eXymmEWAg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Srinivasakrishnan ln <lns2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, it's not an exact science. Let me explain why I had said 'removed in time'.

In many loci when a word gets associated with it a more restricted meaning and in particular, a pejorative or other sense connoting opprobrium, it is reasonable to assume that it has taken some time to get that meaning and also, that the earlier meaning might have been of a general nature.

The same word itself may be used in quite opposite senses. For example pUjai and archanai in Tamil can mean getting a sound thrashing and getting yelled at respectively. Unless some record exists of actual usage, we can’t be sure.

Ramakrishnan 

To me it appeared that 'पाषण्ड'  and as the thread showed 'देवानाम्प्रिय' probably belong to this category. We can find many such words in our modern language too. Words in Hindi like 'गन्ध', 'वास' denoting 'fragrance', 'good smell' are more or less nowadays exclusively tending to mean 'bad odor'.  Same with Tamil word nāṛṛam meaning 'fragrance' classically today stands for 'stench', as is the case with English words like 'knave', 'villain'. Their archaic sense tend to be non-negative.

3DB7eXymmEWAg%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Apropos a point raised by Dr. Steiner on the virtues of Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary of Sanskrit.

Alongside the recommendations made, one should also take note of some of the idiosyncrasies,

and more importantly, limitations, of the said bulky dictionary :

* Deplorable is Mayrhofer's preference not to call Sanskrit by its own natural, hallowed, name,

but designate it as "Altindoarisch" - in a vaunted etymological dictionary of Sanskrit !

* Naive is the supposition that the antiquity of a language is settled

just by its earliest literary attestation.

* Exasperating to even a patient porer over lexica is the over a thousand abbreviations

(many clumsy and mutilated) deployed.

* The fad of renaming Sanskrit roots (an offshoot of making a fetish of diachronism)

setting aside the short and evocative Paninian set up of the same!

* Absence of any cogent, even poor, reasons to deliver up to oblivion the superb achievements

of Indian grammarians - pretending thereby that scientific linguistics started in Europe and

only in the beginning of the last century; the fact on the other hand being that

Indian grammarians of all descriptions are shrewd observers and sharp thinkers.

(Oh what great sagacity and service of Mayrhofer for the Indian heritage!)

* Fulsome praise showered on Saussure by ignorant IndoEuropeanists (no exceptions possibly)

 for an etymology given by Yaska 2000 years ago!  Yaska's fault: did he ever apply for patent?

(And Oh what a great Mutual Admiration Society the West has steadily and carefully nurtured !)

* Suspicions of Dravidian origin mooted even for words plainly explained by Patanjali or Yaska;

or even when easily explicable from material extant in Sanskrit itself.

(Divide et impera - is a never-to-be-forgotten norm, after all).

* Specious asterisks and exclamatory marks

(to decorate a book involving heavy drudgery, no doubt) !

*Fallibilities owing to ignorance - of the sensitivities of an Indian ear and mind

while dealing with Indian words (Overbearing omniscience cannot care less).

** Western linguists in particular (and Western Indologists in general, too) need to learn the banal truth

that by far not everything printed by them is actually worth it (- worth even the paper, that is, possibly).

[And a caveat: all this was not said to underestimate or undermine

some of the positive contributions made by a few wise Westerners.]

Now for a justification of all the comments made above about Mayrhofer,

please see the highlights made in the erudite review of

the early fascicules of his work by a giant scholar (viz. Paul Thieme), attached.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHc0P9MgWwGWJTFHuKwBGcczaPi5-5tcjhRzUg7VwZ5cBA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

A lot could be said about Prof. Kannan's last e-mail. I shall be as brief as possible.
 
First of all, I would like to recall the context in which I refered to a single entry in Mayrhofer's dictionary (KEWA).
L Srinivas wrote:
 
 “my query had to do with 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.”
 
I then pointed to the entry in Mayrhofer's dictionary (KEWA) that I consider relevant. Prof. Kannan has criticized this “pointer” in several e-mails with the following words:  
 
“To assert wild links and ask for better answers may not be the best way to progress.” – “One can start a hypothesis only upon some real/sensible/plausible foundation. Or else add a caveat that the proposition is at best conjectural. Wild guesses may not be best placed in dictionaries. Is it too difficult to throw a mild hint by adding a question mark after a wild suggestion?” – “But the task expected of his commenders and recommenders is to carry things to logical/more logical conclusions if possible; to supplement and complement his work, rather than merely compliment, and rest at that.”
 
I do not need to reiterate my answers here. Of course, there can be no question of “wild links”, “wild guesses”, or “wild suggestion” at all if you know the dictionary or at least have read and understood the entry on pāṣaṇḍa.
 
In his last e-mail, Prof. Kannan now refers to a critical review by the German Indologist Paul Thieme, whom he calls “a giant scholar”. One may or may not see it that way, but that is not the point, because it is not about authorities, but about arguments. It goes without saying that such a monumental work like Mayrhofer's two etymological dictionaries (KEWA and EWA) is a challenge to criticism. Criticism is part of the very essence of research. Thieme himself ends his critical review as follows:
 
“Mayrhofer is not a man of pat answers, but a pensively brooding scholar. His work provokes thought, invites discussion, challenges criticism. We cordially wish him strength and energy for finishing his enterprise. We thank him warmly for a most valuable instrument de travail that, but for him and his enthusiasm, we should not have at our disposal.”
 
Now Thieme's own etymological approaches have by no means remained unchallenged among scholars, which in turn is perfectly normal. I could now go through Thieme's criticisms of Mayrhofer in detail, but that is not necessary here. Whether Mayrhofer speaks of “Sanskrit” or “Altindoarisch”, or whether he uses too many abbreviations (I do not want to imagine how many pages his two dictionaries [of now about 2500 and 2700 pages each!] would have covered without the use of these abbreviations), does not change the substance of his entry to pāṣaṇḍa in the least.
 
I could now also discuss Prof. Kannan's understanding of Thieme's review in detail, but I will spare myself that. Apart from the fact that Thieme has not reviewed Mayrhofer’s “Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen (KEWA)/A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary“ (Heidelberg 1956–1976) at all here – this is the dictionary I referred to –, but the first 11 fascicles of Mayrhofer’s second dictionary “Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (EWA)” which is not a second edition of the older dictionary, but a completely new dictionary), just one example is sufficient. Prof. Kannan remarks:
 
“Naive is the supposition that the antiquity of a language is settled just by its earliest literary attestation.”
 
With this he wants to paraphrase the following criticism by Thieme:
 
“They support the naïve supposition that a language is only as old as its earliest literary attestation.”
 
“They” here means: designations like “Middle Indic”, “Middle-Indo-Aryan”, or “Old-Indo-Aryan”. Thieme thus criticizes here certain language designations, because in his opinion they suggest something wrong or at least “support” a “naïve supposition.” It goes without saying that Thieme does not accuse Mayrhofer of sharing what he considers to be a “naïve supposition”; Thieme merely criticizes what he considers to be a misleading terminology.
 
Apart from this, with the first two volumes of his second dictionary (EWA), Mayrhofer has presented a complete dictionary of the “older language” (= lexemes that are first attested in the Vedic literature or, at most, by ancient grammarians), while the third volume deals with the younger language (= first attestation not before the epics or the law books). Those who do not share this historical perspective on language will find this etymological approach fundamentally wrong. The rest will find it useful in principle.
 
One last remark. The reference to an essay, a study or a dictionary entry is no more and no less than a pointer to a possible source of information or knowledge. At best, this source of information or knowledge “provokes thought, invites discussion, challenges criticism” (Thieme). It is not meant as a reference to an irrefutable truth, even if it has been expressed by an actual or merely supposed authority.
 
It is quite simple: Ignore the entry in Mayrhofer's dictionary or read it (after all, it is less than a whole page) and form your own opinion if you are able to (not everyone is a linguist). Why should I justify the reference to a dictionary, especially since its follow-up work is designated as "a most valuable instrument de travail [= working tool]" even by Thieme?


With this, I say farewell to this thread.

Roland Steiner

[Roland Steiner]

P.S.:

> Now for a justification of all the comments made above about Mayrhofer,

> *please see the highlights* made in the erudite review of

> the early fascicules of his work by a giant scholar (viz. Paul Thieme),
> attached.

I recommend a thorough, accurate and above all unbiased reading of the entire review of his "giant scholar". Here it depends very much on the nuances, the context and the basic preconditions, which are of course shared with Mayrhofer, but not always explicitly. It is not enough to highlight single remarks.

However, I must warn you: it's not for the faint-hearted. Example: Thieme's assessment of Yāska's "Etymology".

RS

[Roland Steiner]

[Sorry for the typo "his" instead of "this". Now corrected. RS]

P.S.:

> Now for a justification of all the comments made above about Mayrhofer,
> *please see the highlights* made in the erudite review of
> the early fascicules of his work by a giant scholar (viz. Paul Thieme),
> attached.

I recommend a thorough, accurate and above all unbiased reading of the entire review of this "giant scholar". Here it depends very much on the nuances, the context and the basic preconditions, which are of course shared with Mayrhofer, but not always explicitly. It is not enough to highlight single remarks.

However, I must warn you: it's not for the faint-hearted. Example: Thieme's assessment of Yāska's "Etymology".

RS

 

--

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/20200419194750.Horde.9phmpxX7b6tIFwcOM2m7HPo%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Roland,

     You referred to Thieme's assessment of Yāska's "etymology.  Here is the passage from Thieme's review of Mayrhofer:

t

    During my student days at the University of Pennsylvania, I was fortunate to study with Thieme for a year, and I remember him saying that while Renou was careless like Yāska, he was careful like Pāṇini. His reviews of Renou were equally critical. I remembered this in connection with the passage about Yāska and Pāṇini in his review of Mayrhofer.  I have great respect for Thieme, but with all of his negative comments about Yāska and Mayrhofer, their contribution to scholarship on Sanskrit is very great indeed, and I tend to agree with Mayrhofer's "suspicion" that the words pāsaṇḍa/pāṣaṇḍa/pākhaṇḍa have some etymological connection with Skt. pārṣada.  This becomes even more likely in view of the Aśokan variant prasada.  The variants in the Northwestern inscriptions generally seem to be closer to Sanskrit in retaining consonant clusters with "r" like pra/br [like bramaṇa], and the variation of pra/par is very common.  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/20200419194750.Horde.9phmpxX7b6tIFwcOM2m7HPo%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[Roland Steiner]

Dear Madhav,

> This becomes even more likely in view of the Aśokan variant *prasada*. 

Exactly, I completely agree, the transmitted consonant cluster with "r" is a very strong argument.

That is why I have quoted the variants "aśok. (girnār) pāsaṁḍa-, (kālsī) pāśaṁḍa-, (shāhbāzgaṛhī) praṣaṁḍa-, (mānsehrā) prasada-" even twice.

With best wishes,
Roland

[K S Kannan]

I did not mean, let me clarify, to deride Mayrhofer's enormous effort

or the net result by any means.

After all, as they say,

"Dictionaries are like watches;

while the best cannot be expected to go quite true,

the worst is yet better than none".

Every dictionary is but an attempt, a human endeavour,

subject naturally to human foibles and fallibilities.

(All the same, the responsibility of a lexicographer is, it will be easily conceded,

indeed much more than of any other ordinary writer:

one wrong note can mislead more people than any other book can).

It is good to recommend a dictionary. It is good Steiner did.

But he seems to consciously ignore my "if possible" consciously added there.

It is precisely because Mayrhofer violates a significant principle of Yaska,

one of semantic compatibility, that he has ventured to link two words

that have but just an initial syllable (pA) in common, and the rest utterly disparate,

demanding thus too heavy a price to get equated in any manner whatsoever.

(Indeed, somebody should evolve a mathematical model to calculate

the distance, hence weightage/price, between two syllables,

paid in the case of each proposed etymology).

(And even Yaska may perhaps be subjected to test against these methods,

provided the methods are carefully and sensibly evolved).

After all, Yaska largely continued the archetypes of etymology already provided in the Vedic,

and I should not like to dwell on this at this juncture.

And had Thieme been nothing but all disapproval of Yaska, would he have

summoned the evidence of Yaska to show how Mayrhofer eggregiously erred ?

My grouse is essentially against the roughshod air of superiority blatantly displayed

by a good many Western Indologists in matters of explanation/interpretation

of things essentially Indian - even where the things have survived (or even flourished)

as a continued and living tradition. It is their tone of condescension that makes them repulsive.

It is a confidence issuing  and effusing from unmitigated academic "impunity".

(And what provides a stark contrast and an ironic contradiction at the same time is that

all their intellectual dauntlessness, affectation and aggression against the Hindu melts into

nothing but pusillanimity and spinelessness when dealing with things Islamic.

It is no new matter that Hindus have no aggressive defenders, after all. Anything, therefore, goes:

making any filthy comment even; and a good many are meant to and designed to

shock and hurt the sensibilities of the "poor, mild, meek" Hindu).

And do we indeed have to doubt very much the standard and stature of Paul Thieme?

--

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/20200419210126.Horde.dYU868nQ0wwE8xXdHHyCpTH%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[K S Kannan]

We do not have to grossly underestimate Paul Thieme.

Here is a publicly known citation about him.

Please note his fields of interest/specialisation/accomplishments

(underscoring ours) :

[Paul Thieme :]One of the Most Eminent Indologists of the 20th Century Who Made a Significant Contribution to the Comprehension of Indo-Aryan and the Ancient Indian Philosophy through His Detailed Studies of Vedic

Through his rigorous approach to philosophical studies, he added immensely to our knowledge of Vedic and other classical Indian literature and provided a solid foundation to the study of the history of Indian thought. He has also trained many outstanding scholars and made a profound contribution to the academic world.

Ancient Indian thought has, in the form of Buddhism, been familiar to the Japanese since the earliest historical times. But its deepest and most venerable roots can be traced back to that great body of classical literature known as the Vedas.

Dr. Thieme has established a firm foundation for the elucidation of the Vedic texts, and has produced from among his students many outstanding scholars in fields such as Vedic studies, Indian philosophy, Sanskrit grammar, and Indo-Aryan Philology. These students have continued Dr. Thieme’s work in many nations far beyond the borders of his native Germany.

The Vedic literature which has formed the principle object of Dr. Thieme’s enquiry is important not merely from the standpoint of ideological research, but because it comprises Hinduism, Buddhism, and various other elements making up the rich tradition of Indian thought. The Vedas, the oldest of all Sanskrit literature, rank in importance with the ancient Greek classics as vital source materials for comparative linguistic studies in the Indo-European languages.

Dr. Thieme, building on his work in the Western classics and Indo-European comparative linguistics, has opened new vistas in the philological and interpretative study of Vedic literature.

Dr. Thieme’s method employs the “Wortkunde,” a German expression indicating the study of word meaning. This method involves collecting terms associated with important ideological and literary concepts from the entire range of Vedic literature, arranging them, and analyzing them according to context. This precise investigative technique enables the fundamental meanings of concepts to be clarified, and their subsequent etymological development to be traced.

Using this method Dr. Thieme has clarified the meanings of numerous important concepts, including “brahman,” the supreme principle of the universe and one of the fundamental axioms of Indian philosophy and religion, and “arya,” the name adopted by the various peoples who rose from the original Vedic culture.

Ancient Indian literature, with the Vedas at its peak, stands with the classic writings of Greece and China as part of the priceless spiritual heritage of humankind. In modern civilization we have come to rely on fossil fuels such as coal and oil for many of our material needs, but the ancient classics provide an invaluable source of “fossil fuel” to meet our spiritual needs. Correctly understood and applied, they have an enormous amount to contribute to our inner lives.

Dr. Paul Thieme’s contribution in providing a firm direction for the study of the ancient Indian classics is fully as important as any advance made in the more eye-catching fields of science and technology. His work is a priceless gift to the future of humankind.

[Harunaga Isaacson]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:25:48 PM UTC+2, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

Quoting from memory,

the verse begins with

veda-vaidika-vidveSha-dUShitA bhasmarUShitAH |

Here is the verse (attached image, scan of part of p. 101 from the 1906 edition of Viśvaguṇādarśacampū).

 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:43 PM Roland Steiner <ste...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

> 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Manfred Mayrhofer assumes "despite phonetic difficulties" a connection with parṣat (pariṣád-) and its derivations pāriṣada- "Participants in an assembly" (epic, classical), pārṣada- "Participants in an assembly", also "companions (especially of a god)" (Upaniṣads, epic, classical); please see attachment.

With best regards,
Roland Steiner

--

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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/20200417141321.Horde.DBG-i8WuuWbgmIVZIpv_fPS%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[K S Kannan]

Thank you Prof. Isaacson, for your effort.

I had expected that the person who raised the question

would be willing to take the little trouble,

when sufficient clue has been given.

Speaking of a few others,

there are many who want everything ready-made & spoon-fed.

I sometimes feel almost irked by the patience and helpfulness of Shankara,

when people do not make even elementary efforts

- just as much as looking up in a dictionary or looking into archive.org as a preliminary attempt.

Shankara should not be treated as a free BVP-tap doing but its duty.

Thank you once again for your concern.

KSKannan

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/26e82fde-e066-42ab-84da-b1bca35d2e2d%40googlegroups.com.

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

The thrust of my inquiry was etymological in general and usage of early centuries AD or BC, in particular.

Thank you all the same, Prof Isaacson.

Srini

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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/26e82fde-e066-42ab-84da-b1bca35d2e2d%40googlegroups.com.

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Thank you, Dr Steiner. the KEWA entry was a rather useful pointer to what I was seeking. It's unfortunate that while helping me you had to take some flak. Sorry about that.

Srini

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:13 AM Roland Steiner <ste...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

> 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Manfred Mayrhofer assumes "despite phonetic difficulties" a connection with parṣat (pariṣád-) and its derivations pāriṣada- "Participants in an assembly" (epic, classical), pārṣada- "Participants in an assembly", also "companions (especially of a god)" (Upaniṣads, epic, classical); please see attachment.

With best regards,
Roland Steiner

--

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/9oaakNaKKcE/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/20200417141321.Horde.DBG-i8WuuWbgmIVZIpv_fPS%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[K S Kannan]

One must admire the sense of thankfulness expressed by Sri Srinivasakrishnan.

Gratitude is indeed a great virtue.

It does not matter much that it can be very selective.

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/CAFhgeVmK9wXsEGir%2BApaL-PsRcjDWMpJzvvaKBHU%3DSeNcYxqkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[L Srinivas]

Oh, dear! I hope I have not upset you. Naturally, many thanks to you too, Prof Kannan. 

Srini

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-4, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

One must admire the sense of thankfulness expressed by Sri Srinivasakrishnan.

Gratitude is indeed a great virtue.

It does not matter much that it can be very selective.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:16 PM Srinivasakrishnan ln <lns2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you, Dr Steiner. the KEWA entry was a rather useful pointer to what I was seeking. It's unfortunate that while helping me you had to take some flak. Sorry about that.

Srini

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:13 AM Roland Steiner <ste...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

> 'पाषण्ड'. I would like to understand its origin. Any pointers would be appreciated.

Manfred Mayrhofer assumes "despite phonetic difficulties" a connection with parṣat (pariṣád-) and its derivations pāriṣada- "Participants in an assembly" (epic, classical), pārṣada- "Participants in an assembly", also "companions (especially of a god)" (Upaniṣads, epic, classical); please see attachment.

With best regards,
Roland Steiner

--
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/9oaakNaKKcE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/20200417141321.Horde.DBG-i8WuuWbgmIVZIpv_fPS%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

--
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 bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFhgeVmK9wXsEGir%2BApaL-PsRcjDWMpJzvvaKBHU%3DSeNcYxqkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> One must admire the sense of thankfulness expressed by Sri
> Srinivasakrishnan.
> Gratitude is indeed a great virtue.
> It does not matter much that it can be very selective.

And some people obviously have a selective memory for obvious reasons.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/9oaakNaKKcE/u28rU7E-AAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/9oaakNaKKcE/g7Ko8fOFAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/9oaakNaKKcE/UB2pPvcLAgAJ


RS

[K S Kannan]

I am reminded of a sort of a subhAShita a teacher of mine once said:

It is not enough to be sincere;

one must also appear sincere.

Necessary sometimes, even if unoften.

Secondly, and more importantly,

pan'ktibheda can sometimes inspire misconstruals.

Better give no scope for that; and it's easy too:

give a generic "thanks all of you", and nobody bothers !

Or if specifically listing names, take care to treat equal benefactors equally.

Or at least say, there are many more to thank.

Use the handy escape clause AkRtigaNo'yam.

If you resort to a sort of pratipada-pATha on the other hand,

you can't say later, "Oh I missed some".

That will demand uktAnukta-duruktAdi-cintA.

These are only safety guides.

Hope I am not very wrong!

--
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/20200422163046.Horde.3cDr5sR7yuwmv0WTbFCyfyU%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.

[L Srinivas]

I applaud this much italicized masterpiece below. I'd place common courtesy and Netiquette on top of the list below.

Thanks,

Srini

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/20200422163046.Horde.3cDr5sR7yuwmv0WTbFCyfyU%40home.staff.uni-marburg.de.