definition of Daana

[S.Subrahmanya]

namaste,

It is said that Jaimini-Miimaamsa Sutra defines Daana as 

स्वसत्व-निवृत्तिपूर्वकम् परस्वत्वपादानाम्  (??) - said to be 4.2.28 (??)

I cannot seem to find this specific source on the net. 

If anybody has this, will be very thankful if you could share it. 

Regards

S.Subrahmanya

[S.Subrahmanya]

नम: 

पन्डितै: एस्.जगन्नाथ-वर्यै: प्रेषित: सन्देश: अध:/संलग्न: अस्ति । 

तेभ्य:  धन्यवादा: 

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

दानलक्षणमिदं जैमिनीयन्यायमालाविस्तरे (6.7.1 )वर्तते इति  मीमांसाकोषस्थितया तदुद्धृत्या ज्ञायते। 

स्वसत्त्वनिवृत्तिपूर्वकम् इत्यत्र  आत्मसंबन्धत्यागपूर्वकम् इति पाठान्तरम्

परकीयस्वत्त्वापादनम् इत्यत्र परसंबन्धापादनम् इति  पाठान्तरं सूचितं संपादकीयायां टिप्पण्याम्।

[K S Kannan]

श्रीमन् !

स्वसत्त्वनिवृत्तिर्न !

स्वस्वत्वनिवृत्तिरित्युच्यताम्।

एवमेव

परकीयस्वत्त्वमिति न !

परकीयस्वत्वमित्युच्यताम् ।

- कण्णन्

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/0d125832-ceba-481c-b19e-df3d8055f3cdn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

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

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

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

[Madhav Deshpande]

श्री. कण्णन् महोदया: । "स्वत्व"मित्यत्र स्व-शब्दोत्तरं त्व-प्रत्यय इति स्वत्वशब्दस्योपपत्ति: । अत: परम् "अनचि च" [कौमुदी - अच: परस्य यरो द्वे स्त: नतु अचि] इति सूत्रेण स्वत्त्वमिति तकारस्य द्वित्वं सम्भवेन्नवेति प्रश्न: ।

  

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5deH5s%2BvcmiTrie3e4Yz1WMufvpUdSYjnHUhfdf7juWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

स्वतस्तकारान्तानां शब्दानामितरेभ्यो भेदं स्फुटीकर्तुमयं प्रकल्पो

मयोररीक्रियते। अतःकृत्वा नाम तत्त्व-महत्त्वादयश्शब्दास्तथात्वेन सुग्रहा भविष्यन्ति ।

तथाहि पाणिन्यनुगृहीतानि नैकानि संहिताकार्याणि प्राचुर्यभाञ्जि न लक्ष्यन्त इति

नापरोक्षं प्रेक्षावताम्। तानि पुनःकौतुकैकपरायणैरत्यर्थमाद्रियमाणानि सन्त्यर्थगत्यर्थतत्परै

स्साधारण्येन बाहुल्येन वा न पुरस्क्रियन्त इति दिक्।  दोषदुष्टत्वमेव हेतुः परिजिहीर्षास्विति

न वयं प्रतीमः। प्रमाणतया चास्योपन्यस्यन्तेऽभियुक्तानां  कतिचन वचनानीमानि

सुभगान्यौचित्याऽऽवर्जितानि च यथा  :

"These reduplications are curiosities, rather than practicalities."

प्रयोगप्रचुरतामपरिहरमाणैर्विद्वद्भिर्वैयाकरणैरविलक्षणत्वमत्रत्यमवश्यं नेत्रपात्रीक्रियत

इति मन्वन्

     कण्णन् ।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzee6raxhOsdTV%2BryH4XZ8ApEHEdQAB8itgsvpsPHPQmTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

ग्रन्थप्रकाशनादिकार्येषु भवतां मतमवश्यमङ्गीकार्यम् । हस्तलिखितग्रन्थेषु बहुत्र वैकल्पिकमपि द्वित्वं लेखने दृश्यते । विशेषत: "वर्त्तते" इत्यादिशब्देषु इदं द्वित्वलेखनं मया हस्तलिखितग्रन्थेषु बहुत्र अवलोकितम् । 

 

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5YV9m1xpjwRMUogjUgTda9O0UHkaf9sbd7Y_p2Mop_Fw%40mail.gmail.com.

[upabhi009]

श्लाघ्योऽयमुद्यमः येनः  स्वतस्तकारान्तानां पृथग्विषयता सुबुध्येत 

[K S Kannan]

स्वस्वत्वनिवृत्तिपूर्वकपरस्वत्वापादनं दानमिति लक्षयत्सु ग्रन्थेषु

मुद्रितेषु हस्तलिखितेषु वा प्राचीनेष्वधुनातनेषु वा भवल्लोचनगोचरीभूतेषु कुहचिदपि

स्वत्व-परत्वशब्दयोस्तकारद्वित्वं किंस्विदवलोकितमिति जिज्ञासे ।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5bfa2257-09b7-4510-a462-612974bab178n%40googlegroups.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

A Google search for स्वत्त्वम् showed up numerous pages with the spelling स्वत्त्वम्.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=629&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk01gJvJdCmxw3yeheq8o6FawdkOyCg%3A1615942151687&ei=B1JRYNexKfGu0PEPuMyl0AE&q=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D&oq=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0.0.114930.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.WsbqpJIfY-g

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm56mgyKvJc9WqyzeLoOgphN65oEts%3D-FCvcaLxMDefMEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

परिहृता संशीतिः!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzdVJ5uUy_vJ_gN1H%3DXS5nA_qxNv3Oe4PY9EgWqRPY%3Djpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

Some more thoughts shared.   The question pursued:  Can ‘ स्वत्व (single unit) -  स्व-स्वत्व ( compounded unit)> ‘ have  different meaning projections in different contextualities of ‘Vedanta- and Artha-shaastra’ ?  The doubling part of ‘t’ sound is already cleared in the earlier post.

 

How would language-rules allow such expanded constructions and interpretations ?

 

My view:  Each Shaastra- context draws upon a ‘technicality of expression’ and the provision of rule associated with it. The Grammar serves as a ‘ tool for  justifying  interpretation’ in ‘context’.

 

In the current case : 

A)   The thread started with the term  coming in the context of Jaimini sutras : दानलक्षणमिदं जैमिनीयन्यायमालाविस्तरे (6.7.1 )वर्तते इति  मीमांसाकोषस्थितया तदुद्धृत्या ज्ञायते। 

स्वसत्त्वनिवृत्तिपूर्वकम् इत्यत्र  आत्मसंबन्धत्यागपूर्वकम् इति पाठान्तरम् .

 

Here the link could have been pushed rightly to Gita 18^th chapter which is talking of the connected terms and context : यज्ञ-दान- तपस्- /  कर्म-न्यास - कर्म-फल-त्याग. Using Gita Contextual Reference :   त्याज्यं दोषवदित्येके कर्म प्राहुर्मनीषिणः।  यज्ञदानतपःकर्म न त्याज्यमिति चापरे।।18.3।।निश्चयं श्रृणु मे तत्र त्यागे भरतसत्तम। त्यागो हि पुरुषव्याघ्र त्रिविधः संप्रकीर्तितः।।18.4।। स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः।   स्वकर्मनिरतः सिद्धिं यथा विन्दति तच्छृणु।।18.45।

Here Mimasaka view is refuted in Vedanta. The ‘ artha-shaastra’ context does not operate to interpret ‘दान  ‘  as ‘ social charity, gift, tax exempt transfer of ownership’..

 

 

B) The first response pushed  the debate to   < doubling the stress on  स्वस्वत्व and invoking  new dimension of : परकीयस्वत्व- leading to  who is परकीयस्वत्व  ?   >  :

स्वसत्त्वनिवृत्तिर्न !  स्वस्वत्वनिवृत्तिरित्युच्यताम्। एवमेव परकीयस्वत्त्वमिति न ! परकीयस्वत्वमित्युच्यताम् ।

C)  The next diversion was on grammar technicality    : < स्वतस्तकारान्तानां शब्दानामितरेभ्यो भेदं स्फुटीकर्तुमयं प्रकल्पो..>.

 

D)  Here is the link  of what grammar provides on  < -त्व  >   and < स्वत्व (single unit)   -  स्व-स्वत्व ( compounded unit)>. ‘Samaasa’ resolution could bring in multiple meaning constructions  and how pratyaya- meaning expansion takes place. Taddhita- meanings are constructed  by multiple rule frames and perspectives.

The question that is still hankering in my mind is :What if the terms  had been <स्व-स्वता,  स्व-ता, स्व-सत्वता>  with the change of pratyaya < ता in place of त्व > Would we have all this debate -confusion ?   

 

 

 

D-1) Pratyaya applicable rule:  Under Taddhita provisions the first formation is by  तस्य भावस् त्वतलौ ५।१।११९ || -  तस्य इति षष्थीसमर्थाद् भावः इत्येतस्म्निन्नर्थे तवतलौ प्रत्ययौ भवतः। भवतो ऽस्मादभिधानप्रत्ययौ इति भावः। शब्दस्य प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं भावशब्देन उच्यते। अश्वस्य भावः अश्वत्वम्, अश्वता। गोत्वम्, गोता।

 

D-2) Based on Tattva bodhini, I have submitted my construction of the terms deliberated here.

 

( प्रकरणे मया अनूदितम् -  ) तस्य भावस्त्वतलौ। प्रकृतीति। न तु यः कश्चिद्धर्मः, घटत्वमित्यत्र द्रव्यत्वपृथिवीत्वादेरभानात्।  स्व-स्य भाव इति। इह  स्व- शब्दोऽर्थपरः, शब्दस्वरूपपरो वेति पक्षद्वयम्। यदाऽर्थपरस्तदा धर्मविशेषः प्रत्ययार्थः, स च धर्मत्वेनैव भासते। "प्रकृतिजन्ये"त्यादिस्तु प्रयोगोपाधिः। स्वधर्मत्वं- इति । यदा तु शब्दपरस्तदा तज्जन्यबोधप्रकारः प्रत्ययर्थः। स च धर्मविशेष एव। "पाचकत्व"मित्यत्र तु कर्तृत्वरूपसंबन्धः प्रकारः। "पच्यमानत्व"मित्यत्र तु कर्मत्वरूपसंबन्धः।  तथा "औपगवत्व"मित्यत्र जन्यत्वरूपसंबन्धः प्रकारः। "राजपुरुषत्व"मित्यत्र तु स्वरूपसंबन्ध इत्याद्यह्रम्। एवं स्थिते हरिटीकायां यदुक्तं "कृत्तद्धितसमासेभ्यः संबन्धाभिधानं भावप्रत्ययेनेति, तत्र नाऽपूर्वं शक्त्यन्तरं कल्प्यम्। उक्तरीत्यैव तत्राप्युपपत्तेरिति संक्षेपः।

 

स्व-सत्वं इति पदस्य  निर्वचनं अन्यथैव कर्तुं   उपपादयितुं च प्रक्रणशः शक्यते ।

स्वत्वं- इति  स्व-भावः, स्व-बोधः, स्व-धर्म-विशेषः इति वा । स्व-जन्य-रूप-संबन्धः, स्व-रूप-संबन्धः इत्याद्यूह्यम् ।

स्व-स्वत्वं - इति पदस्य च  साधुता भवति । अर्थ-विशेषस्तु  प्रकरणात्  चिन्त्यम् ।

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[K S Kannan]

Dear BVKSastry,

Thank you for your kind post.

Problems do not get solved by throwing in a profusion of śāstric citations that have little relevance to the issue.

Verbosity is no testimony of or substitute for clarity. Nothing smacking of any Vedanta-Arthaśāstra conflict that you love to invoke figures here. Please try to understand the actual meaning of the terms involved, and the actual issue being raised/discussed. Beating about the bush intensely, vigorously, and passionately seldom takes us to the heart of the matter. It is not unoften the case that readers of your mails get confused as to whether you are yourself clearly confused or whether you are sincerely endeavouring to confuse others (सन्देहभ्रान्तिमदलङ्कारयोस्सङ्करो वा न वा?).

You do not have to invoke "an editorial comment upon an assumed variant reading" of a famous and uncontested definition. Here, for example, is a crystal-clear exposition of the issue at hand (and a bonus of related issues) : This is from the celebrated Sri Jhalakikar's Nyāya-kośa (pp. 351-352, 1928 edn., BORI, c/o archives.org). (And for your information, it does not deal with a hypothetical (almost laughable?) "pitr̥tva-dāna" as discussed in the JNMV 6.7.1 you so endorsingly choose to cite : no mark of wisdom to invoke some extraordinary/tricky situation to solve/ explain a simple, straightforward transaction.  (And note, too, that there is not a single instance of the doubling of  तकार in the 17 occurrences of the usage of स्वस्वत्व and परस्वत्व.)

Thanks for your patience. BTW, lovers of discussions in BVP would be highly obliged if you can deign to publish at least a brief errata of each of your long mails.

Regards

KSKannan

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/00a301d71af1%24920858a0%24b61909e0%24%40gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

"श्लाघ्योऽयमुद्यमः येनः  स्वतस्तकारान्तानां पृथग्विषयता सुबुध्येत |"

 - Upabhi-mahodayaḥ

उक्तिभेदलिपिभेदसौक्ष्म्यौचित्याभिज्ञात्रे नमस्तन्यते ।

- कण्णन्

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste  Prof. KSK

 

       Have I  erred in understanding the present thread from  its  ‘origination: seeking a definitional clarification and source’ to current state of exchange gong on ‘ scripting convention’ with a helpful suggestion for me to undertake an errata publication of my posts on BVP? ‘?  - Please help me to understand.   

 

1.    I shared some thoughts, believing that might be  helpful to restore the prime issue on ‘daanam’- definition in meemaamsaa aligned to  technicalities in gita, Meemaamsaa and vyakarana.  The  intention was to come back to the main issue of definition, which was taking exit  to ‘script-print conventions’ , the forced  exits introduced by you inthis  thread.   

 

2.   In my ‘ narrow vision, response and understanding’,  here below is the way the thread of post started and deviated due to forced comments provided by you, leading to exits.

     The forced exits provided by you  pushed the response exchange  from ‘ definition-focus’ to ‘ scripting letter -duplication’.

     The forced exit introduced by you blocked the exploration of  key connection of  ‘Meemaamsaa- Gita- Vyakarana’  on ‘daanam’ linked to ‘tyaaga’ using the term ‘ स्व’ .

     Instead of capturing the ‘essence of स्व’, you forced the   ‘scripting issue of स्व-सत्त्व – स्वस्वत्व.

  

2a.  The starting point was ‘Sri Subramanya ji’ asking for source -reference of ‘daanam’ in context of  ‘ Meemaamsaa’ where the term < स्वसत्व>  occurred ( as seen on web page/ mail).

2b.  This was responded to by Pandit Jagannatha

         < स्वसत्त्वनिवृत्तिपूर्वकम् इत्यत्र  आत्मसंबन्धत्यागपूर्वकम् इति पाठान्तरम् ; परकीयस्वत्त्वापादनम् इत्यत्र परसंबन्धापादनम् इति  पाठान्तरं सूचितं

       संपादकीयायां टिप्पण्याम्।>.  The question of ‘ doubling in script or pronunciation did not surface.

2c.  Prof. KSK’s keen ‘ Hawk-eye’  caught some inconsistency and responded :

        <  श्रीमन् ! स्वसत्त्वनिवृत्तिर्न ! स्वस्वत्वनिवृत्तिरित्युच्यताम्। एवमेव  परकीयस्वत्त्वमिति न !  परकीयस्वत्वमित्युच्यताम् ।

2d. Even after the clarification was provided by Prof. Deshpande reading was not enough !  

     < ग्रन्थप्रकाशनादिकार्येषु भवतां मतमवश्यमङ्गीकार्यम् । हस्तलिखितग्रन्थेषु बहुत्र वैकल्पिकमपि द्वित्वं लेखने दृश्यते ।

      विशेषत: "वर्त्तते" इत्यादिशब्देषु इदं द्वित्वलेखनं मया हस्तलिखितग्रन्थेषु बहुत्र अवलोकितम् ।>

     The original ‘ definition related -debate’  got further forcibly  distracted  to  ‘grammar rule- printing and handwriting conventions involving doubling of  letters  

    < स्वत्व-परत्वशब्दयोस्तकारद्वित्वं किंस्विदवलोकितमिति जिज्ञासे । > !    

 

3. Anyway, it is nice to get keen ‘ red-pen audit’ from the vigilant scholar’, ever alert ‘ Spell Checker’.   

   

    KSK, We can discuss on what is the common ground between our understanding of Vyasa Vedanta-Sampradaya and Chanakya -Saamraajya -sampradaya  of Purhsartha presentation in the < Vedanta-Arthaśāstra> model <  HIS  Wealth and Purpose (Gita :9-4;  10-41)  as Parama-Purushartha v/s   Individual Person-purpose and relation to  money -possession ego linked ( स्वसत्त्व - स्वस्वत्व ) wealth as ‘Purushartha’> on a phone call , or better in person over a cup of tea.

 

4. Rest of your observations, Thanks for the flowery language ( (पुष्पितां वाचं).  Thanks for your offer .  I will certainly take your help for proofing- errata compilation of my  <long e-mails and writings > at some point. Who else can be better qualified than you to help me in this effort .

 

Regards

BVK Sastry  

 

 

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of K S Kannan
Sent: Thursday, 18 March, 2021 8:56 AM
To: bvparishat <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: definition of Daana

 

"श्लाघ्योऽयमुद्यमः येनः  स्वतस्तकारान्तानां पृथग्विषयता सुबुध्येत |"

 - Upabhi-mahodayaḥ

 

उक्तिभेदलिपिभेदसौक्ष्म्यौचित्याभिज्ञात्रे नमस्तन्यते ।

- कण्णन्

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:21 AM K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear BVKSastry,

 

Thank you for your kind post.

 

Problems do not get solved by throwing in a profusion of śāstric citations that have little relevance to the issue.

Verbosity is no testimony of or substitute for clarity. Nothing smacking of any Vedanta-Arthaśāstra conflict that you love to invoke figures here. Please try to understand the actual meaning of the terms involved, and the actual issue being raised/discussed. Beating about the bush intensely, vigorously, and passionately seldom takes us to the heart of the matter. It is not unoften the case that readers of your mails get confused as to whether you are yourself clearly confused or whether you are sincerely endeavouring to confuse others (सन्देहभ्रान्तिमदलङ्कारयोस्सङ्करो वा न वा?).

 

You do not have to invoke "an editorial comment upon an assumed variant reading" of a famous and uncontested definition. Here, for example, is a crystal-clear exposition of the issue at hand (and a bonus of related issues) : This is from the celebrated Sri Jhalakikar's Nyāya-kośa (pp. 351-352, 1928 edn., BORI, c/o archives.org). (And for your information, it does not deal with a hypothetical (almost laughable?) "pitr̥tva-dāna" as discussed in the JNMV 6.7.1 you so endorsingly choose to cite : no mark of wisdom to invoke some extraordinary/tricky situation to solve/ explain a simple, straightforward transaction.  (And note, too, that there is not a single instance of the doubling of  तकार in the 17 occurrences of the usage of स्वस्वत्व and परस्वत्व.)

 

[K S Kannan]

Dear BVKS,

My advice to you is to try to confine yourself to mānuṣa ānanda. Your constant ethereal escapades escape the comprehension of the ordinary mortals that constitute the bulk of BVP. Appoint half a dozen proof-readers for your writings, please. (I am my own proof-reader because I can't afford to appoint a proof-reader, and that is why I don't write much either). You are imparting an inferiority complex to almost all the poor readers as your writings often loom as incomprehensible: should the texts crafted by you (or I) be felt as aphalām apuṣpām? Some readers will even have been puzzled surely whether you relinquished the leitmotif of your thesis of talk-yoga which used to be ubiquitous in your writings, yet was badly missed in the previous long mail!: can senescence overtake (or rather take over) sense?

Multidisciplinarity (even at the thought of the drop of a hat) seems to have become an obsession with you, but better substitute it by lucidity, at least now and then. Once in a way, try to see whether your own writings are transparent : read as a reader, and understand his/her situation - contrast the supernal flight of the writer (in you), and the infernal plight of the reader (in us)! I guess the force of your memory is your undoing: you saw two sva-s in svasvatva (in the definition) of dāna, and how your mind at once seized sve sve (karmaṇy abhirataḥ) of the Gītā ! - see the sway of memory! : it never ceases to seize the opportunity. Swell not on words; dwell instead on ideas. Two same syllables in consecution, and your mind irrepressibly recalls some similar juxtapositions - sense or no sense, pertinent or impertinent. Curb that temptation, Sāstrin, control! dāna is giving up, after all; not forcefitting; or, have you given up giving up? Tell me, doesn't sva-satva-nivr̥tti amount to self-annihilation!?

Don't you see that my "forced exit" issues merely from my spell-check instinct? (No garden path sentence intended please). It can spell disaster sometimes (as I cannot cast a spell as you easily can, after all)! Pāṇini too bothered too much about doubling, and don't you think that his abhyāsa/āmreḍita etc. speak of his own 'double' standards? And why just two or three? He can conjure 108 pronunciations of more or less a same spelling! : just his puṁskokila outhawks all hawks! (And me, a bespectacled poor creature, is a hawk to your probing eyes?)

Anyway, you accuse me of downing the unimpeded aerial flights of dāna-speculations - grounding it to but a mundane spellright issue, and I don't think I can dispel the disillusionment that has ensued. You point to many things I cannot see - for example "money-possession ego" in svasvatva : isn't 'seeing, you see not' the characteristic of a mūḍha (= paśyann api ca na paśyati mūḍhaḥ)? And when we cannot see eye to eye on even dry and drab issues, can a telephonic call or a cup of tea undo all this, and elevate us in no time from the real to the ethereal (- or really the surreal)? So let us not waste each other's time: who is not afraid of sva-satva-nivr̥tti, after all?!

But don't forget to read Jhalkikar on the issue: he can eliminate all your doubts (if you had any, that is, in the first place). The moment you realise why there indeed are two sva-s in succession, realisation dawns, stunning you into silence! : and with the Aha effect, verbiage gracefully yields place to reticence, eloquence to quiescence; Vāco-viglāpana, as the upaniṣad puts it, just ceases. Or if you liked Wittgenstein better, "Whereof we cannot speak [sensibly], thereof we [ought to] remain silent".

You are welcome for a cup of tea if and when you discern to have casual chats.

Regards

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/00d301d71bc7%24db696bc0%24923c4340%24%40gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

As a professor of communication may I suggest that these emails be sent backchannel/ be private instead of shared in the group?

Dhanyavada.

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5G5O1eNXvzAyRK%3DyLbgSnWLsVuDXeYG0GtSfOH5Le-%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr.BVK Sastry]

Namaste Prof. KSK 

( We dont have to  extend this dialogue in public forum. I accept your invitation and will reach you and we will have a good dosa and coffee/tea together .)

1. I commend your  gusty flowery response flowing in elegant eloquent english to convey a 'zero'  message, relevant to the point in the thread discussed.  

2. It is beyond my comprehension to understand the qualifier you have used in the statement : <...ordinary mortals that constitute the bulk of BVP> . Who then are the remaining for whose benefit these discussions are being carried out ?  It is your prerogative to pass a remarks on the 'quality of BVP members' , pass judgement and make advises. Your words taken well. No hurt feeling.

3. Good to know that you are your own proof-reader, like many of us. 

4. I will certainly take your advise to < Appoint half a dozen proof-readers for your writings>  when i can afford it, which is right now not the reality.   

5. On < You are imparting an inferiority complex to almost all the poor readers as your writings often loom as incomprehensible > , < talk-yoga> , I have made submissions of my thoughts. I have not advised or critiqued any one. When ever deemed necessary i have provided the evidence. If facts and truth in my post has hurt any readers feeling, i am sorry.

6. Multidisciplinarity is not a sin ! You are also trained in good number of disciplines at respectable and premier institutions. Responding to  a post is NOT the fight; It is sharing the view. 

7. How could the superbly trained 'Panini-grammarian' in you miss the simple connection of 'sve' in relation to 'sva' - as  saptami vibhakti ?  Does Vibhakti change the pratipadika and base meaning?   The 'sva' part runs common in  'sve-sve'  as well as 'sva-sva'. 

8. About two 'sva-sva-tva' , it seems to be special construction  with a purpose to yield two levels of meaning:  'Ownership release' ( related to material)  and  'Attachment of ownership release' ( related to  feeling attachment).   I hope  I dont have to elaborate on 'artha-vishesha' by 'dvirukti'. It is not replicaiton of 'homo-sounding syllables in consecution or a juxta position' ! 

9. On < Tell me, doesn't sva-satva-nivr̥tti amount to self-annihilation!? >  Does it ? Please contemplate. The directive is to give, give up the ownership, and then give up  ' attachment to the past memory of ownership', which many professors carry proudly like to carry  as :  -  'I did this when I was the ....., ; when i was .....' . The first 'sva' is to 'relinquish of ownership'.   The  second 'sva' - is aligned ' relinquish of attachment to memories of ownership. This, in my understanding, is more aligned to  Gita 18-2: Sarva-karma-phala-tyaga. It is for learned people to guide on why two 'sva's.

 Regards

BVK Sastry

[K S Kannan]

Dear Venkatakrishna,

I accede : We'll've dosa & coffee some day soon.

Let's RIP till then (rest in peace = not post-mortem peace alone!)!

Regards

KSKannan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/f3b5eeab-40d9-4120-9883-9b134ad64657n%40googlegroups.com.