Purnimanta months in Mahabharata

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

I have read in the past about Bhshma's referring to the performance of Pitri-shraddha in Amavashya at the middle of the month. That shows that the Mahabharata refers to Purnimanta month. I also understand that there is mention of Purnimanta month in the Virat parva. I shall be thankful if any kind member knows and lets me know the instances (with references) as to whre in the Mabhabharata there is mention of Purnimanta month ( and of Amanta as well, if any at all  there is reference on that).

Regards,
Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shei Hudliji,

This verse actually shows that the months were Purnimanta and not Amanta.

The second half of this verse has baffled many great Sanskrit scholars over many decades. Not that these scholars did not know Sanskrit, they could not interpret the verse properly because their mind was prejudiced. If you look at the verse plainly it says"tribhaagashesha (i.e.,  tribhaagasya shesha bhaaga) is remaining to become shukla paksha. If you consider the paksha as divided into three parts of five tithis each, you will realise what Bhishma was saying. What Bhishma was saying is that the last part (of the three parts of the paksha) has to go (pass) before the Shukla paksha is going to come. This shows that Bhishma died in Krishna paksha and not in Shukla paksha.

I hope Dr. R.N.Iyengarji is reading this mail. If my memory serves me right, in one of his past mails I read him quoting a verse from the Mahabharata, where Bhishma was referring to the Pitri-yajna to be performed in Amavashya, in the middle of the Month. That is possible only in a Purnimanta month. RNI may kindly quote the verse if he remembers that.

Regards,
Sunil KB

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

On the other hand the following verse from the anushAsana parva seems to clearly indicate that the amAnta system was prevalent during the mahAbhArata era:

माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः पुण्यो युधिष्ठिर।
त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति ॥ १५३.२८

The context is this. During the mahAbhArat war, the injured Bhishma wanted to end his life, having waited for the Sun to turn North (uttarAyaNa). He tells Yudhishthira that the lunar month of mAgha has arrived. He further says it is the bright fortnight (shukla-pakSha) of the month and that 3/4ths of the month are yet to elapse. This means that only 1/4th of the month had passed and that it is still the bright fortnight. This implies the conversation took place around the 8th day of the bright fortnight of mAgha, counting from the new moon which would have been the end of the previous month, i.e. an amAnta system rather than the pUrNimAnta system that is commonly prevalent in Northern India these days. Indeed, to this day, the eighth day of the bright fortnight of mAgha is observed to be the भीष्माष्टमी, when everyone (even one whose father is alive) is required to give tarpaNa to Bhishma, since he died without children as a brahmachArin. 

In the following book, the author Shri VRR Dikshitar opines (page 24) that the pUrNimAnta system was started in 57 BCE during the Gupta era. However, he also holds that the pUrNimAnta system was prevalent in much earlier Vedic times, followed by a period during which the amAnta system was followed until 57 BCE, when again the pUrNimAnta system was adopted.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KP_DTtd6kJEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gupta+polity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1_9BUY7OFsfsrAeAlYGQDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

He further says that Kalidasa, in his poem the मेघदूत, has used the amAnta system. From this he infers that Kalidasa must have composed the Meghaduta earlier than 57 BCE. Perhaps, scholars familiar with the Meghaduta would throw more light on this.

Regards,

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.
 
 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:47:04 AM UTC+8, Gitarthi wrote:

Dear Shei Hudliji,

This verse actually shows that the months were Purnimanta and not Amanta.

The second half of this verse has baffled many great Sanskrit scholars over many decades. Not that these scholars did not know Sanskrit, they could not interpret the verse properly because their mind was prejudiced. If you look at the verse plainly it says"tribhaagashesha (i.e.,  tribhaagasya shesha bhaaga) is remaining to become shukla paksha. If you consider the paksha as divided into three parts of five tithis each, you will realise what Bhishma was saying. What Bhishma was saying is that the last part (of the three parts of the paksha) has to go (pass) before the Shukla paksha is going to come. This shows that Bhishma died in Krishna paksha and not in Shukla paksha.

I do not have the context, but the quoted verse seems to indicate a Purnimanta Panchanga and not "clearly Amavasyanta" as Dr. Hudli says. Dr. Hudli may want to give the अन्वय and interpretation to support his claim.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Further to my last mail the verse from the Mahabharata in favour of the Purnimanta month is as follows:

Mahabharata:13.92.19
मासार्धे कृष्णपक्षस्य कुयान निवपनानि वै
पुष्टिर आयुस तथा वीर्यं शरीश चैव पितृवर्तिनः

Here "masardha" means the Amavashya in the middle of the month.

Regards,
Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Hudli,

There is no doubt that Bhishma died in an ashtami tithi and I am also not disputing that. One can see Vedavyasa using a lot of astrology in the Mahabharata, so much so that he was saying that the Saturn was afflicting the Rohini nakshatra and that is possible either by the Rohini-Sakata-Bheda (which is nothing but the conjuction of Saturn and Rohini) or by Saturn's aspecting of Rohini from the opposite side of the Zodiac. In fact Saturn can aspect Rohini from two more positions. Astrologically Ashtami tithi is ruled by the Vasus and Bhishma was the chief of Vasus, born as a man, under a curse, so the texts say.

Secondly, the very word "Saumya masa" means Lunar month and the line "माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः सौम्यो युधिष्ठिर।" obviously refers to the Lunar month of Magha. The Lunar month Magha ends with the full Moon at the Magha nakshatra. The very word  Purnima or Paurnamasi exactly means that the month is full. .

Thirdly, to me, what Nilakantha (the late 17th century writer of "Bhāratabhāvadīpa," the commenatry of the Mahabharata) says  is not necessarily the gospel truth. The puranas and the epics constitute the fifth Veda and there are instances in the fifth Veda on the splitting of the paksha into three parts but there is absolutely no mention of breaking a tithi into two halves as Nilamantha was advocating.  The highly knowledgeable Bhishma was obviously aware of the splitting of the paksha into three parts, particularly because his own mother Ganga used to go to heaven every month from the beginning of the last third part of the Shukla paksha to the end of the first third part of the Krishna paksha.  Obviously Nilakantha has not read the Narada Purana, which says this and so he was not aware of the splitting of the paksha into three parts.  So to me Nilaknatha's breaking the Ashtami tithi into two parts is not at all admissible.

Fourthly, as regards the word Shukla in the verse

अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम्।
तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः॥ ८.२४

it simply means the period of the shining Moon and that is  when more than half of the the Moon is bright. The period of shining moon is from the start of the Shukla-ashtami to the Krishna-ashtami. That is also the reason why Bhishma decided  to die before the Krishna-ashtami tithi was over. Further, as stated above Bhishma, as a Vasu, was the presiding deity of the Ashtami tithi.

Fifthly, as regards the verse

अहः पूर्वं ततो रात्रिर्मासाः शुक्लादयः स्मृताः।
श्रविष्ठादीनि ऋक्षाणि ऋतवः शिशिरादयः॥ ४४.१-२
it is giving the view of Smriti. When a dispute arises between Veda (including the fifth Veda) and Smriti one has always to choose the Veda (including the fifth Veda). So on that count also I would not accept the Smriti version against what is given in the Mahbaharata itself.

Sunil KB

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

Here is the verse with nIlakaNTha's bhAvadIpa:

माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः सौम्यो युधिष्ठिर।

त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति ॥ १५३.२८

माघोऽयमिति सौम्यश्चान्द्रः मासस्य चतुर्भागकरणे सार्धसप्तभागत्वात् अष्टम्यर्धस्यानतीतत्वेन प्रथमभागस्य विद्यमानत्वात् त्रिभागशेषो भवितुमर्हतीत्यर्थः
तेनाद्याष्टमीत्यर्थः ।

What is being explained is that if you divide the lunar month of 30 days by 4 you get 7 and 1/2 days in one part. On the day Bhishma expired, the first part of duration 7 and 1/2 days have already elapsed.
This means it is the 8th lunar day (अष्टमी) tithi. Of this 8th tithi, half has elapsed and half has not passed yet. Three parts of duration 7 and 1/2 days each are remaining. This means today (the day when Bhishma expired)
is अष्टमी, the eight tithi and it is in the bright fortnight (शुक्ल पक्ष).

It is a simple matter to see that the above is possible if the amAnta calendar is being followed.

Another reason why Bhishma could not have expired in the dark fortnight is found in the gItA:

अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम्।
तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः॥ ८.२४

It was only appropriate for Bhishma to end his life in the bright fortnight, having waited all along for the uttarAyaNa (northern course of the Sun). It does not make sense if he left his body in the dark fortnight.

Further, elsewhere in the mahAbhArata (shAnti parva) we find another clear indication of amAnta calendar:

यद् आदिमध्यपर्यन्तं ग्रहणोपायमेव च।
नाम लक्षणसंयुक्तं सर्वं वक्ष्यामि तत्त्वतः॥

अहः पूर्वं ततो रात्रिर्मासाः शुक्लादयः स्मृताः।
श्रविष्ठादीनि ऋक्षाणि ऋतवः शिशिरादयः॥ ४४.१-२

The second verse is saying that just as the day comes first and night comes later, in a month, the bright fortnight comes first and the dark fortnight next. Again this indicates the amAnta system.

Note that I am not saying only the amAnta system is supported in the mahAbhArata and that there are no indications of the pUrNimAnta system.

Anand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

Here is the verse with nIlakaNTha's bhAvadIpa:

माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः सौम्यो युधिष्ठिर।

त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति ॥ १५३.२८

माघोऽयमिति सौम्यश्चान्द्रः मासस्य चतुर्भागकरणे सार्धसप्तभागत्वात् अष्टम्यर्धस्यानतीतत्वेन प्रथमभागस्य विद्यमानत्वात् त्रिभागशेषो भवितुमर्हतीत्यर्थः
तेनाद्याष्टमीत्यर्थः ।

Is that the complete commentary or is something missing? We do not see any अन्वय nor do we see the explanation of पक्षः शुक्लः so it is not certain what is the अन्वय taken by नीलकण्ठ. I do not have the source to check with me.

Any interpretation, especially a claim like this means पूर्णिमान्त or अमावस्यान्त, must be backed by complete parsing and grammatical analysis of the verse. Without an अन्वय and without an explanation of each and every term, we are just building castles in the air.

As we see two अयं terms, there seem to be two वाक्यs. The अन्वय then becomes very important. Is त्रिभागशेषः to be taken with the first sentence as the adjective of मासः or as the adjective of पक्षः in the second sentence? A possible अन्वय (there may be other possibilities too) is (हे) युधिष्ठिर. अयं सौम्यः माघः मासः समनुप्राप्तः (अस्ति). अयं त्रिभागशेषः पक्षः शुक्लः भवितुमर्हति. As per my limited knowledge there should be two nouns (not counting adjectives) in nominative singular in the second sentence - so that we have [X] [Y] भवितुम् अर्हति. If त्रिभागशेषः is to be taken with the मासः in previous sentence, then what are the two nouns in the second sentence? And if भवितुम् अर्हति is taken with मासः (as seems from the possibly incomplete quotation of the commentary) and the whole verse is taken as one वाक्य, then why two अयं terms are used? Another important point is how is भवितुम् अर्हति to be interpreted and as per what Paninian rules. Specifically what is the कर्ता for भवितुम् अर्हति and in what sense भवितुम् अर्हति is used, is it used in the sense of भवति or भविष्यति or some other sense.

For a claim to be taken seriously, these questions must be addressed. Panini's grammar is the standard tool for addressing such issues of interpretation. So request both Dr. Hudli and Dr. Bhattacharjya to support their arguments using grammar.

--
Nityānanda Miśra
Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR
Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:08 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Hudli,

Secondly, the very word "Saumya masa" means Lunar month and the line "माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः सौम्यो युधिष्ठिर।" obviously refers to the Lunar month of Magha. The Lunar month Magha ends with the full Moon at the Magha nakshatra. The very word  Purnima or Paurnamasi exactly means that the month is full. .

This is a strong argument in favour of Purnimanta month. पूर्णमासः means complete month, and that which is of the पूर्णमासः is called पौर्णमास/पौर्णमासी. The night of the complete month is पौर्णमासी.
पूर्णः च असौ मासः इति पूर्णमासः (कर्मधारयसमास, = the completed month) -> तस्येदम् -> पूर्णमास + अण् -> तद्धितेष्वचामादेः, यस्येति च -> पौर्णमास -> पौर्णमास ङीप् -> यस्येति च -> पौर्णमासी 

पौर्णमासी is also used twice by Panini. साऽस्मिन् पौर्णमासीति (4-2-21) and नदीपौर्णमास्याग्रहायणीभ्यः (5-4-110)

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

If I have understood your point correctly, you seem to be taking the shukla paksha as starting from the eighth day after the new moon and extending to the eighth day after the full moon.

Not at all. He has said this is the period when more than half of the moon is bright. The word पक्ष is not mentioned either in the verse or by Dr. Bhattacharjya.
 

By way of answering Shri Mishra's point, the text of the nIlakaNTha's commentary, that I have already reproduced in its entirety, appears here (page 169 of 287):

In that case either the book is missing some text or the commentary is not complete on the verse. The former may be possible due to a typesetting error or damaged manuscript. The words शुक्लः पक्षः have been left out, and and there is ambiguity around what अन्वय was desired by नीलकण्ठ.
 

http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/9000.pdf

One could construct an anvaya as follows:

हे युधिष्ठिर, अयं सौम्यो माघो मासः समनुप्राप्तः (प्रथमभागस्य विद्यमानत्वात्) त्रिभागशेषो भवितुं अर्हति। अयं शुक्लः पक्ष: (अस्ति)।

That looks a bit strange. You mean the second वाक्य begins with पक्षोऽयं and ends with शुक्लः, and then भवितुम् अर्हति which comes after शुक्लः (end of second वाक्य is to be taken with the first वाक्य? So the second वाक्य is embedded in the first वाक्य? The order usually (not always) is irrelevant within a sentence, but I have not seen cases where words from two sentences is mixed such that you have some words from sentence A followed by some of sentence B followed by some more of sentence A.
 

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Anand Hudli,

You referred to Surya-siddhanta as follows:

Quote
There is nothing unusual about splitting a tithi into two parts. Technically, half a tithi is called करण, as per तिथ्यर्धभोगं सर्वेषां करणानां प्रकल्पयेत् ।  (vide sUrya siddhanta 2.69).
Unquote

If you really think a reference to Suryasiddhanta can help, why then are you ignoring the fact the Suryasiddhanta itself talks only about the Purnimanta month and defines the month which ends with Purnima in a specific nakshatra. So we need not go any further and it is settled beyond doubt that the month referred to in the Mahabharata was Purnimanta.

Sunil KB

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

If I have understood your point correctly, you seem to be taking the shukla paksha as starting from the eighth day after the new moon and extending to the eighth day after the full moon. Although I have heard in astrological circles that the moon is considered a beneficial graha only between these days, I have not heard or seen an astronomical verse or work define the shukla pakSha that way. Can you provide a reference?

If we take the shukla pakSha the way we usually understand it, i.e. as extending from the day after the new moon to the full moon, then the interpretation that I have provided is correct.

There is nothing unusual about splitting a tithi into two parts. Technically, half a tithi is called करण, as per तिथ्यर्धभोगं सर्वेषां करणानां प्रकल्पयेत् ।  (vide sUrya siddhanta 2.69).

By way of answering Shri Mishra's point, the text of the nIlakaNTha's commentary, that I have already reproduced in its entirety, appears here (page 169 of 287):

http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/9000.pdf

One could construct an anvaya as follows:

हे युधिष्ठिर, अयं सौम्यो माघो मासः समनुप्राप्तः (प्रथमभागस्य विद्यमानत्वात्) त्रिभागशेषो भवितुं अर्हति। अयं शुक्लः पक्ष: (अस्ति)।

Anand

[sunil bhattacharjya]

The claim that for astrological purpose the amanta month is always used is not correct. The purnimnanta month is also used . The adhika masa system is there is purnimanta month also.

The Amanta month obviously came to be used after the Mahabharata period.

Sunil KB

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Secondly, the very word "Saumya masa" means Lunar month and the line "माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः सौम्यो युधिष्ठिर।" obviously refers to the Lunar month of Magha. The Lunar month Magha ends with the full Moon at the Magha nakshatra. The very word  Purnima or Paurnamasi exactly means that the month is full. .

Here, I thought we are discussing the amAnta or pUrNimAnta system in the context of the verse that I quoted from the mahAbhArata. What you say above is a general statement and is not relevant to this particular context. Still, I would add the following.

If that is the case, we would not have had any amAnta calendars in the country at all! But we know that many parts of the country do follow it and have been following it for a very long time now. It is more like driving on the right side of the road or driving on the left side. Some countries follow the former rule while others the latter. There could be good reasons for either case.

Actually, for astronomical purposes it is always the amAnta system that is preferred. For example, in the matter of adding an intercalary month (adhika mAsa), it is always the amAnta calculation that is considered. The most recent example of this was the adhika mAsa that occurred in bhAdrapada, last year. The pUrNimAnta calendar was made to coincide with the amAnta calendar as far as the adhika mAsa was concerned. The result was the nija bhAdrapada krishna pakSha of the pUrnimAnta claendar was followed by an entire adhika mAsa or the amAnta calendar, followed by the nija bhAdrapada shukla pakSha. In other words, the pUrNimAnta bhAdrapada mAsa was split into two and an amAnta adhika mAsa was added in between the two halves.

Anand
 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Hubli,

One cannot accept a text conveniently as authoritative for one thing it said and then consider the same text as unauthoritative for another thing it said. That is what I was pointing out.

As regards the Purnumanta montrh, please see the commenary on the verse 14.16 of Suryasiddhanta by Burgess.

Further, it seems you have overlooked my earlier mails in this thread, where I clarified the reason why Nilakantha cannot be considered as an authority  for the present discussion.

Sunil KB

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

Please provide the exact reference where the sUrya siddhAnta " talks only about the Purnimanta month and defines the month which ends with Purnima in a specific nakshatra."
The commentary on the sUrya siddhAnta (1.13) confirms the amAnta system of calculating the lunar month, i.e the time between two consecutive conjunctions of the moon and sun:
रवीन्द्वोर्युतिरमावास्यान्ते भवति ततो यावता कालेन पुनस्तद्युतिर्भवति स एव चान्द्रो मासः।

Besides, you miss the point I was trying to make. The point is not whether pUrNimAnta or amAnta is supported in the sUrya siddhAnta, but just to affirm that the concept of a half tithi
is not newly created by nIlakaNTha the commentator on the mahAbhArata. That is all.

Anand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

That looks a bit strange. You mean the second वाक्य begins with पक्षोऽयं and ends with शुक्लः, and then भवितुम् अर्हति which comes after शुक्लः (end of second वाक्य is to be taken with the first वाक्य? So the second वाक्य is embedded in the first वाक्य? The order usually (not always) is irrelevant within a sentence, but I have not seen cases where words from two sentences is mixed such that you have some words from sentence A followed by some of sentence B followed by some more of sentence A.

OK. Perhaps, this is a more appropriate anvaya, retaining the essence of the verse:

हे युधिष्ठिर, अयं सौम्यो माघो मासः समनुप्राप्तः (प्रथमभागस्य विद्यमानत्वात्) त्रिभागशेषो (अस्ति)।  (अस्य मासस्य त्रिभागशेषत्वात्) अयं शुक्लः पक्ष: भवितुम् अर्हति।

So now you think that भवितुम् अर्हति does not go with मासः (like I think too). नीलकण्ठ's commentary takes भवितुम् अर्हति with मासः, so either we both think that it is incomplete/missing something or we both disagree with his interpretation of taking भवितुम् अर्हति with मासः. Disagreeing or thinking beyond a commentatry is never a bad idea, we need to often fill in missing details. And it is for this reason that Bhagvan Panini gave us eternal tools, the Sutras of अष्टाध्यायी.

Now coming back to your अन्वय. If you take शुक्लः simply as adjective of पक्षः and not associated with भवितुम् अर्हति then something is amiss again. भवितुम् अर्हति expects two words as in A B भवितुम् अर्हति, and A cannot be an adjective of B. Two examples from VR -

न मानुषी राक्षसस्य भार्या भवितुमर्हति (मानुषी राक्षसस्य भार्या भवितुम् न अर्हति, here A = मानुषी, B = राक्षसस्य भार्या)
कृतकामा तु कैकेयी तुष्टा भवितुमर्हति (कृतकामा कैकेयी तु तुष्टा भवितुम् अर्हति, here A = कृतकामा कैकेयी, B = तुष्टा)

So what do you think is A and B in the sentence पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति? If we take A = शुक्लः and B = पक्षः (शुक्ल/bright is capable of becoming पक्ष) it does not make sense as then A has to be interpreted not as an adjective of B but independently.

I think the अन्वय of second वाक्य is अयं पक्षः शुक्लः भवितुम् अर्हति. As शुक्लः is now not a qualifier for पक्षः but stands independent, it means "bright" and not "bright half of the lunar month". This confirms with Dr. Bhattacharjya's interpretation and not that given by you.

The other question to be answered is what is meant by भवितुम् अर्हति. The affix तुमुन् comes from four Sutras of Panini -

1. तुमुन्ण्वुलौ क्रियायां क्रियार्थायाम्‌ [भविष्यति] (3-3-10) - this has the sense of future as there is अनुवृत्ति of भविष्यति from भविष्यति गम्यादयः (3-3-3). Example - पठितुं गच्छामि - I am going, will read [once the act of going is complete]. तुमुन् from this Sutra is possible and if it is the case, the meaning would be that "the पक्ष is becoming capable, it will become bright [once it becomes capable]". Note that लट् is used for both present and present continuous in Sanskrit.
   
2. समानकर्तृकेषु तुमुन् [इच्चर्थेषु] (3-3-158) - This is not possible here since इच्छा is not the meaning
3. कालसमयवेलासु तुमुन् (3-3-167) - This is again not possible as neither काल, समय or वेला are present.
4. शकधृषज्ञाग्लाघटरभलभक्रमसहार्हास्त्यर्थेषु तुमुन् (3-4-65) - This is also possible as अर्ह् is explicitly mentioned by Panini. If this is the case, then the meaning would be "the पक्ष is capable of becoming bright".
   

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.
 
If you disagree, please explain your reasons supported by Paninian grammar. Or you may go to ऐन्द्र, कातन्त्र grammar also, but an interpretation has to be backed by grammar for it to be taken seriously. Note that two different interpretations may be both backed by grammar.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Hudli,

Please look at the following chart given by Burgess in his commentary on the verse 14.16 of Suryasiddhanta. This is self-explanatory.

 

Month	Nakshatrass in which full moon may occur
Kārtika	Krittika, Rohini
Mārgaśīrṣa	Mrgasirasa, Ardra
Pauṣa	Punarvasu, Pushya
Māgha	Aslesha, Magha
Phālguna	P. Phalguni, U. Phalguni, Hasta
Chaitra	Citra, Swati
Vaiśākha	Vishakha, Anuradha
Jyaiṣṭha	Jyeshtha, Mula
Āṣāḍha	P. Ashadha, U. Ashadha
Śrāvaṇa	Sravana, Sravishta
Bhādrapada	Sathabhsha, P. Bhadrapada, U. Bhadrapada
Āśvina	Revati, Ashvini, Bharani

 

Sunil KB

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

One cannot accept a text conveniently as authoritative for one thing it said and then consider the same text as unauthoritative for another thing it said. That is what I was pointing out.

Where/when did this happen?
 

As regards the Purnumanta montrh, please see the commenary on the verse 14.16 of Suryasiddhanta by Burgess.

I am sorry the commentary on 14.15 (and 14.16) only states that the end of pUrNimA in each month coincides with a particular nakShatra which is pretty obvious. For example, in the month of kArtika the full moon happens in
the proximity of the nakshatra of krittikA (could be rohiNI also), etc. This is true in both pUrNimAnta and amAnta systems. There is no statement that the pUrNimAnta marks the end of the month. Here is sUrya siddhAnta 14.15 with relevant commentary,

भचक्रभ्रमणं नित्यं नाक्षत्रं दिनमुच्यते।
नक्षत्रनाम्ना मासास्तु ज्ञेयाः पर्वान्तयोगतः॥ १४.१५

... पर्वान्तयोगतो नक्षत्रनाम्ना तु मासाश्चान्द्रमासा ज्ञेयाः। पर्वान्तः पूर्णिमान्तस्तत्र नक्षत्रयोगेन मासानां सञ्ज्ञा। यथा कृत्तिकासम्बन्धात्
कार्तिकः। मृगशीर्षसम्बन्धान्मार्गशीर्षः। पुष्यसम्बन्धात्पौषः। मघासम्बन्धान्माघः। ...

The key word here is पर्वान्तः, the end of पर्व (पर्वन्). What is it? Burgess' commentary as well as the Sanskrit commentary do not specifically say it is the end of a month.
Rather, the word पर्वन् is taken to mean a half-month, specifically the shukla-pakSha. So the word पर्वान्तः must mean the end of pUrNimA, the full moon. It does not
necessarily mean end of the month. Even the Monier Williams dictionary entry for पर्वन् has "a division of time, e.g. a half month (24 in a year)", as one of the meanings.

Regarding Shri Mishra's comments on the anvaya, one could take an implied noun (समयः or कालः) in the anvaya already supplied - अयं (समयः) शुक्लः पक्ष: भवितुम् अर्हति
or it is fine to take the second sentence in the anvaya as अयं पक्ष: शुक्लः भवितुम् अर्हति. But still it does not admit a reading
that supports the pUrNimAnta system.  I don't see how your position is supported, unless of course, you supply a reference that states the shukla period starts from the eighth day after new moon and extends to the eighth
day after the full moon and the shukla pakSha is itself defined in this way . Even here there is a defect that the pakSha would not be 15 tithis but rather 16 tithis. On the other hand, if you left out the last tithi,
i.e eighth day after the full moon, then it does not support the theory that BhiShma left his body in the shukla period, which was obviously appropriate for him. Regarding nIlakaNTha's commentary, one could
take a slightly different reading from what he has given, provided the underlying idea is not compromised. There is nothing wrong in doing this, nor can we claim we have a better reading than him or an improved
reading. Further, even given the meanings of the tumun pratyaya, it is highly odd and redundant for BhiShma to say on the day of his death, "I am about to leave my body. And keep watching, this pakSha
is capable of becoming bright, but it not so right now. Or it is becoming capable of being bright and once it becomes capable it will be bright." On the other hand, if we accept that he passed away on the
mAgha-shukla-aShTamI as is commonly held, there is no problem, because he would have said, "Let me quit my body. It is uttarAyaNa, and it is the bright-half (shukla pakSha) of mAgha." In this case,
we can explain the tumun as "There are three parts of 7 and 1/2 days each left in this month of mAgha. Therefore, this (prevailing right now) pakSha is capable of being shukla."

Anand

Further, it seems you have overlooked my earlier mails in this thread, where I clarified the reason why Nilakantha cannot be considered as an authority  for the present discussion.

Then can you give references/commentaries other than nIlakaNTha to show that the mahAbhArata era followed the pUrNimAnta system?
 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Hudli

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Regarding Shri Mishra's comments on the anvaya, one could take an implied noun (समयः or कालः) in the anvaya already supplied - अयं (समयः) शुक्लः पक्ष: भवितुम् अर्हति

There is no need for an अध्याहार here. An अध्याहार is required if the sentence is missing something. If the sentence makes sense, using अध्याहार will change or distort the meaning.

or it is fine to take the second sentence in the anvaya as अयं पक्ष: शुक्लः भवितुम् अर्हति.

Please decide on one अन्वय. If we keep on changing अन्वय, that only means we are not sure of the meaning.
 

But still it does not admit a reading

that supports the pUrNimAnta system.  I don't see how your position is supported, unless of course, you supply a reference that states the shukla period starts from the eighth day after new moon and extends to the eighth 

day after the full moon and the shukla pakSha is itself defined in this way .

You have missed the point Dr. Bhattacharjya made. शुक्लपक्ष has a रूढि meaning in the period of waxing moon, whereas शुक्ल as an adjective simply means bright.
 

reading. Further, even given the meanings of the tumun pratyaya,

Please let us know what meaning of tumun you are taking and from which Sutra.
 

it is highly odd and redundant for BhiShma to say on the day of his death,

This is not how we interpret verses. One can say it is highly odd for Bhishma to say anything about the astronomy on his deathbed or for Krishna to say 700 verses before war. Rather than deciding what is odd and redundant as per you, please stick to Anvaya and grammar.
 

mAgha-shukla-aShTamI as is commonly held, there is no problem, because he would have said, "Let me quit my body. It is uttarAyaNa, and it is the bright-half (shukla pakSha) of mAgha."

If you claim that this is what he "would have said", please answer why is अस्ति not said in place of भवितुम् अर्हति? There is a difference between the two. If Bhisma was saying what you think he was saying, he would not have said भवितुम् अर्हति. If we start with a meaning and then interpret the verse, it is hardly interpretation.
 

In this case,
we can explain the tumun as "There are three parts of 7 and 1/2 days each left in this month of mAgha. Therefore, this (prevailing right now) pakSha is capable of being shukla."

Which means the पक्ष is not शुक्ल right now. Else why would it be said that it is capable of becoming Shukla.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sri Bhattacharya,

 

This is an interesting interpretative dispute about pUrNimAnta and amAnta months in the mahAbhArata. However, please note that it is not at all necessary to appeal to the mImAmsA rule about the hierarchical authority of Sruti vs. Smrti. The epic doesn't get automatically converted into Sruti, merely by virtue of it being described as the fifth veda. Inspite of being composed by Vyasa and written down by Ganesha, the epic has not been understood as Sruti.

 

The number five as applied to the Veda is never meant for enumeration of what constitutes the extent of Sruti. It is used in a gauNa sense only, and it is meant to praise the epic, which is specifically called itihAsa and allied to the purANa-s (see the frequent use of the term itihAsa-purANa in the darSana literature).

 

There would be another unintended and unfortunate consequence if you assign the epic to Sruti status. It would take the mahAbhArata into the exclusive domain of traivarNika purusha-s, like the four Vedas themselves, thereby taking tne entirety of it, including the Gita, away from general access to all. On the other hand, it has been explicitly said, SrAvayec caturo varNAn, as explicitly quoted by more than one commentator on the brahmasUtra-s. Replacing sarvAdhikAra for the epic with special adhikAra for a subset of the intended recipients is clearly not the original intention of the tradition.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

ps. I've read books written in English and in Indian languages that seek fifth veda status for Ayurveda, Dhanurveda and Gandharvaveda (i.e. Natyasastra) also. How far this claim may be supported from the original texts of these fields of knowledge is questionable, but they serve to underline the gauNa nature of the adjective fifth when applied to the word Veda.

 

On Friday, March 15, 2013 2:08:42 PM UTC-4, Gitarthi wrote:

Dear Shri Hudli,

[sunil bhattacharjya]

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]

Please tell me in your own words as to what should have been the statements like, to convince you, beyond any doubt, that the month was Purnimanta and not Amanta. Unless that is let known we will go on arguing endlessly.

Sunil KB

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please read my earlier message. It is not whether the full moon coincides with Krittika in the month of KArtika, etc. that is disputed here, since it is an accepted fact in both systems. It is whether the full moon means
end of the month invariably.

Anand

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Quote
Again, I reiterate that the commonly accepted observance of भीष्माष्टमी is indeed the माघ-शुक्ल-अष्टमी and, therefore, is in no need of being changed.
Unquote

This is a absolutely arbitrary ruling. One should be able to prove it by giving the correct date of the Mahabharata war giving entire tithi and nakashatra calculations and accopmmodating the three consecutive eclipses, including the 13-day eclipse pair, by taking the help of the modern astronomical software.

Sunil KB
.

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Bhattacharya and Shri Mishra,

Here is an attempt to clear the confusion. First, the word पक्ष: does occur in the verse. For convenience, here it is:

माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः पुण्यो युधिष्ठिर।

त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति ॥ १५३.२८

Going by what Ram Nath Sharma says on Panini Sutra (3.4.65), the correct translation/meaning of पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुम् अर्हति would be "this pakSha (right now) deserves to be shukla (bright)." Now, given the word त्रिभागशेषः being applied to the word
मासः, and doing the simple calculation that I mentioned earlier (7.5 days have passed, 3 x 7.5 = 22.5 days remain in this month), it is clear that today (day of BhiShma's death) is either a कृष्ण-अष्टमी, if you think it is supporting a pUrNimAnta system,
or a शुक्ल-अष्टमी, if you think it is supporting a amAnta system. Why? "7.5 days have passed" automatically means this moment today is aShTamI in either system. Each tithi is a difference of 12 degrees between the celestial longitudes of the moon
and the sun. This means that the current difference between the longitudes is 90 degrees (शुक्ल-अष्टमी , amAnta) or 270 degrees (कृष्ण-अष्टमी, pUrNimAnta). Shri Bhattacharya also agrees thus far.

Also, note that BhiShma actually died a little later after he said these words. His death was not exactly at 7.5 tithis but a little later.

Note: At new moon, the moon is not visible, after 7.5 tithis away from the new moon, half the moon is visible, at 15 tithis away from the new moon, the full moon is visible, after 7.5 tithis away from the full moon, again half the moon is visible
and there will be a new moon an additional 7.5 tithis later. In terms of longitudinal difference, these are 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, and 360 or 0 degrees respectively.
Common definition of shukla and krishna Paksha: shukla pakSha - between 0 and 180 degrees, krishna pakSha - between 180 degrees and 360 degrees.

What Shri Bhattacharya seems to be suggesting is that even taking today as krishna-aShTamI, it is as good as "shukla" because the moon is more than half bright. Technically, if 7.5 days have passed, the moon would be exactly half visible.
Still, proceeding along this line, the argument is: BhiShma passed away on krishna-aShTamI but the day of his death is still considered shukla, because the moon is still bright. This is the explanation of the verse above.

However, there are problems in the above argument. Where does it say, by way of a reference, that from the full moon up to the krishna aShTamI, the lunar days are considered to belong to the shukla pakSha?

Let us investigate this concept of "shukla" a little further. We can attempt to find out what could be an alternate definition of "shukla", assuming for the moment that the commonly accepted definition of shukla pakSha
can be challenged.

In order to answer this question we need to look at the definition of the lunar month itself: in the commentary on sUrya siddhAnta (14.14) and in other astronomy works it has been stated:

त्रिंशता तिथिभिर्मासश्चान्द्रः पित्र्यमहः स्मृतम्।
निशा च मासपक्षान्तौ तयोर्मध्ये विभागतः॥ १४.१४

Note that this verse gives a clear picture of the amAnta system. The commentary is clear. मासपक्षान्तौ दर्शान्तपूर्णान्तौ च विभागतः क्रमेण तयोरहोरात्रयोर्मध्ये दले भवतः। दर्शान्तो दिनार्धं पूर्णान्तो रात्र्यर्धं भवति।
This means the mid-day of the Pitris (forefathers) is the amAvAsya (specifically the end point of the new moon, 0 degrees) and this also marks the end of the month. The mid-night of the Pitris is the pUrNimA,
specifically the end point of the full moon (180 degrees). This marks the end of a pakSha.

Further, this is the important point being made.
कृष्णपक्षाष्टम्यर्धे दिनारम्भः। शुक्लपक्षाष्टम्यर्धे च निशारम्भ इति।

This means the day of the Pitris begins at the mid-point of the krishna-pakSha-aShTamI (270 degrees) and their night begins at the midpoint of the shukla-pakSha-aShTamI (90 degrees).
So it is logical to take the new definition of the "shukla" paksha as the the duration between the midpoint of shukla-aShTamI and the midpoint of krishna-aShTamI ( from 90 degrees to 270 degrees).
This could be taken as the duration when the moon is at least half visible. In other words, the "shukla" pakSha is when it is night for the Pitris. When it is day for the Pitris (270 degrees to 90 degrees), we can
take it as the modified definition of "krishna" pakSha. So recapping -
Modified shukla pakSha - between 90 degrees and 270 degrees, modified krishna pakSha - 270 degrees to 90 degrees.

Coming back to the day of BhiShma's death, taking the line of argument that he died a little later than the mid-point of krishna-pakSha-aShTamI, he would have died at the point when the day of the Pitris had begun, not
the shukla pakSha even according to the modified definition above. This means he would have died in the krishna pakSha according to both definitions, the commonly accepted one and the modified one.

Accordingly, the statement of BhiSHma, "पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुम् अर्हति" would not be true in both cases.

However, if we take his death a little later than the mid-point of the shukla-pakSha-aShTamI as I have been saying, then there will be no problem. According to both definitions of the shukla pakSha, he would have died
in the shukla pakSha and his statement "पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुम् अर्हति" would be true, regardless of whether we took the commonly accepted definition or the modified one. And this would further mean BhiShma was referring
to an amAnta calendar, because only then the त्रिभागशेष term would be meaningful. In other words, BhiShma passed away on the 8th lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month of mAgha, and the bright fortnight was
followed by the dark fortnight of the same month.

Again, I reiterate that the commonly accepted observance of भीष्माष्टमी is indeed the माघ-शुक्ल-अष्टमी and, therefore, is in no need of being changed.

Anand

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:02 PM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vidyashankarji,

 

 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.

Dear Sunil ji,
There is a saying:  विद्यावतां भागवते परीक्षा’ [ ’For the really learned the test lies in (expounding/explaining) the BhAgavatam'].  Its terse construction has lent to numerous, maybe a dozen, extant commentaries.  I have heard a scholar say 'If someone asks the Bhagavatam tree for Advaita fruits, it will give, so with VishiShTAdvaita and Dvaita and any other system.'  One can understand why so many commentaries are there.

regards
subrahmanian.v

Regards.
Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

If one says that the Bhagavatam is difficult for the lay-persons to understand then it automatically follows that one may of the opinion that the sage Vedavyasa had miserably failed in his attempt to write a text for the layman, even in his second attempt, This may appear as an aspersion on the scholarship of Vedavyasa.

If we look at it in another way it could be that Sridhara swami's guru wanted to see if his student had understood the message of the Bhagavatam well and that is why he asked Sridhara swami to write the commentary on the Bhagavatam.

You further said
Quote

'If someone asks the Bhagavatam tree for Advaita fruits, it will give, so with VishiShTAdvaita and Dvaita and any other system.' 

Unquote

Instead of the Bhagavatam one can even put Adi Sankaracharya in that place and say that Adi Sankaracharya acted as a Dvaita teacher for the grihashthees when he wrote the different stotras and advocated the Panchayatan worship to enable the  grihashthees to build a deity-devortee relationship, and that he acted as a Vishishtadvaia teacher for the retired grihashthees when he wrote commentaries on the Prashthana-trayee to enable the retired grihasthis to delve into the spiritual depths to understand that the Jeeva is a part of the Brahman and that he acted as an advaita teacher to those who had taken Sanyasha and  is in in the process of doing so, by teaching that for one realizing the Vedantic knowledge as expressed in the Mahavakyas, there is nothing other than Brahman.

Regards,
Sunil KB

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

"माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः सौम्यो युधिष्ठिर।

त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति ॥ १५३.२८

माघोऽयमिति सौम्यश्चान्द्रः मासस्य चतुर्भागकरणे सार्धसप्तभागत्वात् अष्टम्यर्धस्यानतीतत्वेन प्रथमभागस्य विद्यमानत्वात् त्रिभागशेषो भवितुमर्हतीत्यर्थः
तेनाद्याष्टमीत्यर्थः ।"

There is no अन्वयक्लेश in this verse --

हे युधिष्ठिर ! सौम्यः अयं माघः मासः समनुप्राप्तः। (तस्मात्)  अयं पक्षः शुक्लः पक्षः त्रिभागशेषः भवितुं अर्हति ।

सौम्यः - ’नक्षत्रेण युक्तः कालः’ (4-2-3) - मघया युक्तः चन्द्रमाः अस्यां पूर्णिमायां इति माघः मासः ।

पूर्णिमा - पूर्णः माः चन्द्रमाः अस्यां तिथौ अस्ति इति पूर्णिमा ।

(’मा इति चन्द्रमा उच्यते’ - काशिका ; ’चन्द्रमश्शब्दैकदेशप्रयोगः  सत्यभामा भामेतिवत्’ - पदमञ्जरी -- ’सास्मिन् पौर्णमासीति’ -पा 4-2-21)

त्रिभागशेषः - त्रयः भागाः शिष्यन्ते अस्मिन् इति ।

In Andhra , we take अमान्तमास  only .

पर्वन् --

Both पूर्णिमा and अमावास्या  are referred to as पर्वदिनम् ।

There are usages --

1. महाभाष्ये ( सास्मिन् 4-2-21)

संवत्स्रपर्वणीति च वक्तव्यं स्यात् । भृतकमासे माभूदिति।

(संवत्सरस्य द्वादश पर्वाणि मासान्ताः तत्र पर्वविशिष्टे यथा स्यात् - कैयटः)

2. सन्त्यन्ये’पि बृहस्पतिप्रभृतयो सम्भाविताः पञ्चषाः

तान् प्रत्येष विशेषविक्रमरुची राहुर्न वैरायते ।

द्वावेव  ग्रसते दिवाकरनिशाप्राणेश्वरौ भास्वरौ

भ्रातः पर्वणि पश्य दानवपतिः शीर्षावशेषाकृतिः॥(पराक्रम-नीतिशतकम्)

3. जगत्पवित्रैरपि तं न पादैः स्प्रष्टुं जगत्पूज्यमयुज्यतार्कः।

यतो बृहत्पार्वणचन्द्रचारु तस्यातपत्रं बिभरांबभूवे॥(माघः-3-2)

(पार्वणचन्द्रचारु पूर्णेन्दुसुन्दरमित्यर्थः - सर्वङ्कषा)

अष्टमी --

In Jyotisam , if one is born during the transit of पूर्णचब्द्र , i.e. शुक्लाष्टमी to  बहुलाष्टमी , then चन्द्र will be मातृकारक and if it is  क्षीणचन्द्र it  will be शुक्र ।

भवितुम् अर्हति - in the sense of 'surely it is ' .

धन्यो’स्मि

--
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)

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Subbuji,

If one says that the Bhagavatam is difficult for the lay-persons to understand then it automatically follows that one may of the opinion that the sage Vedavyasa had miserably failed in his attempt to write a text for the layman, even in his second attempt, This may appear as an aspersion on the scholarship of Vedavyasa.

We have to first know who the 'lay persons' are.  If they are devoid of Sanskrit knowledge, there is no use in Veda Vyasa's composing the work for their sake.  If they are endowed with Sanskrit then the Mahabharatha or other puranas would be good enough for them. 

So if Vyasa's words are to be justified then the 'lay persons' are those who have not much samskaras.  They are those who can be appealed to by giving a good deal of accounts of the exploits of the Lord by way of stories, avatara-s etc.  With these the targeted audience can be 'won over' and brought to the path of spirituality. 

Nevertheless even this account in the form of the bhAgavatham needs to be expounded as we find the various often contradicting interpretations that the commentators have given.  The very first verse is so tricky that each commentator employs all his skills to unravel the meaning. 

With or without commentary, even those without the language abilities to read the work by themselves will get the benefit of hearing the exploits of the Lord narrated by other sadhus/scholars.

Thus there is no belittling Vyasa's vow to offer the work to the 'lay persons'. 

regards
subrahmanian.v

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Hudli and friends,

This in continuation of our earlier discussion on Purnimanta / Amanta month. Kindly have a second look at the following verse:

अहः पूर्वं ततो रात्रिर्मासाः शुक्लादयः स्मृताः।
श्रविष्ठादीनि ऋक्षाणि ऋतवः शिशिरादयः॥ ४४.१-२

When it comes to ahoratri this verse clearly talks about the aha (the day portion) and the ratri (the night portion) of the ahoratra. However it does not talk about the shukla paksha and the Krishna paksha. The Veda say that the Moon is the maker of the masa  and when it comes to masa  it says that the shukla (bright) comes first.

In other words it says that (of the ahoratra) the aha (day) comes first and then comes the ratri (night), of the masa the shukla (bright moon) comes first. The moon is the brightest in Purnima. This means the the month begins from the point of highest brightness and at this very point the month ends after completing the month. In a Purnimanta month the month ends when the moon is the brightest and from that point the next month starts. Thus the verse is not at all  contradicting the other verse in the Mahabharata, where it is said that the Pitri-karya is to be done in the Amavashya in the middle of the month.

Regards,
Sunil KB

[rniyengar]

Please see Anushasna parvan chapter 92 partly reproduced below from
BORI edition.

0130920163/.nadiim.aasaadya.kurviita.pitRRNaam.piNDa.tarpaNam//
0130920171/.puurvam.sva.vamzajaanaam.tu.kRtvaa.adbhis.tarpaNam.punah./
0130920173/.suhRd.sambandhi.vargaaNaam.tato.dadyaat.jala.anjalim.//
0130920181/.kalmaaSa.go.yugena.atha.yuktena.tarato.jalam./
0130920183/.pitaro.abhilaSante.vai.naavam.ca.apy.adhirohatah./
0130920185/.sadaa.naavi.jalam.tajjnaah.prayacchanti.samaahitaah.//
0130920191/.maasa.ardhe.kRSNa.pakSasya.kuyaan.nivapanaani.vai./
0130920193/.puSTir.aayuS.tathaa.viiryam.zriiz.caiv.apitR.vartinah.//
0130920201/.pitaamahah.pulastyaz.ca.vasiSTaah.pulahas.tathaa./
0130920203/.angiraaz.ca.kratuz.caiva.kazyapaz.ca.mahaan.RSih./
0130920205/.ete.kuru.kula.zreSTha.mahaa.yoga.iizvaraah.smRtaah.//20

On Mar 30, 7:38 am, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shri Bhattacharya,
>

> Could you give the exact reference (parva-chapter-verse) of the verse in
> the Mahabharata where "the Pitri-karya is to be done in the Amavashya in
> the middle of the month"?
>
> Regards,
>
> Anand

> >> Thirdly, to me, what Nilakantha (the late 17th century writer of "*
> >> Bhāratabhāvadīpa*," the commenatry of the Mahabharata) says  is not

> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Anand Hudli <ahu...@gmail.com<javascript:>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Anand Hudli]

Thanks to Dr. RN Iyengar, I was able to track down the verse to 13.139.19 on the sanskrit wikipedia site:

सदा नावि जलं तज्ज्ञाः प्रयच्छन्ति समाहिताः।
मासार्धे कृष्णपक्षस्य कुर्यान्निर्वपणानि वै।।

And the commentary on the above is: 13.139.19 मासार्धे अमावास्यायाम्। कृष्णपक्षस्येत्युक्तेर्नात्र शुक्लादिमासो विवक्षितः।।

It is clear that the verse 13.139.19 is not referring to a "shuklAdi mAsa", i.e. one where the shukla paksha comes first. Please note the use of the word "shuklAdimAsa" to stand for a mAsa where the shukla pakSha comes first. 

So it follows that in the following verse (14.44.2), the word "shuklAdayaH" refers to a mAsa which begins with the shukla pakSha. We have to intepret this occurrence of "shuklAdayaH" as "months which have the shukla pakSha (waxing fortnight) as the first", indicating amAnta mAsa.

अहः पूर्वं ततो रात्रिर्मासाः शुक्लादयः स्मृताः।

श्रवणादीनि ऋक्षाणि ऋतवः शिशिरादयः।।

As I wrote earlier, I agree that verses supporting either the pUrNimAnta or amAnta mAsa are found in the mahAbhArata. We have to be careful which verse we are talking about. It is worth considering what the book I cited earlier (Gupta Polity by VRR Dikshitar, page 24, available on Google books) says. Essentially, the idea put forth by the book is that there was an earlier period when pUrNimAnta mAsa was followed, that this period was followed by an amAnta system in the mahAbhArata era, and that the pUrNimAnta system was again adopted at a later stage (57 BCE).

To see why this is a plausible explanation, we need to examine the effect of precession on the shifting of seasons, more precisely the summer and winter solstices and the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. It is natural to expect that the ancient astronomers made adjustments to the calendar when the effect of precession was noticed in contrast with a still more ancient period when the effect was not noticed or was ignored. For example, we find Varahamihira's saying:

आश्लेषार्धादासीद्यदा निवृत्तिः किलोष्णकिरणस्य।
युक्तमयनं तदासीत्सांप्रतमयनं पुनर्वसुतः॥ पञ्चसिद्धान्तिका

During his time, the summer solstice (the longest day in the northern hemisphere) happened in the  punarvasu nakshatra, not in AshleShA which would have been "correct", as in the olden days. Based on this statement it follows that the winter solstice would have been in dhaniShThA (corresponding to the summer solstice in AshleShA).

The book by BG Tilak on the Antiquity of the Vedas (also cited by Dr. RN Iyengar in one of his e-mails) opines, (pages 53-54) based on a number of sources including the taittiriya saMhitA, the Jaimini Mimamsa sutras, and sAyaNachArya's commentary, that at a remote point in the past, the winter solstice marked the beginning of the year and occurred on the day of the full moon of the month of mAgha or perhaps on the full moon of PhAlguna or the full moon of Chaitra in even remoter ages. Perhaps, at that point, a pUrNimAnta mAsa made sense because the new year began on the day of the full moon or the day after, and hence with a waning fortnight. That the new year possibly began at the winter solstice is also confirmed by the words in the mahAbhArata verse (14.44.2) above, "ऋतवः शिशिरादयः" the winter is the first season, and the statement by Amarasimha, "द्वौ द्वौ माघादिमासौ स्यादृतुस्तैरयनं त्रिभिः।", meaning each season consists of two months, beginning with the month of mAgha. However, with passage of time, the winter solstice moved backward towards the new moon of mAgha. This could explain a switch to the amAnta system. It is also believed that the winter solstice, during the mahAbhArata era, coincided with the day of Bhishma's death, the माघ-शुक्ल-अष्टमी. A further shift of the winter solstice toward the full moon of Pausha could have brought back the pUrNimAnta calendar.

At that point, the awareness of precession of the winter solstice must have given rise to concepts of the tropical and sidereal zodiacs and hence the Sayana and Nirayana positions of celestial bodies. The switch to Nirayana meant that the "winter solstice" was not allowed to shift any further and was fixed at the 270th degree Nirayana longitude of the Sun. Since the "winter solstice" was a fixed point on the sidereal zodiac, reverting to the amAnta calendar was not required. Another reason could be, as VRR Dikshitar explains, that a revival of the earlier pUrNimAnta vedic calendar was accomplished in the year 57 BCE.

Regards,

Anand

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Anand Huidi,

I also thank  Dr. Iyengar for his message of March 30,2013 as folows:

Please see Anushasna parvan chapter 92 partly reproduced below from
BORI edition.

0130920191/.maasa.ardhe.kRSNa.pakSasya.kuyaan.nivapanaani.vai./
0130920193/.puSTir.aayuS.tathaa.viiryam.zriiz.caiv.apitR.vartinah.//

This is the same as the following, which I gave on March 14,2013

Mahabharata:13.92.19
मासार्धे कृष्णपक्षस्य कुयान निवपनानि वै
पुष्टिर आयुस तथा वीर्यं शरीश चैव पितृवर्तिनः

All these exercises (which we are presently doing) are to find out whether Bhishma died on Krishnashtami or Shuklashtami. Now please look at the verses from the Bharata-Savitri, given below, for your ready reference :

हेमन्ते प्रथमे मासे शुक्लपक्षे त्रयोदशी |
प्रवृत्तं भारतं युद्धं नक्षत्रम् यमदैवतम् || ६४ ||

फाल्गुन्यां निहतो भीष्मः कृष्ण पक्षे च सप्तमी |
अष्टम्यां चैव सौभद्रो नवम्यां च जयद्रथः || ६५ ||

दशम्यां भगदत्तस्तु महायुद्धे निपातिताः |
एकादश्यामर्धरात्रौ हतो वीरो घटोत्कचः || ६६ ||

ततः प्रभातसमये विराटद्रुपदौ हतौ |
द्वादश्यां चैव मध्याह्ने द्रोणाचार्यो रणे हतः || ६७ ||

त्रयोदश्यां तु मध्याह्ने वृषसेनो निपातितः |
चतुर्दश्याम् तु पूर्वाह्णे रणे दुःशासनो हतः || ६८ ||

तस्मिन्नेव महायुद्धे वर्तमाने चतुर्दशी |
धनञ्जयेन मध्याह्ने कर्णो वैकर्तनो हतः || ६९ ||

निःशब्दतूर्यं हत योधवीरम् प्रशान्तदर्पं धृतराष्ट्रसैन्यम् |
न शोभते सूर्यसुतेन हीनम् वृन्दं ग्रहाणामिव चन्द्रहीनम् || ७०||

Now as you can see from  the Bharata-Savitri verses it is absolutely clear that the Mahabharata war started on the Rohini nakshatra and it was Trayodashi of Shukla paksha. On the 10th day it was Phalguni Nakshatra and on that say Bhishma fell in the war. The tithi at Sun-rise of the day was Krishna--Saptami and when Bhishma fell towards the end of the day, it is quite possible that it became Krishna-Ashtami tithi. After 58 nights of sleeping with the arrow-wounds he died on the 59th day (i.e. exactly two Lunar months away from the day he fell in the war) and the tithi of that day too was necessarily the  Krishnashtami tithi. The following chart is self explanatory.

Day 1 of MBH war - - - - - -  - - -  Shukla Trayodashi      Bharani nakshatra (Ruled by Yamadeva)

Day 2        "           - - - - - - -  - - Shukla Chaturdashi    Krittika

Day 3        "           - - - - - - - -  - Purnima                    Rohini

Day 4        "           - - - - - -  - - - Krishna Pratipada       Mrigashira

Day 5        "           -  - - -  - - -  - Krishna-Dvitiya           Ardra   

Day 6        "            - - - - - - -  -  Krishna-Tritya             Punarvasu

Day 7        "           - - - - -  - - --  Krishna Cjhaturthi       Pushya

Day 8        "           - - - - - - - - -- Krishna Panchami      Ashlesfa

Day 9        "           - - - - - - - - -- Krishna Shashthi        Magha

Day 10      "           - - - - -  --  --  Krishna Saptami         Purva-Phalguni (Phalguni)

Note : Purva-Phalguni and Uttara-Phalguni wre together one Phalguni Nakshatra before they were divided into two nakshatras.

             

Further the following verse says  says that on the last day (i.e., on the 18th day) Duryodhana died on Krishnapaksha-Amavashya. The relevant verses in sanskrit are given below, for your ready reference.

अमायां धर्मपुत्रेण शल्यो मद्राधिपो हतः |
उलूकः शकुनिश्चैव यमाभ्यां विनिपातितौ || ७४ ||

अमायामर्धरात्रे तु राजा दुर्योधनो हतः |
भीमसेनस्य गदाया ताडितो विनिपातितः || ७५ ||

Thus it is absolutely clear that Bhishma died in Krishnashtami tithi.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Sorrry there was a slip. Kindly read the correction below:

Earlier verse with slip is as follows;

"Now as you can see from  the Bharata-Savitri verses it is absolutely clear that the Mahabharata war started on the Rohini nakshatra and it was Trayodashi of Shukla paksha."

The corrected verse is given below:

"Now as you can see from  the Bharata-Savitri verses it is absolutely clear that the Mahabharata war started on the Bharani nakshatra and it was Trayodashi of Shukla paksha.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Anand Hudli]

Dear Shri Bhattacharya,

In the History of Dharmasastra, MM. Dr. PV Kane says on page 364, Vol V Part I:

"With great respect to Prof. P. C. Sengupta, I must say that his interpretation of 'samanuprapta' as 'samanupravista' is quite wrong and unwarranted and it is not possible to accept his conclusion that Bhishma died on 8th of dark half of Magha and not 8th of bright half, vide his paper in JASB Vol. XX No. 1 (Letters) pp39-41 (1954)."

As you can see, there have been attempts to revise the tithi of Bhishma's death, माघ-शुक्ल-अष्टमी, that has been accepted in dharma shastra works. A number of sources and many factors from each source may have to considered to arrive at the tithi of Bhishma's death. For example, it is also stated that at the time of Bhishma's death,  the nakshatra was Rohini. In fact, in the book by M Krishnamachariar, titled "History of Classical Sanskrit Literature" (Google books), the author has presented an argument (page 61) to show that at the time of Bhishma's death, the moon's celestial longitude was about 49.5 degrees and the sun's longitude was (90 degrees behind that of the moon) about 319.5 degrees.

A Krishna Ashtami tithi would have implied the Nakshatra was Jyestha (or possibly anurAdha), not Rohini. If Rohini was the Nakshatra at the time of Bhishma's death, it follows that the Paksha was indeed Shukla, and not Krishna.

Regards,

Anand

Now as you can see from  the Bharata-Savitri verses it is absolutely clear that the Mahabharata war started on the Bharani nakshatra and it was Trayodashi of Shukla paksha. On the 10th day it was Phalguni Nakshatra and on that say Bhishma fell in the war. The tithi at Sun-rise of the day was Krishna--Saptami and when Bhishma fell towards the end of the day, it is quite possible that it became Krishna-Ashtami tithi. After 58 nights of sleeping with the arrow-wounds he died on the 59th day (i.e. exactly two Lunar months away from the day he fell in the war) and the tithi of that day too was necessarily the  Krishnashtami tithi. The following chart is self explanatory.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Hudli,

At the outset, please permit me to dispel your doubt (in case you have any) by saying that I am not at all influenced by what P.C.Sengupta said. Now, may I request you to tell me which dharmashastra according to you, had accepted the माघ-शुक्ल-अष्टमी tithi as the tithi od Bhishma's death. To my knowledge none of the Smritis / dharmasutras have said anything about it. LIke I said before about Nilakantha, so also I will say that I do not consider what P.V.Kane says in his book as indisputable. Did he work ob the date of Bhishma's death and the date of the Mahabharata war ? There is no sign of that.

Nowhere it is said that Bhishma died on Rohini nakshatra.  You have not read the verse properly. Secondly, as regards the work of  M. Krishnamachar  when he did not work on the date of the Mahabharata war. Let me repeat what I said in this thread in the very beginning that the Mahabharata had baffled the best brins so far.

Regards,

Sunil KB