भवच्छब्द-युष्मच्छब्दविषये मम मतम्। (चर्चा/जिज्ञासा)
Rishi Goswami
"भवत्" इत्यस्य प्रयोगः "आप" अर्थे रूढ़:। मम मते तु अस्य हिंदीभाषायां "वे" अनुवादः स्यात्। यतः अस्य प्रयोगः प्रथमपुरुषे भवति न च मध्यमपुरुषे, यथा भाषायां तु "आप" "तुम" इत्युभयोः शब्दयोः भवति। अपि च अस्मिन् लिङ्गस्य अपि आवश्यकता। मम मते तु "भवत्" इत्यस्य प्रयोगः अप्रत्यक्षे अथवा संवादस्य अभावे वर्तते "युष्मत्" इत्यस्य तु प्रत्यक्षे संवादे अपि भवेत्।
यथा: - भवान् नारायणो नः पातु। वे नारायण हमें बचाएँ। न तु "आप नारायण हमें बचाओ" इति
भवती श्रीरमा नः पातु। वे श्रीरमा हमें बचाएँ। न च "आप श्रीरमा हमें बचाओ" इति च।
यदा तु स प्रत्यक्ष: - पूर्णेश पूर्ण परिपूर्णतमप्रभो मां *त्वं* पाहि पाहि परमेश्वर कंसपापात् ।(देवकीस्तुतिः - कृष्णजन्मख़ण्डे गर्गसंहितायाम्)
यथा सामान्यव्यवहारे जनाः वदन्ति, भवान् कुत्र गच्छति? ते अस्य इत्थं हिंदीभाषायाम् अनुवादं कुर्वन्ति, "आप कहाँ जाते हो?" इति। किन्तु मम मते अस्य इत्थम् अनुवादः स्यात्, "वे कहाँ जाते हैं?" यदा तु नरः प्रत्यक्षः तदा किमर्थं "वे" वदेत् कोपि?
मम मते तु आदरार्थे प्रयोगत्वात् लोकेषु सम्भ्रमो अभवत्। अतएव ते "भवत्" इत्यस्य "आप" शब्देन सह सङ्गतिं कुर्वन्ति। कोपि मया सह सम्वादं करोति तदा मां "भवत्" शब्देन संबोधयति "आप" इति अर्थं मत्वा। कथमहं "युष्मत्" इत्यस्य प्रयोगं कुर्वे तदा?
किं मन्यध्वे अस्मिन् विषये यूयं विद्वान्सः? कृपया स्ववाग्द्वारम् उद्घाटयत।
प्रणमामि।
ऋषि:
Nagaraj Paturi
--
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.
Rishi Goswami
किं तव आशयः? एकम् उदारणं तु गर्गसंहितायाः दत्तम्। अन्योदाहरणानि सामान्यव्यवहारे प्रयुक्तानि अतः दत्तानि। नास्ति विद्वानहं त्वत्समः। अतः स्वमतं ब्रवीमि। न च अयं मतः श्रेष्ठः इति मत्कथनम्। अहं तु त्वत्समविदुषां मतं ज्ञातुम् उत्सुकः। अपि च अस्य पुष्ट्यर्थं पृच्छामि। अतः कृपया पुराणनाटकादिग्रन्थेषु कोपि उदहरणं जानन्ति सर्वे विद्वान्सः तत् कृपया मां बोधयन्तु। यदि मम मते कापि त्रुटि: चेत् ताम् अपि प्रकाशयन्तु।
प्रणमामि।
shankara
भवतो दर्शनं यत्स्यादपुनर्भवदर्शनम्
shankara
shankara
shankara
Srinivasakrishnan ln
--
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.
Nagaraj Paturi
Narayan Prasad
Nagaraj Paturi
--
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.
Madhav Deshpande
Narayan Prasad
--
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/ih6_T_qk3fo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
V Subrahmanian
आप being used in the sense of तुम in Hindi is similar to what happened in English. Just as the singular 'thou' got completely replaced by the honorific 'you', in the usage of a certain social class in Hindi/Urdu, आप replaces तुम. In the usage of such class, even मैं gets replaced by हम .आप being used in the sense of 'this person' is also such a development of honorific expression replacing the singular.In my place people call such expressions as नवाबी जबान .Usage of आप in both the second and third persons in Hindi; does it have parallel in the use of भवच्छ्ब्द in Sanskrit ?Use of भवच्छ्ब्द in third person in ancient Sanskrit usages, if substantiated with more examples should be a very interesting observation.
2
Ashok Aklujkar
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> … in epics and classical works … There is switching back and forth between bhavat and tvam with reference to the same person in the same conversation. <
The uses that were cited in support of this assertion came from verse/metrical passages. Are there similar uses in prose passages?
a.a.
Ashok Aklujkar
Madhav Deshpande
Ashok Aklujkar
Rishi Goswami
If we take the above conversation in mind, using आईए with आप is incorrect. So आप आएँ is the correct usage as in third person.
तुम आओ।
But with whom will we use आइए then? So what I think is, आइए maybe a verb for the third person and not the second person. As it is only used with आप।
आइए can be called as सामान्यभविष्यत् प्रथमपुरुष and आएँ can be considered as लोट् प्रथमपुरुष।
Many thanks to all schollars also.
What I think is आप is also used as युष्मद् but only the पुरुष is changed. भवत् can totally be translated as आप as well and not वे। As now, आप is gramaticaly used in third person only, so आप will do the rest.
My conclusion: Third person can also be used while the person is front with the word भवत् in Samskrit which I hought could only be used for a person you aren't talking about. As I am the first person, the one Im talking to is the second person. But I can also talk to him in Third person in meaning of second person with the usage of भवत्। Am I right?
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
On < of bhavat and the use of yuṣmad? I will think about the possibility. >
1. Technically , ‘yushmad’ and its derivative form ‘ tvam’ comes under the category of ‘Sarvanama’- Universal noun/ pronoun applicable to all contexts where the speaker addresses the other person ( Respect or no respect).
Again, ‘bhavat’ - if it is to be treated as a derivative from the root ‘ bhoo’ (to be) with a participle ( Krit) to yield the ‘ pratipadika form’- bhavat, which becomes a ‘ naama-pada’ ( and not a sarva-naama), capable of taking on ‘ gender specificity as masculine /feminine – bhavaan - bhavatee , the grammar technicality is different between the two shabda-roopas. Due to this root ‘bhoo’ embedded in ‘ bhavat’, all the meanings of the bhoo dhatu get inherited to the use of bhavat with the modifications from krit pratyaya. This does not happen in the sarvanama- yushmat’.
2. The rule for use of ‘madhyama-purusha’ for kriyaapada by rule ‘ bhavadyoge na madhyamah’ sheshe prathamah – may be a rule to look for more clarity in this.
‘ Tvam gacchasi’ – bhavaan gacchati’ yields different intentions and communication.
3. How then to explain the Gita usage < अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वत: । कथमेतद् विजानीयां त्वमादौ प्रोक्तवानिति > ?
May be the philosophers and commentators need to explain why Arjuna sees Krishna in the first part as ‘ Respectfully – You’ and in second part as ‘ ( just) You’.
Unless one wants to wash off the issue as a slang and loose usage in dialogue (Sambhaasanam) or One desires to find the ‘hidden treasure’ in the use of two different terms in the same breath by Arjuna ??
Surely, technicalities of Samskruth Language have a bearing on these rules and look for whose word rules the standards of Samskruth: Grammarian or Poet.
Look forward for scholars input on this observation.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Rishi Goswami
Many thanx to all schollars who helped me. What I've derived of this discussion. A schollar,Shri V Subramanium gave a link of Ramayan which was very helpful.
प्रोषिते मयि यत्पापं मात्रा मत्कारणात्कृतम्।
क्षुद्रया तदनिष्टं मे प्रसीदतु भवान्मम।।2.106.8।।
When I was away from home, my meanminded mother committed a sin for my sake which I never wished. You may pardon me graciously.
तदपत्यं भवानस्तु मा भवान् दुष्कृतं पितुः।
अभिपत्ता कृतं कर्म लोके धीरविगर्हितम्।।2.106.16।।
So be a worthy son and let not the sinful act committed by our father and condemned by men of wisdom be approved by you.
Over here we can clearly see that Bhavat can totally replace Yushmad, even though used in third person. It does not matter where the person is, Pratyaksh air Apratyaksh. It is a total representative of Yushmad and also can be switched from Bhavat to Yushmad in the same shlok referring to the same person as mentioned in The Gita.
These are some examples from Abhishek Natakam 4th Sarg.
1.राम: - अये विभीषण:। विभीषण! अपि कुशली भवान्।
विभीषण: - देव! अद्य कुशली संवृत्तोऽस्मि।
2.राम: - लङ्कागमने मार्गं दातुमर्हति भवान्।
वरुण: - एष मार्गः। प्रयातु भवान्। (अन्तर्हित:।)
3.राम: - वयस्य! विभीषण! कथमिव भवान् मन्यते।
विभीषण: - देव!
एतौ हि राक्षसेन्द्रस्य सम्मतौ मन्त्रिणौ नृप! ।
प्राणान्तिकेऽपि व्यसने लङ्केशं नैव मुञ्चत: ।। 20 ।।
तस्माद् यथार्हं दण्डमाज्ञापयतु देव:।
It is quite evident that Bhavat shabd can be substituted with Yushmad whenever wished with no compulsions associated with its usage.
Thankyou all Schollars for helping me out.
Haraye Namah.
Rishi.
hnbhat
युष्मद्युपपदे समानाधिकरणे स्थानिन्यपि मध्यमः॥ १।४।१०४! अस्मद्युत्तमः॥ १।४।१०६!!
युष्मद्युपपदेे स्मानाभिधेये सति प्रयुज्यमानेऽपि अप्रयुज्यमानेऽपि मध्यमः !
अस्मदि उपपदे स्मानाभिधेये सति प्रयुज्यमानेऽपि अप्रयुज्यमानेऽपि उत्तमपुरुषः !
These are the rules restricting Second person and first person verbs to युष्मद्
अस्मद् whether these two used or not. But with rest of the nouns third person is used शेषे प्रथमः॥ १।४।१०७!
" भातेर्डवतुः" भवत्छब्दस्य भा दीप्तौ इति धातोर्निष्पन्नस्य युष्दस्मद्भिन्नत्वात् शेषत्वेन युष्मदर्थत्वेपि प्रथमपुरुष एव! न तु प्रत्यक्ष-परोक्ष-भेदेन!
=====_BVK
Again, ‘bhavat’ - if it is to be treated as a derivative from the root ‘ bhoo’ (to be) with a participle ( Krit) to yield the ‘ pratipadika form’- bhavat, which becomes a ‘ naama-pada’ ( and not a sarva-naama), capable of taking on ‘ gender specificity as masculine /feminine – bhavaan - bhavatee , the grammar technicality is different between the two shabda-roopas. Due to this root ‘bhoo’ embedded in ‘ bhavat’, all the meanings of the bhoo dhatu get inherited to the use of bhavat with the modifications from krit pratyaya. This does not happen in the sarvanama- yushmat
----'
Not clear. Sorry.
भवत् is not derived from bhoo dhatu, as explained above and it is sarvanaama. The भवत् derived from bhoo dhatu is not Sarvanaama and is derived as शत्रन्त भवन् - भवन्तौ - भवन्तौ! सर्वनाम भवच्छब्द is derived as भवान् - in the singular and rest like शत्रन्त from bhoo dhatu. "त्यदादीनि च"( 1.1.74) makes सर्वनाम भवच्छब्द to take cha suffix by वृद्धाच्छः 4|2|114 deriving भवदीयः and from यमष्मत् - त्वदीयः, युष्मदीयः
Rishi Goswami
Thankyou Hn Bhatt ji.
Yes, I was going to write that but then I thought that my question was answered so I did not clarify further. And the response for Linga is that "Yushmad Asmad Shat sanjnakas trishu Saroopah." Yushmad Asmad and Shat Sanjnak roopas work in all three genders with no change. Samano roopo yesham te saroopah.
You and the learned men maybe knowing this but just writing it for the sake of it. Thankyou again for the effort.
Namo Namah.
Hnbhat B.R.
इदमस्तु सन्निकृष्टं समीपतरवर्ति चैतदो रूपम् | अदमस्तु विप्रकृष्टं तदिति परोक्षे विजानीयात् ||
-
Madhav Deshpande
--
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.
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
The discussion is becoming intricate and interesting ! The trigger point for discussion was < Professor Aklujkar: Could this be an indication of the distinction that originally existed between the use of bhavat and the use of yuṣmad? I will think about the possibility. >
I place below the views exchanged so far. The issue seems unresolved on ‘Shista-Prayoga’ of ‘ Bhavat’ . The social language / Prakrut /Desi usage is not the norm for judging the standard usage in Kavya, Darshana and Guidelines provided by Grammarian.
Points to contemplate being : Did Panini – Patanjali miss some of the niceties of usage from Valmiki and Vyasa (Gita) ? OR Did a different set of rules govern the earlier usages ? OR There is something missing in understanding the usage of ‘ Bhavat’ used in current conversational Sanskrit with fair amount of looseness ? A carry forward issue from earlier usages ? How then would translate and explain ‘ he bhavaan / bhavatee/ bhavantaH’ ?
A) < Rishi Goswami - Sent: Thursday, 7 December, 2017 6:27 PM > - It is quite evident that Bhavat shabd can be substituted with Yushmad whenever wished with no compulsions associated with its usage. …. Over here we can clearly see that Bhavat can totally replace Yushmad, even though used in third person. It does not matter where the person is, Pratyaksh air Apratyaksh. It is a total representative of Yushmad and also can be switched from Bhavat to Yushmad in the same shlok referring to the same person as mentioned in The Gita.
B) Professor Korada : Some scholars hold that in all the places of मध्यमपुरुष it is संबोधनार्थ only . Also all the forms of युष्मच्छब्दप्रथमाविभक्ति denote संबोधनम् only -- संबोधनार्थः सर्वत्र मध्यमे कैश्चिदिष्यते । तथा संबोधने सर्वां प्रथमां युष्मदो विदुः ॥ तदेव …. भवच्छब्द cannot be used in संबोधनम् and also it has got लिङ्गम् ( अलिङ्गे युष्मदस्मदी) and as such it cannot be a substitute to युष्मच्छब्द and hence cannot get मध्यमपुरुष -- तदेवं भवच्छब्दस्य असंबोधनविषयत्वात् लिङ्गवत्त्वाच्च अयुष्मदर्थत्वात् मध्यमो न भवतीति स्थितम् -- पदमञ्जरी , 1-4-105
C) HN Bhat : इदमस्तु सन्निकृष्टं समीपतरवर्ति चैतदो रूपम् | अदमस्तु विप्रकृष्टं तदिति परोक्षे विजानीयात् || These are the rules of pronouns idam, etad, adas based on प्रत्यक्ष, परोक्ष, सन्निकर्ष विप्रकर्ष :
(BVK)- Also, the ‘root’ from which ‘ bhavat’ (praatipadika) is derived and the ‘ pratyaya- prakriyaa’ is presented differently.
HN Bhat : Distinguishing the terms भवत् by derivation process: < भवत् is not derived from bhoo dhatu, as explained above and it is sarvanaama. The भवत् derived from bhoo dhatu is not Sarvanaama and is derived as शत्रन्त भवन् - भवन्तौ - भवन्तौ! सर्वनाम भवच्छब्द is derived as भवान् - in the singular and rest like शत्रन्त from bhoo dhatu. "त्यदादीनि च"( 1.1.74) makes सर्वनाम भवच्छब्द to take cha suffix by वृद्धाच्छः 4|2|114 deriving भवदीयः and from यमष्मत् - त्वदीयः, युष्मदीयः
(VACHASPATYAM ) - भवत् - भवत् [Cologne record ID=36299] [Printed book page 4645,b]
भवत्¦ त्रि० भा—डवतु । १ युष्मदर्थे, सर्वनामता चास्य । भवान् - भवत्याः पुत्रः भवत्पुत्रः । भू—शतृ । २ वर्त्तमानकालाथ -[Page4646-a+ 38] ३ भवनकर्त्तरि च । भवन् स्त्रियामुभयत्र ङीप् शत्रन्तस्य
नुम् । ङीवन्तः ४ विषाक्तबाणे शब्दरत्ना० ।
( MONIER WILLIAMS) भवत् - भवत् [L=35227] [p= 0702-b] 1 bhavat, an, antī, at, being, becoming; present; (antī), f. time being, present time; (with some grammarians) the technical term for the present tense; [cf. bhavanti.] भवत् [L=35228] 2 bhavat, ān, m. (said to be fr. rt. 1. bhā, to shine, Uṇādi-s. 1. 64), the honorific or respectful pronoun, generally translatable by your honour, your highness, your worship, your lordship, you (used respectfully for the second personal pronoun, but properly with the third person of the verb, e. g. bhavān dadātu, let your highness give); bhavan, voc. sing. m. ‘O sir,’ ‘O my lord,’ or contracted into bhos, q. v.; bhavadbhis, by your honour; (atī), f. lady, your ladyship; bhavatyas, your ladyships; bhavati, voc. sing. f. ‘O lady:’ Manu II. 49 assigns a different position in the sentence to this honorific pronoun according to the person using it; a Brāhman should say, bhavati bhikshāṃ dehi, ‘good lady give alms;’ a Kshatriya, bhikshām bhavati dehi; a Vaiśya, dehi bhikshām bhavati: this honorific pronoun bhavat is sometimes used when tvam occurs in another clause of the same sentence; sometimes the plural is employed to express greater courtesy (e. g. bhavantaḥ pramāṇam, your honour is an authority); bhavat is exceptionally found in construction with [Page0702-c+ 81] the 2nd person sing.; [cf. atra-bhº, tato-bhº, tatra- bhº.] — Bhavat-putra, as, m. your honour's son, your highness' son, your son. — Bhavad-deva, as, m., N. of a man mentioned in the Smṛiti-kaustubha. — Bhavad-vaćana, am, n. your honour's speech, your speech. — Bhavad-vidha, as, ā, am, any one like your honour or like you. — Bhavad-vidhi, is, m. your honour's manner (i. e. the way in which you are treated). — Bhavan-manyu, us, m., N. of a king; [cf. bhu-manyu, bhū-manyu.] — Bhavā- dṛiksha, as, ī, am (bhavā for bhavat), or bhavā- dṛiś, k, k, k, or bhavā-dṛiśa, as, ī, am, any one like your honour or like you.
-------------------
Surely, technicalities of Samskruth Language have a bearing on these rules and look for whose word rules the standards of Samskruth: Grammarian or Poet.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Dr. Rama kant Shukla
--
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.
Padmashree Awardee
R-6, Vani Vihar
New Delhi 110059.
Hnbhat B.R.
bhavati bhikshaam me dehi ityatra sambodhanamasti na vaa?regards.
Yes. हे भवति! (sambodhanam of femimimine भवती). (त्वम्) भिक्षां दैहि!
Ramanujachar P
--
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.
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)
K S Kannan
K S Kannan
Madhav Deshpande
K S Kannan
अत्र भवच्छब्दयोगेऽपि असीति मध्यमपुरुष एव भवति, तस्य संबोधनमात्रपरत्वात् ।
अत्रेदं तत्त्वम् – भवच्छब्दो द्विविधः संबोध्यपरः संबोधनमात्रपरश्चेति ।
सम्बोध्यपरत्वे भवच्छब्दस्य युष्मदर्थत्वाभावात् ’युष्मद्युपपदे” इत्यादिना प्राप्त्यभावात् शेषे प्रथम एव तद्योगे । यथा – ’सूते जगन्ति भवती भवती बिभर्ति जागर्ति तत्क्षयकृते भवती भवानि’ इत्यादि ।
यदा – संबोधनमात्रपरत्वं भवच्छब्दस्य तदा युष्मदर्थत्वात् मध्यमपुरुषः स्यादेव । यथा ’भवति भिक्षां देहि’ इति । तत्र संबोधनमात्रपरत्वेऽपि ङीप्प्रत्ययः गौरादौ भवतेः प्रातिपदिकस्य पाठात् सिद्धः ।
अत एव रक्षित आह – ’भवतु प्रातिपदिकसामर्थ्यात् स्त्रीलिङ्ग एव भवच्छब्दस्य संबोधनमात्रपरत्वम्’ इति ।
अयमाशयः – भवच्छब्दस्य सर्वनामसु ’भवतु’ इति प्रातिपदिकग्रहणात् ’उगितश्च’ इति ङीप् सिद्ध एवेति अत्र गौरादौ पठितस्य भवच्छब्दस्य वैयर्थ्यात् स्त्रीत्व एव संबोधनमात्रपरत्वम् इति ज्ञापयतीति ।
नन्वेवं रक्षितेनैव “युष्मदस्मदोः स्त्रीपुन्नपुंसकेषु तुल्यलिङ्गत्वं, संबोधनमात्रपरत्वात् युष्मदस्मदोः, एकद्विबहुत्वपरत्वं तु संबोध्यलक्षणतया । न च लिङ्गलक्षणा, आकांक्षाभावात्” इत्युक्तम् । तद्वद्भवच्छब्दस्याप्यलिङ्गत्वं प्राप्नोतीति । मैवं, दत्तोत्तरत्वादित्यलमतिविस्तरेण ।
यत्तु ’त्वामस्मि वच्मि विदुषाम्’ इति श्लोकव्याख्यानावसरे काव्यप्रकाशिकाटीकाकारेण भास्करेणोक्तं तदमूलमिति नोपन्यस्य दूषितम् ।
Hnbhat B.R.
Madhav Deshpande
Madhav Deshpande
Madhav Deshpande
Rishi Goswami
भवती। सम्बोधने - भवति। अयं शब्द: शत्रंतः प्रतीयते।
Manu wrote this:
परपत्नी तु या स्त्री स्याद् असम्बद्धा च योनितः। तां ब्रूयाद् भवतीत्येवं सुभगे भगिनीति च।। (Manusmriti, Chapter 2).
"भवति इति" इति छेदः।
He says that a lady who is not related to you should be addressed as Bhavati, Subhage and Bhagini. All are Sambodhanatmak. The first is not clear by Savarnadeergha but second has "Subhage" sambodhan pad clear with Guna.
Rishi Goswami
Manusmriti-2nd Chapter.
The ones not related to us are addressed as Bhavati, Subhage and Bhagini.
"भवति इति" is padachhed as "Subhage" is also Sambuddhi padam.
Madhav Deshpande
Rishi Goswami
Thankyou very much for the answer above. Im greatful but I have a doubt.
If Bhavatu is Ugitlakshan Gneep it is read in Gauradigan for Niyamaarth By "Siddhe sati......." Nyaay. You said that Bhavatu is pratipadik. Do you mean it is Avyutpanna? If it is Avyutpanna why will there be a need of Ugitlakshan Gneep? Cant we just say that the Gneep is for Pratyay/Davatukrit Shabd Bhavatu and Gauradipath is for the Pratipadik Avyutpanna Shabd Bhavatu?
Im a bit confused. Which Bhavatu is to be taken in the example, "Bhavati bhiksham dehi." ?
Haraye namah.
Namaskar.
K S Kannan
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
In pursuit of the observation by Prof. Ramaknat Shukla : < bhavati bhikshaam me dehi ityatra sambodhanamasti na vaa? > and looking at the exchanges so far, the issue is made more complex and confusing. The ‘Shishta-prayoga’ standard is yet to be addressed .
The quotes pointing to the usage are flying on both sides of Panini’s time line (700 BCE) drawing from Valmiki- Vyasa – Gita ( 3100 BCE Prior) to Shankara, Stotras and popular expressions (Post 700 AD) .
The argument justifications are drawn from Vyakarana Shaastra karas and commentators to justify the extreme positions. Here below is the second round of exchanges consolidated, attracting wider segment of Paninian rule base.
I am addressing three specific posts and seek the wisdom of the team on the ‘Shista-Prayoga’ guidance here.
View 1. If ‘Bhavat’ is Avyutpanna Pratipadika, why is this debate required? The rule ‘bhavadyoge na madhyamah would need some how a link of this term ‘bhavat’ to a dhatu ?
In another post, (Rishi Goswami) brought in the terms < भावती – भागिनी >, which looks like a ‘deergha error’ due to typo ?? If other wise related to the discussion here, please help me understand the right form of the term.
View 2. What happens in the illustration where ‘mA’ gets in to the usage like ‘। मा भवान् ‘ (in 6-4-74) what would the derivation of bhavat be ?
Does this usage infringe on the rule ‘ na maang yoga’ (6-4-74 ) ? Specifically in usage like ‘mA bhavAn’ mentioned in the commentary ( placed below – under Reference for 2 – source https://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/ashtadhyayi/vyakhya/6/6.4.74.htm ) and debated ? Keep the ‘ lakaara’ issue apart; focus on’ mA with bhavAn’.
View 3. Can Rakshita over rule using a hari splitting technicality and pass a ‘vartika like amendment- interpretation’ to Standard Paninian rule’?
In the post quoting Rakshita < यदा – संबोधनमात्रपरत्वं भवच्छब्दस्य तदा युष्मदर्थत्वात् मध्यमपुरुषः स्यादेव । यथा ’भवति भिक्षां देहि’ इति । तत्र संबोधनमात्रपरत्वेऽपि ङीप्प्रत्ययः गौरादौ भवतेः प्रातिपदिकस्य पाठात् सिद्धः । >
This seems to be going against the earlier reference from Professor Korada quoting Padamanjari < Some scholars hold that in all the places of मध्यमपुरुष it is संबोधनार्थ only . Also all the forms of युष्मच्छब्दप्रथमाविभक्ति denote संबोधनम् only -- संबोधनार्थः सर्वत्र मध्यमे कैश्चिदिष्यते । तथा संबोधने सर्वां प्रथमां युष्मदो विदुः ॥ तदेव …. भवच्छब्द cannot be used in संबोधनम् and also it has got लिङ्गम् ( अलिङ्गे युष्मदस्मदी) and as such it cannot be a substitute to युष्मच्छब्द and hence cannot get मध्यमपुरुष -- तदेवं भवच्छब्दस्य असंबोधनविषयत्वात् लिङ्गवत्त्वाच्च अयुष्मदर्थत्वात् मध्यमो न भवतीति स्थितम् -- पदमञ्जरी , 1-4-105
Ramanajuchar also endorses the position with the quote < 2017-12-08 18:43 GMT+05:30 Ramanujachar P <ramanu...@gmail.com>: सर्वनाम्नां सम्बोधनं नास्तीत्युत्सर्गः इति श्रुतम् । भवति भिक्षां देहि इत्यत्र भवच्छब्दो नास्तीति विचारितमस्ति कैश्चित् । भवद्योगे न मध्यमः इत्यपि व्यभिचरितम् । >
Summarily: Samskruth usage, in Shaastra is regulated PRIMARILY by INTENTION (VIVAKSHAA ) and VYAKARANA-(SHAASTRA) NIYAMA.
Samskruth Expression understanding in Kavya and Loka Vyavahara may and do violate and over run on ‘Shaastra’.
The justifications are made as ‘ Mahaa kavi prayoga, Vyavahara’ etc;. Some commentators take the bold step to call it as ‘dosha’. Some scholar-researchers want to treat this as historic evolution / aberration/ Slack usage. There is a key difference between ‘ Shaastra, Kavya and Loka Vyavahara’ which need to be respected.
IF One mixes up the situation by reading ‘Shaastra as Kaavya’ and ‘ Kaavya as Loka vyavahra Sambhashanam’ confusions do galore. The outcome may yield new perspectives on history and language and carry a tag of ‘ research’ also. But it will not stand the test of ‘Shista prayoga’. It is difficult for many to call a spade a spade !
More details on this would be available in ‘shabda-shakti vaadas, pada-artha taatparya nirnaya debates ’ and why ‘Vedantins are against Vyanjnaaa, so loved by the aalamkarikas.
-------------------
Reference for (1 ) ------ On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote: -
Maananeeya Ks kannan ji.
Thankyou very much for the answer above. Im greatful but I have a doubt.
If Bhavatu is Ugitlakshan Gneep it is read in Gauradigan for Niyamaarth By
"Siddhe sati......." Nyaay. You said that Bhavatu
is pratipadik. Do you mean it is Avyutpanna? If it is Avyutpanna why
will there be a need of Ugitlakshan Gneep? Cant we just say that the Gneep is
for Pratyay/Davatukrit Shabd Bhavatu and Gauradipath is for the Pratipadik
Avyutpanna Shabd Bhavatu?
Im a bit confused. Which Bhavatu is to be
taken in the example, "Bhavati bhiksham dehi." ?
Haraye namah.
, Rishi Goswami <gris...@gmail.com> wrote - I presume that the reading of the term looks like a ‘deergha error’ due to typo ??
< परपत्नी च या स्त्री स्यात् असम्बद्धा च योनितः। तां ब्रूयाद् भावतीत्येवं सुभगे भागिनीति च। Manusmriti-2nd Chapter. The ones not related to us are addressed as Bhavati, Subhage and Bhagini. "भवति इति" is padachhed as "Subhage" is also Sambuddhi padam. >
Reference for (2) - 2017-12-08 9:52 GMT-08:00 Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu>: To add to the variation, occasionally one finds the use of a second person verb with bhavān:
Bṛhatkathāślokasaṃgraha, 5, 110.2 mā kadācid bhavān asmād dūraṃ gā āśramād iti //
काशिका-वृत्तिः
न माङ्योगे ६।४।७४
माङ्योगे लुङ्लङ्लृङ्क्षु यदुक्तं तन् न भवति। मा भवान् कार्षीत्। मा भवान् हार्षीत्। मा स्म करोत्। मा स्म हरत्। मा भवानीहिष्ट। मा भवानीक्षिष्ट। मा स्म भवानीहत। मा स्म भवानीक्षत।
लघु-सिद्धान्त-कौमुदी
न माङ्योगे ४४३, ६।४।७४
अडाटौ न स्तः। मा भवान् भूत्। मा स्म भवत्। मा स्म भूत्॥
न्यासः
न माङ्योगे। , ६।४।७४
"अनन्तरस्य वा विधिर्वा भवति प्रतिषेधो वा" (व्या।प।१९) इत्याट एवायं प्रतिषेध इति कस्यचिद्()भ्रान्तिः स्यात्(), अतस्तां निराकर्त्तुमाह--"माङ्योगे लुङलङलृङक्षु परतो यदुक्तं तन्न भवति" इति। एतोनोभयोरप्यडाटोः प्रतिषेध इति दर्शयति। उभावपि तौ लृङ्लङ्()लृङ्क्षूक्तौ। कथं पुनद्र्वयोरपि प्रतिषेधो लभ्यते? आटाप्यत्रानुवृत्तेः। न च तस्मिन्ननुवर्तमाने सत्यजादीनामष्यट्? प्राप्नोतीत्येष दोषः प्रसज्यते; मण्डूकपलुतिन्यायेनात्राटोऽनुवृत्तेः। योगविभागाद्वा, अयमटोऽपि प्रतिषेध इत्यवसीयते; यदि ह्राट एव प्रतिषेधोऽभिमतः स्यात्? तदा "आडजादीनां न माङ्योगे" इत्येकमेव योगं कुर्यात। अथ वा--"लुङ्लङ्लृङ्क्षु" ६।४।७१ इत्येतावन्मात्रमनुवर्तते, तेन लुडादिषु यदुक्तं तस्य सर्वस्य प्रतिषेधो न विज्ञायते। न चैवमतिप्रसङ्ग; यतः प्रत्यागन्तेरस्मिन्नेव लुङलङ्लृङ्प्रकरणे यत्? कार्यं विहितं तस्यैव प्रतिषेधो लभ्यते, न सर्वस्य प्रकरणान्तरविहितस्य। अत्र तु प्रकरणेऽडाटावेव विहितौ, अतस्तयोरेव प्रतिषेधः। "मा भवान्? कार्षीत्()" इति। "माङि लुङ", ३।३।१७५ इति लुङः। "मा स्म करोत्()" इति। "स्मोत्तरे लङः च" ३।३।१७६ इति लङः। "माङ्()" इति ङ्कारानुबन्धवत उपादानम्()--अस्मादादेशी यो माशब्दस्तस्य ग्रहणं मा भूदित्येवमर्थम्(); अन्यथा "भवान्? सुखिनं मात्राकार्षींत्()" इत्यत्रापि प्रतिषेधः स्यादिति केचित्()। लाक्षणिकत्वादेवास्मदादेशस्याग्रहणमित्ययुक्तमेतत्()। निपात एव त्वनयोऽङिन्माशब्दोऽस्ति--"मा बालिपथमन्वगाः"। "मा भवतु तस्य पापम्()" इति तु यस्य प्रयोगस्तद्योगे प्रतिषेधो मा भूदित्येवमर्थं ङिद्विशिष्टस्य ग्रहणम्()। योगग्रहणन्तु--योगमात्रे प्रतिषेधो यथा स्यादिति, तेन व्यवहितेऽपि भवति॥ "अमाङ्योगेऽपि न भवतः" इत्यादिना माङ्योगेऽपीत्यस्यार्थमाचष्टे। अत्र च वाक्यद्वयेऽपि "बहुलं छन्दसि" इत्येतत्सम्बध्यते। "बहुलं छन्दसि" इत्येतावतैव सिद्धेऽमाङ्योगेऽपीति वचनं विस्पष्टार्थम्()। अनुच्यमाने ह्रेस्मिन्? माङ्योगसय प्रकृतत्वात्? तत्रैव छन्दसि बहुलमडाटौ न भवत इत्याशंक्येत। "जनिष्ठाः" इति। जनेर्लुङ्, थास, इट्(), षत्वम्? ष्टुत्वञ्च। "ऊनयीत्(), अर्दयीत्()" इति। "ऊन परिहाणे" (धा।पा।१८८८) "अद्र्द हिंसायाम्()" (धा।पा।१८२८) चुरादी। "ह्रन्तक्षण" ७।२।५ इत्यादिना वृद्धिप्रतिषेधः। "इट ईटि" ८।२।२८ इति सिचो लोपः, गुणायादेशौ। "अवाप्सुः" इति। "आप्लु व्याप्तौ" (धा।पा।१२६०) अवपूर्वः। "सिजभ्यस्तविदिभ्यश्च" ३।४।१०९ इति झेर्जुसादेशः। "मा अभित्थाः" इति। भिदेस्थास्(), "झलो झलि" ८।२।२६ इति सिचो लोपः। "माऽऽवः" इति। पूर्वमेव व्युत्पादितम्()॥
Reference for (3) – On Friday, December 8, 2017, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote: अत्र भवच्छब्दयोगेऽपि असीति मध्यमपुरुष एव भवति, तस्य संबोधनमात्रपरत्वात् । अत्रेदं तत्त्वम् – भवच्छब्दो द्विविधः संबोध्यपरः संबोधनमात्रपरश्चेति । सम्बोध्यपरत्वे भवच्छब्दस्य युष्मदर्थत्वाभावात् ’युष्मद्युपपदे” इत्यादिना प्राप्त्यभावात् शेषे प्रथम एव तद्योगे । यथा – ’सूते जगन्ति भवती भवती बिभर्ति जागर्ति तत्क्षयकृते भवती भवानि’ इत्यादि ।
यदा – संबोधनमात्रपरत्वं भवच्छब्दस्य तदा युष्मदर्थत्वात् मध्यमपुरुषः स्यादेव । यथा ’भवति भिक्षां देहि’ इति । तत्र संबोधनमात्रपरत्वेऽपि ङीप्प्रत्ययः गौरादौ भवतेः प्रातिपदिकस्य पाठात् सिद्धः । अत एव रक्षित आह – ’भवतु प्रातिपदिकसामर्थ्यात् स्त्रीलिङ्ग एव भवच्छब्दस्य संबोधनमात्रपरत्वम्’ इति । अयमाशयः – भवच्छब्दस्य सर्वनामसु ’भवतु’ इति प्रातिपदिकग्रहणात् ’उगितश्च’ इति ङीप् सिद्ध एवेति अत्र गौरादौ पठितस्य भवच्छब्दस्य वैयर्थ्यात् स्त्रीत्व एव संबोधनमात्रपरत्वम् इति ज्ञापयतीति । नन्वेवं रक्षितेनैव “युष्मदस्मदोः स्त्रीपुन्नपुंसकेषु तुल्यलिङ्गत्वं, संबोधनमात्रपरत्वात् युष्मदस्मदोः, एकद्विबहुत्वपरत्वं तु संबोध्यलक्षणतया । न च लिङ्गलक्षणा, आकांक्षाभावात्” इत्युक्तम् । तद्वद्भवच्छब्दस्याप्यलिङ्गत्वं प्राप्नोतीति । मैवं, दत्तोत्तरत्वादित्यलमतिविस्तरेण । यत्तु ’त्वामस्मि वच्मि विदुषाम्’ इति श्लोकव्याख्यानावसरे काव्यप्रकाशिकाटीकाकारेण भास्करेणोक्तं तदमूलमिति नोपन्यस्य दूषितम् ।
Regards
BVK Sastry
Rishi Goswami
भवति! भिक्षां देहि। First of all let us know one thing that युष्मद् is सम्बोधनैकपर । That means it is only used when someone is addressed. Therefore it is Aadyodatt. Twam will come automatically as "api" is used in the Sootra. Prayujyamane aprayujyamane api.
As we can see, the Anvay is. भवति! त्वं भिक्षां देहि। The sambodhan is Bhavatu Shabd over here. So how can Bhavatu be संबोध्यविषयक and सम्बोधनविषयक at the same time?
2Viruddha Dharma in the same Dharmi at the same time?
If so, भवति! भवान् भिक्षां देहि??? It doesn't seem possible. Now the question arises that can Bhavatu Shabd be Sambodhya Parak? Pandamanjarikaar says. I quote: "युष्मदर्थप्रतीतेः स्थानिन्यपीति मध्यमः प्राप्नोति, न वा युष्मदर्थत्वात्, अलिङ्गः सम्बोधनविषयश्च
युष्मदर्थः। भवदर्थस्तु लिङ्गवान् न च सम्बोधनैकविषयः।" That means Bhavatu Shabd is not only(ek) Sambodhana Vishayak. It can be Sambodhya Vishayak also.
The question was that "ParamAham pachami or Paramatvam pachasi" has Yushmadartha so Madhyam and Uttam are used respectively. But Bhavatu also has Yushmadarth-pratiti as mentioned by Padamanjarikaar.
But it is not Yushmadarth. It has a pratiti. My lack of knowledge had made me think that Bhavatu can totally replace Yushmad Shabd.
But though both have the same Arthapratiti, Alingatvat and Sambodhyaparakatvaat also both are not the same.
You can use Bhavat Shabd wherever there is Sambhavna of Yushmad Shabd. As BVK Shastriji mentioned, now it is totally on Vivaksha which Shabda to use on which occasion.
Thankyou for all the support of Schollars. My Jijnasa is resolved finally.
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
1. Thanks to scholars who have taken great pains to deliberate on this issue. I place below the summary as I understand of this discussion, and request scholars review of the same. This summary may help the social users of Sanskrit in conversation to keep to the 'Shista prayoga standards.
With all this scholarly input, we may need a second look at understanding to understand the intended meaning of Gita usage < अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वत: । कथमेतद् विजानीयां त्वमादौ प्रोक्तवानिति > ? > ?
And I am still not sure whether this has resolved the starting question raised on this post < Could this be an indication of the distinction that originally existed between the use of bhavat and the use of yuṣmad?> by Profesor Aklujkar.
2. It Seems there is some convergence of position on (a) the use of bhavat and the use of yuṣmad (b) the multiple dimensions of deriving 'bhavat' from the dhatu with different pratyayas (c) The translation or approach to unfold the 'vivkashaa = speakers intention ( vaktuH atishayena vaktum, Ipsitatamam Karma)' which cannot be vitiated by the fancy constructions and compilations of usage across different segments of texts and time periods.
< 1.So , by and large , we may conclude -- 1. भवति भिक्षां देहि is acceptable (मनुस्मृत्यनुरोधेन प्रयोगबाहुल्याच्च ) or it can be भवति ! (त्वम्) भिक्षां देहि ।
भवति = पूज्ये ( पूज्यार्थे तत्र भवान् , तत्र भवती etc are acceptable to Panini et al )
2. If there are शिष्टप्रयोगाः then one may employ मध्यमपुरुष with भवच्छब्द - ' पृषोदरादीनि ...’ । >
3. But this is neither the final say or end of the exploration. There can be more to explore from the perspective of cross linguistic debate on how Greek and Latin, German and French, provide rules to express such simple thoughts in ritual and social request-conversations. Would ‘bhavan or tvam end up as a default second term in the prayer like ‘ dehi mE kRupayA (prabho- tvam – bhavaan –bhavatee)’ where the user left to infer the connecting term. Again getting back to <Shishta-prayoga>, later < Nootana - Shishtas > may shape the future usage; but < puraana/ Poorva –prayoga> needs to stay in the ambit of rules by which the expressions were regulated. Does it mean there is a criticality to rethink on the other question < ke te Shihstaah> ? Patanjali’s criterion in Mahabhashya would certainly chop off almost every modern Sanskrit linguist and indologists ( including Grimm), whom current academic scholarship takes as inviolable authority !
4. Consolidating the discussions:
(4a) the use of bhavat and the use of yuṣmad
- (Rishi Goswami) First of all let us know one thing that युष्मद् is सम्बोधनैकपर । That means युष्मद् is only used when someone is addressed.
Therefore it is Aadyodatt.
Twam will come automatically as "api" is used in the Sootra. Prayujyamane aprayujyamane api.
- (Rishi Goswami) Bhavatu has Yushmadarth-pratiti. But it is not Yushmadarth. It has a pratiti.
Bhavatu can not totally replace Yushmad Shab; both are not the same.
You can use Bhavat Shabd wherever there is Sambhavna of Yushmad Shabd. It is totally on Vivaksha which Shabda to use on which occasion.
(4b) Professor Korada : the multiple dimensions of deriving 'bhavat' from the dhatu with different pratyayas
- भवतु is in सर्वादिगण -- under उगिदचां सर्वनामस्थाने’धातोः 7-1-70 and is connected with root- भातेर्डवतुः , 1-65 उणादिः , भातीति भवान् ). भवतीति । सर्वादिषु भवतु इत्युदित्पठितो भातेर्डवतुरिति व्युत्पादितश्च । शत्रन्तात्तु ङीपि शप्श्यमोर्नुम् इति नित्यो नुम्।
- The provisions under 'ugit' gives two routes - उगित् द्विविधं प्रातिपदिकं प्रत्ययश्च to derive the form भवतु .
o The pratipadika route is - तत्र प्रातिपदिकमुदाहरति - भवतीति । सर्वदिगणे भवतु इति अत्युत्पन्नं प्रातिपदिकं पठितं तस्य व्यपदेशिवत्त्वेन उगिदन्तत्वात् ङीप्
o The pratyaya route is यदि तु सर्वादिगणे पठितं भवतु इत्येतत् ’ भातेर्डवतुः ’ इति व्युत्पाद्यते तदा उगित्प्रत्ययान्तस्यैव उदाहरणं बोध्यम् । भूधतोः शतरि .... भवच्छब्दात् ङीपि तु .... भवन्तीति रूपम् ।
- Madhviya Dhatu vrutti states connects भवतु to (भू सत्तायाम् ) and states -(भू सत्तायाम् ) --- अलिङ्गः संबोधनैकविषयश्च युष्मदर्थः , भवदर्थस्तु अन्यः इति तद्योगे प्रथमः । यदा तु अस्मात् संबोधनविभक्तिः तदा युष्मदर्थयोगात् मध्यमो भवति - हे भवन् भवसि इति ।
- Haradatta introduces the additional dimension of ‘upa-pada' technicality. What is ' upa-pada' ? It is a a term which is not having the 'ting' affix related process and is used in the sentence. ( Definition of Upa-pada : Panini - 2\.2\.19 upapadamati~N .) The sentence under debate is ‘ bhavati bhikshaam dehi’. Should the term 'dehi' be treated as ' ating' in the given sentence for construction with ‘ bhavati’ to mean ‘ Respected Lady, you please give me the alms’ - ' bhavati bhikshaam dehi' - is expanding the scope of this already complex discussion.
Under the sutra (2-2-19), at Balamanorama, an example is discussed to focus on compounding technicalities attracted under upa-pada rule and what it does to the communication. The extract reads < मा भवान्भूदिति। अत्र भूदिति तिङन्तेन माङः समासनिवृत्त्यर्थमतिङ्ग्रहणमिति भावः। भवानिति पदं तु समासाऽभावसूचनाय मध्ये प्रयुक्तम्। ननु माङस्तृतीयधात्वधिकारे सप्तमीनिर्दिष्टत्वं तु अदृष्टं येन तस्य उपपदत्वात्समासः प्रसज्यत इत्यत आह--माङिति। ननु अतिङ्ग्रहणं व्यर्थं, मा भवान्भूदित्यत्र सुपेत्यनुवृत्त्यैव समासनिवृत्तिसंभवादित्यत आह--अतिङ्ग्रहणमिति। एवंच उपपदमसुबन्तेन समस्यत इति फलितम्। > -
https://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/ashtadhyayi/vyakhya/2/2.2.19.htm This section brings out the ‘ samaasa (compounding technicalities involved and related debate in connection with bhavaan ! adding more complexities in looking at the given sentence < bhavati bhikshaam dehi> as a three term sentence or a two term sentence!
- Haradatta does not accept Madhaviya Dhatu vrutti opinion and introduces a different technicality and concept of 'upa-pada' and 'gamyamaane' (=if it is intended meaning is being understood in the communication), to present his dissent.
- Mahabhashya discussions present a class model of communication < महाभाष्यम् --- भवदादिभिर्योगे इति वक्तव्यम् । के पुनर्भवदादयः? भवान् ,...स भवान् , तत्र भवान् , ततो भवान् .>
(4c ) The translation or rather approach to unfold the 'vivkashaa = speakers intention ( vaktuH atishayena vaktum, Ipsitatamam Karma)' in the usage ‘ bhavti bhikshaam dehi There is a set of traditional guidelines which cannot be vitiated by the fancy constructions and compilations of usage across different segments of texts and time periods.) I place my thoughts in the future directions for this debate to evolve. It is worth a deep contemplation why a eight years boy would be trained to use the ‘alms request to a household lady’ and use ‘Samskruth with precision of grammar and accent’ ? While ‘bhavati bhikshaam dehi’ has a respectable austere communication and call for a ‘ bhikshaa daanam’ as a ‘ duty of the house hold; but when the same is used in vernacular, yields a sense of ‘begging food’ ! Why Brahmins insist on mechanical repletion of the ‘ritual’ without understanding the utility and significance of the directive? And what could have been the vernacular models of request for alms by the ‘bhikkus and Samana’s’, ‘Saadhus and Sharanas’ ? which carry the same essence of communication ? That is to highlight the Samskruth and Vernacular connection in society.
And ably deliberated by R.G.Bhandarkar in the Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the derived Languages delivered in 1877. Source:
My additional notes : One needs to be careful in the Samskruth Word writing.
The Romanization of Devanagari script has provided the advantage of using computers for Samskruth discussions and formation of special discipline like 'Sanskrit Computational Linguistics'. All this has come at a heavy penalty of
- (i) 'Silencing the VOICE ( Uccharana aspect) of Samskruth
- (ii) Dismemberment of the 'Swara- Maatra'in writing Samskruth terms and
- (iii) Creating a Superstructure called 'Sanskrit Research built on partial data'.
‘ Bhavati bhikshaam dehi’ is the classic example which has shown details to substantiate all these points. For the given form ' bhavat', traditional texts show many ways to derive it from root, using a pratyaya or no pratyaya, with a swara or no swara, meaning construction when the term gets aligned to another pratipadika/ sarvanama/ dhatu/ upapada in the sentence, poetic license of usage, social usage, ritual usage and 'Shaastra (Shista) prayoga. And all this become ‘ insensitive’ in current Sanskrit teaching and usage !
It would be an interesting exercise to reverse the gaze and audit the post colonial writings and research on Samskruth works (especially Veda related, primarily in India and abroad) using the genre of texts and tools of Samskruth Language grammar (= Vedanga Vyakarana as a part of Shadanga Veda -Adhyayana - Samshodhana Sampradaya) to see how much distanced are we from the source tradition.
History locked persons may not worry about this issue, for such research is only of academic interest and 'heavenly benefit' (=Svarge loke Kaama -dhuk bhavati?!)
What about the society which claims to live by the Vedic Injunctions by interpreting and practicing the vedic texts for the Culture, Identity and Utility ?
Probably this could be a strong enough reason and justification to explain the motion called Battle: Sanskrit .
On the top of all this comes the 'Language Modeling issue', which is called 'How to Model and Study the Language of the Transcendent ( Apaurusheya Bhashaa), the Consciousness ( Braahmi/Sarasvati/ Bharati- Chaitnaya Bhashaa) , the Cosmos ( Prakruti Bhashaa), the Divinities (Deva-Bhashaa)' ! for which 'Yoga' alone is the recourse. That is yoga-Samskrutham: Yoga way of studying Samskrutham, the long last tradition called Vak-Yoga.
This debate has served as a small pointer to highlight the need to explore ‘Vak-Yoga’ as the original name of Samskrutham.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Rishi Goswami
Yushmadi upapapde (sati) samanadhikarane shtanini api( prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) madhyamah (syat).
Nagaraj Paturi
Shastriji Upapad is Yushmad in Samanadhikaranam.
Yushmadi upapapde (sati) samanadhikarane shtanini api( prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) madhyamah (syat).
--
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.
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste Rishi Goswami ji, Murthy ji
Please do not take this as dragging of the discussion. <The Upapad is Yushmad in Samanadhikaranam > does not resolve the original issue raised, for the reasons placed below. The multiple explanations of ‘ bhavat’, using two roots also does not resolve the issue. I place below the rule segments with two specific instances of common usage and uncommon usage to substantiate my argument.
The original question triggering the deliberation is not resolved so simply ! and it does not close the issue articulated and raised as follows: < Could this be an indication of the distinction that originally existed between the use of bhavat and the use of yuṣmad?> by Professor Aklujkar> and understanding Gita (4-4) <अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वत: । कथमेतद् विजानीयां त्वमादौ प्रोक्तवानिति > ? provided by Prof. Madhav Deshpande> ?
The issues involved have critical impact on ‘How to Use, Teach, Research, Translate and Study Paninian Samskrutham.
If one is planning to be happy and brush off the debate by tagging it as ‘irrelevant’, ‘Buddhist / Hybrid/ Brahminical Sanskrit technicality of classic language’, I do not have any tiff with them. It still remains to be explained as to the insistence of ‘ Brahmanical insistence on using ‘Bhavati Bhikshaam dehi’ as an important expression in a ritual associated with Vedic studies.
(Note: Many urls providing Samskruth texts typed from image-pages need proofing. I do not know who needs to address this issue. The precision of Samskruth cannot be allowed to stay at the mercy of the ‘typos’ and ‘ program provided display errors showing little pretty boxes and question marks ! Any way that is a different issue of ‘Sanskrit-Computer’ teams.).
The reasoning on why <The Upapad is Yushmad in Samanadhikaranam > needs an extended analysis.
1. I do take note of the 'upa-pade' and the '(sati) saptami' of the term in the sutra. The entire debate of ‘bhavati bhikshaam dehi’ needs to be analyzed in the ‘total perspective of ‘sarvanama - and ‘purusha vidhaayaka niyama for kriyapada’.
The model of slack –slick –slang social usage of Tamil cannot be a comparable issue under the discussion of technicality of ‘Samskrutham’. The tolerance of such inaccuracies in the ‘translation’ especially in to English has been the mother seed of many problems in derailing ‘Sanskrit Research’ ! and ‘Social conversation model of Sanskrit prachaar- prasaar’.
The relevant sutra segment to understand this discussion on Why ‘Bhavati bhikshaam Dehi’ is a right expression and held as ‘training for a (young eight year old) brahmana vatu in the guru kul and intending for veda-adhyayana’ are the following.
1-4-23 : Kaarake (The adhikaara)
1\.4\.51 akathitaM cha.
1\.4\.99 laH parasmaipadam .
1\.4\.100 ta~NAnAvAtmanepadam .
1\.4\.101 ti~NastrINi trINi prathamamadhyamottamAH . ( Purusha samjnaa)
1\.4\.102 tAnyekavachanadvivachanabahuvachanAnyekashaH . ( vachana samjnaa)
1\.4\.103 supaH .
1\.4\.104 vibhaktishcha .
1\.4\.105 yuShmadyupapade samAnAdhikaraNe sthAninyapi madhyamaH .
1\.4\.106 prahAse cha manyopapade manyateruttama ekavachcha .
1\.4\.107 asmadyuttamaH .
1\.4\.108 sheShe prathamaH . ( The niyaamaka sutra for Prathama purusha)
2\.2\.19 upapadam ating ( Technicality of upapada)
Let us introduce an additional line for analysis.
Line for analysis: sloka-pada: ‘maam pahi samkarshana, maam pahi he keshava’.
Question: Should ‘tvam’ as ‘yushat –sarvanama is needed here or Not? How is ‘Paahi’ to be justified and aligned to ? What is the users intention - Is it ‘Keshava, tvam paahi’ (Stress on Keashavas action) or ‘Keshava,maam pahi’ ( Stress on My need and desire, submission).
2. Just for arguments sake, why should 'sati be placed in between as suggested in the brackets
<Yushmadi upapapde(sati)samanadhikarane shtanini api(prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) madhyamah(syat).>
Is it because it is explained so? Why should ' upa-pada' be treated to imply 'additional word'? as Balamanorama explains -
युष्मदीति ॥ उपोञ्चारितम्पदमुपपदम् ।
I do understand the rule of upapadam उपपदमतिङ्॥ (2-2-19) comes as a part of ting- ating samasa discussion; but it is relevant here because , the samasa is ‘ nitya’ and the outcome is a ‘ pratipadika with a ‘dhatu garbha’. See
[ - काशिका-वृत्तिः - उपपदम् अतिङ् २।२।१९ - नित्यम् इति वर्तते। उपपदम् अतिङन्तं समर्थेन शब्दान्तरेण सह समस्यते नित्यम्, तत्पुरुषश्च समासो भवति।
कुम्भकारः। नगरकारः। ]. The ‘ sarvanama’ is distantly and deeply connected due to the ‘ Dhatu and Ting’ embedded in the ‘ tatpurusha - samasa - janita
–pratipadika’.
Following the well travelled path of 'वाक्यद्वयमिदं / yoga-vibhaaga' models, the expanded construction of the sutra for (1-4-105), why not see the sutra construction be argued out differently ? Why not go by the Panini’s definition of ‘ upapadam ating’ ? taking clue from the Balamanorama observations ‘*युष्मदि। उपोच्चारितं पदमुपपदम्। युष्मदि समीपोच्चारिते सतीत्यर्थः। समानमेकमधिकरणं वाच्यं यस्येति विग्रहः। सामानाधिकरण्यं च युष्मदस्तिङः स्थानीभूतलकारेण विवक्षितम्, `लः परस्मैपद'मित्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेः। तथा च फलितमाह--तिङ्वाच्यकारकवाचिनि युष्मदीति। स्थानं-- प्रसङ्गोऽस्यास्तीति स्थानी, तस्मिन्। प्रसक्ते सतीत्यर्थः। प्रसङ्गश्च तदर्थावगतौ सत्यां वक्रा अप्रयोग एव भवति। तथा च `स्थानिनी'त्यनेन उपपदभूते युष्मदि प्रयोगं विना स्वार्थं बोधयति सतीत्यर्थः पर्यवस्यति। तदाह-- अप्रयुज्यमान इति। `स्थानिनी'त्यनुक्तौ युष्मद्युपपदे प्रयुज्यमान एव मध्यमः स्यात्। ततश्च राम पाहीत्यादावव्याप्तिः स्यात्। अपिना लब्धमाह--प्रयुज्यमानेऽपीति। `युष्मद्युपपदे स्थानिनी'त्येवोक्तौ राम त्वं पाहीत्यादौ युष्मत्प्रयोगे मध्यमो न स्यादतोऽपिग्रहणमिति भावः। अत्वं त्वं संपद्यत इत्यत्र तु न मध्यमपुरुषः, तत्र युष्मच्छब्दस्य गौणत्वात्। `भवानागच्छती'त्यादौ भवच्छब्दयोगे तु न मध्यमपुरुषः, युष्मच्छब्दस्य संबोध्यैकविषयत्वात्, भवच्छब्दस्य तु स्वभावेन संबोध्याऽसंबोध्यसादारणत्वादित्यलम्। \
3. Then the likely expansion of (1-4-105) would emerge as :
Guiding rule for Kriyapada: madhyamah (syat)- The madhyama purusha of kriyapada will be there
In all cases where (‘sati’ taken as तदा) - (This is the construction introduced by me here for arguments sake; I do not know the future implications! The multiple illustrations brought out in the texts and usages seem to justify this line of thought.)
a) Yushmadi -(prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) - The sarvanama (pronoun) used explicitly or otherwise understood.
Example : (tvam) dehi, asi, kuru, bhavasi.
b) upapapde - (prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) - The upa-pada ( = aTing) is used explicitly or otherwise understood.
Example : maam pahi samkarshana, mam pahi he keshava.
c) samanadhikarane - (prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) - When there is saamaanadhikarnya for kriya:
Example: sa dadaati, tvam cha dehi (cha is creating the saamanadhikaranya)
d) shtanini api - (prayujyamane aprayujyamane api) – Here it becomes much more complicated. An example will make this clear.
The intention is to say : (respected you all), speak to everyone.
The anglicized expression does not allow all the technical precision intended to be conveyed in Samskrutham ;
and so is the case with other Indian vernaculars ! It is also a question on ‘Sanskrit : NON TRANSLATABLE.
The question is what should be the purusha for the verb ‘vada’?
The Samskruth expression framed is : (tatra-bhavanataH) -(parama-sarvasmai) – (vadanti / vadatha)? =
(tatra-bhavanataH = means respected you all; bhavan is upapada and technicality of sarvanama samasa ;
the sarvanama – ‘yooyam’ is aprayukta, yet understood.).
(parama-sarvasmai= to everyone, without exception). The term ‘paramasarva’ is a technical sarvanama.
For details see the rules - 1\.1.\26 - सूत्रम्॥ सर्वादीनि सर्वनामानि॥ and (Siddhanta kaumudi 211) ; 1\.1.\34 - सूत्रम्॥
स्वमज्ञातिधनाख्यायाम् (Siddhanta Kaumudi 219)
Additional Examples: अत्वं त्वं संपद्यत इत्यत्र तु न मध्यमपुरुषः, तत्र युष्मच्छब्दस्य गौणत्वात्। `
भवानागच्छती'त्यादौ भवच्छब्दयोगे तु न मध्यमपुरुषः, युष्मच्छब्दस्य संबोध्यैकविषयत्वात्,
भवच्छब्दस्य तु स्वभावेन संबोध्याऽसंबोध्यसादारणत्वादित्यलम्।
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
Mārcis Gasūns
On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:00:40 UTC+2, Madhav Deshpande wrote:
One more example of a switch between bhavān and tvam:अहं च त्वं च राजेन्द्र लोकनाथावुभावपि। बहुव्रीहिरहं राजन् षष्ठीतत्पुरुषो भवान्॥
Rishi Goswami
Namaste to you.
My doubts were very aptly resolved when I read MudraRakshasam. It even improved my language.
It often deals with using 3rd person in order to reflect greatness. Bhavat shabd is often substituted by words like "Arya" and "Deva" there. Where the Tikakar writes, "bhavacchabda-arthe aaryashabdaprayogah".
What my initial doubt was, is Bhavatshabda in reference to a person in front of us appropriate? Is it used in 3rd person but meant for the 2nd person (ie the person I am talking to/addressing)?
The answer seems pretty apt in usage. Bhavatshabd is in Prathama Purusha, but 3rd person is only a sign of respect, in reality, the meaning of it is to address a respected person we are talking with in front, and cal also be otherwise as bAlamanoramakara says, "sambodyAsambodhyasAdhAraNatvAd".
It can be
"Aryah/tatra bhavan Chanakayah Uchyatam"
in actual 3rd person (asambodhya-viSHaye),when Arya is far from me, or it can be
"Kim AjnApayati Aaryah/Devah/Bhavan?"
When Arya is in front of me (sambodhya-viSHaye).
Bhavan is not tvam shabd but a sarvanam used in sense of sambodhyAsambodhya-sAdhAraNatva.
Balamanorama explained perfectly and it became more clear as I read more literature, Nrisimhavijamahanatakam, Malatimadhavam, Mudrarakshasam and Dashamumaracharitam.
Balamanorama:
"BhavAn AgaCCHhatItyAdau tu na madhyamapuruSHah, yuSHmatchhabdasya sambodhyaika-viSHaytvAt bhavatchhabdasya tu svabhAvena sambodyAsambodhya-sAdhAraNatvAd ityalam."
So, this meaning was blurred when initially exposed to it, which became clearer through time.
Thankyou to all schollars for helping.
Namaste.
