Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

[shankara]

Pranams to all,

643rd name in Ganesa Sahasranama is सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः. Bhaskararaya explains it as follows - दानवैरर्चितश्चेत्त्वं सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः। A Marathi commentary at श्रीगणेशसहस्त्रनाम - श्लोक १११ ते १२० explains that when propitiated by the asuras, Ganesa crushes the elephants of the gods. I am a bit confused by this explanation.

Gods are usually described as protecting the Suras, not the Asuras. Is there any story in any Puranas that describes Ganesa helping the Asuras? I request scholars to help me understand this name of Ganesa.

 

regards
shankara

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In Ganesha Ashtottara shata namavali, one of the namas is

 

 'kunjarasurabhanjana'

 

In one of the kirtanas by Sri Muttuswamy Dikshitar, Ganesha is addressed as

 

kunjara bhanjana

 

Elsewhere , he is called matta sura bhanjana

 

Comparing 'surakunjarabhedana' and 'kunjarasurabhanjana', we can see that there is an exchange of positions of the words sura and kunjara between the two.

 

>A Marathi commentary at श्रीगणेशसहस्त्रनाम - श्लोक १११ ते १२० explains that when propitiated by the asuras, Ganesa crushes the elephants of the gods

Elephants of gods makes surakunjara shashthi tatpurusha samasa. Exchange of positions of the words is not possible in shashthi tatpurusha samasa.

 

So the Marathi commentary's interpretation is not tenable.

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[shankara]

Paturiji,

Could you please explain the meaning of kunjarasurabhanjana? Is there any Puranic story behind this?

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Shankarji,

 

I have no idea.

 

kunjarabhanjana has been explained as 'killer of gajasura'

 

Did kunjarashirabhanjana turn into kunjarasurabhanjana during manuscript copy makings at some stage? is one possibility.

 

But surakunjarabhedana comes in the way of such interpretation.

 

Even if there were to be a sura called kunjara, surakunjarabhedana  can not mean killing that sura. 

 

There probably is some puranic story. But I do not know that.

[shankara]

Hari Parshada Dasji,

Thanks for the information. This explains that Ganesa had defeated Kunjara, a demon in the form of an elephant. But, my doubt regarding the word सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः still remains unresolved.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 2:40 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

~~ shri-shri-radha-damodaraya namah ~~

found this in a Purana index:

कुञ्जर - गणेश २.१४.१८ ( महोत्कट गणेश द्वारा मदोन्मत्त कुञ्जर का वध )


It points to Ganesh Purana, Uttara-khanda.
--------------------

[shankara]

Hari Parshad Dasji,

Thank you very much for interpreting सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः and also for the popular story in support of it.

This story is seen in various websites with variations. In most cases, the competition is between Ganesa and his brother Kumara. Can we conclude that the above name of Ganesa is based on this story?

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: shanka...@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 3:42 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

The term सुरकुञ्जर can be interpreted as सुराणां कुञ्जरः "best among gods", which means it refers to Indra.

according to Shabda-kalpadruma, the term कुञ्जरः when applied as the latter term in a samAsa can mean "श्रेष्ठ" | उत्तरपदे श्रेष्ठवाचकः । यथा पुरुषकुञ्जर |

apply suffix 'ल्यु' to भिद then use the rule yu-vor anAkau

the vigraha is — "सुरकुञ्जरं भिनत्ति अर्थात्तस्य मानं विमर्दयति इति सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः"

I am attaching a story here which explains how he defeated all gods, headed by Indra. This is a popular story:

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, 'shankara' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hari Parshad Dasji,

Thank you very much for interpreting सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः and also for the popular story in support of it.

Further, in  spite of exercise of grammar and Purana, how to relate the first part of the line दानवैरर्चितश्चेत्त्वं when/if you were/are(?) worshiped by the  असुर-s, then you become(became).: सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः either the context from Purana or grammar or taking it as conditional if you are worshiped by the demons (in the begining of the waging wars with the sura-s, you bestow victory for them) by being the destroyer(repeller) of the  elephant/s of Sura-s. cet tadaa will guide some interpretation in either case as a statement of episode ( suppported by Purana-s) or an exageration of his power of bestowing victory to his devotees even they be the the demons.

[shankara]

Bhat Mahodaya,

I totally agree with your observation. In fact, I could not express my query clearly in my first mail. Thanks for elaborating the problem.

I request you and other scholars to resolve this query.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>Bhaskararaya explains it as follows - दानवैरर्चितश्चेत्त्वं सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः।

 

Hence, we need not look for an explanation for दानवैरर्चितश्चेत्त्वं सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः, unless we consider that Bhaskararaya's explanation is as important as the naama that it attempts to explain.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[shankara]

Paturiji,

Bhaskararaya's interpretation need not be considered as the only possible interpreation of the naama. But, I could not find any other convincing explanation for this naama.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 7:41 PM

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The legend of Gaja Sura might be a way of looking into this.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[shankara]

Hari Parshad Dasji,

Thanks for sharing Tripurasura's story. Though it describes how an Asura defeated the devas with the blessings of Ganesa, there is nothing specific about Ganesa defeating Indra or Devas or the elephants of Devas.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

dear shankara ji,

my pranams. i am quoting a story here which appeared in the Kalyan Magazine, Ganesh Visheshank. I think this story supports the commentary by Shri Bhaskararaya that you cited earlier:

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa.
-----------------------------------------

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---

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/3n5Pzs6q1nc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:46 AM, 'shankara' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hari Parshad Dasji,

Thanks for sharing Tripurasura's story. Though it describes how an Asura defeated the devas with the blessings of Ganesa, there is nothing specific about Ganesa defeating Indra or Devas or the elephants of Devas.

 

 

 There is nothing specific enough to make the epithet for Ganesha. That explains why Bhaskararaya generally said, दानवैरर्चितस्त्वं without being specific of त्रिपुरदानव-s and anytime any दानव worshiping Ganesha makes them to defeat the देव-s or the elephants of देव-s in any battle with them. In both cases, the विग्रहवाक्य will be different, भेदयतिति भेदनः, सुरकुञ्जराणां भेदनः - सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः, making the same epithet. Since you were insisting on Puranic episode, to explain the expression दानवैरर्चितस्त्वम्, he gave the episode of Tripuradanava-s (who are three) and their defeating was due to undefeatable three Pura-s according to some other sources. This one may be from Ganesha Purana, emphasising the worship of Ganesha wholly.

 

 

 

[shankara]

Bhat Mahodaya,

I had assumed that there would be some Puranic episode in which Ganesa Himself fought against the Devas. That is why I wrote that the story of Tripurasura doesn't directly relate to the epithet of Ganesa under discussion. I might be wrong in assuming the existence of such story.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, 30 August 2015 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

[SL Abhyankar अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।]

Can we take a different view of derivation of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः as -

• कुञ्जरः [कुञ्जो हस्तिहनुः सो$स्यास्ति, कुञ्ज-र, ऊषसुषिपुष्क मधोरः P.V.2.17. Vārt.] 1 An elephant; प्राक्छाये कुञ्जरस्य च Ms.3.274. दन्तयोर्हन्ति कुञ्जरम् Mbh. on P.II.3.36. -2 Anything pre-eminent or excellent of its class (at the end of comp. only). Amara gives the following words used similarly :-- स्युरुत्तरपदे व्याघ्रपुङ्गवर्षभकुञ्जराः । सिंहशार्दूलनागाद्याः पुंसि श्रेष्ठार्थवाचकाः ॥ 
  
• From meaning (2) above सुरकुञ्जर can be taken to mean preeminent among सुर-s.
• भेदनः is from धातुः भिद् which has one meaning as 'to break through or to break down'. The extended meaning of भिद् can be 'to decipher' as in रहस्यभेदः
  
• Then सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः can be interpreted as 'one, who is the guide to understand the meaning of preeminent Godhood.'
• Such interpretation would then endorse the convention, why गणेश is the deity to be worshipped preeminently, first and foremost.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

There is nothing new in the way of derivation than already discussed and HariParshada has given the episode making Ganesha first and foremost deity before any act. Even without quoting the dictionary entries, the usage of the word Kunjara was already explained. Only your interpretation of the verb भिदिर् विदारणे out of context explanation is new as " 'one, who is the guide to understand the meaning of preeminent Godhood.' is new and I doubt whether such meaning could be derived from the compound.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 3:42:26 PM UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:

the vigraha is — "सुरकुञ्जरं भिनत्ति अर्थात्तस्य मानं विमर्दयति इति सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः"

This post does not offer a solution to the original question, but evaluates the vigrahas shown for the term surakuñjarabhedanaḥ by Sh. Hari Parshad Das and Dr. H N Bhat.

 

Sh. Hari Parshad Das offered the following vigraha:

surakuñjaraṃ bhinatti iti surakuñjarabhedanaḥ [sic]

 

This vigraha is not correct since there is no rule in the Aṣṭādhyāyī (nor any vārttika) which ordains the suffix lyuṭ in the sense of an agent (kartṛ) from a root with an upapada denoting the karma. If the vigraha is surakuñjaraṃ bhinatti, the samāsa cannot be surakuñjarabhedanaḥ. For this vigraha, the samāsa can be surakuñjarabhedaḥ instead. It can also be surakuñjarabhit (with the optional form surakuñjarabhid). In both cases the samāsa is by rule 2.2.19 upapadamatiṅ.

 

For surakuñjarabhedaḥ, the suffix aṇ is ordained from the root bhid with an upapada denoting karma by the rule 3.2.1 karmaṇyaṇ in the sense of an agent. Here is kāśikā (boldface emphasis mine):

3.2.1 karmaṇyaṇ: sarvatra karmaṇi upapade dhātoḥ aṇ pratyayo bhavati।

Why is this in the sense of agent? By 3.4.67 kartari kṛt, a kṛt affix occurs in the sense of an agent unless otherwise stated. As nothing about the sense is stated here, the kṛt suffix is in the sense of an agent (kartṛ).

 

In the case of surakuñjarabhit/surakuñjarabhid, the suffix kvip is ordained from the root bhid when with an upapada by the rule 3.2.76 kvip ca in the sense of an agent. Here is kāśikā again (bolface emphasis mine):

3.2.76 kvip ca: sarvadhātubhyaḥ sopapadebhyo nirupapadebhyaśca chandasi bhāṣāyāṃ ca kvip pratyayo bhavati।

Again, as nothing about the sense is stated here, the kṛt suffix is in the sense of an agent (kartṛ) by 3.4.67 kartari kṛt.

 

However, there is no rule which ordains the suffix lyuṭ from a root with a karma upapada in the sense of an agent (kartṛ). As far as I know, the only rule which ordains the suffix lyuṭ from a root with a karma upapada is  

3.3.116 karmaṇi ca yena saṃsparśāt kartuḥ śarīrasukham

However, this rule carries forward both napuṃsake (=in the neuter gender) and bhāve (=in the sense of verbal activity) from 3.3.114 napuṃsake bhāve ktaḥ. Here is kāśikā again (boldface emphasis mine):

3.3.116 karmaṇi ca yena saṃsparśāt kartuḥ śarīrasukham: yena karmaṇā saṃspṛśyamānasya kartuḥ śarīrasukham utpadyate, tasmin karmaṇi upapade dhatoḥ napuṃsakaliṅge bhāve lyuṭ pratyayo bhavati।

 

Now surakuñjarabhedanaḥ is neither in neuter gender, nor is it in the sense of verbal action as per the explanation offered by Sh. Das. Hence the vigraha surakuñjaraṃ bhinatti for surakuñjarabhedanaḥ is not correct as there is no rule to support the required affix and upapada compound.

 

surakuñjaraṃ bhinatti iti surakuñjarabhedaḥ surakuñjarabhit vā na tu surakuñjarabhedanaḥ

 

Dr. Bhat has offered the correct vigraha for surakuñjarabhedanaḥ in his post.  

surakuñjarāṇāṃ bhedanaḥ surakuñjarabhedanaḥ

One can also say 

surakuñjarasya bhedanaḥ surakuñjarabhedanaḥ

The genitive case in surakuñjarasya/surakuñjarāṇāṃ is by the rule 2.3.65 kartṛkarmaṇoḥ kṛti. Then the samāsa is by the vārttika 2.2.8 kṛdyogā ca (kṛdyogā ca ṣaṣṭhī samasyate iti vaktavyam)

 

Hence the vigraha offered by Dr. Bhat is correct, the one by Sh. Das is incorrect. The correct vigraha needs to be supported by rules for both the affix and the compound.

 

Nityanand

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 10:48:35 PM UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:

When I performed the vigraha (सुरकुञ्जरं भिनत्ति ... इति सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः), i followed the vigraha style of the previous vyākaraṇa ācāryas, and this vigraha is completely correct.

For example, lets take the term कालिन्दीभेदनः (a name of Shri Balaram, masculine in gender) found in Amarakośa 1.1.25

Amarapadavivṛti defines it as : कालिन्दीं भिनत्तीति कालिन्दीभेदनः (Source: Amarakośa with South Indian Commentaries of Lingayasurin and Mallinatha, Adyar Library and Research Center, 1971)

The Śabdakalpadruma gives both possibilities:

कालिन्दीभेदनः, पुं, (कालिन्दीं भिनत्ति । भिद् कर्त्तरि ल्यु । कालिन्द्या भेदनो वा ।)

Dear Sh. Das

Do the Amarapadavivṛti and Śabdakalpadruma state that their explanation of this word is a vigraha vākya of the compound in question? Dictionaries and commentaries explain a word in various ways, it is not necessary that each explanation is a vigraha vākya of the compound being explained. 

Here is the decisive litmus test: can you please show the prakriyā of the upapada samāsa with lyu/lyuṭ? Which precise rule results in the upapada samāsa with a lyu/lyuṭ suffix ordained in the sense of an agent by 3.1.134/3.3.113 as you suggest? If a complete prakriyā cannot be shown, then the samāsa cannot be derived from the vigraha vākya.

 

It clearly says that ल्यु is applicable in karttari which Nityānanda Miśra has misunderstood. If my vigraha is incorrect, then these vigrahas are incorrect too.

Hint: I would request a study of Pāṇini 3.3.113 (kṛtyaluṭo bahulam) and especially the kāśikāvṛtti on it to clarify any misconceptions.

 

As I have stated above, both vigrahas are correct and the understanding given by Nityānanda Miśra is not.

I did not say lyu is not applicable in the sense of agent. Here is my statement again: 

Quote

However, there is no rule which ordains the suffix lyuṭ from a root with a karma upapada in the sense of an agent (kartṛ).

Unquote

There is a clause with a karma upapada in my statement. 

Does 3.3.113 has a karma upapada condition? No.

Do any commentaries say that this rule covers karma upapada? No.

Does any commentary give an example under 3.3.113 which is an upapada samasa with karma upapada? No.

So how does 3.3.113 ordaining lyuṭ in the sense of agent contradict what I said? Can you please explain?

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 12:27:44 AM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 10:48:35 PM UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:

The Śabdakalpadruma gives both possibilities:

कालिन्दीभेदनः, पुं, (कालिन्दीं भिनत्ति । भिद् कर्त्तरि ल्यु । कालिन्द्या भेदनो वा ।)

Some more on the Śabdakalpadruma entry. As the digitized text may have errors, I referred to the Śabdakalpadruma scan on the word कालिन्दीभेदनः to check if the dictionary had ल्यु or ल्युट्. Here is the link: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/SKDScan/2013/web/webtc/servepdf.php?page=2-114

The dictionary has ल्युः (and not ल्युट्): the visarga is clearly visible in the scan. Now the suffix ल्यु is ordained for words listed in नन्द्यादिगण by the rule नन्दिग्रहिपचादिभ्यो ल्युणिन्यचः (३.१.१३४). The काशिका lists 24 words in नन्द्यादिगण, the list does not have the word कालिन्दीभेदनः. Moreover, as per commentaries, the नन्द्यादिगण is not an आकृतिगण (this is in contrast with पचादिगण which commentaries  admit to be an आकृतिगण). Here is the नन्द्यादिगण:

(१) नन्दनः।  (२) वासनः।  (३) मदनः।  (४) दूषणः।  (५) साधनः।  (६) वर्धनः।  (७) शोभनः।  (८) रोचनः।  सहितपिदमेः संज्ञायाम्। (९) सहनः।  (१०) तपनः।  (११) दमनः।  (१२) जल्पनः।  (१३) रमणः।  (१४) दर्पणः।  (१५) सङ्क्रन्दनः।  (१६) सङ्कर्षणः।  (१७) जनार्दनः।  (१८) यवनः।  (१९) मधुसूदनः।  (२०) विभीषणः।  (२१) लवणः। निपातनाण्णत्वम्।  (२२) चित्तविनाशनः।  (२३) कुलदमनः।  (२४) शत्रुदमनः। इति नन्द्यादिः।

For this reason, explaining कालिन्दीभेदनः/सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः with ल्यु is not backed by the grammar tradition. Śabdakalpadruma’s explanation is चिन्त्य (I say चिन्त्य as I have immense respect for the work), and needs to be treated with caution. Yes, if a source in the grammatical tradition is found which lists कालिन्दीभेदनः/सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः in the नन्द्यादिगण or says that नन्द्यादिगण is an आकृतिगण, then one can certainly consider ल्यु here. 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:33:57 AM UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:

I don't know why you included 3.1.134 here. I never mentioned this sūtra. This is a reply which addresses both your previous messages.

You yourself mentioned the suffix lyu in your mail on August 29:

Quote

apply suffix 'ल्यु' to भिद then use the rule yu-vor anAkau

Unquote

The suffix lyu is different from the suffix lyuṭ. The latter has ṭ as a marker (it), the former does not. As far as I know, only 3.1.134 talks about lyu (without the ṭ marker). If you did not mean 3.1.134, could you please clarify which other rule did you have in mind when you proposed lyu?

 

भिनत्ति तमिति भेदनः (from 3.3.113) — apply lyu in karmārtha using this rule.

How is lyu is in sense of karma? SKD says it is in sense of kartṛ (and you yourself said "ल्यु is applicable in karttari" in your previous message). Now you say the meaning is karma? If lyu is in karma, then the derivation should be bhidyate iti bhedanaḥ, and not bhinatti iti bhedanaḥ. Please clarify if you want the suffix in the sense of object (karma) or agent (kartṛ).

 

How can lyu be applied here when भिद् is not even in नन्द्यादि? That is the very meaning of saying ”बहुलम्" in the sutra. Please see definition of बहुलम् given in the Laghu-siddhānta-kaumudī commentary (क्वचित्प्रवृत्तिः) on this verse.

Firstly 3.3.113 talks about lyuṭ and not lyu. So please clarify clearly if you want lyu here or lyuṭ. 

1) If you want lyu, as you say, then 3.3.113 kṛtyalyuṭo bahulam does not apply and so the above reasoning also does not apply. 

2) If you want lyuṭ then 3.1.134 nandigrahipacādibhyo lyuṇinyacaḥ does not apply. 

We have to get the precise and full derivation, else it becomes guesswork. 

Secondly, the bahula option as explained in commentaries is that the kṛtya and lyuṭ affixes occur from a root in other meanings than those stated in the Aṣṭādhyāyī. It does not say they occur from a root with an upapada. You may refer S C Vasu, R N Sharma, or any other standard text. If any commentary says that kṛtya and lyuṭ can also occur with upapadas also as a result of bahulam in 3.3.113, it can be accepted. But assuming it is problematic. 

Even if you assume it, which word do you read in the locative case in 3.3.113 to qualify as upapada? By the rule 3.1.92 tatropapadaṃ saptamīstham, an upapada is a word in the locative case. So even if you extend, going against tradition, to apply this in case of upapada, how does one get a generic karma upapada in absense of the word karmaṇi in the locative case? Is this interpretation backed by specific commentary on this rule?

 

If you still don't agree with this, another way is to apply युच् from the rule बहुलमन्यत्रापि (उणादि 2.78). In both cases, it will be भिनत्ति इति भेदनः

There is nothing wrong with this part (bhinatti iti bhedanaḥ). The problem is with the vigraha surakuñjaraṃ bhinatti iti surakuñjarabhedanaḥ. The two are not the same.

 

apply prātipadika saṁjñā to भेदनः (by 1.2.46)

सुरकुञ्जरं भेदनः = सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः (द्वितीयातत्पुरुष by गम्यादीनामुपसङ्ख्यानम् |)

This new vigraha that is offered is itself is problematic to begin with. One must have a dvitīyā vibhakti before a dvitīyā tatpuruṣa samāsa can take place (the vigraha comes first, the samāsa later). What rule results in the dvitīyā vibhakti here? When surakuñjara is used as karman with the kṛdanta word bhedana, the rule 2.3.65 kartṛkarmaṇoḥ kṛti blocks the rule 2.3.2 karmaṇi dvitīyā. The rules that block 2.3.65, namely 2.3.69 na lokāvyayaniṣṭhākhalarthatṛnām and 2.3.70 akenorbhaviṣyadādhamarṇyayoḥ, do not apply in this case. Hence by 2.3.65 the correct usage is surakuñjarasya bhedanaḥ, and not surakuñjaraṃ bhedanaḥ.

The case of gamyādīnām is totally different. In case of the vigraha state of compounds like kaṣṭaśritaḥ=kaṣṭaṃ śritaḥ, 2.3.69 blocks application of 2.3.65 (as śrita is ktānta). As 2.3.65 is itself blocked, there is nothing to block 2.3.2 and so dvitīyā vibhakti is produced, resulting in the uncompounded usage kaṣṭaṃ śritaḥ which is compounded by 2.1.23 dvitīyā śritātīta ... In case of the vigraha state of compounds covered by gamyādīnāmupasaṅkhyānam (e.g. grāmagamī), again the rule 2.3.65 is blocked, this time by 2.3.66 akenorbhaviṣyadādhamarṇyayoḥ. This results in 2.3.2 applying to give us the uncompounded usage grāmam gamī which is compounded as grāmagamī.

But in case of using the word with the kṛdanta bhedanaḥ, neither 2.3.69 nor 2.3.70 can block 2.3.65 because their conditions are not met. Hence 2.3.65 prevails to result in the usage surakuñjarasya bhedanaḥ. 

 

Therefore, saying सुरकुञ्जरं भिनत्ति इति सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः is correct. Its just that the Shabdakalpadruma/Amarapadavivṛti expect us to transform similar words containing भिनत्ति to भेदनः before using it as a latter term in a द्वितीयातत्पुरुष). I have done the same. And yes, they are explaining vigraha, or else there was no point in the Shabdakalpadruma saying "भिद् कर्त्तरि ल्यु" | it could have simply said कालिन्दीं भिनत्ति and finished the job.

This is a novel interpretation. Can you tell me which Pāṇinian rule be used to transform a tiṅanta into a subanta before compounding? 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:08:00 PM UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:

The rule 3.3.113. Even if it doesn't say lyu because lyu is kṛt and is not in the list of kṛtya but it can be used here because bahulam means "क्वचिदन्यदेव". If you say "which grammarian has derived something like this?" i would quote the derivations of kaalindibhedanaH by the previous grammarians. Do you have a specific grammarian who specifically says that they are incorrect in doing so or who say that lyu cannot be introduced here?

Dear Sh. Das

It is a new interpretation (or is it a revelation?) that bahulam in A 3.1.134 means that even suffixes apart from kṛtya or lyuṭ can be used. All traditional commentaries interpret bahulam to mean that kṛtya and lyuṭ can occur in different meanings from those stated in the A. Can you please cite one reliable source in support of this new interpretation? If not, then it is your word versus traditional commentaries.  

You cite derivations of kālindibhedanaḥ in SKD and Amarapadavivṛti in support of your new interpretation. But do these two sources say in their derivation of kālindibhedanaḥ that the suffix lyu in from A 3.1.134? At least SKD does not. So how can SKD be cited as a support of your novel interpretation of bahulam on A 3.1.134? I have not seen Amarapadavivṛti, but does that give A 3.1.134 as the rule for lyu in the derivation? If that also does not, then you have no source to back your interpretation. 

 

I was clear in what i said. I meant karma-vibhakti-artha not karmaṇi. 3.3.113 gives more examples of karma-vibhakti-artha such as apasecanam (see nyāsa).

 

This is what you said

Quote

भिनत्ति तमिति भेदनः (from 3.3.113) — apply lyu in karmārtha using this rule

Unquote

You said in karmārtha. Now you say you meant karma-vibhakti-artha and not karmaṇi. You also say you were clear in what you said[!!]. Anyway karma-vibhakti-artha is a new terminology to me. Can you please define this new term karma-vibhakti-artha? How is it different from karmaṇi (or is it the same)?

You point to apasecanam in Nyasa says: 

Quote

apasecanam iti, apasicyate taditi karmaṇi lyuṭ. 

Unquote

So Nyāsa clearly says karmaṇi on apasecanam (it has the suffix lyuṭ in sense of object). You say apasecanam in Nyāsa is an example of karma-vibhakti-artha. This suggests you think karmaṇi and this new term karma-vibhakti-artha are the same. However, you also say  “I meant karma-vibhakti-artha not karmaṇi.” This suggests you think they are different. So what do you think - are karma-vibhakti-artha and karmaṇi different or the same?

Furthermore, apasicyate is passive voice and the word apasecanam is aptly in the sense of object. In what you said (bhinatti tam iti bhedanaḥ), bhinatti is in active voice and the word bhedanaḥ is in the sense of an agent. Then how can the two be both examples of the same thing which you call karma-vibhakti-artha? 

 

 

 

1) If you want lyu, as you say, then 3.3.113 kṛtyalyuṭo bahulam does not apply and so the above reasoning also does not apply. 

it applies because क्वचिदन्यदेव and such vigrahas have been given by previous grammarians as i have said above.

See above. Not only is the above statement a new opinion, it is not backed by works you cite as they have not traced the suffix lyu to A 3.3.113. I have no problem with new opinions, but if you claim the support of other works by assuming things. This is not sound reasoning. 

 

 

2) If you want lyuṭ then 3.1.134 nandigrahipacādibhyo lyuṇinyacaḥ does not apply. 

We have to get the precise and full derivation, else it becomes guesswork. 

Once again, why are you trying to confuse me and others by introducing 3.1.134? I never said i am using this rule.

Okay, we can ignore 3.1.134 now. Let's focus on 3.3.113.

 

Not problematic if one considers works like Amarapadavivṛti to be the creation of a respectable grammarian and tries to support the derivation given therein by taking support of bahulam.

Does Amarapadavivṛti mention bahulam in the derivation? Can you please share the scan of the page for my benefit?   

 

 

सुरकुञ्जरं (=सुराणां कुञ्जरं) भिनत्ति इति सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः is not blocked by 2.3.65 because the blocking is optional in gauṇakarma.

 

 

Gauṇakarma is present for doubly transitive roots (dvikarmaka dhātu-s) which can take two objects, one primary and one secondary. Is bhid a dvikarmaka root? Can you cite a source for this? Or can you show examples where usages of bhid have a primary and secondary object?

This thread is very enlightening, we may be at the cusp of some new discoveries in the field of Sanskrit grammar.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 3:21:53 PM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

It is a new interpretation (or is it a revelation?) that bahulam in A 3.1.134 means that even suffixes apart from kṛtya or lyuṭ can be used. All traditional commentaries interpret bahulam to mean that kṛtya and lyuṭ can occur in different meanings from those stated in the A. Can you please cite one reliable source in support of this new interpretation? If not, then it is your word versus traditional commentaries.  

You cite derivations of kālindibhedanaḥ in SKD and Amarapadavivṛti in support of your new interpretation. But do these two sources say in their derivation of kālindibhedanaḥ that the suffix lyu in from A 3.1.134? At least SKD does not. So how can SKD be cited as a support of your novel interpretation of bahulam on A 3.1.134? I have not seen Amarapadavivṛti, but does that give A 3.1.134 as the rule for lyu in the derivation? If that also does not, then you have no source to back your interpretation. 

I mixed up the sutra numbers in the above two paras. It should be 3.3.113 throughout (I am referring to kṛtyalyuṭo bahulam). Here are the paras again with the correction. Sorry for any inconvenience:

It is a new interpretation (or is it a revelation?) that bahulam in A 3.3.113 means that even suffixes apart from kṛtya or lyuṭ can be used. All traditional commentaries interpret bahulam to mean that kṛtya and lyuṭ can occur in different meanings from those stated in the A. Can you please cite one reliable source in support of this new interpretation? If not, then it is your word versus traditional commentaries.  

You cite derivations of kālindibhedanaḥ in SKD and Amarapadavivṛti in support of your new interpretation. But do these two sources say in their derivation of kālindibhedanaḥ that the suffix lyu in from A 3.3.113? At least SKD does not. So how can SKD be cited as a support of your novel interpretation of bahulam on A 3.3.113? I have not seen Amarapadavivṛti, but does that give A 3.3.113 as the rule for lyu in the derivation? If that also does not, then you have no source to back your interpretation. 

 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः --

सुरकुञ्जराणां भेदनः -  ल्युः , ’ कृत्यल्युटो बहुलम्’ (3-3-113) - कर्मणः शेषत्वविवक्षायां षष्ठी । (सुरकुञ्जरस्य / सुरकुञ्जरयोः भेदनः इत्यपि - व्याकरणे कपिञ्जलाधिकरणन्यायस्य अनाश्रयणात्) ।

What is the problem ?

1. Panini compiled a सूत्रम् - कर्मण्यण् ( 3-2-1) - कर्मवाचके उपपदे धातोः अण् - कुंभकारः , नगरकारः । कर्तृकर्मणोः कृति  2-3-65 - इति समासः।

प्रौढमनोरमा (अनुपसर्गात् लिम्पविन्द....3-1-138) -

अथ कथम् .....? कर्मणः शेषत्वविवक्षयां अणः अप्राप्त्या शे कृते शेषषष्ठ्या समासो भविष्यति ।

आत्ममाने खश्च (3-2-83) - आत्मनः मानः आत्ममानः - कर्मणि षष्ठ्या समासः।

ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा etc are also examples.

Then what about गङ्गाधरः , श्रीधरः, स्रग्धरा etc ? कर्मणः शेषत्वविवक्षायां षष्ठी (कौमुदी) - संज्ञावाचकाः (हरदत्तः) ।

Now what about - जनम् अर्दयति इति जनार्दनः , मधुं सूदयति इति मधुसूदनः ?

Panini made a बाधकसूत्रम् ( to कर्मण्यण्) - नन्दिग्रहिपचादिभ्यो ल्युणिन्यचः (3-1-134) - since the above words are listed in नन्द्यादिगण there will be ल्युः rather than अण् । नन्द्यादि is not an आकृतिगण ।

पचादि is an आकृतिगण - so श्वपचा ( महाभाष्यम् 3-1-134)- here अच् is बधक of कर्मण्यण् ।

But कृत्यल्युटो बहुलम्  - does not ordain ल्यु - प्रत्यय ?

There is problem - apart from कृत्यs and ल्युट् , we come across other कृत्प्रत्ययs also - this is clearly stated by Katyayana and Patanjali --

कृत्यल्युटो बहुलम् --

वा . कृतो बहुलम् पादहारकाद्यर्थम्

भा . कृतो बहुलम् इति वक्तव्यम् । पादहारकाद्यर्थम्। पादाभ्यां ह्रियते पादहारकः। गले चोप्यते गलेचोपकः।

कैयटः --

कृत इति । कृत्यग्रहणम् अपनीय कृद्ग्रहणं व्यापकत्वात् कर्तव्यम् । तस्मिंश्च कृते ल्युड्ग्रहणं न कर्तव्यम् , तस्यापि कृत्त्वात् ।

So , Kaiyata explains व्याप्तिन्याय ।

So , since we follow यथोत्तरं मुनीनां प्रामाण्यम् (under धिन्विकृण्व्योर च 3-1-80 उद्योते) - it is कृतो बहुलम् ।

As a result there will be other प्रत्ययs also - like ल्युः ।

For both ल्यु and ल्युट्  it is लिति (6-1-193) प्रत्ययात् पूर्वम् उदात्तम् ।

ल्युट् will get ङीप्  in स्त्रीलिङ्ग ( टिड्ढाणञ्...) whereas ल्यु will get टाप् (अजाद्यतः..)

सुधा commentary on अमरकोश --

सङ्कर्षणः  सीरपाणिः कालिन्दीभेदनो बलः 

संकर्षति , सम्यक् कृष्यते वा । आद्ये नन्द्यादित्वात् ल्युः । द्वितीये कर्मणि ल्युट् (3-3-113) ; .. कालिन्द्याः भेदनः। ल्युः।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 5:51:48 PM UTC+5:30, korada wrote:

There is problem - apart from कृत्यs and ल्युट् , we come across other कृत्प्रत्ययs also - this is clearly stated by Katyayana and Patanjali --

कृत्यल्युटो बहुलम् --

वा . कृतो बहुलम् पादहारकाद्यर्थम्

भा . कृतो बहुलम् इति वक्तव्यम् । पादहारकाद्यर्थम्। पादाभ्यां ह्रियते पादहारकः। गले चोप्यते गलेचोपकः।

कैयटः --

कृत इति । कृत्यग्रहणम् अपनीय कृद्ग्रहणं व्यापकत्वात् कर्तव्यम् । तस्मिंश्च कृते ल्युड्ग्रहणं न कर्तव्यम् , तस्यापि कृत्त्वात् ।

So , Kaiyata explains व्याप्तिन्याय ।

So , since we follow यथोत्तरं मुनीनां प्रामाण्यम् (under धिन्विकृण्व्योर च 3-1-80 उद्योते) - it is कृतो बहुलम् ।

As a result there will be other प्रत्ययs also - like ल्युः ।

Thanks to Dr. Korada for pointing the vārttika कृतो बहुलं पादहारकाद्यर्थम् (वा. ३.३.११३) which extends the rule कृत्यल्युटो बहुलम् (अ. ३.३.११३) to suffixes other than कृत्य and ल्युट्. This is an acceptable solution to explain observance of ल्यु in domains and meanings other than those specified, similar to explanation of ण्वुल् in the sense of कर्म for the examples पादहारक, गलेचोपक, etc.

Is this वार्त्तिक needed for the purpose of explaining ल्यु in the sense of agent in the derivation भिनत्ति इति भेदनः? By the rule कर्तरि कृत् (अ. ३.४.६७), ल्यु is already available in the sense of कर्तृ, so the वार्त्तिक is not needed for this purpose. However, the वार्त्तिक may be used to expand the नन्द्यादिगण which, as Dr. Korada says and I agree, is not an आकृतिगण.

Now let’s take a look at Dayānanda Sarasvatī’s explanation of रसना and his citation of कृत्यल्युटो बहुलम् (अ. ३.३.११३) which Sh. Das has cited. Is Dayānanda Sarasvatī not aware that the सूत्र does not apply to ल्यु (a suffix with is neither कृत्य nor ल्युट्)? He is certainly aware of the scope of the सूत्र as well as the fact that the वार्त्तिक extends the scope. This is confirmed by his commentary on the अष्टाध्यायी. Here is what he says in his अष्टाध्यायीभाष्यम् (Volume II, Second edition, Ajmer: Paropakāriṇī Sabhā, 1997,  p. 307):

वा – कृल्ल्युट् इति वक्तव्यम्। कृतो बहुलमिति वा। कृतो बहुलमिति पक्षो ज्यायान्। कृत्संज्ञा च कृत्यानां ल्युटश्च तेन सर्वेषां ग्रहणं भविष्यति। कृत्संज्ञकाः प्रत्यया विहितार्थेषु बहुलं स्युः। तेनेदमपि सिद्धं भवति। पादाभ्यां ह्रियत इति पादहारकः। अत्र करणे ण्वुल्। गले चोप्यते गलेचोपकः। अत्राधिकरणे च। कर्तरि विहिता अन्यत्रापि भवन्ति।

[Note: In both पादहारकः and गलेचोपकः, the suffix ण्वुल् is actually in sense of कर्म as the विग्रह are पादाभ्यां ह्रियते/गले चोप्यते and not पादाभ्यां ह्रियते अनेन/गले चोप्यते अस्मिन्. The बालमनोरमा notes this correctly: पादाभ्यां ह्रियते पादहारकः। कर्मणि ण्वुल्।]

So given that Dayānanda Sarasvatī knows both the सूत्र as well as the वार्त्तिक as explained in his own commentary, the correct citation by him in the discussion on रसना should have been the वार्त्तिक and not the सूत्र, since ल्यु is covered by the वार्त्तिक but not the सूत्र. Citation of the सूत्र in place of वार्त्तिक is (more likely) a copy-editing error, or (less likely) due to अनवधान of the author.

Now coming back to विग्रह for the सुरकुञ्जरभेदन. Here are the options:

1. On he lines of शब्दकल्पद्रुमः explanation, is it an उपपद समास by the rule उपपदमतिङ् (अ २.२.१९) with the laukika vigarha सुरकुञ्जरं भिनत्ति and alaukika vigraha सुरकुञ्जर अम् भिद् ल्यु/ल्युट्? कर्म उपपद still remains a problem. शब्दकल्पद्रुमः does not cite any सूत्र/वार्तिक for the derivation. But as Sh. Das has clarified that he favours द्वितीया तत्पुरुष from गाम्यादीनामुपसङ्ख्यानम् this problem may be ignored for now.
   
2. As Sh. Das proposes, is it a द्वितीया तत्पुरुष by गाम्यादीनामुपसङ्ख्यानम् (श्रितादिषु गमिगाम्यादीनामुपसङ्ख्यानम्, वा. २.१.२३) with the laukika vigraha सुरकुञ्जरं भेदनः and alaukika vigraha सुरकुञ्जर अम् भेदन सुँ? The द्वितीया is not obtained in this usage as कर्मणि द्वितीया (अ. २.३.२) is blocked by कर्तृकर्मणोः कृति (अ. २.३.६५). Sh. Das says this blocking is optional in case of गौणकर्म (गौणकर्मणि वेष्यते, वा. 2.3.65 cited by पण्डित ईश्वरचन्द्र in his commentary on अष्टाध्यायी, Volume I, p. 215, footnote 1) and hence one can have द्वितीया. But गौणकर्म exists for द्विकर्मक roots like नी (e.g. नेता अश्वस्य स्रुघ्नस्य/नेता अश्वस्य स्रुघ्नम्), and भिद् is not द्विकर्मक. It is not listed in दुह्याच्पचिदण्ड्रुधिप्रच्छिचिब्रूशासुजिमथ्मुषाम्। कर्मयुक्स्यादकथितं तथा स्यान्नीहृकृष्वहाम्॥, nor is it synonymous with any listed root (अर्थनिबन्धनेयं सञ्ज्ञा, वै.सि.कौ. ५३९). So the problem remains. When द्वितीया is not produced, द्वितीया तत्पुरुष is not possible.
   
3. As Dr. Bhat, Dr. Korada, and I propose, is it a षष्ठी तत्पुरुष by षष्ठी(अ. २.२.८) or कृद्योगा च षष्ठी समस्यते (वा. २.२.८), with the laukika vigraha सुरकुञ्जरस्य/सुरकुञ्जराणां भेदनः and the alaukika vigraha सुरकुञ्जर ङस् भेदन सुँ? This vigraha is backed by rules. सुरकुञ्जरस्य/सुरकुञ्जराणां भेदनः has सम्बन्धषष्ठी by षष्ठी शेषे (पा॰सू॰~२.३.५०) or कृद्योगा षष्ठी by कर्तृकर्मणोः कृति (अ. २.३.६५). The समास then takes place by षष्ठी(अ. २.२.८) or कृद्योगा च षष्ठी समस्यते (वा. २.२.८).
   

१)     Another clarification I would like to have from Sh. Das is the definition of karma-vibhakti-artha and how it is different from karmani. 

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Ganesha Pancharatnam attributed to Shankaracharya, there is an expression: 'विनाशितेभदैत्यकम्’ - Ganesha is the one who killed an āsuraic elephant.  From the discussion so far, the meaning of the the expression 'kunjarasura-bhanjana' has not been decided.  I have a feeling that it is 'kunjarāsura-bhanjana'.  If the deergha is admitted to have been somewhere, down the line, has been missed and the expression 'kunjarasura-bhanjana' has come into place.  Maybe scholars can give a thought to this possibility.

warm regards

subrahmanian.v   

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

~~ shri-shri-radha-damodaraya namah ~~

found this in a Purana index:

कुञ्जर - गणेश २.१४.१८ ( महोत्कट गणेश द्वारा मदोन्मत्त कुञ्जर का वध )


It points to Ganesh Purana, Uttara-khanda.
--------------------

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 11:35:49 AM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

Shankarji,

 

I have no idea.

 

kunjarabhanjana has been explained as 'killer of gajasura'

 

Did kunjarashirabhanjana turn into kunjarasurabhanjana during manuscript copy makings at some stage? is one possibility.

 

But surakunjarabhedana comes in the way of such interpretation.

 

Even if there were to be a sura called kunjara, surakunjarabhedana  can not mean killing that sura. 

 

There probably is some puranic story. But I do not know that.

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, 'shankara' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Paturiji,

Could you please explain the meaning of kunjarasurabhanjana? Is there any Puranic story behind this?

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Meaning of सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः

In Ganesha Ashtottara shata namavali, one of the namas is

 

 'kunjarasurabhanjana'

 

In one of the kirtanas by Sri Muttuswamy Dikshitar, Ganesha is addressed as

 

kunjara bhanjana

 

Elsewhere , he is called matta sura bhanjana

 

Comparing 'surakunjarabhedana' and 'kunjarasurabhanjana', we can see that there is an exchange of positions of the words sura and kunjara between the two.

 

>A Marathi commentary at श्रीगणेशसहस्त्रनाम - श्लोक १११ ते १२० explains that when propitiated by the asuras, Ganesa crushes the elephants of the gods

Elephants of gods makes surakunjara shashthi tatpurusha samasa. Exchange of positions of the words is not possible in shashthi tatpurusha samasa.

 

So the Marathi commentary's interpretation is not tenable.

 

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:30 PM, 'shankara' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Pranams to all,

643rd name in Ganesa Sahasranama is सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः. Bhaskararaya explains it as follows - दानवैरर्चितश्चेत्त्वं सुरकुञ्जरभेदनः। A Marathi commentary at श्रीगणेशसहस्त्रनाम - श्लोक १११ ते १२० explains that when propitiated by the asuras, Ganesa crushes the elephants of the gods. I am a bit confused by this explanation.

Gods are usually described as protecting the Suras, not the Asuras. Is there any story in any Puranas that describes Ganesa helping the Asuras? I request scholars to help me understand this name of Ganesa.

 

regards
shankara

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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 post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Simply "the meaning of the the expression 'kunjarasura-bhanjana' has not been decided" so far, because it is not subject of this topic.  If you want any suggestions, t can be done with a fresh thread instead of dragging already prolonged thread further further.

Anyhow thanks for your suggestions.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

As Dr. Bhat has Suggested we can close this thread as of now with a conclusion That "the meaning of the the expression 'kunjarasura-bhanjana' has not been decided"

The grammatical gymnastics can be also further discussed taking it to another thread

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Simply "the meaning of the the expression 'kunjarasura-bhanjana' has not been decided" so far, because it is not subject of this topic.  If you want any suggestions, t can be done with a fresh thread instead of dragging already prolonged thread further further.

Anyhow thanks for your suggestions.

--