. > > I also forwarded my doubt to my acquaintance who is > a trivedi, vedic > scholar and sanskrit scholar (recently participated > in a sOma yAga in > Maharashtra). I am reproducing portion of his reply. > Inferences can > be drawn at one's conveniences. > > "...Correct nominative singular form that you will > find in any > dictionary or vedic text is triShTubh. The trivedi further worsened it by using aspirated T! It is not trishTubh but trishtup only!! Let us not murder sanskrit. Regards Vishnu > You may find > the form triSTup > only in sandhi as triSTupchandas- this is the form > in the vedic > anukramaNikas. > You may encounter a variant sandhi in AV chandas > tarpaNaM mantra eg: > triShTubgAyatryuShNikanuShtubjagati ... > > So your guy is wrong..." > > Best wishes & regards, > KK > > > > > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: 16 Apr 2004 06:39:02 -0000 > From: "Mohan Ramanujan" > <mohan_ramanujan@xxxx> > Subject: Re: Re: trishtubh vs trishtup > > Dear Bhagavataas, > > Added to this I would also quote a verse from > Kulashekaralvar's Mukunda mala: > > "prANa prayANa samayE kapha vAta pittaihi > kanThavarodhana Vidhou smaranam kutaste" > > Regards > Mohan.R > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 vimalkumar ranganathan wrote : > >WIth atmost respect, how are these discussions > anyway related to Ramanuja's or Manavala Mamuni's > message?? I guess this forum is to encourage each > other on Bagavathvishayam, prapatti to Lord Sriman > Narayana and glorifying the leelas of the Lord and > his devotees. > > > >Adi ShankarA's words spring to my mind: > > > >"samprApte sannihite kAle > >nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNe" > > > >Nothing personal. > > > >Dasan, > > > >Kidambi Soundararajan. > > > >AzhwAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE Saranam. > > > > > > > >amshuman_k <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote: > >Dear Sri mahavishNu sharman: > > > >Namaste. There was a deviation from the main thread > from yajur-vedic > >legends to sanskrit grammatical syntax. Rest > assured that I have no > >intentions to re-write samskrta vyAkaraNam and I > very well know the > >differences between tenuis, tenuis aspirata, media, > media aspirata > >and nasalis forms of labial phonemes, despite the > large gap (more > >than a decade) between now and my formal sanskrit > education. > > > >Having said this, "trishtuB" (or its variants > trStuB, triStubh etc.) > >are what I encountered in my madhyandina as well as > kaNva shatapatha > >brAhmaNa texts. Moreover, this is the term that I > consistently saw in > >Max Mueller's translation of upanishads & portions > of Rg mandalas, > >Buhler's translation of dharma sUtras, A.B. Keith's > translation of > >black-yajus samhita and various European > indoligists' books & > >articles. I am willing to agree that I am wrong > along with all the > >European indologists. > > > >I also forwarded my doubt to my acquaintance who is > a trivedi, vedic > >scholar and sanskrit scholar (recently participated > in a sOma yAga in > >Maharashtra). I am reproducing portion of his > reply. Inferences can > >be drawn at one's conveniences. > > > >"...Correct nominative singular form that you will > find in any > >dictionary or vedic text is triShTubh. You may find > the form triSTup > >only in sandhi as triSTupchandas- this is the form > in the vedic > >anukramaNikas. > >You may encounter a variant sandhi in AV chandas > tarpaNaM mantra eg: > >triShTubgAyatryuShNikanuShtubjagati ... > > > >So your guy is wrong..." > > > >Best wishes & regards, > >KK > > > > > > > > > > > > > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/ > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > >ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:04:27 -0000 > From: "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu@xxxx> > Subject: Re: trishtubh vs trishtup > > --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" > <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote: > > Dear Sri mahavishNu sharman: > > > > Namaste. There was a deviation from the main > thread from yajur- > vedic > > legends to sanskrit grammatical syntax. Rest > assured that I have no > > intentions to re-write samskrta vyAkaraNam and I > very well know the > > differences between tenuis, tenuis aspirata, > media, media aspirata > > and nasalis forms of labial phonemes, despite the > large gap (more > > than a decade) between now and my formal sanskrit > education. > > Namaste > > Please read my previous mail carefully alongwith > what you have quoted > below. Then you will understand how you are wrong. > > Kindly be magnanimous enough to admit your mistake > and do not bring > Max Mueller et al. into picture. Such a state of > mind can be attained > only when you consider yourself to be a "dAsa". > > upanishad(h) is also wrong and upanishat(h) is right > unless there is > a sandhi. > > As my brother pANardAsan has rightly said > > "samprAptE sannihita kAlE > nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNE" -- Adi Sankara > > > "...Correct nominative singular form that you will > find in any > > dictionary or vedic text is triShTubh. You may > find the form > triSTup > > only in sandhi as triSTupchandas- this is the form > in the vedic > > anukramaNikas. > > You may encounter a variant sandhi in AV chandas > tarpaNaM mantra eg: > > triShTubgAyatryuShNikanuShtubjagati ... > > The last line is not fool-proof. It has to be > triShTubgAyatryuShNiganuShtubjagati.... > > Regards > Vishnu > > > > So your guy is wrong..." > > > > Best wishes & regards, > > KK > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:41:53 -0000 > From: "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu@xxxx> > Subject: Re: vedic origin of pancharatra doctrine > > You need not do any research on it. Please learn > "Agama prAmANya" of > yAmuna and "pAncharAtra rakshA" of dESika from a > person knowing > sanskrit. Things will be clear then. > > Regards > Vishnu > --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" > <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote: > > Dear List, > > > > There is a claim that pancharatra belongs to > ekayana branch of > shukla- > > yajurvEda and hence it is very much vedic, which > is now lost. > Though > > it is not new that all shaiva, shAkta and > vaishNava Agamas claim > > derivation from shruti, the claims are dismissed > by "orthodox" > > vaidikas. Pancharatra was opposed as heretical by > the mimamsaka > > kumarila bhatta and the vedantin shankara seemed > to accept it. > > VaikhAnasas fare better, as they are securely > placed as a sub- > branch > > of taittiriyas, which is a known and living > shAkhA, and vaikhAnasa > > Agamas employ only vedic mantras. > > > > The drawback is that ekAyana shAkha is > non-existent as of now and > any > > speculation on its contents is just that - mere > speculation. > > > > However, I feel there is a case that could be made > for the > legitimacy > > of the claim. > > 1. Though it is customary for Agamas & tantras to > claim derivation > > from vEdas, it is rare to mention the exact > branch, as in our case. > > 2. EkAyana is mentioned in chAndOgya brAhmaNa. > > 3. I noticed a very interesting thing - ShAndilya, > one of the > > prominent figure in pAncharAtra doctrine features > as authority in > the > > middle adhyAyas of shatapatha brAhmaNa. > (yAgnyavalkya being the > other > > central authority in the rest of the adhyAyas. > Views of other minor > > teachers mentioned here and there, but it is the > views of > > yAgnyavalkya or shAndilya that are accepted). > > > > So, pAncharAtra may have arisen from a branch of > shukla-yajur veda > > after all. > > > > Regards, > > KK > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |