Source of this shloka

[Niranjan Ni]

Dear List Members:

I have come across the following shloka in various texts but have no clue as to the original source.

Can anyone help?

Karyeshu dasi; Karaneshu mantri; 
rupecha lakshmi; kshamaya dharitri; 
bhojyeshu mata; shayaneshu rambha; 
shat karmayukta kuladharmapatni

I read somewhere that this is Sri Rama describing Sita to Lakshmana, but I have not seen this anywhere in Valmiki Ramayana.

Thanks,

Niranjan

[Niranjan Ni]

Does anyone have an idea about the verse below please?

I would appreciate any pointers you can give.

Thanks

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 6:20:5ive.

[Jsr Prasad]

Does anyone have an idea about the verse below please?

 

It might be in kāmandaka-nītisāra. But what we need is to tailor its tone and tenor suitable for contemporary times.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

कार्येषु दासी करणेषु मन्त्री ---- from पञ्चतन्त्रम् ।

कार्येषु योगी करणेषु दक्षः रूपे च कृष्णः क्षमया तु रामः ।

भोज्येषु तृप्तः सखदुःखमित्रम् षट्कर्मयुक्तः खलु धर्मनाथः ॥  कामन्दकनीतिशास्त्रम्

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 

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jsr Prasad]

Pranams to Prof. Korada sir, for providing a bonus sloka. Now there is a balance while referring to either of the slokas.

[shankara]

Namaste,

Another version of this subhashita is quoted by Hanuman Prasad Poddar in 'Radhamadhavachintan' - http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/श्रीराधा_माधव_चिन्तन_पृ._965

कार्येषु मन्त्री करणेषु दासी धर्मेषु पत्नी क्षमया च धात्री।
भोज्येषु माता शयनेषु रम्भा रंगे सखी लक्ष्मण सा प्रिया मे॥

He doesn't mention its source, though we can conclude that it is from some kavya based on Ramayana.

regards
shankara

--

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.

[Jsr Prasad]

This was quoted by a great Ramabhakta, Hanuman Prasad Poddar. Interesting reference Sri Shankara Ji!

[Harunaga Isaacson]

Another version of this subhashita is quoted by Hanuman Prasad Poddar in 'Radhamadhavachintan' - http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/श्रीराधा_माधव_चिन्तन_पृ._965

कार्येषु मन्त्री करणेषु दासी धर्मेषु पत्नी क्षमया च धात्री।
भोज्येषु माता शयनेषु रम्भा रंगे सखी लक्ष्मण सा प्रिया मे॥

For several more sources with some form of this verse/these two verses, and for further variant readings from those sources, see Mahāsubhāṣitasaṃgraha (if not otherwise available to you, https://archive.org/details/MahaasubhaasitasamgrahaVol1-8 ) 9770 and 9771.

 

[Niranjan Ni]

Thanks Sri JSR Prasadji. Sri Harunagaji and Sri Koradaji for your valuable inputs.

Sri JSR Prasadji: You said " tailor its tone and tenor suitable for contemporary times"

Sir: Will not doing that distort the text and be against satya? 

There is a conversation between Draupadi and Satyabhama in the Vana parva that many feminists would find offensive. Does that invalidate the opinions of Draupadi who is regarded as one of the panchakanyas and therefore placed very high in the Hindu pantheon.

If we are to take the "yad yad acharati sreshtah" lines of the BG seriously, we may have to stop pandering to the current zeitgeist and its "majority" opinion which is being driven by certain cabals within the media and the academia, which are in no way representative of the majority opinion among even women.

I saw elsewhere Sri Koradaji described a patni as one who assists the pati at the 5 sacrifices.Given that definition, where is the offense in this ? And there is an equally presecriptive one for men as Sri Koradaji pointed out.

  

This is just my 2 cents. Please do not misunderstand. 

Please do let me know if you think differently and if so why.

Thanks again.

[Jsr Prasad]

Sir,

Happy to note that you'd a positive intention in asking this question, initially. Yes, one should not tailor its tone and tenor to suit one's needs. What exactly I mean is to refute the patriarchal, misogynistic  shades (that could be possibly and wrongly interpreted by Ananyas, Kaushals and the like), by bringing a supporting bhaava reflected in the kind of slokas, referred by Prof. Korada ji (कार्येषु योगी...). Yours Vanaparvan reference to Draupadi and Satyabhama is another bhaava that justifies the position of women, in the words of women. It is a sheer coincident to remind all about Dr. Jayaraman's personal experience at the 'asmat samskritam,' at Vancouver, wherein Dr. Kaushal misinterpreted the dialog between Urvasi-Pururavas and attributing the words of Urvasi to Pururavas thus creating a misconception about Vedic literature. Hence, one need not alter/tailor the text, but need of the hour is to interpret ancient Sanskrit literature in proper light with proper training, sraddha and bhakti. Indeed, you helped me by answering your own question - 

I saw elsewhere Sri Koradaji described a patni as one who assists the pati at the 5 sacrifices.Given that definition, where is the offense in this ? And there is an equally presecriptive one for men as Sri Koradaji pointed out.

समानी व आकूतिः...

With regards,

Prasad