query related to grammar

[Ghanu Vinu]

बुद्धं  शरणं गच्छामि।         Sir, want to know that in the word  बुद्धं   why accusative case is  used? Though I know that  in going sense we use accusative case. If the meaning of  " बुद्धं  शरणं  - to the shelter of  Buddha"  then in the word बुद्धं  in place of accusative case it should be genitive case i.e.  बुद्धस्य शरणं गच्छामि ।  अथवा बुद्धशरणं गच्छामि।  Please explain.                       

[Hnbhat B.R.]

It is not "on the go way" that we use accusative, but with the verbs of mortion, as per the rule:

गत्यर्थकर्मणि द्वितीयाचतुर्थ्यौ चेष्टायामनध्वनि    2-3-12 

अध्वभिन्ने गत्यर्थानां कर्मणि एते स्तश्चेष्टायाम्। ग्रामं ग्रामाय वा गच्छति।

If you use बुद्धस्य शरणं would mean the house of Buddha, and not Buddha, the refuge. This is the difference.

[Ghanu Vinu]

Thanks a lot sir  :) :) 

[Radim Navyan]

बुद्धं as शरणं गच्छामि।
बुद्धस्य शरणम् गच्छामि means Buddha has some lagre umbrella and I go there too. It's not the correct sense, because Buddha himself is my umbrella.


03.02.2015 22:56, Ghanu Vinu пишет:

बुद्धं  शरणं गच्छामि।         Sir, want to know that in the word  बुद्धं   why accusative case is  used? Though I know that  in going sense we use accusative case. If the meaning of  " बुद्धं  शरणं  - to the shelter of  Buddha"  then in the word बुद्धं  in place of accusative case it should be genitive case i.e.  बुद्धस्य शरणं गच्छामि ।  अथवा बुद्धशरणं गच्छामि।  Please explain.                       

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Buddha is not any umbrella, but refuge house or protector for his devotees from their worries against the worldly worrides.

Hence the usage is no irregular in grammar.

​

[Radim Navyan]

If worries is the rain (or sun-heat), then Buddha is the umbrella. There was an allegory.

05.02.2015 13:25, Hnbhat B.R. пишет:

Buddha is not any umbrella, but refuge house or protector for his devotees from their worries against the worldly worrides.

Hence the usage is no irregular in grammar.

​

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Radim Navyan <radim...@gmail.com> wrote:

If worries is the rain (or sun-heat), then Buddha is the umbrella. There was an allegory.

Why should one take allegory when the words themselves give the exact meaning?

शरणं गृहरक्षित्रोः [श्रीपर्णं कमलेऽपि च] ( ३. ३. ४३८)  

शरणं गृहरक्षित्रोः ' इत्यमरः। 'शरणं रक्षणे गृहे ' इति यादवः । 

It plainly means I take regue in Buddha. The devotee is the refugee and Buddha is the refuge.

Why to imagin rain and umbrella in the above sentence which is popular? "बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि? and complicate the meaning?

[Radim Navyan]

Why do we use any drishtantam? In order to clearly express some thought. I bet the questioner awares of literal meaning you quoted.
Someone dislikes comparision of Buddha with umbrella. Definitely has such right. In this case I dislike any comparision at all. Did Buddha give some personal permission to imagine  him as refure, house etc.? The answer is 'no' until you show us his notarially attested signature. Therefore in context of बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि there is no difference between refuge, roof of a house, umbrella, parachute and so on. When you call someone absent रक्षितृ, it's already an allegory, isn't it? How can Buddha protect you? He is in अत्यन्ताभावम्। So, there is no 'exact meaning' at all...
If you say Buddha is refuge during His teachings, I ask - where is His teachings? In any particular text? Then this text is your refuge. In words of living guru? Then that guru is your refuge. There is no place for Buddha being refuge in 'exact meaning' at all.

Such an opinion behind my 'umbrella'.



06.02.2015 12:28, Hnbhat B.R. пишет:

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Radim Navyan <radim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why do we use any drishtantam? In order to clearly express some thought. I bet the questioner awares of literal meaning you quoted.
Someone dislikes comparision of Buddha with umbrella. Definitely has such right.

Right. You are free to assign any comparison to Buddha, and any meaning to the word शरणं which the text "बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि" which is considered as  the holy mantra of the Buddha Bhikshu-s which is in Pali language and not Sanskrit language, 

बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि : मैं बुद्ध की शरण लेता हूँ।

धम्मं शरणं गच्छामि : मैं धर्म की शरण लेता हूँ।

संघं शरणं गच्छामि : मैं संघ की शरण लेता हूँ।

If you want the exact location, you can look for it in numerous Pali Texts and Sanskrit Texts on Pali Literature. 

Here is the explanation as शरण only in this webpage:

बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि

I have no objection to your freedom of speech.

Here is another page calling these as Buddha mantra-s:

https://www.facebook.com/GautamBuddhasiddhartha/posts/184547355055193

Thank you for your freedom of thinking and speech.

Congratulations.

[अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः]

 I would think that grammatically, in the sentence बुद्धं  शरणं गच्छामि।

• शरणं is adverbial बुद्धं कथं गच्छामि ? बुद्धं  शरणं गच्छामि ।
• बुद्धम् is answer of कं शरणं गच्छामि ? बुद्धं  शरणं गच्छामि । So बुद्धम् is in कर्मपदवाचकद्वितीया विभक्तिः as clarified by Dr. Bhat, by गत्यर्थकर्मणि द्वितीयाचतुर्थ्यौ चेष्टायामनध्वनि    2-3-12
  

If the sentence is clear grammatically, why get into the argument of whether there is allegory of Buddha being an umbrella ....

That consideration depends upon one's sensibilities about Buddha. Everyone has the right to go by one's sensibilities. Those should not be a point of argument at all.

This group is for Sanskrit. It should be alright and adequate to restrict the discussion to the Sanskrit-aspect of the sentence.

सस्नेहम्
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Radim Navyan <radim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why do we use any drishtantam? In order to clearly express some thought. I bet the questioner awares of literal meaning you quoted.
> Someone dislikes comparision of Buddha with umbrella. Definitely has such right.

Right. You are free to assign any comparison to Buddha, and any
meaning to the word शरणं which the text "बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि" which is
considered as  the holy mantra of the Buddha Bhikshu-s which is in
Pali language and not Sanskrit language,

बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि : मैं बुद्ध की शरण लेता हूँ।
धम्मं शरणं गच्छामि : मैं धर्म की शरण लेता हूँ।
संघं शरणं गच्छामि : मैं संघ की शरण लेता हूँ।

If you want the exact location, you can look for it in numerous Pali
Texts and Sanskrit Texts on Pali Literature.

Here is the explanation as शरण only in this webpage:

बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि

I have no objection to your freedom of speech as it is fundemental
right on a citizen..

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks Mr. Abhayankar for reminding me the limits of discussions
related to Sanskrit only. But this does not limit the poionts on the
discussions, but in so far as the meaning of a word and grammatical
aspects, difference of opinion can exist in so far semantic and
grammatical aspects are concerned to Sanskrit are concerned.

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज। अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ॥१८- ६६॥ gItA.

Allegory has to be read into  in a sentence if the literal meaning does not make any sense. As an example, in the word कमलनयन, the literal meaning is that the person of whose this is an attribute has an actual कमल in the place of नयन.  Since the literal meaning does not make any sense, one has to search for an allegory and say that the नयन is as beautiful as कमल.

In' बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामि' the literal meaning, viz. 'I approach Buddha as my refuge' makes perfect sense, as it does in मामेकं शरणं व्रज.  Therfore there is no need to invoke any allegory at the primary stage.  An allegory could be useful in a discourse on this sentence in a प्रवचन etc. to further elucidate the point as to how  बुद्ध is the शरण.

Arvind Kolhatkar.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The same with the two other sentences:

संघं शरणं गच्छामि

धम्मं शरणं गच्छामि।

along with with this one as the trio of holy mantra-s.

On the total the phrase शरणं गम् makes take refuge with any object of
location, आश्रय. here all the three. In other contexts, it may ,meam
to surrender oneself. either it may be the enemy in a battle, whom it
is duty of the warrior not to assault who surrenders.शरणागतदीनार्थी,
शरणं गतः, etc. are the other usages in phrase, than the plain usage of
the word: मामेकं शरणं व्रज.

[Gajanan Palsodkar]

I fully agree with the views of Shri Abhyankar

Let us restrict our  discussions/ views on Sanskrit Language only

I regard comment of Shri Abhyankar as final judgement on any issue on this group

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

 

 

Gajanan Shriram Palsodkar
PUNE
Mobile-9657715177
Res-020-25366033

आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः

(Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides)

[Radim Navyan]

With reference to limits of discussion there is some additional questions.
The golden rule of translation is to use the same word in the same
meaning. Otherwise it will be senseless voluntarism.
When you, sir, quote Amarakosha and state रक्षतृ as meaning for शरणम्, the
problem is raised. The same meaning should be appliable to धर्मं शरणं
गच्छामि and सङ्घं शरणं गच्छामि। Do you see such an opportunity? Me not.
Otherwise we may consider even गृहम् as रक्षतृ। But that would mean, Amara
is wrong and there's no two independent meanings, but just one. The
semantical volume of word शरणम् in buddhist tradition is far away from
what any particular lexicographer may think of it. This is an example of
(don't know how exactly it would be in English) secondary meaning of a
word.

Let's take a drishtantam again. We got a word "apple". I ask you, what
does it mean being written on my IPhone. You take 19th century's
Webster's Dictionary and answer something like

"1) a rosaceous tree, Malus sieversii, native to Central Asia 2) the
fruit of this tree, having red, yellow, or green skin and crisp whitish
flesh". Plus reference to volume and page number.

And then you adds: "There is "exact" meaning of a word you asked".
But what really you say? It's defenitely useless answer for me. There is
no tree, no fruit in my hands, there's only phone. But if you insist,
ok, let it be "fruit with display" or whatever you, mr. Webster, or mr.
Amarasinha like.

Hope it's clear enough that there's no reason for our hysteria. I (or
anybody else) may know the "exact meaning" of any particular word,
because I use it in disrespect of whatever mr. Webster think of it.

Definitely, it's wery interesting theme to discuss. But, unfortunately,
not in a maner you wish. Is there a game of one player in your group? I
haven't noticed it in disclaimer. But if it's so, I 1) beg your pardon
and 2) propose to close further discussion.


Appreciate your encyclopedic scholarship,
Radim Navyan.

[Radim Navyan]

About 12 years have passed, since I had heard for the first time a slogan भज गोविन्दम्।
A woman, quite old gopi, squeezed my neck and repeated रदीम्क, भज गोविन्दम् ! रदीम्क, भज गोविन्दम् !
I replied hoarsely: what in particular do I have to do?
"Woah, just भज गोविन्दम्, that's it".

I recollect that accident while reading your answer.

Buddha cannot be literally any refuge. He is the same refuge as नयन is कमल। Its nothing but your personal thought of something imaginary (Buddha) as of something else (refuge). And in this case at  your will to make him anyfing else. Noone knows, what really imagine a particular monk, while reciting that mantra. One may think of Buddha as of Gold Ocean, whose rivers fall down to his head and makes him rich. The  other - as of atmosphere-like body, that loves each of us. The other - as of some kind of Highest Jusice above all phenomena of the world. Anyone else - as a Embodied Buddha from thanka.
But in these and others occasions there is nothing but imagination.

The same way with gita statement, you quoted.

The only conclusion we may do: बुद्धः as शरणम् is an abstraction, and being so - an allegory.
We may dislike such way of thinking, but we are unable to change it. The things are as they are. Whether we like them or not.



08.02.2015 21:23, Arvind_Kolhatkar пишет: