Mahabharata kuta slokas

[P.K.Ramakrishnan]

One such sloka which I have heard is this -

Bhishma when hit by an arrow says -

अर्जुनस्य इमे बाणा:
नेमे बाणा: शिखण्डिन: /
छिन्दन्ति मम गात्राणि
माघमासे गवामिव //

These are arrows of Arjuna
not of Shikhandi.
They are piercing my body parts
just like that of cows in Maagha month.

The last line does not make any sense.
So it takes some time to understand the meaning.

I am given to understand its meaning thus:
माघमा सेगवामिव -
Just like maaghamaa piercing segavaa.

It is a general belief that when a baby crab is born
it bursts open the mother crab to come out from the
womb and the mother crab dies.

But both Apte and Moneir Williams give the meaning
of maaghamma as the mother crab and segava as the
baby crab.

Learned members of the group may discuss.

-----------------------------------
P.K.Ramakrishnan
http://peekayar.blogspot.com

[hnbhat B.R.]

Bhishma when hit by an arrow says -

अर्जुनस्य इमे बाणा:
नेमे बाणा: शिखण्डिन: /
छिन्दन्ति मम गात्राणि
माघमासे गवामिव //

These are arrows of Arjuna
not of Shikhandi.
They are piercing my body parts
just like that of cows in Maagha month.

The last line does not make any sense.
So it takes some time to understand the meaning.

I am given to understand its meaning thus:
माघमा सेगवामिव -
Just like maaghamaa piercing segavaa.

It is a general belief that when a baby crab is born
it bursts open the mother crab to come out from the
womb and the mother crab dies.

But both Apte and Moneir Williams give the meaning
of maaghamma as the mother crab and segava as the
baby crab.

Learned members of the group may discuss.

Thank you for one more kUTa shloka from Mahabharata.

The Mahabharata Book 6 Chapter 114

 60 kṛntanti mama gātrāṇi māghamāse gavām iva
     arjunasya ime bāṇā neme bāṇāḥ śikhaṇḍinaḥ

Everywhere it is typed like this. I too had been given to understand as you have described. Probably Apte and Monierwilliams are confused.

Here is some notes on a German Book on Arthashastra of Kautilya:

According to Indian belief, the crabs at birth of cubs.

These split namely her back and come out. 

See eg Mbh. III, 268, 9, VI, 119, 66 Nīl.s gloss and PW karkaṭī a), karkaṭakī 2), kulīrād, māghamā, segava. The counterpart is the snake. They eat their own young, and they are the egg hatched out. Agnipur. tr MN Dutt (1908), p. 1088th.

The translation of Monier Williams and Apte seems to be based on the confusion of the interpretation of Nilakantha by way of quoting lexicon. Also the same idea is repeated again in the previous Parva too:

The Mahabharata Book 12 Chapter 137

85 गृहस्नेहावबद्धानां नराणाम अल्पमेधसाम

     कुस्त्री खादति मांसानि माघमा सेगवाम इव

gṛhasnehāvabaddhānāṃ narāṇām alpamedhasām
kustrī khādati māṃsāni māghamā segavām iva

 

The second instance gives the idea clearer I hope. Both "māghamā segava" mean crab, one mother crab and the other young crab. Here too we can interpret like the young crab eating the mother crab, leaving apart the first half, it seems to be quite clear. The same seems to be the idea in the earlier occasion too with which the idea is like the young crabs eat their mother crab which suits in both cases. 

karkaṭī a), karkaṭakī 2), kulīrād, māghamā,

The first qualifies the second word and the preceding word. as synonyms. The highlighted portion created confusion in translating the words by both the lexicographers. They have taken to mean like the snakes, which eat their own younger ones and accordingly translated these words taking it as the first to mean the mother curb eating the young crab. This explains the situation Thus, they have taken the reverse. अल्पा कर्कटी - कर्कटकी; कुलीरम् अत्तीति कुलीरात्, माघं मिनातीति माघमा; seems to be the derivations possible for these. The other seems to be underivable from etymology unless some commentator offers suitable one to mean the crab. 

Here is one more example of the same example of taking it as the female one too: Crab, Female (Karkaṭakī)

The female crab is a figure of self-destruction. Thus, Draupadī remarks that Jayadratha attempting to kidnap her is digging his own grave like a female crab conceiving for her own destruction (ādāsyase karkaṭakī 'va garbham 3.252.9; vide the commentaries quoted on 6.114.60 to the effect that young crabs, being born, eat their way out of their mother's body).

Here the word karkaṭakī seems to be taken for female crab. Here too it may mean simply young curb too. But the blogger makes clear our idea of the young one coming out of the womb eating the body of the mother crab. So the point of confusion was the lexicon quoted. If we take three words meaning young crabs, then keeping in the proper way,  the kulIraat is adjective for the young curb (and not for mother crab as they both seem to have taken) and all the same the explanation fits well. This quotation conforms with the one explained by Ramakrishnan, though in others earlier ones is doubtful, but in its conformity to this.

But eating the younger ones, is common feature of the serpents as noted in the first quoted one blog (german).  In siddhantakaumudi to we have the expression that the serpents, with the example of the usage of "पुत्त्रादिनी सर्पिणी" which is a counter-example of the वार्तिक "नादिन्याक्रोशे पुत्रस्य" which prohibits the duplication of the consonants in the word putra optionaly when it is followed by word "adin" (one who eats) used in pejorative sense. But if it is meant as a statement of facts, the consonant is duplicated "ttra" as in the present counter example, the female serpent used to eat its own cubs. With this in mind, the quotation of Nilakantha in his commentary, made the words interpreted in the reverse of the intended ones. This seems to be the explanation for the meaning given in both the dictionaries.

Tossed for more discussion from the members.

  

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

[hnbhat B.R.]

One more example of the young curbs destroying the mother's body:

The Mahabharata in Sanskrit

Book 4 Chapter 8  26 

यथा कर्कटकी गर्भमाधत्ते मृत्युमात्मनः
     तथाविधमहं मन्ये वासं तव शुचिस्मिते॥
These words are spoken to Draupadi, when she sought the refuge of सुधेष्णा as her सैरन्ध्री expressing her fear that giving resort to her may result like the female conceive womb as her own death; 

So in the earlier occasion too it may mean the same meaning. 

[hnbhat B.R.]

I was disturbed with the grammatical status, in spite of my supporting the different interpretations. Now I found the solution in the Geetha Press Edition:

Reading correctly:

माघमां सेगवा इव;

for the portion in question. Now it is simplified, with the lexicon quoted:

माघमा = कर्कटी, ताम्, mother crab; सेगवाः = शिशवः, 

These arrows  pierce my body like the young crabs do the mother crab and they are not of Shikhandin, but of Arjuna. The dictionary meaning is also justified and the other reading poses many problems grammatically.

Even if we take as माघमा it will be in singular and would not fit with the verb निकृन्तन्ति in the plural. For that some modification is needed माघमाः and it can go well with the verb. Then सेगव stands for the mother crab in the accusative. I am sorry that I could not get the correct reading on the net at that time. With this reading, there is no problem with the words. Now all the words quoted by the commentator also can be taken to denote the female in general. and the other सेगव is in masculin plural. Only for derivations some more attempt may be needed. But the lexicon gives the two as synonyms.

With regards

[P.K.Ramakrishnan]

This appears to sound grammatically and by the meaning given by Apte and others as correct.  But to make a Kuta, the word maaghamase gavamiva seems appropriate. That is, the meaning is difficult to

comprehend unless it is read as maaghamaa segavaamiva. 

Open for discussion.
 

-----------------------------------
P.K.Ramakrishnan
http://peekayar.blogspot.com

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 8 March, 2011 6:53:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Mahabharata kuta slokas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[Anilkumar Veppatangudi]

In Kaushika Grihya Sutra, it says

qÉbÉÉxÉÑ WûlrÉliÉå aÉÉuÉÈ TüsaÉÑlÉÏwÉÑ urÉѽiÉ
meaning cows are killed in Magha(during the wedding) and the bride is taken to her husband's home in Phalguni.  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--

V.R.Anil Kumar

http://www.kalpaheritage.com

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear PaNDitAH

I am a little confused by this verse.  Is it just a mistake of the original poet or an incorrect reading (and then re-writing, by someone else subsequently ) ?   Also why would poets make the meaning difficult to elicit, in the first place?  Is it not better to write something that everyone can easily understand?

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hnbhat B.R.
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2011 12:23 AM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Mahabharata kuta slokas

 

I was disturbed with the grammatical status, in spite of my supporting the different interpretations. Now I found the solution in the Geetha Press Edition:

--

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Anilkumar Veppatangudi <veppat...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Kaushika Grihya Sutra, it says

qÉbÉÉxÉÑ WûlrÉliÉå aÉÉuÉÈ TüsaÉÑlÉÏwÉÑ urÉѽiÉ
meaning cows are killed in Magha(during the wedding) and the bride is taken to her husband's home in Phalguni.  

Thanks Anilkumar for the quotation of Grihyasutra, which even simplifies the reading without a "koota" which is no more a "koota" in the light of this quotation. Simply it would mean only a simily:

These arrows are of Ajuna which cut through my limbs like the bodies of cows in the Magha month. These are not from Shikhandin (which never afflict him). He recognize them very easily differentiated by their touch.

Now it is up to you to accept it a "koota" or not. But I too agree the other reading, makes much sense in the context. He rejoiced the piercing of the arrows of Arjuna, like a mother crab at child birth. 

Whether this was intended by the poet or not is a different thing, as pointed by Vimalaji. Such verses, may be taken as cases of interpolations during several times, during the transmission of the text too. There is such possibility too along with the alleged scribe Ganapathy became popularly known as such.

And it is the freedom of the poets to use Koota shloka-s too.

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Dear PaNDitAH

I am a little confused by this verse.  Is it just a mistake of the original poet or an incorrect reading (and then re-writing, by someone else subsequently ) ?  

 

Also why would poets make the meaning difficult to elicit, in the first place?  Is it not better to write something that everyone can easily understand?

Vimala

Very Good Question. If it is targeted toward a poet of the bye-gone age a renowned Pandita too, Bhavabhuti, his answer was ready there, with modesty:

ये नाम केचिदिह न प्रथयन्त्यवज्ञां जानन्ति ते किमपि तान् प्रति नैष यत्नः। उत्पत्स्यते तु मम कोऽपि समानधर्मा कालो ह्मयं निरवधिः विपुला च पृथ्वी।।

.

In other words, his answer is that it is not meant for those who dislike his work without understanding him, but he is hopeful that some one would be over there in the spacious world during the unlimited time. 

The answer is from a poet with modesty. The stubborn poet would reply:

ब्रूते यः को ऽपि दोषं महदिति सुमतिर्बालरामायणे ऽस्मिन्

प्रष्टव्यो ऽसौ पटीयानिह भणितिगुणो विद्यते वा नवेति।

यद्यस्ति स्वस्ति तुभ्यं भव पठनरुचिर्विद्धि नः षट्प्रबन्धान् 

नैवं चेद् दीर्घमास्तां नटवटुवदने जर्जरा काव्यकन्था॥

If any body points out a blemish that it is too lengthy, I would ask him the wise man only this question: Is there any merit of poetry in it or not?

If the answer is yes, please read it over and enjoy. There are six more compositions you can read from me.

If the answer is in the negative, let this torn out poetry be roll in the cavity of the mouths of actors (who make their living by performing it) 

(Why should you worry about it? Leave it alone to be used by the actors to make their living.)

Now if you ask a great shrewd Pandita, the writer of निघण्टु - निरुक्त, his answer is this:

 नैष स्थाणोरपराधो यदेनमन्धो न पश्यति । पुरुषापराध: स भवति । Meaning: If  blind man cannot see a pillar then it is not the pillar's fault, rather that of the man. 

And from a Shastra-kavi, you get the answer why they wrote such poetry and not the ones that every body can read and understand easily Bhatti in his composition Ravanavadhamahakvya known as also by his name, भट्टिकाव्य where you can find examples for almost all the rules of grammatical operations explained by Panini:

व्याख्यागम्यमिदं काव्यमुत्सवः सुधियामलम्‌।
हता दुर्मेधसश्चास्मिन्‌ विद्वत्प्रियतया मया ।।

He intended his composition understood with the help of a teacher to teach and without a guide it is not understandable. This is meant to please the great scholars (and not for any lay man) and it is to be understood with the help of a commentary. By this endeavor to please the scholars, the dull witted ones will cease to exist (as they will gain scholarship by studying this poetry).

But it is has been taunted by the rhetorician Bhamaha, who is averse to such poetry:

काव्यान्यपि यदीमानि व्याख्यागम्यानि शास्त्रवत्।

उत्सवः सुधियामेव हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताः॥

If these poems are to be understood with the help of a commentary only, like the Shastra-s, it is only a pleasure to the scholars. But those who are not scholars are lost for ever.

If you ask me, because there were such qualified readers, they wrote according to the demand of the time. If we could not appreciate them, how can it be it their fault? As Kuntaka pointed out, there are three types of Poets, सुकुमर poets like Kalidasa, and विचित्र poets endowed with scholarship blended with poetic talent, like Bhavabhuti and the last one शास्त्रकवि - who is basically शास्त्रिन्--s who wanted to make the common people too scholars like them, with the help of poetry. 

द्राक्षापाकः, नारिकेलपाकः, इक्षुपाकः is another category of classification of poetry. The first just like the grapes, as you put into your mouth, you can easily enjoy them. The second with breaking the outer shell, you can enjoy the sweetness. The sugar cane, you will have to crush forcibly to get the juice and it is not easy to break the nut.

Hope this answers to your query.

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Bhat Mahodaya

You have answered by question most eloquently!!

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hnbhat B.R.
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2011 5:37 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Mahabharata kuta slokas

 

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

--

[Pramod Kulkarni]

the kUTa in this shloka is in the first two lines too.

nema means one half.

bhiishma POINTS to some arrows and says these are the arrows shot by an expert archer like Arjuna

while the other half are from the ralatively amature shikhanDii.

auddhav

[Vamsi Krishna]

अर्जुनस्य इमे बाणा:
नेमे बाणा: शिखण्डिन: /
छिन्दन्ति मम गात्राणि
माघमासे गवामिव //

Here Bhimsa is telling that the difference between the arrows of Arjuna and Shikandi,The arrows of Shikandi as 'माघमासे गवामिव ' which means like that of the sun rays during the Magha maas ( in the Gregorian calendar it corresponds with January/February) so in that months even the sun rays are not so much heat producing , and the beauty is Bhisma using the same word to describe Arjuna's arrows  'माघमासे गवामिव ' this also means just a little baby crabs comes outside the womb of mother tearing its stomach  its very painful 

----------------------------------------------Prev comments---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------