Guest guest Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Dear All I am trying to understand the meaning of the sanskrit word UPALAKSANA. A detailed meaning/discussion of this word or a link to it would be highly appreciated. Thanks Jagadish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2005 Report Share Posted December 15, 2005 Dear Sri Jagadiah : UpalakshaNam is a Loaded word and is also cryptic. Its meaning depends on context . It is used in esoteric meanings of individual passages of ThiruppAvai (16th SlOkam ), Brahma Soothram ( II.2.3 ) , BhAgavatham ( 5.2.18 , 5.20.40 ) , Sri Rahasya Thraya Saaram (Dhvaya Manthram : Utthara KhANDam) . Context is needed to know the particualr meaning of UpalakshaNam .. UpalakshaNam generally means extending , symbolized , having the characterestrics . LakshaNam is a Mark ( like the Lord having Sri Devi as a distinguishing mark on His chest and being recognized as Sriya: Pathi) . Upa as a prefix to verbs & means "towards". UpalakshaNam also means ascertaining , an inference - - - - That is the beauty of Sanslrit Language . I have copied Sanskrit Scholar , Sri V.C.Govindarajan at Muscat for further comments on the word "UpalakshaNam " . NamO Sri VenkatEsAya , V.Sadagopan - "mailjags" <mailjags <> Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:42 PM UPALAKSANA > Dear All > > I am trying to understand the meaning of the sanskrit word UPALAKSANA. > A detailed meaning/discussion of this word or a link to it would be > highly appreciated. > > Thanks > Jagadish > > > > Links > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastri equates the Sanskrit upalakshana with the English synechdoche. Explaining how the name 'Lakshmana' was synonymous with Rama and did not need a separate mention, he cites how Lakshmana was sent together with Rama, though Viswamitra asked only for Rama. He points out that when Viswamitra speaks to the brothers on the way, he addresses only Rama and not Lakshmana. Why does he do so? Srinivasa Sastri says: "If he talks to them, he only says 'Rama, Raghava' addressing the elder brother. It would be uncharitable to assume that he did not like the presence of Lakshmana or that he wished intentionally to ignore him. I suppose in his mind too, as in the minds of everybody else, to speak of Rama was to speak to the other brother too. You need not specially have a form of address for it. As he gives them instruction in various matters, he mentions Rama and not Lakshmana, except once or twice and that when he uses the dual number. Even when he taught them the great twin mantras of Bala and Atibala, he taught them to Sri Rama. The commentator, hard put to explain the matter, says that Lakshmana is also included in the word Rama by Upalakshana, the Sanskritic equivalent for one of the forms of the English figure of speech, synecdoche. When Sri Rama is mentioned, Lakshmana is also included in it." (Lectures on the Ramayana, Second Lecture, page 17) Now, synecdoche is defined thus "a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)" That is, when I say 'sail' by upalakshna I mean, 'ship' and not just the sail. Regards, Hari Krishnan --- sgopan <sgopan wrote: > Dear Sri Jagadiah : > > UpalakshaNam is a Loaded word and is also cryptic. «ýÒ¼ý, †Ã¢ ¸¢Õ‰½ý. http://www.harimozhi.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Dear All : Very good observation indeed that is cited by Sri Hari KrishNan. VisEshaNam and VisEshyam is what also comes to mind in the context of LakshaNam and UpalakshaNam. V.Sadagopan - "Hari Krishnan" <harikrishnan61 <> Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:38 PM Re: UPALAKSANA > > Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastri equates the Sanskrit > upalakshana with the English synechdoche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Thank you Shri.V.Sadagopan and Shri Hari Krishnan. Let me first mention the context where I encountered the word upalakshanam. It was in Shri S.M Srinivasa Chari's book Vishistadvaita & Advaita which, as I understand, deals with Shri Vedanta Desikan's assertion of Vishistadvaita in his work Satadusani. My knowledge of Indian or western philosophical traditions is meagre if not nothing. As I write the following I dont have the book in front of me. Please bear with any false representation due to my poor understanding or memory. When the author writes about the effect of rope-snake on the observer he mentions upalakshanam. My understanding at this point is that rope appearing as a snake is upalakshanam and its effect - fear - is upalakshya. Upalakshanam and its effect upalakshya cannot be syntactically linked. He translates upalakshanam as 'qualification per accidens' and contrasts it with viseshna( 'qualification per proprium'). At this point I realised the import of the word upalakshanam and my lack of full grasp of the word. I also came across sources that translated upalakshanam as metonymy or synechdoche. This doesnt satisfy me. I think these translations restrict the potential of the word. I would like to read/hear more on this word in both philosophical and religious/aesthetical usage. I sincerely hope such a discourse is within this mailing list's charter. Thank you in advance. with humble regards Jagadish --- Hari Krishnan <harikrishnan61 wrote: > > Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastri equates the Sanskrit > upalakshana with the English synechdoche. Explaining how > the name 'Lakshmana' was synonymous with Rama and did not > need a separate mention, he cites how Lakshmana was sent > together with Rama, though Viswamitra asked only for Rama. > He points out that when Viswamitra speaks to the brothers > on the way, he addresses only Rama and not Lakshmana. Why > does he do so? Srinivasa Sastri says: > > "If he talks to them, he only says 'Rama, Raghava' > addressing the elder brother. It would be uncharitable to > assume that he did not like the presence of Lakshmana or > that he wished intentionally to ignore him. I suppose in > his mind too, as in the minds of everybody else, to speak > of Rama was to speak to the other brother too. You need > not specially have a form of address for it. As he gives > them instruction in various matters, he mentions Rama and > not Lakshmana, except once or twice and that when he uses > the dual number. Even when he taught them the great twin > mantras of Bala and Atibala, he taught them to Sri Rama. > The commentator, hard put to explain the matter, says that > Lakshmana is also included in the word Rama by Upalakshana, > the Sanskritic equivalent for one of the forms of the > English figure of speech, synecdoche. When Sri Rama is > mentioned, Lakshmana is also included in it." > > (Lectures on the Ramayana, Second Lecture, page 17) > > Now, synecdoche is defined thus "a figure of speech by > which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty > ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), > the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the > genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the > name of the material for the thing made (as boards for > stage)" > > That is, when I say 'sail' by upalakshna I mean, 'ship' and > not just the sail. > > Regards, > > Hari Krishnan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Dear Sri Devarajan : I have copied a sishya of Dr.SMS Chari at Bangalore . He is Dr.Srikanth and he can pass on your query to Dr SMS Chari and get you the clarifications . This would be the best route to acquire the contextual information . Thanks very much Dr.Srikanth to discuss this request to Dr.SMS Chari and kindly extend my PraNAmams to him . V.Sadagopan - "Jagadish Devarajan" <mailjags <> Friday, December 16, 2005 11:56 AM Re: UPALAKSANA > Thank you Shri.V.Sadagopan and Shri Hari Krishnan. > > Let me first mention the context where I encountered the word > upalakshanam. It was in Shri S.M Srinivasa Chari's book > Vishistadvaita & Advaita which, as I understand, deals with > Shri Vedanta Desikan's assertion of Vishistadvaita in his > work Satadusani. My knowledge of Indian or western philosophical > traditions is meagre if not nothing. > > As I write the following I dont have the book in front of me. > Please bear with any false representation due to my poor > understanding or memory. > > When the author writes about the effect of rope-snake on the > observer he mentions upalakshanam. My understanding at this > point is that rope appearing as a snake is upalakshanam and > its effect - fear - is upalakshya. Upalakshanam and its effect > upalakshya cannot be syntactically linked. He translates > upalakshanam as 'qualification per accidens' and contrasts it > with viseshna( 'qualification per proprium'). At this point I > realised the import of the word upalakshanam and my lack of > full grasp of the word. > > I also came across sources that translated upalakshanam as > metonymy or synechdoche. This doesnt satisfy me. I think these > translations restrict the potential of the word. > > I would like to read/hear more on this word in both philosophical > and religious/aesthetical usage. > > I sincerely hope such a discourse is within this mailing list's > charter. > > Thank you in advance. > > with humble regards > Jagadish > > --- Hari Krishnan <harikrishnan61 wrote: > >> >> Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastri equates the Sanskrit >> upalakshana with the English synechdoche. Explaining how >> the name 'Lakshmana' was synonymous with Rama and did not >> need a separate mention, he cites how Lakshmana was sent >> together with Rama, though Viswamitra asked only for Rama. >> He points out that when Viswamitra speaks to the brothers >> on the way, he addresses only Rama and not Lakshmana. Why >> does he do so? Srinivasa Sastri says: >> >> "If he talks to them, he only says 'Rama, Raghava' >> addressing the elder brother. It would be uncharitable to >> assume that he did not like the presence of Lakshmana or >> that he wished intentionally to ignore him. I suppose in >> his mind too, as in the minds of everybody else, to speak >> of Rama was to speak to the other brother too. You need >> not specially have a form of address for it. As he gives >> them instruction in various matters, he mentions Rama and >> not Lakshmana, except once or twice and that when he uses >> the dual number. Even when he taught them the great twin >> mantras of Bala and Atibala, he taught them to Sri Rama. >> The commentator, hard put to explain the matter, says that >> Lakshmana is also included in the word Rama by Upalakshana, >> the Sanskritic equivalent for one of the forms of the >> English figure of speech, synecdoche. When Sri Rama is >> mentioned, Lakshmana is also included in it." >> >> (Lectures on the Ramayana, Second Lecture, page 17) >> >> Now, synecdoche is defined thus "a figure of speech by >> which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty >> ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), >> the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the >> genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the >> name of the material for the thing made (as boards for >> stage)" >> >> That is, when I say 'sail' by upalakshna I mean, 'ship' and >> not just the sail. >> >> Regards, >> >> Hari Krishnan >> > Links > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.