शाश्वते

[G S S Murthy]

Respected scholars,

नमोऽस्त्वनन्ताय सहस्रमूर्तये सहस्रपादाक्षिशिरोरुबाहवे ।

सहस्रनाम्ने पुरुषाय शाश्वते सहस्रकोटियुगधारिणे नमः ॥

I must have recited this verse 10000 times if not more. Now my nephew asked me about this word शाश्वते. I am floored. What is the प्रातिपदिक, what is the विभक्ति? What is the anvaya? Will be grateful for help.

Thanks and regards

GSS Murthy P.S.May be pardoned for double posting

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Shashi Joshi]

chaturthi, ekavachana ?

for the one who is 'shAshvat'

Thanks,

~ Shashi

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRioEzz-WZPMfoBzZHGWO5ofW_R3-1kDE5UaCZGbUff7AA%40mail.gmail.com.

[G S S Murthy]

Is shaashvat a valid derivable word? I could not locate in web-dics.

Regards

Murthy

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoBdSgYEYcU-1xRiqWE6ybU_dezh_uK%2B5Wg3xkYMQLOj4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

śaśvat is itself considered an avyutpanna-prātipadika.

I remember to have seen in some dictionary that

śāśvat is also a valid alternative of śāśvata, same sense, 

both from śaśvat.

My general impression is that 

many indeclinables are not easily derived.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRjq19MEAXDscB5a%2B-Vy1bdguyLetv4QgSUKvuFZZiOAJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

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

Member, Advisory Board, "Prof. A K Singh AURO Chair of Indic Studies", AURO University, Surat.
Member, Expert Committee for Review of Criticism of Indian Knowledge Traditions, Central Sanskrit University (under MoE, GoI), Ganganath Jha Campus, Prayagraj.
Adjunct Faculty, Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT Hyderabad.

Nominated Member, Academic Committee, Kavi Kula Guru Kalidasa University, Ramtek.
Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.
Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.
Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

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

https://sites.google.com/view/kskannan

[संस्कृत संवादः]

Namaste, शश्वत् isn't अव्युत्पन्न. शश + बाहुलकाद्बत्
Apart from being an avyaya, It is also used as a noun as we also find the use of शश्वती.
प्रातिपदिकम्: शश्वत्, लिङ्गम्: पुंलिङ्गम्
=======  ======  ========  =======
..           एक       द्वि       बहु
=======  ======  ========  =======
प्रथमा     शश्वान्    शश्वन्तौ   शश्वन्तः
द्वितीया  शश्वन्तम्    शश्वन्तौ    शश्वतः
तृतीया     शश्वता  शश्वद्भ्याम्  शश्वद्भिः
चतुर्थी      शश्वते  शश्वद्भ्याम्  शश्वद्भ्यः
पञ्चमी     शश्वतः  शश्वद्भ्याम्  शश्वद्भ्यः
षष्ठी      शश्वतः    शश्वतोः   शश्वताम्
सप्तमी     शश्वति    शश्वतोः    शश्वत्सु
सम्बोधनम्    शश्वन्    शश्वन्तौ   शश्वन्तः
=======  ======  ========  =======

Also please check out this.

Böhtlingk and Roth Grosses Petersburger Wörterbuch

शश्वन्त् 

  

श/श्वन्त्¦ (vgl. शशय, शशीयंस्) 1) adj. (f. श/श्वती, superl. शश्वत्तम/ gaṇa उञ्छादि zu P. 6, 1, 160). a) immer wieder erscheinend, - thuend, sich wiederholend, frequens; zahlreich NAIGH. 3, 1. ṚV. 1, 26, 6. 27, 7. आ\य\ती\नां प्र^थ\मा शश्व^तीनाम् 113, 8. 15. 171, 5. वी\रान् 3, 36, 10. 56, 3. 4, 32, 13. 6, 1, 8. 7, 101, 6. 8, 17, 14. श\श्व\तीष्वा (sc. विक्षु) होता^रम् 49, 17.; vgl. 84, 3. 87, 6. 9, 1, 6. तं हि शश्व^न्त\ ईळ^ते 5, 14, 3. 7, 94, 5. superl.: श\श्व\त्त\मास\स्तं ह^वामहे frequentissime 10, 39, 1. श\श्व\त्त\माया^ उ\षसो\ व्यु^ष्टौ letzterschienen 1, 118, 11. 124, 4. — b) all, jeder: जन ṚV. 1, 36, 19. 72, 1. अति^ सस\तो या^हि\ शश्व^तः 135, 7. 2, 12, 10. 3, 9, 4. पिबा\ सोम\ं शश्व^ते वी\र्या^य 32, 5. 5, 52, 2. 6, 61, 1. 7, 1, 3. अ\पः 32, 27. 93, 6. 8, 1, 34. 56, 17. शश्व^ते\ मर्ता^य दा\शुषे^ 9, 98, 4. 10, 48, 1. 100, 11. AV. 5, 5, 2. 8, 8. 6, 75, 2. 19, 32, 7. 20, 128, 4. समा^ः TBR. 2, 5, 5, 2. — 2) श/श्वत् adv. (शश्व/त् gaṇa स्वरादि zu P. 1, 1, 37). mit imperf. oder perf. P. 3, 2, 116; vgl. Vārtt. zu 122. = पुनर्, सदा, अभीक्ष्णम्, नित्यम् AK. 3, 4, 32 (28 COLEBR.), 5. 5, 1. 11. H. 1531. an. 7, 25 (st. सह vielleicht सदा zu lesen). MED. avy. 32. fg. (शश्वत्स्यादात्मप्रश्ने च मङ्गले ॥ पुराक्ल्पे सदार्थे च पुनरर्थे च दृश्यते). HALĀY. 4, 13. a) immer wieder, oftmals, allzeit, stets: शश्व\त्कृत्व^ः ṚV. 3, 54, 1. 1, 30, 16. 47, 9. शश्व^त्पु\रोषा व्यु^वास von jeher 113, 13. 8, 69, 2. 3, 36, 1. 6, 20, 8. 32, 3. आ या^हि\ शश्व^दुश\ता य^याथ 40, 4. 41, 2. 62, 3. 8, 5, 23. 56, 16. अ\ग्निं शश्व^दीमहे 60, 13. 9, 66, 16. 10, 69, 11. AV. 4, 24, 1. AIT. BR. 7, 13. 8, 26. TBR. 3, 12, 9, 1. इति शश्वद्दक्षिणाजाः क्रीतपतिमाचक्षते pflegen zu nennen NIR. 6, 9. ŚAT. BR. 3, 3, 4, 19. 4, 2, 1, 28. CHĀND. UP. 6, 13, 2. NIDĀNAS. 5, 10. 12. 9, 3. संग्रामेषु च राजेन्द्र शश्वज्जयमवाप्स्यसि MBH. 3, 2626. धर्मे स्थितः R. 2, 44, 4. 91, 19. 4, 54, 3. MEGH. 56. ad 113. RAGH. 1, 88. 2, 48. ŚĀK. 107. Spr. 4721. KATHĀS. 20, 230. 27, 18. RĀJA-TAR. 4, 56, PRAB. 112, 10. BHĀG. P. 9, 24, 62. DHŪRTAS. 74, 17. योषितः सर्वाः शश्वत्कामा भवन्तु च PAÑCAR. 1, 14, 46. 97. superl. zum vielsten Male d. h. nach zahllosen Malen wieder, noch einmal ṚV. 2, 38, 1. 3, 1, 23. शश्व^त्तमं सु\मना^ अ\स्य पा^हि 35, 6. 62, 2. 9, 87, 4. 10, 70, 3. — b) alsbald, darauf, alsdann; gewöhnlich mit ह verbunden: यद्ध शश्वदवक्ष्यत् - शश्वदु ह स एवेन्द्रमहनिष्यत् sobald er gesagt hätte u. s. w., alsobald hätte er den Indra erschlagen ŚAT. BR. 1, 6, 3, 10. 8, 1, 4. 2, 2, 1, 2. 5, 4, 3, 2. 12, 8, 3, 6. क्षिप्रं भवति धर्मात्मा शश्वच्छान्तिं निगच्छति BHAG. 9, 31. — c) immerhin, allerdings, gewiss: यत्सौम्यातिथिमती स्याच्छश्वत्सा स्यादेतत्त्वेव° wenn der Soma-Vers den Gast erwähnen soll, dann träfe das bei diesem allerdings zu, aber in der Weise dass u.s.w. AIT. BR. 1, 17. शश्वत्तथा स्यात् so ist es allerdings 2, 21. fg. 4, 7. शश्वद्ध वा एष न संभवति ŚAT. BR. 2, 2, 4, 8. 3, 1, 5. 4, 1, 4, 9. अथ हैनं शश्वदप्यसुरा उपसेदुः endlich auch 2, 4, 2, 5. चतुःषष्टिं कवचिनः शश्वद्धास्य ते पुत्रनप्तार आसुः AIT. BR. 3, 48. — Vgl. शाश्वत, शाश्वतिक .

Best Regards,
डोकानियोपनामको मोहितः
संस्कृत संवादः
https://linktr.ee/samvadah

शनिवार, 25 जनवरी 2025 को 1:32:57 pm UTC+5:30 बजे K S Kannan ने लिखा:

[K S Kannan]

The etymology of many avyaya-s is a case of

"Doctors differ".

Some even hold that there is indeed no case of

avyutpanna-prātipadika. Not all seem to agree, however.

And what is "fanciful"/"folk" etymology to one is

"perfectly plausible" to another.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/345b9bda-7f41-4d68-b7c5-30b4cd3aaaddn%40googlegroups.com.

[G S S Murthy]

I Am thankful to all the scholars who have thrown much light on the matter..

Regards

Murthy

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6%2BvafnEK%2B9BDOWrArPGyoDJzbqmYH16OGvOozA489ofg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 25 January 2025 at 10:49:46 am UTC+5:30 G S S Murthy wrote:

Respected scholars,

नमोऽस्त्वनन्ताय सहस्रमूर्तये सहस्रपादाक्षिशिरोरुबाहवे ।

सहस्रनाम्ने पुरुषाय शाश्वते सहस्रकोटियुगधारिणे नमः ॥

I must have recited this verse 10000 times if not more. Now my nephew asked me about this word शाश्वते. I am floored. What is the प्रातिपदिक, what is the विभक्ति? What is the anvaya? Will be grateful for help.

Thanks and regards

GSS Murthy P.S.May be pardoned for double posting

--

Namo Vaḥ

This reading ‘śāśvate’ (शाश्वते) appears corrupt and the verse itself is suspect. 

Corrupt reading

The word ‘śāśvate’ (शाश्वते) in this verse looks corrupt. The form ‘śāśvate’ (शाश्वते) is the locative singular (सप्तम्येकवचन) form of the lemma (प्रातिपदिक) ‘śāśvata’ (शाश्वत). The locative form is clearly out of place in this verse. One can think of it as the dative singular form of a lemma ‘*śāśvat’ (*शाश्वत्), but no such lemma is attested in any major Sanskrit dictionary. The lemma is either ‘śaśvat’ (शश्वत्) or ‘śāśvata’ (शाश्वत). The dative singular form (चतुर्थ्येकवचन), which is expected, is then ‘śaśvate’ (शश्वते), from ‘śaśvat’ (शश्वत्), or ‘śāśvatāya’ (शाश्वताय), from ‘śāśvata’ (शाश्वत). Looking at the metre, ‘śaśvate’ (शश्वते) should be the correct reading. There are many examples with ‘śaśvate’ (शश्वते) as the dative singular form, here are some from the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā—

1) jyotir janāya śaśvate (1.36.19)
2) pibā somaṃ śaśvate vīryāya (3.32.5)
3) sadā vaso rātiṃ yaviṣṭha śaśvate (8.23.28)
4) sa hi tvaṃ deva śaśvate (9.98.4)

Examples in post-Vedic texts are to be traced. Wherever the verse is from, the original reading must have been ‘śaśvate’ (शश्वते) and not ‘śāśvate’ (शाश्वते), which appears to be a later corruption due to a scribal error. 

नमोऽस्त्वनन्ताय सहस्रमूर्तये सहस्रपादाक्षिशिरोरुबाहवे।

सहस्रनाम्ने पुरुषाय शश्वते सहस्रकोटियुगधारिणे नमः॥ 

Possible interpolation

The verse is recited at the beginning of the pārāyaṇa of the Viṣṇu-Sahasranāma. It is indeed printed as the last verse with the number 148 at the end of chapter 254 (Viṣṇu-sahasranāma) in the Anuśāsana-parvan of the Kumbakonam edition or the southern recension of the Mahābhārata. However, the verse is absent from the Gita Press edition, in which the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma is in chapter 149 of the Anuśāsana-parvan. Usually, the Gita Press edition (first published in the 1950s) gives extra verses from the southern recension (which the Gita Press edition calls dākṣiṇātya saṃskaraṇa). but in this case, the Gita Press edition omits the verse. In the Gita Press edition, chapter 149 ends with the verse विश्वेश्वरमजं देवं जगतः प्रभवाप्ययम्, भजन्ति ये पुष्कराक्षं न ते यान्ति पराभवम्. In the Kumbakonam edition, there are five additional verses, which are questionably numbered with uvāca (उवाच) lines and enclosed within single quotes (perhaps indicating the editors thought they were interpolations?). Most surprisingly, in these additional verses, the conversation between Bhiṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira suddenly switches to a conversation between Arjuna and Bhagavān (=Kṛṣṇa), with अर्जुन उवाच and भगवानुवाच, and then back to an unknown speaker who is now extolling Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu in this without any उवाच! Why would a long conversation between Bhiṣma and Yudhiṣṭhira, which runs through chapters 149 and 150 in the GP edition and 254 and 255 in the Kumbakonam edition be interrupted by a conversation of four or five verses spoken by Arjuna and Bhagavān? In addition, the hemistichs न ते यान्ति पराभवम् ओं नम इति and श्रीसहस्रकोटियुगधारिणे नम इति are clear interpolations, none of them being in the style of the flow. All this makes it very likely that the verse under discussion is an interpolation in one of the southern manuscripts.

The strangeness does not end here. The critical edition includes some additional starred verses after this verse (verses in red below), which are obviously interpolations. Out of nowhere, there comes Vyāsavandanā, rudra uvāca (!), and the famous verse rāma rāmeti rāmeti rame rāme manorame which is from the Padma-Purāṇa and forms a part of the popular edtion of the Rāmarakṣāstotra. The whole set of starred passages, including the verse under discussion, looks out of context. 

13,135.142d*0635_00 arjuna uvāca
13,135.142d*0635_01 padmapatraviśālākṣa padmanābha surottama
13,135.142d*0635_02 śrībhagavān uvāca
13,135.142d*0635_02 bhaktānām anuraktānāṃ trātā bhava janārdana
13,135.142d*0635_03 yo māṃ nāmasahasreṇa stotum icchati pāṇḍava
13,135.142d*0635_04 so 'ham ekena ślokena stuta eva na saṃśayaḥ
13,135.142d*0635_05 namo 'stv anantāya sahasramūrtaye
13,135.142d*0635_06 sahasrapādākṣiśirorubāhave
13,135.142d*0635_07 sahasranāmne puruṣāya śāśvate
13,135.142d*0635_08 sahasrakoṭīyugadhāriṇe namaḥ

13,135.142d*0636_00 arjuna uvāca
13,135.142d*0636_01 vāsanād vāsudevasya vāsitaṃ te jagattrayam
13,135.142d*0636_02 sarvabhūtanivāso 'si vāsudeva namo 'stu te
13,135.142d*0637_01 namo 'stu te vyāsa viśālabuddhe
13,135.142d*0637_02 phullāravindāyatapatranetra
13,135.142d*0637_03 yena tvayā bhāratatailapūrṇaḥ
13,135.142d*0637_04 prajvālito jñānamayaḥ pradīpaḥ
13,135.142d*0637_05 eṣa niṣkaṇṭakaḥ panthā yatra saṃpūjyate hariḥ
13,135.142d*0637_06 kupathaṃ taṃ vijānīyād govindarahitāgamam
13,135.142d*0637_06 rudra uvāca
13,135.142d*0637_07 rāma rāmeti rāmeti rame rāme manorame
13,135.142d*0637_08 śrīsahasranāmatattulyaṃ rāmanāma varānane
13,135.142d*0638_01 iti stutvā hṛṣīkeśaṃ pārthas tūṣṇīṃ sthitas tataḥ
13,135.142d*0639_01 namo brahmaṇyadevāya gobrāhmaṇahitāya ca
13,135.142d*0639_02 jagaddhitāya kṛṣṇāya govindāya namo namaḥ
13,135.142d*0639_03 ākāśāt patitaṃ toyaṃ yathā gacchati sāgaram
13,135.142d*0639_04 sarvadevanamaskāraḥ keśavaṃ prati gacchati
13,135.142d*0639_05 sarvavedeṣu yat puṇyaṃ sarvavedeṣu yat phalam
13,135.142d*0639_06 tat phalaṃ puruṣa āpnoti stutvā devaṃ janārdanam
13,135.142d*0640_01 jitaṃ te puṇḍarīkākṣa namas te viśvabhāvana
13,135.142d*0640_02 namas te 'stu hṛṣīkeśa mahāpuruṣapūrvaja

Thanks, Nityānanda

[G S S Murthy]

Thank you Nityananda ji for your encyclopaedic note. What saddens me is that rote-learning and the habit of reverence to elders in grained in us over hundreds of years blinds us to such errors.

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1db9def9-c0f7-4867-9f18-f660b7fde9f2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

This is fascinating… as I recite the Vishnusahasranama every Thursday… and for lay people like me, this makes for an enlightening reading… Thanks, Nityananda ji!

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRivysP6DA8S59N_wNgvUtEaytitN1C5EWhXgenAtRF3Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramanujachar P]

I have been taught and been reciting as पुरुषाय शासते instead of शाश्वते/शश्वते

Ramanujan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1db9def9-c0f7-4867-9f18-f660b7fde9f2n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr. P. Ramanujan
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)

Bengaluru

[Ramesh Rao]

Yes, Shri Ramanujachar... that is what I too recite and have heard recited by my mother, and in a couple of temple recitations.

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CACPsRkZDoGwi43Eg_gG81SPj6a-eqaDkU2T4ZCBn%2BgCqjtLnJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[R. N. iyengar]

Yes, I follow the शासते version as Dr. Ramanujachar has confirmed.

RN Iyengar

[संस्कृत संवादः]

Mistakes are boldened. Wrong sentence order is marked by numerals.

- अर्जुन उवाच।  
- पद्मपत्रविशालाक्ष पद्मनाभ सुरोत्तम।  १
- श्रीभगवान् उवाच। ३
- भक्तानाम् अनुरक्तानां त्राता भव जनार्दन। २
- यो मां नामसहस्रेण स्तोतुम् इच्छति पाण्डव।  
- सो ऽहम् एकेन श्लोकेन स्तुत एव न संशयः।  
- नमो ऽस्त्व् अनन्ताय सहस्रमूर्तये।  
- सहस्रपादाक्षिशिरोरुबाहवे।  
- सहस्रनाम्ने पुरुषाय शाश्वते।  
- सहस्रकोटीयुगधारिणे नमः।  
- अर्जुन उवाच।  
- वासनाद् वासुदेवस्य वासितं ते जगत्त्रयम्।  
- सर्वभूतनिवासो ऽसि वासुदेव नमो ऽस्तु ते।  
- नमो ऽस्तु ते व्यास विशालबुद्धे।  
- फुल्लारविन्दायतपत्रनेत्र।  
- येन त्वया भारततैलपूर्णः।  
- प्रज्वालितो ज्ञानमयः प्रदीपः।  
- एष निष्कण्टकः पन्था यत्र संपूज्यते हरिः।  
- कुपथं तं विजानीयाद् गोविन्दरहितागमम्।  
- रुद्र उवाच।  
- राम रामेति रामेति रमे रामे मनोरमे।  
- श्रीसहस्रनामतत्तुल्यं रामनाम वरानने।  
- इति स्तुत्वा हृषीकेशं पार्थस् तूष्णीं स्थितस् ततः।  
- नमो ब्रह्मण्यदेवाय गोब्राह्मणहिताय च।  
- जगद्धिताय कृष्णाय गोविन्दाय नमो नमः।  
- आकाशात् पतितं तोयं यथा गच्छति सागरम्।  
- सर्वदेवनमस्कारः केशवं प्रति गच्छति।  
- सर्ववेदेषु यत् पुण्यं सर्ववेदेषु यत् फलम्।  
- तत् फलं पुरुष आप्नोति स्तुत्वा देवं जनार्दनम्।  
- जितं ते पुण्डरीकाक्ष नमस् ते विश्वभावन।  
- नमस् ते ऽस्तु हृषीकेश महापुरुषपूर्वज।  

Best Regards,
डोकानियोपनामको मोहितः
संस्कृत संवादः
https://linktr.ee/samvadah

रविवार, 26 जनवरी 2025 को 9:42:38 am UTC+5:30 बजे Nityanand Misra ने लिखा:

[kamalesh pathak]

Respected scholars, even Gita press in vishnu sahasra Naam prints शाश्वते, Gita press accepted authentic print house on puranas, I wonder the doubts raised above never highlighted in their editions otherwise in saptshati chandipath they mentions a many पाठांतर, 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b139940b-1137-4025-9802-77cf75f80776n%40googlegroups.com.

[संस्कृत संवादः]

While it may come across as blunt, I believe it's important to express that Gitapress is not as reliable as it is often perceived to be.

Best Regards,
डोकानियोपनामको मोहितः
संस्कृत संवादः
https://linktr.ee/samvadah

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/se6XyApeEcM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOoo0jiPnJnRrK262%2Bt0Q9Pf1OLgt%3DkNydsmZN--zqn1-SAF%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mahamaho. Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 नमो अस्तु शाश्वते --

पदमञ्जरी - उपोद्घातः --

यद्यपि इतिहासपुराणादिषु अपशब्दा अपि संभवन्ति , तथापि येषामेव पूर्वपूर्वव्याकरणवशेन तस्मिन् तस्मिन् काले सत्तानुसन्धानं त एवानादयः साधवः इति निर्णीयन्ते ।

यथैव वेदवाक्यानां पाठे सत्यपि सङ्करे ।

बहूनामभियुक्तानाम् उपदेशेन निर्णयः ॥

So whatever is received  from गुरुs through अविच्छिन्नगुरुशिष्यपरंपरा  and running  for so many years has to be accepted as प्रमाणम् । We have to keep in mind that earlier there were great scholars and all of them all the time missed all the errors is not convincing . Better to put it under पृषोदरादि ।

Let us just take a look - for sharpening the brains of young scholars --

The word शश्वत् and its variants have been in usage since time immemorial --

शश्वत् -- अव्ययम् ।

शश प्लुतगतौ  भ्वादिः  शशति शशः शशनः शशनम् ।

पुनस्सहार्थयोः शश्वत् - मुहुः पुनः पुनः शश्वत् अभीक्ष्णमसकृत्समाः - अभीक्ष्णं शश्वदनारते -  बाहुलकात् वत्  - अमरः ।

हशश्वतयोर्लङ् च (पा 3-2-116) , येषां च विरोधः शाश्वतिकः (पा 2-4-9) |

शाश्वतः -

शाश्वतो निर्गुणश्च (उप्) - महाभाष्ये ।

शाश्वती -

मा निषाद .... शाश्वतीः समाः (रामा.) - तेषां शान्तिः शाश्वती नेतरेषाम् (कठोप 2-2-13) .

शाश्वता -

सर्वभूतेषु ... नमस्तस्यै शाश्वतायै परेश्वर (श्वॆताश्व. शां भा p 77) .

शाश्वतम् -

तेषां सुखं शाश्वतं नेतरेषाम् (श्वेताश्व 6-12) - अनादि ब्रह्म शाश्वतम् (वाक्यपदीयम् 2-239) .

शश्वदेव शाश्वत् - तस्मै - शाश्वते -- पृषोदरादिः ।

वेदाः प्रमाणम् (सङ्गीतरत्नाकरः - 4) - साधुप्रयोगः -- वेदाः प्रमाणाः (वनपर्व - महाभारतम्) असाधुप्रयोगः।

सहस्रकोटी ... --

कोटिःस्त्री -- अमरः । कुट प्रतापने - चुरादिः - ’अच इः’ उणादिः 4-139 -- ’ अपि माषं मषं कुर्यात् छन्दोभङ्गं न कारयेत् ’ ।

विश्वं शतं सहस्रं च सर्वमक्षयवाचकम् (वेदान्ते - परिमलव्याख्यानम्) |

सहस्रनामतस्तुल्यम् इति साधीयान् पाठः । अन्यथा अन्वयाभावात् ।

धन्यो;स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Adju.Professor , Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT, Hyderabad

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741

https://sites.google.com/view/koradeeyam/home

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CACfXiV57ANm9GE12eVvN2z2iVnSA4O9jDX%2Bm8WQYn4hNtEsZFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

And further, additions/alterations/adaptations of/from famed texts/sources for specific purposes

such as pūjā-kalpa-s are not rare either. Branding them as aberrations is not a wholesome approach.

Numerous Vedantic texts in verse too cite/use large chunks of scriptural texts with partial/minimal alterations

thus adapting the original for a somewhat novel context. The role of ūha, involving adaptations, 

even in  the Vedic literature, is not very uncommon.

There have been many instances where later editors have tried to "correct" the originals

so as to conform to Pāṇini as much as possible, which is also not quite warranted.

"ārṣatvāt sādhuḥ" is a caution against such unwarranted tampering with the text.

However, if there indeed are earlier manuscripts which had a grammatically correct pāṭha 

which somehow got distorted, one may take recourse to restoration.

Apart from issue of the retention of the sanctity of the original "as inspired" - if it indeed was so -

the norms of modern textual criticism also warrant a retention of the "difficult" reading

(lectio difficilior potior), rather than answer the itch for "correcting" the "corrupt" text,

or branding it as an interpolation, and present a refined reading.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELTOGfDcJ6%3DL916%3DVb2c-MkLOch63RDzDUEvycB5Cgu_mw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

It is possible that this word is the chaturthi vibhakti of शाश्वान् . I found a reference to this word here 

which seems to be a machine converted text of Nirukta Bhashya Tika Of Sri Skanda Swami Maheshwara By Prof. Jnan Prakash Shastri, Dr. Naresh Kumar Ahemadabad 2009 Parimal Publications : Parimal Publications : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive 

I tried finding this word in the text but couldn't. Anyways, this word seems to be of the kind of words mentioned in the paniniya sutra ६.१.१२ - दाश्वान् साह्वान् मीढ्वांश्च which likely involves the used of क्वसु in the  शश् dhatu.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADi6ZRivysP6DA8S59N_wNgvUtEaytitN1C5EWhXgenAtRF3Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Something I found in the nirukta. The शाश्वति here could be the saptami vibhakti of शाश्वान्

[Kushagra]

Please read the full passages from the Nirukta and commentary cited here. They are not illustrative of the point.

However, the usage of शाश्वते can be seen elsewhere in the Puranic literature, including Linga-Purana, Shiva-Purana, Skanda-Purana, Bhavishya-Purana, Mahabharata (southern recession), and Garga-Samhita. It is difficult to regard all of these instances as errors. 

The verse “नमोऽस्त्वनन्ताय सहस्रमूर्तये” also appears elsewhere (Skanda-Purana, Bhavishya-Purana, Garga-Samhita, numerous secondary works). It is difficult (though not impossible) to regard all of these as scribal errors. Side note: I have not come across the शासते variant in any Puranic version of this verse so far (I recognize that my search may be incomplete).  

The word शश्वत् as an adjective is ubiquitous in Vedic literature. Moreover, from the adjective or adverb शश्वत्, शाश्वत can be derived but not शाश्वत्. 

In the light of these facts, we are left with 2 options:

1. Regard all instances of शाश्वत् (primarily शाश्वते) as scribal errors and correct them to शश्वते.

2. Imagine a separate word शाश्वत् (शाश्वान् in masculine).

I favor the second option, but it requires further grammatical support.

On Jan 28, 2025, at 7:25 AM, Abhishek Mehta <abhishe...@students.iiserpune.ac.in> wrote:



Something I found in the nirukta. The शाश्वति here could be the saptami vibhakti of शाश्वान्

<image.png>

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 8:55 PM Abhishek Mehta <abhishe...@students.iiserpune.ac.in> wrote:

It is possible that this word is the chaturthi vibhakti of शाश्वान् . I found a reference to this word here 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANVU6x%2B6dnyG2j1OBzo9F1G0bD2JQvOm-iQT8p8%3D04bY6jtE2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Bohtlingk and Roth give शाश्वत् as a variant,

though no attestation is given.

On my part, I would not even insist on/demand dire grammatical support

for such vocables in the ārṣa literature. While over 90% of the vocables do have sound

grammatical basis, something like 10%, or less, cannot be expected to have been

girded by grammatical rigour. 

Language is protean too. And  aśaktair abhidhātr̥bhiḥ  

is by no means a "recent" phenomenon either.

BTW, My "statistics" is only guess-work.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/ED0B235B-834F-4E2E-B18A-041196B2B8E7%40cornell.edu.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

ārṣa  is one shot solution to all such problems. 
Sources mentioned by Kushagra ji  Linga-Purana, Shiva-Purana, Skanda-Purana, Bhavishya-Purana, Mahabharata (southern recession), and Garga-Samhita
are all  ārṣa only. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7W6YstyeHEEGR19%3DYHGwJm_EL0V-e%3DCcz%3DhvDRrdNa1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

Dean, IKS and Senior Director, IndicA

 

 

 

[Roland Steiner]

> Bohtlingk and Roth give शाश्वत् as a variant,
> though no attestation is given.

They give a textual reference, as is usually the case:

"śāśvat m. N. pr. eines Lexicographen Med. Anh. 1 wohl nur fehlerhaft
für śāśvata, das gleichfalls in's Metrum passt"

(śāśvat m. [= masculine] N. pr. [= nomen proprium = proper name] of a
lexicographer Med. [= Medinīkoṣa, ed. Calcutta, Gild.Bibl. 258] Anh.
[= Anhang = Appendix] 1, probably only erroneously for śāśvata, which
also fits the meter)

https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/csl-apidev/servepdf.php?dict=PWG&page=7-0164

Best,
Roland Steiner

--

Prof. Dr. Roland Steiner
Fachgebiet Indologie und Tibetologie
FB 10 der Philipps-Universitaet
Deutschhausstr. 12
35032 Marburg (Briefanschrift / for letters)
35037 Marburg (Paketanschrift / for parcels)
Germany
E-Mail: ste...@uni-marburg.de
https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb10/iksl/faecher/indologie/fachgebiet/personen

[Kushagra]

I support option 2 and its आर्ष explanation. My only submission is this: In my experience, the आर्ष explanation often makes us complacent. “We cannot fathom the reasoning of the sages; so, let’s not even attempt to do that.” While accepting a usage as आर्ष, let’s try to see if there is some grammatical explanation available. Previously, I (and others) have been able to make an informed guess about the reasoning behind some आर्ष usages.

On Jan 29, 2025, at 8:40 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eYuCMYZiAixL1h9kQs-y0FWBHCNySwOGuD%2BDuZP8BDK4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Please read the full extent of my thread before suggesting any corrective measures.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/ED0B235B-834F-4E2E-B18A-041196B2B8E7%40cornell.edu.

[K S Kannan]

Thanks to Dr Steiner for the clarification.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANVU6x%2BnRyXndFcvX7Gcg8hG1T%2BZ%3Djmk8ra5udYLFvthQYuTSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Steiner]

> Thanks to Dr Steiner for the clarification.

With pleasure, Professor Kannan. You probably looked śāsvata up in the
"small" Petersburg Dictionary (O. Böhtlingk: Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in
kürzerer Fassung. St. Petersburg 1879–1889), which contains more
Sanskrit words than the "large" Petersburg Dictionary (O.Böhtlingk /
R. Roth: Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg 1855–1875), but only
gives references for words and meanings that are not already given in
the latter.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Speaking of grammatical justification. Why does विश्वामित्र have an extra अ in the middle? Can the same extra अ be justified for शाश्वान् by similar means?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7W6YstyeHEEGR19%3DYHGwJm_EL0V-e%3DCcz%3DhvDRrdNa1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Ok I am just trying something which I am uncertain is correct. But anyways please let me know your thoughts on this

शश् + णिच्

-> शाशि

-> शाशि + क्वसु (using क्वसु च sutra)

-> शाश् + वस् ( इ goes away using णेरनिटि sutra)

-> शाश्वान् 

Since this is मन्त्रे will not hold  कास्प्रत्ययादाममन्त्रे 

[K S Kannan]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: शाश्वते
To: bvparishat <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

I fully agree with Kushagraji's recommendation,

that rather than an escapist ārṣa explanation,

we must probe whether there indeed are sound grammatical justifications.

One such great effort has been by Pūjya Ramabhadracharya Swamiji 

wrt Adhyātma-rāmāyaṇa, if I am right.

Other such efforts may also be noted

- as in Durghaṭa-vr̥tti, for example.

All the same, simply ludicrous and reprehensible is the brazen ārṣatva-subterfuge:

ātmana ārṣatva-siddyartham ādāv evā'baddham āha!

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste

 

Two points -  Submitted for information  on  शाश्वते  and विश्वामित्र pl. [ Pl. read till end note of this post.].

Goal is Clarity on ‘VINIYOGA’- The Application – CLARITY - UTILITY Benefit for Individual and Public at large.

The exchange and line of arguments involved here are certainly scholarly, technical and culturally relevant.  

 

 

On  :   शाश्वते  -   < शश्वत् >  and  < शाश्वत > - Usage – Clarity  

 

1. Getting to the bottom of this post issue:  < GSS Murthy: .. नमोऽस्त्वनन्ताय  .. शाश्वते .. नमः ॥ ..

this word शाश्वते. I am floored. What is the प्रातिपदिक, what is the विभक्ति? What is the anvaya?  >

 

BVK Sastry:       शाश्वते -   : : शाश्वत -  अ -  पुं – सप्तमी – एक -  What is the difficulty ?

                            See the clarity carried on these terms in all commentaries of all Acharya’s for these verses  

                             Gita Supersite :  https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in

                          For the use of < शाश्वत -  अ -  पुं > See Gita -2-20 and 14.27.

                          For the use of < शश्वत्  > See Gita – 9-31.

 

Gita 2-20 :  न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचित् - नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूय: |

                   अजो नित्य: शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ||

Gita 14.27:  ब्रह्मणो हि प्रतिष्ठाहममृतस्याव्ययस्य च

                   |शाश्वतस्य च धर्मस्य सुखस्यैकान्तिकस्य च || 

Gita -9-31:  क्षिप्रं भवति धर्मात्मा शश्वत् शान्तिं निगच्छति I

                    कौन्तेय प्रति जानीहि न मे भक्तः प्रणश्यति I I  

 

When Gita carries clarity is available on < शश्वत् >  and  < शाश्वत > for < sound grammatical justifications- usage>,   

When all Acharya’s are clear on the form-meaning and usage of the terms,

 

Why create confusion and struggle with < escapist ārṣa explanation,  and initiate a  line of thinking as < we must probe whether there indeed are sound grammatical justifications.. as in Durghaṭa-vr̥tti,  > ?

Unless, one is willing to be ultra-modern and say ‘traditional grammarians, scribes and Acharya’s were a ‘grammar-language – usage - confused lot’ ?!

 

2.  On derivation of a final form with <  personal preference split and ‘base-form’ – like  - <  शश्>  and preference of Pratyaya – Prakriyaa as < णिच् -> शाशि  -> शाशि + क्वसु (using क्वसु च sutra) -> शाश् + वस् ( इ goes away using णेरनिटि sutra) -> शाश्वान्   >

 

Grammar Rule is a Double Edged sword. The Prayoga – Sadhutva and Viniyoga justifies the usage form.

You give an input like < Alpha-Beta-theta-Delta >  or < alpih-bay-.. >  as ‘Prakruti Input specifying Process required user specified parameters, the  ‘Grammar engine’ outputs a final ‘ Compiled Form called a ‘Grammatical rule processed word’. ( Sup-ting- antam – Padam). That much is not enough to make it a listing under ‘Samskrutha- Bhashaa- Vakya-Artha – Kosha’- and ‘apply ‘Nirukti’ by different language model and rule base.

 

Preferential use of Grammar rules to slice and dice the ‘text-word’ for ‘INTERPRETED – ( DE- / MIS )-Construction of Meaning is a small but effective tool used in Samskruth Tradition, even by Acharya’s; let alone poets !  

 

That level of freedom to follow the path tread by great people is always there; with a caution-rider that one must observe the required level of competence and consistency, before invoking that freedom.

 

On  :   विश्वामित्र – Grammatical Justification

 

< On Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 11:00 PM Abhishek Mehta <abhishe...@students.iiserpune.ac.in> wrote:

Speaking of grammatical justification. Why does विश्वामित्र have an extra अ in the middle? Can the same extra अ be justified for शाश्वान् by similar means?   >

 

BVK Sastry :  The debate and clarification is as old as Panini at lest ! Pl. refer to Sutra 6-2-106 / Siddhanta Kaumudi- 3840.   Snippet placed below:

 

 

 

 

Also follow explanation at पाणिनीयमूलस्रोतः - ६.२.१०६ बहुव्रीहौ विश्वं संज्ञयाम्  

                                          https://ashtadhyayi.github.io/suutra/6.2/6.2.106/  

 

 

 

Well,  

 

When Panini traditional standard and ‘Vedanga-language-Model’ for ‘Samskrutham’ -  is substituted by Techno-Linguists embracing < Bohtlingk and Roth> as < authority over Original grammarians and Samskruth Language – Modellers for Semiotic analysis, and discourse is disconnected with the ‘Teacher-Taught- voice tradition and practice-applications as living practice to set right the corrections to < historical scribed- type set printed- copied – perishable media texts in Print and Digital mode>,  Then, researchers do get suspicious about the ‘authentic format of tradition’.

 

This ‘Critical edition (colonial) syndrome and intervention to tradition- validation ’- is clearly articulated in PRINT was initiated as early as 1853 by Prof. Max Muller; questioning ‘Sringeri Text Tradition’ in ‘VEDA –BHASHYA- EDITING’.

See Preface part of  

Rig-veda-sanhita : Max Muller : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.272521/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater

 

Max Muller’s path is totally different and deviant from path to get the ‘Shuddha- Paatha’ advocated by Acharya Madhwa (Poorna Prajna- Sarvajna).   

 

Certainly, a revisit on ‘Tradition- Text – Transmission –Authenticity Validation’ is needed to review the  

‘Anglicized-Technology Impact’  which is qualia wise different from ‘Scribal Human limitation’ and ‘Motives in adding –amending text (as discourse is charged) during the early period ’.  Typography errors, Scribal Errors are different from ‘ Motive Modified Insertions and Edits’;  But Techno linguistic Anglicised Sanskrit – LLM through AI is a different play-ground. It is a current period phenomenon; Impact – Assessment is still not clear. But danger is ‘CLEAR- and in RED ZONE’.     

 

The points which do need ‘Bharateeya-scholarly revisit’ , in the core interest of tradition, in my limited understanding needs to address the following:  

 

A) DISCONNET ISSUE:   How to handle Word-Generator Discipline , the ‘Panini (VEDANGA) Vyakarana’ which is

     disconnected with Word-MEANING – SEMIOTIC REGULATOR Discipline, the ‘YASKA (VEDANGA) NIRUKTA

     CAUTION’ as ‘(Mantra)-Arthah- Prakaranashah – nirvktavyah’  

 

B)  Word- Character- Technical -Disambiguation issue:  How to handle  ‘SAMSKRUTH-WORD –  

      SEGMENTATION’ which is side lining Panini / Patanjali guide line as ‘SIDDHE -SHABDA-ARTHA-

       SAMBANDHE’  and ‘Varna- Akshara- Prakruti’ ?

 

C)  Colonised Social Language Transliteration Technology taking over Voice Primary Naturally Human

      Language Technology , in the realm of AI Designs and deployment impacting ‘Samskruth –Brahmi families’

      :  What is the damaging impact on Varna-Akshara- Ucchaarana-  model of ‘SAMSKRUTH-WORD –

       SEGMENTATION’, when it is made  by ‘spelling –scripted- character –segmentation – Translitration IPA

        phonetic conventions for analytics ( losing the essence of Gunita and Samyukta Akshara – Abugida -  

         vyavasthaa) where Techno-Linguists are in lead, embracing <Bohtlingk and Roth (and the related team)>

        who think  <शाश्वत् as a variant> and yet give < no attestation>; where Monier Williams < 40,000 – Sanskrit

          terms marked ‘L’- Lexicographers opinion and discretion remain in circulation, discordant with Cultural

          ethos of Indic Brahmi Language traditions;  and remain widely circulated without traditional language

          schools review for over a century !) >.

         There is no surprise in the weak statement:  < I would not even insist on/demand dire grammatical

          support for such vocables in the ārṣa literature. While over 90% of the vocables do have sound

          grammatical basis, something like 10%, or less, cannot be expected to have been girded by grammatical

          rigour.>

 

Certainly it leaves some ‘Panini-Curios – old school trained students, to which I belong a relic ,so to say,

to wonder’ :  Why All Acharya’s considered  ‘Panini’s grammar’ as a sacrosanct reference in arriving at the ‘Vedanta- Vijnana- Taatparya- Artha- Vinirniya’  for ‘Sunischita-artha’ -  at least till the advent of ‘Tower of Babel Linguistics’ theory overtook India and ‘Critical Editions became the fashion of day’ ! and now the ‘Digital Scans and Texts, AI-  Generated Sanskrit translations’.

 

( End Note :  Pl. excuse me if my writing style feels disturbing to anyone.

            I do not mean any disrespect  or offense or criticism of any scholar / Friends on this  forum;

            I am placing this post as a respectful submission of some Samskruth- textual-facts, received by  me in

            my early learning days (at least four decades earlier, now). I am equally interested to keep my learning   

            up to date and find safe-continuum conforming - passage’ for ‘Tradition anchored Learning –Validation

            of Texts-practices and evaluation’. 

            This is totally different from the challenging questions ‘Why a specific form of  Language Modelling and

            interpreting- usage- Tradition ? How –History- Relevance of certain form of tradition’.

            If ‘Kumbh-Mela’ is a Religion-culture- Tradition at Nation, the  relevant focus is on ‘What is

            understanding  ‘What is’  -  of Kumbh Mela event ; when-how- Kumbha mela needs to be done? What is 

             cultural authenticity ’. This is Paramparaa- Shraddhaa- Sampradaya- Shishtaachaara- Sadhutva- issue.

              Other questions like ‘When Kumbh mela historically originated ? Is it Scientific? Is it secular ? Why only

              Kumbha mela at Ganga- Yamuna- Sarasvati Triveni Sangam and why not at rivers like Nile,Amazon,

             Thames -  sangam? These are out of my response focus.        

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm71V-Q_U7UzDnBO5bnWY6GgZH5-8j_zRseMTZ0N%2B9QWJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

It is a matter of bewilderment were it not also one of bemusement

as to how an omniscient and untiring friendly contributor conducts regular raids on every mail here, 

each campaign unfailingly successful in establishing that he delights unceasingly 

in deluding himself coupled and crowned with confusing others with a high degree of efficiency, 

all intelligently aimed at enhancing his ever-growing "contact-me-offline" clientele 

with the masterstrokes of numbered and sub-numbered >vag<vi<ni-yoga schemata splashed and sprayed with 

alternating selections from out of vibgyor bands and wands of colour not unaccompanied by embellishments of 

generous spillings and fillings of traditional vocables as well as technological jargon 

decisively directed at exemplifying the singular upaniṣadic syndrome exquisitely expressed as 

vāco viglāpanaṁ hi tat.

And we thank him for his tireless endeavours in keeping the list amused and impressed

at once by his master-strokes of silly and unintended spelling manipulations, errors to wit, 

and multitudes of references to a wide range of material smacking of unbounded, not unfounded, erudition,

and multifariously (in)dented paragraphs.

I must cease here lest I replicate him unconsciously in some fashion and be sued for copyright violation 

of pre-owned exhortations and expostulations sans all sense; and cease not to say sorry in advance, too,

in case there is any hurt, real or imagined, to anybody on or off the list.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/03cc01db72f4%247920a1d0%246b61e570%24%40gmail.com.