Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Purnimanta months in Mahabharata

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Misraji,

 

So the grammatical reasoning with Paninian Sutras does seem to support the
interpretation of Dr. Bhattacharjya. The time from middle of कृष्ण पक्ष to
middle of शुक्ल पक्ष is when the moon is bright with more than seven
digits, whether it is waning or waxing. Whether Bhishma is saying "the पक्ष
is becoming capable, it will now be bright" (as per 3-3-10) or if he is
saying "the पक्ष is capable of becoming bright" (from 3-4-65), the
conclusion is that the पक्ष is currently the कृष्णपक्ष and the moon is
about to shine bright soon. If the पक्ष is त्रिभागशेष (त्रिभागशेषः taken in
second वाक्य), then it will start shining bright in three days time, and if
the month is त्रिभागशेष (त्रिभागशेषः taken in first वाक्य) then the moon is
now capable of shining bright.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that as per the above grammatical reasoning, the time period should actually be from the middle of शुक्ल पक्ष to the middle of कृष्ण पक्ष, as conventionally understood, not the other way round. Only so will the moon be bright with more than seven digits, whether waxing or waning, because a full moon will occur at the half way point between the शुक्ल पक्ष अष्टमी and the कृष्ण पक्ष अष्टमी. If the पक्ष is currently कृष्ण, then instead of shining bright soon, the moon will be less than eight digits visible through the upcoming fortnight, whether waxing or waning, because it will actually be a new moon in a week's time.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sunilji,

 

It is not my wish to enhance the scope of this discussion thread into other issues and debate what constitutes adhikAra and who has it or what constitutes the extent of the gItA. I am merely pointing out that describing the epic as the fifth veda and then appealing to the mImAmsA rule about the authority of Sruti overruling that of smRti is not needed to add strength to any of the views presented in the immediate context here. And I hold that, given the traditional stance on adhikAra and adhikArin with respect to learning the veda, clubbing the bhArata under Sruti would do a disservice to a vast number of people amongst us. (This view about disservice is my personal opinion, of course.)

 

That said, the reference to itihAsa-purANa in the chAndogya and bRhadAraNyaka texts, as per many traditional commentators, is not to the mahAbhArata but to portions within the extant veda texts themselves. In any case, the mahAbhArata recounts incidents at the transition from dvApara to kali yugas, whereas the veda was already available even before, in the tretA yuga, in the time of SrIrAma and in the kRtayuga before then. That in itself should tell us why the epic is smRti par excellence, but still not Sruti.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> Mar 17 10:32AM -0700  

Dear Vidyashankarji,
 
You have raised a very interesting point. I shall submit for the
consideration of you and the other esteemed scholars of this august forum,
the following few points which need to be noticed, but for whatever reason
these are usually ignored.
 
1)
The Status of fifth Veda to the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the puranais
given by Shruti itself. You will see that in the Chandogya upanishad and
the Brihadaranyaka upanishad. In the Adi parva also the exalted status of
Mahabharata as equal to Veda, has been emphasized. No smriti enjoys that
status.
2)
Added to this, one should consider the simple reason that before the
splitting of the Vedas, towards the end of the Dwapara yuga, the Vedas were
one and was known as the "Yajur Veda" and the Vayu Purana testifies this
fact..
3)
Further to this one should also consider that the "adhikara" is due to the
intellectual staus of the texts concerned. The Vedas are beyond the reach
of the lay-persons, simply because it can be read only by one who has been
initiated into these studies and one has to go through the study of the
six Vedangas first in order to understand the Vedas. Having been
initiated, even Satyakama had access to the Veda. Please also consider the
fact that the Jyotisha is a very important Vedanga and Jyyotisha means
both astronomy and astrology. The Mahabharata has plenty of Jyotisha in it.
4)
That the Mahabharata turned out to be a a text, not accessible for
everybody, has been clarified by none other than Vedavyasa himself.
According to the Padma purana, Vedavyasa was very sad after composing the
Mahabharata, for which he toiled day and night for three years. That is
because though his initial aim was to compose the Mahabharata for the
lay-persons, it turned out to be difficult for the lay-persons. Then Narada
advised Vedavyasa to compose another text (the Bhagavatam), which would be
for the lay-persons. Bhagavatam was meant for the lay-man and it is really
so. It is another matter that Shridahara Swami had to write a commentary on
the Bhagavatam, at the behest of his guru. It is a moot point whether
Shridhata Swami himself thought of it as essential.
5)
As regards the Bhagavad Gita Adi Sankaracharya himself said that several
scholsrs attempted, in the times before him, to write commentary on it and
none succeeded in doing that due to the seemingly contradictory verses in
it. That shows how difficult the text of the Bhagavad Gita is.
 
The Mahabharata says in the Gitamana verse, that there were 745 verses in
the Bhagavagd Gita, but the presently available version has only 700
verses. Unfortunately BORI's critical edition of the Mahabharata has set
aside this Gitamana verse as the editors in their wisdom thought this verse
to be an interpolated one However Dr. Sukhtankar, in the last few days
before his death gave a serial lecture in the Asiatic Society, Bombay
(Mumbai), where he himself quoted a number of verses, which were set aside
in the BORI critical edition. After the death of Dr. Sukhtankar, the
Asiatic Society published these lectures and the editor pointed out this
anomaly and regretted in the editorial at this anomaly as Dr. Sukhtankar
seemed to have reversed the action of the editors of of the Critical
edition even though Dr.Sukhtankara himself the chief editor.
 
The texts like Sarvatobhadra and Gitarthasangraha, composed about a
millennium ago, quoted verses from the Bhagavad Gita, which are not there
in the present version of the Bhagavad Gita. In the past, several scholars
tried to recover the rare verses of the Bhagavad Gita but none succeeded in
finding the original Bhagavad Gita with the 745 verses, conforming to the
Gitamana verse of the Mahabharata. It took me close to three decades of
work to get the original Bhagavad Gita of the 745 Verses. I requested a few
of the Indian scholars of Indian origin, both in India and abroad, to have
a look at my work but they refused. Then I sent that to a reputed western
scholar who wrote books on Indian texts and he sent me an excellent review
and encouraged me to publish the work. Lord Krishna willing, it would be
published soon.
 
Regards.
Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji,

Agreed that the Mahabharata was composed by Vedavyasa in the very beginning of the Kaliyuga, i.e., immediately after the ascension of Lord Krishna, yet its status comes from its contents and not from the time of the composition. It has been called equal to Veda by none other than Vedavyasa himself just the way Ramayana has been given a status equal to Veda by Valmiki himself. Not giving Mahabharata, a status equal to Veda, means to me as saying that Vedavyasa was wrong in his judgement.

Further, Nowhere it is said that all the text of the Vedas were composed at one time nor only upto such and such time and that any composition after such and such time t would not enjoy the Vedic status. There is vast difference in etymological meanings of the words "Veda" and Smriti". To me the Mahabharata and Ramayana fit more into the Veda than to the Smriti..This to me, tilts the balance in favour of the status of the Mahabharata, when weighed against the staus of the Smritis.

Regards,
Sunil KB

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji,

While Nityanandaji will reply to you, kindly permit to add a few words here. When When Bhishma said that "tribhagashesha" (i.e., tribhaga-krita pakshasya-shesha-bhaga) was remaining for it to become Shuklapaksha, it surely means that he (Bhishma) was making this statement during the "tribhagamadhya", i.e., during the middle part of the three divisions of that Krishna paksha.

Regards,
Sunil KB

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:03:16 PM UTC+8, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

Dear Misraji,

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that as per the above grammatical reasoning, the time period should actually be from the middle of शुक्ल पक्ष to the middle of कृष्ण पक्ष, as conventionally understood, not the other way round. Only so will the moon be bright with more than seven digits, whether waxing or waning, because a full moon will occur at the half way point between the शुक्ल पक्ष अष्टमी and the कृष्ण पक्ष अष्टमी. If the पक्ष is currently कृष्ण, then instead of shining bright soon, the moon will be less than eight digits visible through the upcoming fortnight, whether waxing or waning, because it will actually be a new moon in a week's time.

Sorry for mixing up the Shukla and Krishna halves in the above paragraph, please ignore the same. I was also missing the context which I now have after some more reading. Here are two fresh insights.

Firstly, त्रिभाग means both one-third and three-fourths, as listed in several lexicons. This is also clear from the commentary by Mallinatha on Kumarasambhavam 5-57 (त्रिभागशेषासु निशासु च ..) which can be read under here. Therefore त्रिभागशेष can mean both one-third (of a month or fortnight) remains, as well as three-fourths (of a month or fortnight) remains.

Secondly, and more importantly, the commentary by Nilakantha on the verse 13-273-28 in अनुशासनपर्व (माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो) appears to be a spurious interpolation. It contradicts Nilakantha's own elaborate commentary on 6-17-2 (मघाविषयगः ...) in which he uses astronomical calculations based on several references from the epic and भारतसावित्री, interprets अष्टपञ्चाशतं (58) in 13-273-27 as अष्टपञ्चाशदूनं शतं (100 - 58 = 42) and concludes that verse माघोऽयं (13-273-28) was uttered by Bhisma on Magha Shukla Panchami. The commentary can be read under here (bottom of the page).

The commentaries on 6-17-2 and 13-273-28 are totally contradictory.

1. The commentary on the former says the date of Bhishma's death is Magha Shuka fifth,  that on the latter says it is Magha Shukla eighth
2. The commentary on the former interprets त्रिभाग as the third-part of the month, that on the latter latter interprets त्रिभाग as three-fourths of the month.
3. The commentary on the former implies a Purnimanta calendar (third part of month remains on Shukla fifth), that on the latter implies an Amanta calendar (three-fourth of month remains on Shukla eighth)

It is clear that one of the two is not from the pen of Nilakantha. Rama Prasada in his article The Date of the Bhagavad Gita in volume 29 of The Theosophist discusses all this and more in quite detail and rejects the commentary on 13-273-28 as spurious. You may read it from here.

With these new insights, we have another proposed date for Bhishma's death (Magha Shukla fifth), and the verse माघोऽयं ... verse as interpreted by Nilakantha in his commentary on मघाविषयगः ... implies a Purnimanta panchanga, so that from Pausha Krishna Ashtami (tenth day of the war when Bhishma fell as per Nilakantha) till Magha Shukla Panchami (day of death) we have forty two days.

As per Amanta calculation, there are only twelve days from Pausha Krishna Ashtami to Magha Shukla Panchami (7 of Pausha Krishna + 5 of Magha Shukla). As per Purnimanta calculation there are 42 (7 of Pausha Krishna + 15 of Pausha Shukla + 15 of Magha Krishna + 5 of Magha Shukla).

I would now leave it to Dr. Bhattacharjya and other experts of Jyotisha on the forum to comment on this as the computations by Nilakantha are beyond me.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Firstly, त्रिभाग means both one-third and three-fourths, as listed in several lexicons. This is also clear from the commentary by Mallinatha on Kumarasambhavam 5-57 (त्रिभागशेषासु निशासु च ..) which can be read under here. Therefore त्रिभागशेष can mean both one-third (of a month or fortnight) remains, as well as three-fourths (of a month or fortnight) remains.

The above is correct. Since one-third is got by the explanation either explanations:

त्रिभ्यो भागेभ्यः शेषः either 1/4 - the one fourth, than three fourth which wants त्रयो भागाः त्रिभागाः, तेभ्यः शेषः the fourth one.

The numeral compound with nominal stems is regulated by "दिक्संख्ये  संज्ञायाम्" as in सप्त ऋषयः etc.  which excepts other compounds with numerals as त्रयो ब्राह्मणाः - etc.

http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/sarvanisutrani/2.1.49.htm

So if one wants three parts, it will not be a द्विगु compound like सप्तर्षयः, unless it is specifically designated with the value required unanimously in lexicons or mathematical texts. This is the reason for the different interpretations of त्रिभाग in which भाग is equal to अंश as a noun. A discussion of fractional numbers in Sanskrit was held in this thread: 

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/ildDc361FbU/YD86XawtYjgJ​

Barely 6 parts or 4 parts or 3 parts do not convey any fractional value त्रयो भागाः even though compounded, unless taken as explained in the commentary of Mallinatha : तृतीयो भागः  - the third part, automatically 1/3 unless otherwise specified. In the context it is clear night has three yama-s and in the 3rd yama, is meant. This is the way of explanation approved by Paninian grammar. 

[Nityanand Misra]

Here are the two verses

अष्टपञ्चाशतं रात्र्यः शयानस्याद्य मे गताः।
शरेषु निशिताग्नेषु यथा वर्षशतं तथा।। 13-273-27 ।।
माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः पुण्यो युधिष्ठिर।
त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति।। 13-273-28 ।।

on which Nilakantha has commented under Bhishma Parva 6-17-2 (pages 176 and 177 of http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/8997.pdf) as follows

तथा 'अष्टपञ्चाशतं रात्र्यः शयानस्याद्य मे गताः' इति भीष्मवचनं तु 'माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तः .. त्रिभागमात्रः पक्षोऽयमि'तिवाक्यशेषानुसारात्। अशतं शतहीनं यथा स्यात्तथा अष्टपञ्च अष्टपञ्चाशद्रात्रयो (अष्टपञ्चाशतरात्रयो??) व्यतीता इति व्याख्येयम्। विलोमशोधनादष्टपञ्चाशदूनं शतं रात्रयो द्वाचत्वारिंशद्रात्रयो व्यतीता इत्यर्थः। तथा च पौषकृष्णाष्टमीतो माघशुक्लपञ्चम्यां तावती दिनसंख्या पूर्यते पक्षस्य च तृतीयो भागो गतो भवति। ततत्राप्येकतिथिक्षयात्पञ्चम्या द्विचत्वारिंशत्तमत्वं ज्ञेयम्। शेषो भवितुमर्हतीत्यत्र कार्यशेषो देहत्यागादिरेव शेषो नतु पक्षशेष इति व्याख्या ज्ञेया। तत्रायं निष्कर्षः। (Highlighted words imply a Purnimanta calender in opinion of commentator.)

The explanation of अष्टपञ्चाशतम् as 100 - 58 = 42 = अशतं शतहीनं यथा स्यात्तथा अष्टपञ्च अष्टपञ्चाशत् (अष्टपञ्चाशत??) looks to be a Samasa.
अशतम् = not a full hundred (M-W), citing the शतपथब्राह्मण. Is it अष्टपञ्चेभ्यः अशतम् = अष्टपञ्च + अशतम् = अष्टपञ्चाशतम्? Exploring which Sutras cover this kind of Samasa would be helpful.

Further, The अन्वय of 13-273-28 by in the above commentary seems to take भवितुमर्हति with neither मासः nor पक्षः but with शेषः as it says शेषो भवितुमर्हति interpreting it as शेषो देहत्यागादिर्भवितुमर्हति ("what is remaining, i.e. me leaving this body, deserves to happen [now]").  Also, त्रिभाग is read as त्रिभागमात्रः पक्षोऽयम् and explained as पक्षस्य च तृतीयो भागो गतो भवति, which means the commentator was familiar with three part division of the fortnight.

Why is भवितुमर्हति is taken with शेषः which is split from त्रिभाग? Is there an alternate reading of this verse (त्रिभागमात्रः पक्षोऽयं शेषो भवितुमर्हति?) on which he seems to have commented? Or do the first four syllables read as त्रिभागः शेषः (and not त्रिभागशेषः) so that त्रिभागः being taken with पक्षः and शेषः with भवितुमर्हति. Or is there some other explanation?

In any case, the अन्वय and explanation is not as simple as we thought earlier.

[Nityanand Misra]

The so-called deviations from Paninian grammar are many a time apparent deviations due to us not grasping Paninian concepts fully.

We may leave Nilakantha aside as you have suggested. You and other experts of Jyautisha are the best judges here as I know nothing in this field.

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 Mar, 2013, at 1:31 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mishraji,

I have a couple of queries on these brilliant scholarly analyses

Firstly, should we apply Paninian rules strictly for reading the verses of Mahabharata ? Sometime back I came across a paper from BORI, where two or three hundred deviations from Paninian grammar was shown. This not also shows the pre-paninian nature of the text, it also shows the genuineness of the pre-paninian antiquity of the Mahabharata text.

Secondly, should we have to agree with Nilakantha's assessment in toto ? It could be that Nilakantha was confused by the figure of 58 nights related to Bhishma's sleep with the arrow-wounded body, followed by his leaving the mortal frame as well as its relation with the Rohini Nakshatra. May be, if we leave Nilakantha alone we may be in a better position to solve the issue.

Regards,
Sunil

2013/3/19 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

If we observe the पञ्चाङम् ,  generally  works of  ज्योतिषम् cum धर्मशास्त्रम् are quoted in the case of any doubt .

The following material( from निर्णयसिन्धु  of कमल्श्करभट्ट may be useful in deciding the भारतश्लोकार्थ --

प्रथमः परिच्छेदः - त्रिकाण्डमण्डनः --

श्रौतस्मार्तक्रियास्सर्वाः कुर्याच्चान्द्रमसर्तुषु ।

तदभावे तु सौरर्तुष्विति ज्योतिर्विदां मतम् ॥

पक्षयुगजः चान्द्रो मासः  , स द्वेधा , शुक्लादिरमान्तः , कृष्णादिः पूर्णिमान्तश्चेति - तथा च त्रिकाण्डमण्डनः --

’चान्द्रो’पि शुक्लपक्षादिः कृष्णादिर्वेति च द्विधा’ -- इति उक्त्वा देशभेदेन तद्व्यवस्थामाह --

कृष्णपक्षादिकं मासं नाङ्गीकुर्वन्ति केचन ।

ये’पीच्छन्ति न तेषामपीष्टो विन्ध्यस्य दक्षिणे ॥ इति ।

- विन्ध्यस्य दक्षिणे कृष्णादिनिषेधात् उत्तरतो द्वयोरभ्यनुज्ञा गम्यते ।

तत्रापि शुक्लादिर्मुख्यः , कृष्णादिः गौणः  -- शास्रेषु चैत्रशुक्लप्रतिपद्येव  चान्द्रसंवत्सरारम्भोक्तेः  - तदुक्तं दीपिकायाम् - चान्द्रो’ब्दो मधुशुक्लगप्रतिपदारम्भ इति ।

माघमासनिर्णयः --

माघशुक्लाष्टमी भीष्माष्टमी - तदुक्तं हेमाद्रौ पाद्मे -

माघे मासि सिताष्टम्यां सतिलं भीष्मतर्पणम् ।

श्राद्धं च ये नराः कुर्युः ते स्युः सन्ततिभागिनः ॥ इति ।

भारते’पि --

शुक्लाष्टम्यां तु माघस्य दद्यात् भीष्माय यो जलम् ।

संवत्सरकृतं पापं तत्क्ष्णादेव नश्यति ॥ इति ।

धवळनिबन्धे स्मृतिः --

अष्टम्यां तु सिते पक्षे भीष्माय तु तिलोदकम् ।

अन्नं च  विधिवद्दद्युः सर्वे वर्णाआ द्विजातयः ॥  

सर्ववर्णोक्तेः द्विजातय इति संबोधनम् ।

तर्पणमन्त्रः तत्रैव --

भीष्मश्शान्तनवो वीरस्सत्यवादी जितेन्द्रियः ।

आभिरद्भिरवाप्नोति  पुत्रपौत्रोचितां क्रियाम् ॥

वैयाघ्रपद्मगोत्राय सांकृत्यप्रवराय च ।

अपुत्राय ददाम्येत्ज्जलं भीष्माय वर्मिणे ॥

वसूनामवताराय शन्तनोरात्मजाय च ।

अर्घ्यं ददामि भीष्माय आबालब्र्ह्मचारिणे ॥ इति ।

एतत् जीवत्पितृकस्यापि भवति  ....

सितः = शुक्लः ; असितः = कृष्णः

By and large , we can decide that - it is अमान्तपक्ष , which is मुख्य and for त्रिभागशेष , the विग्रह offered , i.e. त्रयः भागाः शिष्यन्ते - is in line with धर्मशास्त्रम् , ज्योतिश्शास्त्रम् and व्याकाणशास्त्रम् ।

2013/3/20 Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com>

Clarity on this issue is provided by the well-known धर्मशास्त्र work,  निर्णयसिन्धु, which has followed the pUrNimAnta system in the discussion of observances and festivals.
First, it cites the monumental work on धर्मशास्त्र called the चतुर्वर्गचिन्तामणि (of हेमाद्रि)  and the Padma purANa:
माघे मासि सिताष्टम्यां सतिलं भीष्मतर्पणम्।
श्राद्धं च ये नराः कुर्युस्ते स्युः सन्ततिभागिनः॥
Further, a verse from the mahAbhArata itself is cited:
शुक्लष्टम्यां तु माघस्य दद्याद् भीष्माय यो जलम्।
संवत्सरकृतं पापं तत्क्षणादेव नश्यति॥

I am unable to locate this shloka in the electronic versions of the mahAbhArata accessible to me. It is likely that it was available at the time of KamalAkara BhaTTa, the author of निर्णयसिन्धु.

Reading the verses above with 13.273.28 (the माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः पुण्यो युधिष्ठिर। त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति।। shloka quoted earlier in the anushAsana parva), we get the conclusion:

1. Bhishma gave up his body on माघ-शुक्ल-अष्टमी.

2. Regarding the presence of the word त्रिभागशेषः in 13.273.28, it necessarily follows that this word has to mean "three-fourths of the month remain". It cannot mean 3/4ths of the pakSha remain,
since of that would make the tithi not an aShTamI but a chaturthi (1/4 of a pakSha means 3.75 tithis = chaturthi). The word त्रिभागशेषः cannot also mean "1/3rd of the month remains", since that
would make the tithi a shukla-panchamI (and imply a pUrNimAnta system). So, taking त्रिभागशेषः as applicable to mAsa, it means on shukla-aShTamI, 1/4 (7.5 tithis) of the month has passed and 3/4ths remain,
i.e. 22.5 tithis remain. This means this shukla aShTamI will be followed by another part of 7.5 tithis, completing the shukla pakSha at the full-moon. Another 2 parts of 7.5 tithis will complete the krishna pakSha of this mAgha
month, ending at the new-moon. In other words, the shukla pakSha will be followed by a krishna pakSha.

From points 1 and 2 above, it follows that the system being followed as per the shloka (13.273.28) of the mahAbhArata was the amAnta system, where the bright fortnight is followed by a dark fortnight.

The commentary on 6.17.2 is rather confusing because another source is referred to ( with the word bhArata-sAvitryAm). However, from this work, the start of the mahAbhArta war as mArgashIrSha shukla-trayodashI/chaturdashI is accepted, but
the same work's statement that Bhishma died on mAgha-krishna(shukla)-aShTamI is not accepted. The sandhi in माघमासेऽसिताष्टमी is tricky. If the sandhi does not exist, it could mean सिताष्टमी, ie.e shukla-aShTamI

Anand

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Nilesh Oak]

Shri H N Bhat,

Thank you for the detailed explanation provided by you (This is old thread from March 2013).

So if I understand correctly, the specific Mahabharata (MBH) reference may refer to

first part (after diving it in 4 parts of the lunar month...we will leave reference to specific lunar month of Magha..aside, for now) which would mean say first 1 to 8 days of the lunar month,

or third part (after dividing it in 4 parts) which would days 16 through 23 of the lunar month

And in Amanta system - that would refer to first 7 seven days of Shukla Paksha (say.. Pratipada through saptami/ashtami) or first 7 days of Krishna Paksha (again.. Pratipada through Saptamai/ashtami).

Am I interpreting it correct?

-------------

MM and Bharat Ratna P V Kane has interpreted the above verse as referring to either Magha Shudda 8, or Magha Shudda 4 or Magha Krishna 4.  (History of Dharmashastra - Vol 3 (Not 100% certain about volume number).. in the section 'Kalivarjya')

Appreciate your help,

Nilesh Oak