You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2004

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00040 Apr 2004

 
Apr 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


.
> 
> 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/




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list