मांसाहारत्यागे जैनानां प्रभावः-काचिज्जिज्ञासा।

[Jagannatha S]

आर्याः स्वस्ति।
सर्वत्र भारते विषयोयं प्रचुरप्रचारो यद् भारते मांसाहारत्यागो यत् कृतः
कैश्चन, तत्र जैनानामेव प्रभावः कारणमिति, वङ्गीयान् ब्राह्मणान्
मुक्त्वा यदितरे ब्राह्मणा अधुना सस्याहारिणो वर्तन्ते तत्र जैनानां
प्रभावं विना नान्यत् कारणं भवितुमर्हतीति च। अत्र मम जिज्ञासा-
किं कुत्रापि जैनै रचिते संस्कृतग्रन्थे प्राकृतग्रन्थे
अर्धमागधीग्रन्थे वा तथा स्पष्टमुल्लिखितम् ? अथवा ब्राह्मणविरचिते वा
कस्मिन्नपि ग्रन्थे तथोल्लेखः प्राप्यते ? जैनानां प्रभावः किमर्थं
सर्वासु जनजातिषु न बभूव ? किमर्थं वङ्गीया ब्राह्मणा मत्स्यं खादन्ति ?
तेषु जैनानां प्रभावः किमर्थं न बभूव ?
अधुनापि मांसाहारो भारते बह्वीषु जनजातिषु अनुवर्तमानो दृश्यते, तत्
कथम्? भारते मांसाहारिणां संख्या सस्याहारिणां संख्यापेक्षया अधिकतरा।
तेषु मांसाहारिषु मांसाहारिषु जैनानां प्रभावः कुतो न बभूव ?
ब्राह्मणैर्जैनीयानां स्याद्वादादिसिद्धातानां सर्वथाप्यस्वीकारे
जैनसंप्रदायमूलिका सस्याहारपद्धतिः जैनीयत्वादेव कारणादादरणीयेति
परिभावितमित्यत्र को गमकः? सस्याहारिणो ब्राह्मणा आयुर्वेदोपाध्याया बहवो
वर्तन्ते। आयुर्वेदे स्पष्टमेव मांसाहारो विधीयते।
सस्याहारिभिर्ब्राह्मणैः मांसाहारप्रतिपादकेष्वायुर्वेदग्रन्थेषु
किमर्थमादरः प्रदर्श्यते ? अनुल्लिखितमधुमांसाः केचन
जैनविरचितायुर्वेदग्रन्थाः (उग्रादित्यादिप्रणीताः) कल्याणकारकादयो
यद्यपि वर्तन्ते। मम ज्ञानानुसारेण तेषां ग्रन्थानां तथा न प्रचारो यथा
चारकसौश्रुतादीनाम्। केवलं पुष्पैरेव भेषजयोगं वर्णयन्
पुष्पायुर्वेदाख्यो ग्रन्थः समन्तभद्राचार्येण विरचितः श्रूयते। स
कुत्रापि नोपलभ्य इदानीम्। जैनायुर्वेदीयसंप्रदायेऽपि कुतस्तस्य
प्रस्मरणम् ?
जगन्नाथः।

[krishna joshi]

---

Namaste..

 

Matsyaahaarah maamsaahaarah vaa na vaa ?

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

नमस्ते,
Interesting.
Is it live or dead/lifeless? Is it jalachara or sthalachara?.....(just in a lighter way!)
Perhaps the question has risen due to the categorization of food as matsya
and maamsa. But between shaakaahaara and maamsaahaara where does matsya
fall? Since it bleeds when injured (I do not know whether there are bloodless fishes!)
it belongs to the non-veg category and if fishes do not have maamsa still it is no-veg.

However, the question expects answer from another standpoint which demands the
answer to the question whether fish has flesh or not, zoologically speaking.
प्रणाम:

2010/6/12 krishna joshi <kvj...@yahoo.com>

---

Namaste..

 

Matsyaahaarah maamsaahaarah vaa na vaa ?

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

[Surendra Mohan Mishra]

मान्याः,
वंगीयान् ब्राह्मणान् मुक्त्वा'न्ये मांसाहारिण इति जगन्नाथाचार्यवचनेन मांसाहारिणो ब्राह्मणा अन्ये मैथिलौत्कलकाश्मीरपार्वत्योत्तरपूर्वगा:पाञ्चनद्यास्तथा चान्ये तन्त्रमार्गादि-भू(दू)षिताः पूतपूतानिव आत्मनो मन्येरन् । अस्तु ।
मन्ये जैनेभ्यः सुबहुपूर्वम् आमिषप्रयोगवर्जनं सांख्यसिद्धान्ते लभ्यते पुनः वेदान्तमार्गे । मन्ये सनकादयः संप्रदाये कपिलादयश्च हिंसाकारणेन वैदिकयज्ञमपि श्रेयस्साधकत्वेन निराकृतवन्तः । सांख्याद्वैतवैष्णवेषु साधनायां सम्यगहिम्साया:साधनत्वं  भोजने वा शाकाहारः परिदृश्यते । एते वैदिकाः । अवैदिकेषु पुनः जैनाः शाकाहारप्रसङ्गे मूर्ध्नि स्थिताः । बौद्धास्तु मध्यमपन्थानमाश्रयन्त आश्रयन्ते मांसाहारं तथा पालिसाहित्ये स्वयं बुद्धेन भिक्षवो'प्युक्ताः । मध्यमत्वं तु यथा राजमहानसे सप्ताहे सप्तमात्रं मयूरा अतिथीनाम् अभ्यवहाराय हन्तव्या नाधिकमिति राज्ञो'शोकस्य कृतनिषेधे लक्षणीयम् ।
श्राद्धसूक्ते तु 'मेदाहुतयो ह वा एतां देवानाम्' इत्यादौ मांसपिण्डं पूर्वम् आसीन्नियम इति विज्ञायते । सात्त्विकाहार इति शाकाहार एवेति नायुर्वेदादिशास्त्रसमर्थनं तत्रास्तीति विज्ञेयम् । परमद्यत्वे किं कर्तव्यमिति नैको मार्गः । शाकाहारेण ब्राह्मणत्वहानिरित्यपि प्रवाद एव ।
सादरम् ,
सुरेन्द्रमोहनमिश्र: ।

2010/6/11 Jagannatha S <jgra...@gmail.com>

--

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
*****
Surendramohan Mishra
Dept of Sanskrit,Pali & Prakrit
Faculty of Indic Studies,Kurukshetra University
KURUKSHETRA-136 119,Haryana,INDIA
Tel : (Off.)01744 238410(extn.)2504
(Mob.)098960 86579;(Res.)01744-238567
Blogs : http://surendrashastram.blogspot.com
           http://surendra-shaastram.blogspot.com

--
*****
Surendramohan Mishra
Dept of Sanskrit,Pali & Prakrit
Faculty of Indic Studies,Kurukshetra University
KURUKSHETRA-136 119,Haryana,INDIA
Tel : (Off.)01744 238410(extn.)2504
(Mob.)098960 86579;(Res.)01744-238567
Blogs : http://surendrashastram.blogspot.com
           http://surendra-shaastram.blogspot.com

[hn bhat]

मान्याः,

अत्र श्रोत्रियाणां मांसाहारत्वे भवभूतिरेवं प्रमाणयति -

"समांसो मधुपर्कः" इत्याम्नायं बहुमन्यमानाः श्रोत्रियायाभ्यागताय वत्सतरीं महोक्षं वा पचन्ति। तं हि धर्मं धर्मसूत्रकाराः समामनन्ति।" 

This had made a disciple of Valmiki to consider Vasishtha, the sage, as a tiger for whom a kapilaa cow was butchered. Now on the other hand, for मांसाहर is voluntary for others. This is the position Bhavabhuti attests.

At the same time, a cow was not butchered to Janaka, a king, who had abandoned voluntarily मांसाहार and became vegetarian  at that same time.

जनकस्योपरि जैनानां प्रभावो वा स्यात्, यतस्तस्मै मांसं विनैव दधिघृताभ्यां मधुपर्को निवर्तितः। तस्य निवृत्तमांसत्तत्वादेव अयं वैकल्पिकः पक्ष इति आपस्तम्बादय इमं पक्षमाद्रियन्ते इति व्याख्याकाराः। मांसाहारनिवृत्तिः किंमूलेति न ज्ञायते।

जनकस्तु ब्रह्मज्ञानिनो धर्मशास्त्रकारस्य च याज्ञवल्क्यस्य शिष्यस्य शिष्यः, राजर्षिश्च। न जिनस्य महावीरस्य बुद्धस्य वा।

एवं धर्मकारेष्वपि द्वैविध्यं समांसमधुपर्कविषये दृष्ट एव। अयमपि जैनानां प्रभव एव वा? इति जिज्ञासान्तरम्।

सादरम्,

2010/6/16 Surendra Mohan Mishra <dr.surendramo...@gmail.com>

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[S P Narang]

May not be acceptable to vegetarians and non-violent community like myself, it is a reality that meat was eaten as a food and a medicine. A few details in  DN Jha's work which may be controversial.  Vegetarianism moved from non-vegetarianism due to dayaa and karunaa which was acceptable to Bauddhas and Jains including a number of Indian religious faiths. Regards, spnarang

---

From: hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 7:04:05 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} मांसाहारत्यागे जैनानां प्रभावः-काचिज्जिज्ञासा।

[hn bhat]

Dear Sirs,

Here is a link to a paper  IN INDIAN AND OTHER RELIGIONS
A HISTORICAL SURVEY
J. N. Mankar 
Submitted to 14th World Vegetarian Congress, Paris

http://www.ivu.org/congress/wvc57/souvenir/mankar2.html

Hope this would shed some more light on the discussion. The injunction "maa himsyaa sarvaa bhuutaani" is oft. quoted. Here is another similar discussion in a forum:

http://translate.google.co.in/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://forum.sangam.nl/het-hindoeisme/1-pandit-attry-2-a-2.html&ei=lJgZTKLuKovQccq2iaYM&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMahinsyat%2BSarva%2BBhutani%26hl%3Den

It had been accepted generaly and in later times, vaidikii himsaa is not considered as himsaa. But all others are considered as himsaa. This discussion occurs in Bhashaparicheda of Nyayapanchanana Vishvanathacharya casually (if my memory is right) and also may be found in earlier texts on Mimamsa also.

The above paper was published in the following website at 15th Vegetarian Congress in 1957 held in India.

http://www.ivu.org/congress/wvc57/

with more links.

With regards

2010/6/17 S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com>

[hn bhat]

Here is the latest link of the Congress 2010 to be held in Jakartha:

http://www.wvc2010.org/

With regards

2010/6/17 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[narayanan er]

न मांसभक्षणे दोषो न मद्ये न च मैथुने। प्रवृत्तिरेषा भूतानां निवृत्तिस्तु महाफला।। (मनुस्मृतिः) --- On Thu, 17/6/10, hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear Colleagues, I do not remember if any colleague gave the following information on vegetarianism according to the Śāstras. The matter was exhaustively discussed by Viśvanātha Nyāyapañcānana in the following work मांसतत्त्वविवेकः Ed. Jagannātha Shāstrī Hoshing with a Foreword by Gopinatha Kaviraja, Prince of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Texts No.20, Benares 1927 Best DB

--- On Thu, 17/6/10, hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} मांसाहारत्यागे जैनानां प्रभावः-काचिज्जिज्ञासा।

[narayanan er]

अवतारत्रयं विष्णोर्मैथिलैः कवलीकृतम्। शेषं संचिन्त्य भगवान् नारसिंहमुपेयिवान्।।

[sugyankumar mohanty]

ha ha ha --- On Thu, 17/6/10, narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com> Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} नारसिंहं वपुः To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[satyendra pandey]

मान्याः!

के ते त्रय अवताराः सन्ति विष्णोः, मत्स्यावतारविषये तु जानीमो वयं परं अन्ये कौ द्वौ अवतारौ स्तः यौ मैथिलैः कवलीकॄतौ?

2010/6/17 sugyankumar mohanty <sugya...@yahoo.co.in>

--
सत्येन्द्र पाण्डेयः
शोधच्छात्रः[साहित्यसंस्कॄतिसंकायः]
श्रीलालबहादुरशास्त्रिराष्ट्रियसंस्कॄतविद्यापीठम्,
चलवाणी-09958256212
नवदेहली,

junior linguist
(under the project of Dr. Girish Nath Jha)
special center for sanskrit studies, J.N.U.

[I V Nacharya I]

महोदय,

प्रणम्य। अन्याववतारौ तु रामः बुद्ध श्च भवतः।

अभिवन्द्य,

ऐ.वि.नरसिंहाचार्यः<ऐवियनेट्याहूडाट्कोडाटिन्>

---

From: satyendra pandey <pandeysa...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 June, 2010 9:20:55 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} नारसिंहं वपुः

[I V Nacharya I]

महोदय,

प्रणम्य। अवतारत्रयं नाम श्रीरामः बुद्धः कल्कि र्वा मत्स्यो वा भवे दिति मन्ये।

अभिवन्द्य,

ऐ.वि.यन्<ऐवियनेट्याहूडाट्कोडाटिन्>

---

From: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 17 June, 2010 10:51:50 AM

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} नारसिंहं वपुः

अवतारत्रयं विष्णोर्मैथिलैः कवलीकृतम्। शेषं संचिन्त्य भगवान् नारसिंहमुपेयिवान्।।

[hn bhat]

It is very simple question. The three avatara-s eaten by Maithila-s are Matsya, Kurma and Varaha. Hence Vishnu took the 4th avatara, which they cannot eat. Because Lion and Man are not eaten as food generally. This seems to be the purport of the shloka quoted.

It is in order:

मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नारसिंहो ऽथ वामनः।

रामो रामश्च कृष्णश्च बुद्धः कल्की चते दश||

Hope this will make sense in the context of the shloka.

With regards

2010/6/18 I V Nacharya I <ivi...@yahoo.co.in>

--

[hn bhat]

नरसिंहाचार्याः,

The two other avatara-s mentioned by you could not be eaten by Maithila-s :)

I have already pointed out the essence of the verse. Narasimha instead would eat them than be eaten by them. And others could not any how be eaten by other fellow men as being human personifications. 

AcharyaaaH :)

क्षम्यताम्।

2010/6/18 I V Nacharya I <ivi...@yahoo.co.in>

महोदय,

प्रणम्य। अवतारत्रयं नाम श्रीरामः बुद्धः कल्कि र्वा मत्स्यो वा भवे दिति मन्ये।

अभिवन्द्य,

ऐ.वि.यन्<ऐवियनेट्याहूडाट्कोडाटिन्>

[satyendra pandey]

मान्याः!

मत्स्यातिरिक्तं कौ द्वौ अवतारौ मैथिलैः कवलीकॄतौ इति मे जिज्ञासा वर्तते। न तु विष्णोः दशावतारविषयिणी काचित् शङ्का।

2010/6/18 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[satyendra pandey]

धन्यवादाः मदीया जिज्ञासायाः समाधानं जातम्।

2010/6/18 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[I V Nacharya I]

mahOdayA,

praNamyA, Eating aspect was not struck to mind.Only incarnation aspect was struck.

Regards,

I.V.Nacharyaivi...@yahoo.co.in

---

From: hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 June, 2010 9:48:58 AM

[hn bhat]

मया सद्य एव समाहितो ऽयं प्रश्नः। प्राक्तनसन्देशद्वयं दृश्यतां भोः। अवतारत्रयं कवलितवतां मैथिलानामेव शिक्षणार्थं स्वयमन्यैरभक्ष्यं रूपं नारसिंहं धृतवान्, प्रतुत तेषामेव भक्षणं च स्यात् यदि ते तथा प्रयतेरन् भक्षणायेति च श्लोकस्यास्य स्वारस्यम्। :):):):):):):):):):):):):)

2010/6/18 satyendra pandey <pandeysa...@gmail.com>

[I V Nacharya I]

महॊदय,

भवता मुक्तौ विद्यमानस्वारस्यं युक्तियुक्त मस्ति भॊः।

ऐवियन्<ऐवियनेट्याहूडाट्कोडाटिन्>

---

From: hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Fri, 18 June, 2010 10:04:57 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} नारसिंहं वपुः

[Ashok Aklujkar]

I had not heard the verse before. It is a mischievously charming example of how much a good Skt author can pack in the 32 syllables of an anu.s.tubh. If the author's name is known, it should be conveyed (or was the sender of the verse himself/herself the author?). In the discussion so far, the third quarter has not been taken into account.  I took the verse as meaning: The Maithilas ate the first three incarnations of Vi.s.nu: Matsya, Kuurma and Varaaha. Vi.s.nu became apprehensive that they would next eat his serpent, the ;Se.sa. So, in order to ward them off, he took the frightening Man-lion form.

ashok aklujkar

[hn bhat]

Thanks Prof. Aklujkar for bringing out more of the beautiful verse. You are right in your interpretation. I missed it.

Hope you remember me still.

With regards

2010/6/18 Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

[I V Nacharya I]

महॊदय,

आचार्य अक्लुज्कर् महाभागस्योक्ति स्सहृदयमनोहरा वर्तते। शेषं विहाय विष्णो र्नारसिम्हावतारस्वीकरणे चिन्तितोभिप्राय स्स्वारस्य् मधिकाधिक म्सम्पादयति।
अबिनन्द्य,

ऐवियन्.<ऐवियनेट्याहूडाट्कोडाटिन्>

---

From: hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 June, 2010 10:30:31 AM

[Narasimhachary M]

Dear friends: I feel the verse means that the Lord assumed the Narasimha form apprehending that the Maithilas may swallow even the remaining Avatraras of His. I think there is no need to bring in Adisesha here since he is not there in the list of Avataras, except as a partial manifestation as Balarama, when the Lord manifested as Krishna.
 
Prof. Narasimhacharya, M.

---

Make the world eco-friendly through MSN Green Drag n’ drop

[Shrisha Rao]

El jun 18, 2010, a las 12:59 p.m., Narasimhachary M escribió:

> Dear friends: I feel the verse means that the Lord assumed the Narasimha form apprehending that the Maithilas may swallow even the remaining Avatraras of His. I think there is no need to bring in Adisesha here since he is not there in the list of Avataras, except as a partial manifestation as Balarama, when the Lord manifested as Krishna.

There is actually a controversy re the interpretation of that Mahābhārata verse listing the ten incarnations; in much of North India and in the tradition of Madhva, the first राम refers to भार्गव राम, i.e., परशुराम, and the second to the well-known दाशरथ राम. In some South Indian traditions (e.g., that of Rāmānuja), the first राम is the दाशरथ राम whilst the second is the यादव राम, i.e., बलराम. These traditions do not recognize परशुराम as a full incarnation of Viṣṇu.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Prof. Narasimhacharya, M.

[hn bhat]

The discussion has turned in another direction. I have also something to add. In the other reading of the third "paada" i.e.

रामो रामश्च रामश्च 

whether it is कृष्ण or बुद्ध considered among them to complete the number ten. Both could not be included simultaneously as it would be amount to 11 avatara-s, of the 24 avatara-s. But in the list of enumeration of ten, only one can be included. Inclusion of Buddha is attested by Kshemendra in his Dasavataracarita along with Krishna. In the above Matsyapurana reading also Krishna is considered as one of the avatara-s to complete the number ten. If Balarama is to be included in the list of ten, either Krishna or Buddha will have to be eliminated. So my question is in this reading of the 3rd "paada" whether the 4th should read as:

बुद्धः कल्कीति ते दश or कृष्णः कल्कीति ते दश।

If Krishna is to be eliminated from the list, he is to be considered as the पूर्णावतार and the list of the ten should be considered as listing his partial incarnation. Otherwise, Krishna is to be retained, the well attested avatara of बुद्ध has to be eliminated. Any satisfactory solution to this puzzle? In any case, there are certainly two Rama-s included. One will be Rama, the son of Dasaratha and the other son of Jamadagni. The third one included would be Balarama. 

On Prof. Narasimhacharya-s remark, I have only to say that both meanings for शेष can be entertained in turn. When Avataratraya rests in denoting the three incarnations only, then it would mean as interpreted by him meaning the rest of his incarnations. But when "avataratraya" does not necessarily rest in conveying the trio of incarnation, as any avatara- by itself could not be eaten by men and further extended to Fish, tortoise and pig in general, then शेष can be taken to mean the serpent, also, giving rise to the interpretation given by Prom. Aklujkar. 

In any case, thanks are due to the member who bounced this beautiful verse while a discussion is going on  vegetarian or non-vegetarian food.

With regards 

With regards

2010/6/18 Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[S P Narang]

Did one Avataara (  Buddha ) eat the other Avataaras?. To simplify: Was Buddha vegetarian? spnarang

---

From: I V Nacharya I <ivi...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, June 18, 2010 9:34:23 AM

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

कूर्मश्च भक्षितः पूर्वं कच्छपश्चापि भक्षितः।

इति संचिन्त्य भगवान्नारसिंहं वपुर्दधौ।

 

इति श्लोकः काश्यां श्रुततया आचार्यसियारामदासनैयायिकैः उक्तम्। तस्मात् शेषस्य प्रसक्तिर्नास्ति।

परन्तु दिवाकरझामहोदयोक्तरीत्या मत्स्यभक्षणमेव मैथिलेषु प्रसिद्धम्। कूर्मकच्छपयोस्तु न। यद्यपि मत्स्याहारिणः पौर्वाः (अङ्ग-वङ्ग-कलिङ्गा) एव। दक्षिणभारते तु सारस्वतब्राह्मणान्विहाय न कोपि मत्स्याशी वर्तते। सारस्वतब्राह्मणा अपि गौडदेशीया एवेति गौडसारस्वतब्राह्मणा इत्युच्यन्ते।

2010/6/18 S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com>

--
Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Head, Dept of Darshanas,
Yoganandacharya Bhavan,
Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Samskrita University, Madau, post Bhankrota, Jaipur, 302026.

[दिवाकर झा]

मान्याः,

    आदौ तु इयं जिज्ञासा वर्तते यत् कूर्मकच्छपयोः को भेदः? अत्र भवतः विस्मरणं वा भ्रष्टपाठः कुत्रापि प्राप्तः भवता। यतोहि कोषानुसारेण तु कूर्मकच्छपयोरभेदः अर्थदृष्ट्या। ततः परम् इयं यत् किमर्थं मैथिलेष्वेव आरोपः? यतोहि यथा भवता लिखितं यत् पौर्वाः मत्स्याहारिणः। अथ च दाक्षिणात्याः अपि।।

2010/6/18 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>

--
              ///\\
            (@ @)
  +---oOO----(_)---Ooo-----+
  |            भवदीयः                |
  |           दिवाकर झा              |

  |           शोधच्छात्रः               |

  |   श्रीलालबहादुरशास्त्रीराष्ट्रिय   |

  | संस्कृतविद्यापीठम्, नवदेहली |
  |         9868343091             |
  +--------------------------------+
            |__|__|
             ||    ||
            ooO Ooo

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

the first pada may be मत्स्यश्च भक्षितः पूर्वं.

मैथिलानामुपरि न किमपि आरोप्यते। यतो हि अस्मिन् श्लोके मिथिलापदस्य प्रयोग एव नास्ति। केवलम् अवतारत्रयभक्षणेन चिन्तितो भगवान् नृसिंहरूपं जग्राह इत्येव वर्तते।

 

2010/6/19 दिवाकर झा <jha...@gmail.com>

[Surendra Mohan Mishra]

Esteemed Scholars,

Just I add a little to the ongoing discussion on the 10 incarnations of Shri Vishnu.Jayadeva in his Giitagovinda speaks of 10 incarnations of ShriKrishna as ShriiVishnu.Thus Krishna is not an avataara but is the avataarin.Cf. the verse at the beginning of the work 'vedaanuddharate--------halam kalayate----------dashaakritikrite krishnaaya tubhyam namah'.Thus Balaraama is one of the 10 and not a partial avataara.There are of course different accounts and justifications.

One peculiar phenomenon we find on the walls of the Shrii Jagannaatha temple at Puri that in the sequence of the 10 incarnations in a line there is Jagannatha in place of Buddha.

As per our conceptualisation of an avataara the last two verses of the Giitaa ch.10 are worth contemplating.

Regards,

S M Mishra

Ext. Examiner

School of Indological Studies

M.G.I.,Mauritius

2010/6/19 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>

--