The Wonder That Is Sanskrit

[ken p]

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-wonder-that-is-sanskrit?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sanskritbibekdebroy

[G S S Murthy]

Thanks. Very comprehensive and illuminating. But, he says  that word "Sloka" derives from "Shoka" based on Valmiki's "maa nishaada' verse. I doubt if this is right.

Regards,

Murthy

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:06 AM, ken p <drk...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-wonder-that-is-sanskrit?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sanskritbibekdebroy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM, G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks. Very comprehensive and illuminating. But, he says  that word "Sloka" derives from "Shoka" based on Valmiki's "maa nishaada' verse. I doubt if this is right.

Regards,

Murthy

 As I have heard from poets, it is the first Shloka, i.e. in Laukia Chandas, and Shloka has started from Valmiki's first verse Maa Nishaada. Therefore he is considered as the आदिकवि and रामायण is आदिकाव्य. Whether this is true or false, I have not bothered about. I don't remember exact verses mentioning this.

Not that the word श्लोक is word "Sloka" derives from "Shoka" based on Valmiki's "maa nishaada' verse.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा ।
क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः ॥ १.५ ॥

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. This maa nishaada being first s'loka is legendary/mythical not historical.

 

2. s'oka-->s'loka etymology is not valid and does not appear to be suggested, seems to be s'abdasoundarya (word-play, if one prefers) is what is intended.

 

3. Emotional (transcendental)  experience bursting out in a musical form has parallel to Veda-aavirbhaava.

 

4. The narrative associated with this idea has content parallel to Ramayana content: separation of one of the members of a marital/love couple from the other and has suggestions for Karuna rasa being angirasa in Ramayana kaavya.

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा ।
क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः ॥ १.५ ॥

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

" 2. s'oka-->s'loka etymology is not valid and does not appear to be suggested, seems to be s'abdasoundarya (word-play, if one prefers)"

We can observe in rāmāyaṇa, brāhmaṇa-like or upaniṣat-like nirvacanas to padas,
skanna -> skanda.
asura and sura because of not having and having drunk suraa.

1. Hence śoka->śloka can be taken in this spirit and we can choose not be too finicky about "etymology".
2. If we don't do this, we will also have to enlarge the scope of looking for word play in other granthas and call hṛdi + ayam = hṛdayam of chāndōgya and so also the many nirvacanas that we come across in brāhmaṇas and upaniṣats and nirukta as mere word play.
3. If item 2 is what you meant (enlarging the scope of looking for word play), then we will reach the same conclusions of the early European "scholars" about Veda / Śāstra.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                      shrivathsa.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

AadaraNIya Shrivatsaji,

 

The article says, "  Have you wondered about the origin of the word shloka? "

 

It goes on to say, after a few lines, "Since the couplet was composed against the background of sorrowing, this couplet came to be known as shloka. So the Valmiki Ramayana tells us."

 

There is no verse in Valimiki Ramayana which means,

 

"Since the couplet was composed against the background of sorrowing, this couplet came to be known as shloka"

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

[Shrivathsa B]

शोकार्तस्य प्रवृत्तो मे श्लोको भवतु नान्यथा is what one finds in bAla, 2nd sarga, shloka 18 in vAlmiikirAmAyaNam pub. giitaa press.

Isn't this enough proof nAgarAja varya?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This does not connect the two words phonologically.

 

The quoted verse does not mean that the word s'loka comes from the word s'oka.

[Shrivathsa B]

हरिः‍ ॐ,

भवच्चरणयुगलं प्रणम्य,

   This was exactly the point of my previous post nAgarAja varya. There is an unmistakable brAhmaNa like touch to some parts of the bAlakANDa, specially in the instances of skanna -> skanda, and sura-asura, malada, karUSha etc. There has been an effort to connect the words. I don't understand as to how they cannot be phonologically connected (more below).

   For the second part of your post, we can say that we have to infer and it will not be a baseless inference. please consider the following:

शोकार्तस्य प्रवृत्तो मे श्लोको भवतु। न अन्यथा भवतु।
   Although vAlmiiki would have known that any aShTAkSharapAda will become an anuShtup (because anuShtup is found in veda and as per tradition, vAlmiiki is later to veda), he didn't want to give the sAmAnya nAma anuShtup because of पादबद्धोक्षरसमः तन्त्रीलयसमन्वितः। This is the reason he says "न अन्यथा भवतु".

Why go for the name "श्लोक"? Because
(i) the words "मा निशाद..." were inspired by "शोक" (शोकार्तेनास्य शकुनेः किमिदं व्याहृतं मया).

(ii) There could have been other bhAvas such as kopa etc. but shoka was dominating. There is an indication of this when vAlmiki says "अधर्मोयमिति द्विजः". अधर्मवेदित्व of the act and करुणवेदित्व can inspire many bhAvas, but only shoka came to him. This is the reason he doesn't say कोपेन प्रवृत्तो मे।
(iii) the word श्लोक is close to शोक.

(iv) श्लोको भवतु नान्यथा is an address to his shiShya bharadvAja as an answer to his own mental question "किमिदं‍ व्याहृतं मया?"

(v) the words शोकार्तेन and शोकार्तस्य make the above inference unmistakable. Else, vAlmiiki could have just said: "पादबद्धोक्षरसमः तन्त्रीलयसमन्वितः प्रवृत्तो मे श्लोको भवतु नान्यथा. The word "शोकार्तस्य" is added in this sentence because he is explaining to bhAradvAja that it is shoka which led to "mA nishAda..." and therefore it is being called as shloka. Else, there is no need for a guru to explain to his shiShya.

   If we don't conclude as above, the elegance of the narrative is lost. Commentators seem to make this connection:
The govindarAjiiya says the following:
"शोकार्तस्य क्रौञ्चीशोकेनार्तस्य मे प्रवृत्तो मत्तः प्रवृत्तो ऽयं सन्दर्भ इत्यर्थः । ..... श्लोको भवतु श्लोकलक्षणलक्षितत्वात् श्लोकशब्दवाच्यो भवतु । नान्यथा श्लोकादन्यः केवलपदसन्दर्भो न भवति इति मतिं चकारेति पूर्वेणान्वयः"

   amRRitakataka says commenting on brahma's words:
"मच्चित्तेनापि त्वया पारतन्त्र्यात् इदानीमपि शोकव्याजेन श्लोक एव बद्धः"

   Again, in the skanda narrative, the object viz. naming of the child of shiva as skanda... out of many names which could have been considered, skanda was, that is because it is the closest to skanna. This is the style of brAhmaNas of specifying / explaining names. We have to accept it as part of our tradition.

   Another example is the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् - अर्चते वै मे कमभूदिति तदेवार्कस्यार्कत्वम् . There are numerous such examples in brAhmaNa / AraNyaka (another top of the mind example is the nirvacana of gharma in aitareya brAhmaNa).

svasti,

       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,

                                                   shrivathsa.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

AadaraNIya Shrivatsaji,

 

1. The word s'loka has many usages in Sanskrit, as in puNya s'loka and others. That should also be taken into account.

 

2. All s'lokas are not s'oka related.

 

3. In the cited Ramayana references, there is certainly attention being drawn towards the sound similarity between the two words. But there is no evidence there to indicate that a word origin explanation is intended there.

 

4. Even in the cited commentary, it is not mentioned that the word s'loka is derived from the word s'oka.

 

5. If I find a direct expression in Ramayana which mentions that the word s'loka is derived from the word s'oka, I shall certainly take that to be one of the alternative etymologies from a venerable source.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Why it is named  श्लोक is explained in the commentaries. But no commentary says the word श्लोक is derived from शोक etymologically. Why should one guess wildly to justify the sentence "derived" in the blog mean? There is no hint in the verse itself that the word श्लोक is derived from the word शोक, as far as I can see through the commentaries.

"श्लोको यशसि पद्ये च" इति निघण्टुः ।। 1.2.18 ।।

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,
HN varya, with prostrations at your feet,

   If we don't accept shoka -> shloka, we will have to reject skanna -> skanda malada, karuuSha, apsaras, sura, asura in rAmAyaNa and also other such nirvacanas in brAhmaNa granthas. Going back to my previous post will be to go full circle.

   This "style" of giving nirvacanas is found in brAhmaNas, either by way of connected words or by way of AkhyAyikAs. Just the way the prakRRiti pratyaya vibhaaga according to vyaakaraNa will be different from the nirvacanas found in brAhmaNas, it may not be fair to impose strict conditions of prakRRiti pratyaya vibhaaga on rAmAyaNa given that it is aarSha. Hence the requirement for shloka's dhAtu to meet the meaning of "shoka" will be unfair. Another example I wrote was ChAndogya's nirvacana of AtmA = hRRidi ayam = hRRidayam. One cannot say that because the nirvacana for AtmA comes from hRRidayam, there is no connection (prakRRiti pratyaya vibhaaga through hRRidayam will not lead to AtmA). But the connection is very much there, that is because the grantha is ArSha. When I had asked a vyaakaraNa scholar about the impossibility of deriving AtmA from hRRidayam, he told that this has to be taken as it is because the authority of a brAhmaNa grantha is higher than prakRRiti pratyaya vibhaaga.

   I am not justifying the blog. Even when this portion was included in our school curriculum, it was titled as "shokaH shlokatvamAgataH". Hence shoka -> shloka has been imprinted in my mind since about 20 years. I am able to see that it is justifiable.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                      shrivathsa.

On 20-Mar-2016 13:06, "Hnbhat B.R." <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why it is named  श्लोक is explained in the commentaries. But no commentary says the word श्लोक is derived from शोक etymologically. Why should one guess wildly to justify the sentence "derived" in the blog mean? There is no hint in the verse itself that the word श्लोक is derived from the word शोक, as far as I can see through the commentaries.

"श्लोको यशसि पद्ये च" इति निघण्टुः ।। 1.2.18 ।।

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

To attribute our own understanding of the words of maharshis to them thinking that we are respecting them by doing that, in fact amounts to doing the opposite of what we intend to do.

 

Humbly yours,

 

Nagaraj 

[Shrivathsa B]

Enough evidence has been given to show why the claim of shoka -> shloka can be justified by considering it an ArSha nirvacana in line with brAhmaNas.

One example I had forgotten was that of maruts. They being named because of the story where Indra cuts diti's foetus into pieces. All the pieces start crying. Indra asks the pieces not to cry (maa rudaH) and hence the name marut.
The prakRRiti pratyaya vibhaaga for marut according to vAcaspatyam is मृ उति. This isn't connected to maa or rudaH. But the nirvacana is valid because it comes from an ArSha grantha.

I don't know how seeing a pattern writ all over the bAlakANDaH is tantamount to attributing our understanding to maharShis. This is the metaphoric equivalent of shooting the messenger. On the contrary, denying the nirvacanas is tantamount to disrespect to them and their granthas.

   I wish to stop here with prostrations at your feet.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                      shrivathsa.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There is a clear derivational expression in the following:

 

यस्मान्मा रुदतेत्येक्ता रुदन्तो गर्भसंस्थिताः।

 

मरुतो नाम ते नाम्ना भवन्तु मखभागिनः ॥ मत्स्य 7.62

 

Some other puranas give the narrative with clear derivational expressions.

 

 Yaaska derives marut from ruch = to shine

 

We may now take both the derivations as two different kinds of venerable derivations.

 

There is no such clear derivational expression in the verses of Ramayana quoted for s'oka--> s'loka.

 

Hope this makes my view clearer.

 

Humbly,

 

Nagaraj 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

यस्मान्मा रुदतेत्युक्ता

 

not