About the long vowel (ॡ) and its use in the Mantra Mahodadhi

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Dear Vidvans,

Please see attached the relevant section taken from the Mantra Mahodadhi translated by Shri Ram Kumar Rai.

As far as I understand the long form of the vowel ॡ does not exist as per many Sanskrit greammarians.

How is it that this akshara finds its place in the Mantra Mahodadhi but also is used in the text as a part of pitha puja etc.

How can a nonexistent akshara be used?

Kindly clarify this doubt of mine.

Many thanks,

Venkat

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Veeraraghavan,

     You have raised an interesting issue.  As far as I am aware, it is not that ॡ is phonetically not possible.  It just does not occur in any normal Sanskrit vocabulary.  However, as you point out, it is used in Mantra/Tantra texts.  This is something like Pāṇini's use of many sounds in his metalanguage that does not correspond to the normal use of Sanskrit.  If I remember correctly, some Buddhist Tantra texts offer bījamantras that have both an anusvāra and a visarga, something that is not found in normal Sanskrit usage.  Here is an example written in the Siddham script:

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Here is one more example of a syllable having both an anusvāra and a visarga:

My point is simply that sounds, syllables and words that do not occur in normal Sanskrit usage can be found in technical language of Pāṇini and in Tantric syllables etc.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[S. L. Abhyankar]

If we go by ऊकालोऽझ्रस्वदीर्घप्लुतः (1-2-27) अचश्च (1-2-28) one cannot deny दीर्घत्वम् for लॄ. "Google input tool" provides typing it as shown. I can also type it using "Sandbox" of Wikipedia, though the वर्ण-s provided there do not have it.

 Then I tried to listen to my own pronunciation of लॄ 

What I notice is that attempts to pronounce लॄ end up in pronunciation of (ल्+ॠ). 

That could be the logic to say that लॄ does not exist. 

Writing tools may provide writing. But if it cannot be pronounced, it does not exist. 

--

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

Precisely !  <  Prof. Deshpande :   My point is simply that sounds, syllables and words that do not occur in normal Sanskrit usage can be found in technical language of Pāṇini and in Tantric syllables etc.> I agree with you.

 

'Post colonial academic Sanskrit studies has failed to explore the following (Traditional, practical, even surviving) aspects of Samskruth studies in the Samskruth language applications  in religion-rituals  ! The most important of this is the ' uccharana': pronunciation fundamentals of the language.  Otherwise called as ' shikshaa' base and basics' of Vyakarana'. Not to mention of the greater network of ' Varna-Shaastra (Shikshaa)- Flow (Chandas)- Word Processing (vyakarana)-   Semantics and Meaning unfolding (Nirukta)  - Applications by context ( Jyotisha and Kalpa);  Rules of Logical evaluation and validation through Vakya and Pramana shastras. In short the ' Shadanga- Vednaga Paddhati of Samskruth studies'.

 

The triple whammy in having deviated from traditional norm, accepting  and living with a shortened ' Sanskrit Studies Model' come from the following aspects:  (Note: wham·my : (noun, informal)-an event with a powerful and unpleasant effect; a blow;an evil or unlucky influence.). I do acknowledge the good that the colonial studies have brought in creating the awareness of Sanskrit works, the manuscripts preserved and the like, which normally would not have been done in Indian context.  Due credit and appreciation must be given to western scholars and scholars of orient.

 

(i) Adaption of 'Romanization (IPA notations ) oriented Script and alien phonetics loaded on Brahmi Varnamaalaa has shifted the core model of Paninian Samskruth studies to be on par with English education. This is the root of several challenges: Both in classical studies of current period and computational Sanskrit linguistics ( which works to program Devanagari Speech and Sentence analysis using English likeness and roman alphabet character set and english grammar logic'.  Dr.Narayan Joshi, Achyut Karve have made several observations on this point  in 'Shivasutra' related discussions, Varna-Vada and the like).

 

(ii) The distinction that existed between 'Samskrutham (vedic and laukika)  - Prakrutham- Desi- Apabhramsha- Mleccha' model of Indian Linguistics died out.

 

(iii) The new models of Sanskrit-english Dictionaries and ' Translations colored with ' theology- history' motives created enough resentment and negative opinion in Bharath , for the people of Bharath on their native heritage ! ( the goal that was expected from Macaulay education model).  The worst hit in this game is 'Sanskrit Language studies'.   

 

This scenario appears like studying English literature which uses  26 alphabets for word construction  with a reduced arbitrary symbols and set of 10 alphabets,  using the logic-like of ' alphabets numbers can be progressively increased as the learning progresses'  and demand simplification of language studies with a  'reduced alphabets set'. ! Does it ? Contra such study introduces unwarranted distortions and  distractions in what the original text-tradition-practice really meant for !   The ' VINIYOGA' ( = Utility- Application -Benefit part of Samskruth studies ,  repeatedly stressed in many posts by Dr. Yadu, on this forum)  has suffered irreversibly.

 

There is no point in playing a blame-shifting game.

 

Who is ready to be willing partners and  supporters , in this venture ?  Can we team and work together to  focus our energies on regaining the understanding of < sounds, syllables and words that do  occur in normal Sanskrit usage and derivatives of  technical language of Pāṇini >   <  and  used  in Tantric syllables etc >  ?? 

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

Is this discussion about the vowel ऌ and its longer (dīrgha) counterpart ॡ or about the consonant + vowel combination लृ and its dīrgha counterpart लॄ ?  The first two are counted among vowels and also there is no /r/ sound in their pronunciation.  The last two are consonant + vowel combinations (ल् + ऋ  and  ल् + ॠ ) with an /r/ sound in their pronunciation.

The short ऌ is present in the word कॢप्त that conveys a sense of limitedness.  The tatsama word is used in Malayalam to mean something limited. I don’t know any word in Sanskrit with the long vowel ॡ.  Also, I don’t know any Sanskrit word with either लृ or लॄ.

Regards,

Radhakrishna Warrier

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:30 PM

To: Bharatiya Vidvat parishad
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About the long vowel (ॡ) and its use in the Mantra Mahodadhi

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Patanjali in the Paspashahnika of his Mahabhashya mentions the word लृतुकायन.I faintly remember that he says that this word is not in use.

The scholars are requested to enlighten on this and oblige.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

[shankara]

Namaste,

Ekaksharakosas provide a number of meanings of ॡ.

From Ekakshara-nama-mala of Saubhari from Ekakshara-nama-kosa-sangraha.

ॡर्महात्मा सुरो बालो भूपः स्तोमः कथानकः।
मूर्खः शिश्नो गुदः कक्षा केशः पापरतो नरः॥

https://archive.org/details/EkaAksaraNamKosaSangrahaEd.RamanikaVijayaUniversityOfRajasthan/page/n62

regards
shankara

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Such a question was raked up and answered by Patanjali under एओङ् ---

ननु च भोः छन्दोगानां सात्यमुग्रिराणायणीयाः अर्धम् ओकारम् अर्धम् ओकारं च अधीयते - सुजाते एश्व सूनृते , अध्वर्यो ओद्रुभिः सुतम् , शुक्रं ते एन्यत् , यजतं ते एन्यत् - इति ।

पार्षदकृतिरेषा तत्रभवताम् । नैव हि लोके नान्यस्मिन् वेदे अर्ध एकारः अर्ध ओकारः अस्ति ।

कैयटः --

पार्षदकृतिरिति । गीतिवशात् तथा उच्चारणमित्यर्थः । 

 (refer to गान्धर्ववेद - सङ्गीतरत्नाकर )

नागेशः --

शास्त्रविशेषाध्यायिनां समवायः - परिषत् , पर्षद्वा । तत्र भवा कृतिरित्यर्थः ।

The term तत्रभवताम् suggests that one has to respect the usage.

So in सङ्गीतम् there may be a different  form of a वर्ण - and this is an उपलक्षणम् to मन्त्रशास्त्रम् etc  also .

Panini rules -  यज्ञकर्मण्यजपन्यूङ्खसामसु  (एकश्रुतिः) 1-2-34 --

In यज्ञकर्म all the three वेदाः - ऋग्वेदः , यजुर्वेदः , अथर्ववेदः  are to be recited in एकश्रुति ( without the difference of उदात्त , अनुदात्त , स्वरित ) but सामवेद should be recited / rendered as it is . So सामगानम् (refer to 7 and 9 अध्याय-s of पूर्वमीमांसा ) has got a special place .

एकश्रुतिः स्वरसर्वनाम , यथा नपुंसकं लिङ्गसर्वनाम - says Patanjali under -

दाण्डिनायनहास्तिनायनाथर्वणिकजैह्माशिनेयवासिनायनिभ्रौणहत्यधैवत्यसारवै-क्ष्वाकमैत्रेयहिरण्मयानि (6-4-174).

धन्यो॑स्मि

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 

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Thank you all for your inputs.

Dear Shri Madhav ji-

(Although Veeraraghavan is in the place of my surname, it is actually my dad's name and not a family name like say Sharma/ Gokhale... My name is Venkat.. :-)..not having any family names I added my dad's name as the last name.) 

Thank you for giving the examples of Tibetan mantras.

My issue with ॡ is not that it is not pronounceable but that many books on grammar explicitly state that there is no long version of the  ऌ vowel. Hence the books suggest that in sandhi ऌ+ऌ=ऌ unlike say ऋ + ऋ = ॠ where 2 short vowels combine to form a long vowel.

Although the examples of anusvara followed by visarga that you mention seem irregular (from my very limited knowledge of Sanskrit mantric usage) even they are not unpronounceable...irregular usage may be but not unpronounceable at all.

I was therefore confused to see the longer version of that vowel used in the pronunciation guide and also applied as part of the pitha nyasa etc.

"It just does not occur in any normal Sanskrit vocabulary.  However, as you point out, it is used in Mantra/Tantra texts."

Sir: My limited understanding is that the syllabary was developed to describe the world in terms of nama/rupa which is what Tantra seeks to do as well in terms of the nyasas. My confusion stems from the fact that an apparently nonexistent vowel was used, which is not unlike a non existent element's symbol being used in a chemical equaltion. If there are no known words that use the long vowel, why have it at all?

The short vowel although rare is still used as in the chamakam: k(li)ptanchame..

Shri Abhyankar ji has mentioned that pronouncing the li sound lru    

"Then I tried to listen to my own pronunciation of लॄ 

What I notice is that attempts to pronounce लॄ end up in pronunciation of (ल्+ॠ). 

That could be the logic to say that लॄ does not exist. 

Writing tools may provide writing. But if it cannot be pronounced, it does not exist."

  Shri Abhyankar ji--> I would think the   लॄ sounds like an elongated (luu) much alike   ॠ (ruu).

lruu  (ल्+ॠ) does not make sense since a vowel cannot be broken down into a Consonant Vowel pairing.

This however highlights another controversy surrounding the short vowel  ऌ  and its pronunciation. Opinion is divided between lu /li and lru/lri.

Based on many chantings of the chamakam in south India lu/li seems to be winning this controversy.

Shri BVK Sastryji:

"Who is ready to be willing partners and  supporters , in this venture ?  Can we team and work together to  focus our energies on regaining the understanding of < sounds, syllables and words that do  occur in normal Sanskrit usage and derivatives of  technical language of Pāṇini >"

 

-->> How do you suggest this be achieved? Isn't there an existing model of learning siksha at a veda patashala that addresses precisely this issue? 

Thank you all!

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/hUU4xB_B9JY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Venkat Ji,

     While I cannot explain why the Tantra works use a long ॡ, it is clear that it does not occur in any normal usage of Sanskrit.  On the Śivasūtra ऋऌक्, Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya says that much clearly while questioning the necessity of including  ऌ in this Sūtra: अस्य हि ऌकारस्य अल्पीयांश्चैव प्रयोगविषयो यश्चापि प्रयोगविषय: सोऽपि कॢपिस्थस्य कॢपेश्च लत्वमसिद्धम् ... नार्थ ऌकारोपदेशेन.  Through the long argument that follows, he mentions possible names like ऌतक taken on by यदृच्छा, or someone's name given as ऋतक being mispronounced as ऌतक through incapacity (अशक्ति) and someone then quoting this mispronunciation (अशक्तिजानुकरण), or to derive a pluta in a form like कॢ३प्तशिख.  After a long back and forth argument over these issues, Patañjali finally rejects the necessity of including ऌ in this Śivasūtra: ऌकारोपदेश: ... प्रत्याख्यायते.  In this long discussion, Patañjali does not bring in the Tantric usage of long ॡ, which probably developed long after Patañjali, nor does he imagine the possibility of a real life sandhi of ऌ+ऌ>ॡ, since no real Sanskrit word ends in or begins with ऌ.  So the position of the grammarians is relatively clear, but the usage in Tantras that developed later transcends the limits assumed by the grammarians, and as I have indicated, produce even combinations of anusvāra and visarga. While Patañjali notes that no real word begins with ऌ, in his technical usage, one will find words like ऌकार, and occasions for Sandhi in expressions like नार्थ ऌकारोपदेशेन. Such technical usages then become examples of sandhis in later works like Siddhāntakaumudī where one can find मम+ऌकार: तव+ऌकार:.  While Patañjali rejects the need to include ऌ in the Śivasūtra, his own technical usage like हि+ऌकारस्य allowed later grammarians to suggest the need for its inclusion.  How would one apply rules like इको यणचि without the inclusion of ऌ in the Śivasūtra.  Thus, inclusion of the technical usage of the grammarians within the scope of the object language to be described by the grammarians required some further adjustments.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[Madhav Deshpande]

To add a footnote to my previous comment, the needs of the technical language exceed the needs of the normal usage of Sanskrit, and the sandhis involving ऌ that would not occur in the normal usage of Sanskrit do occur even in Pāṇini's own sūtras.  A good example of this is: ३।१।५५: पुषादिद्युताद्यॢदित: परस्मैपदेषु, where one finds the sandhi द्युतादि+ऌदित:.  

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Dear Shri Madhav ji:

Thank you very much for explaining the grammatical side to a layman such as myself.

Kind Regards,

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

On bold part below, i am also looking for people- instituitions beyond book quotes. If you come across please do let me know. Death of Shikshaa shaastra based Samskruth learning is the suspected killer in this case. This needs to be revisited.

Regards

BVK Sastry 

On < Shri BVK Sastryji:

"Who is ready to be willing partners and  supporters , in this venture ?  Can we team and work together to  focus our energies on regaining the understanding of < sounds, syllables and words that do  occur in normal Sanskrit usage and derivatives of  technical language of Pāṇini >"

 

-->> How do you suggest this be achieved? Isn't there an existing model of learning siksha at a veda patashala that addresses precisely this issue? 

Thank you all!

 

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Dear Shri BVK Sastryji,

I have seen a fair few veda gurukulas who place accent on sikshaa before commencing the actual adhyayana.

This is not just an issue of sikshaa but an issue of maintaining the entire corpus of vedic shishtacharaa that many vidvans like Shri Koradaji talk about regularly. "Modernising" Vedic education with regard to making it "palatable" / "socially acceptable" is worthless without maintaining the original context of this education.

In most evolutionary systems whether cell/human biology or the environment, "form" follows "function".

"function" is the entire corpus of individual action that exists within a certain external context. When both or even one change, form also adapts to the new "function" and it becomes impossible to replicate the standards found in the vedas/ itihasa-puranas.  

As an example: the tail in humans became the vestigial appendix (ever since humans stopped living on trees?). The "disappearance" of the semi-mythical "soma" can also be attributed to this loss in individual and local context. 

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

As I know, current known gurukuls give a focus on ' listen -repeat- memorize- repeat' ( shravana- punar uccharana- dharana- paaraayana) line of Shikshaa linked samskruth phonetics.

               This is useful, nay critical for the ' Vaidika Prayoga vidhi'- A profession and practice ;

What we are looking at  is ' learning shikshaa as foundation of Veda- bhashaa / Deva bhashaa' and leaading to Vedanga Vyakarana- Nirukti / Bhashaa shaastra Paanditya and 'Veda- Rakshaa'.

               This is Vedic Academics needed for 'Vaidka Jijnyaasaa - Samshodhanaa - Shaastra jnana'. An exercise of Scholarship  - Shaastrajna -  building::  

 

The society expects the 'shaastrajna' work from a 'purohita-profesional'- a training which is not imparted to him/her as a part of pedagogy.

 

Is it a wrong question for a wrong professional ? Or failure to groom the community to be sensitive to the specific areas of 'Shaastra- Bhashaa' ?  This is where traditional and oriental / western/ colonial views differ.

 

What plans are there for connecting these issues in today's society.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

Error! Filename not specified.

--

[Bijoy Misra]

The hypothesis we work with is that all Paninian are parts of human speech and

are scientific.  Their manifestation in voice is local and is geography-related.

However I do not know if the Panini set is a complete map of human speech

to codify independent syllables.  Searching the origin of the set through subject

modeling and tracking the pitch for each syllable are parts of our current work. 

BM