Guest guest Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 .. > > 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 > > > > > > Links > > > ramanuja/ > > > ramanuja > > Your use of is subject to the > > > > > > > Tax Center - File online by April 15th > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 2 > 16 Apr 2004 06:39:02 -0000 > "Mohan Ramanujan" > <mohan_ramanujan > 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 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > >ramanuja/ > > > > To from this group, send an email > to: > >ramanuja > > > > Your use of is subject to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tax Center - File online by April 15th > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 3 > Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:04:27 -0000 > "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu > Re: trishtubh vs trishtup > > ramanuja, "amshuman_k" > <amshuman_k> 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 > Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:41:53 -0000 > "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu > 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 > ramanuja, "amshuman_k" > <amshuman_k> 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 > > ------ > Links > > > ramanuja > > > ------ > > ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 Hi, Re-read your own post regarding magnanimity as a one directed back to you. The trivedi used caps 'T' as a 'lingual' to differentiate between dental 't' - not as tenuis aspirata lingual as you think. (One of the deficiency of roman scritpt - you never know if a person is using lingual or dental and have to figure out from the context). So, don't jump to conclusions about murder of sanskrit grammer. You have been shown wrong on multiple accounts - all you have to do is refer pingala's chanda sUtra (as you seem not to like European indologists - I would have said Monier-Williams instead). Or, refer to the explanation given by the sanskrit professor (different from trivedi person) in the previous post. This is my last post regarding this issue and you may have the last word. Regards, KK {Moderator's note: My humble request to posters is for them to discuss only issues, and not indulge in strong arguments of a personal nature} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 Really - one more observation: you said: "It is not trishTubh but trishtup only!! Let us not murder sanskrit." So, according to you, "trishtup" is the correct form. Surely, you are not suggesting the first 't' in "tri.." and the second one in "..shtu.." sound the same as you wrote them as "t", are you? Good luck in chanting "dwayam". Regards, KK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 I guess we are deviating from the main focus of this group by trying to express one language(sanskrit) via another language's scripts (english) as we know english is probably the worst media to express sanskrit words. Spelling mistakes should be excused. And people may be requested to look up the sanskrit/tamil books/dictionaries for better clarity. adiyEn, rAmAnuja dAsan ramanuja, Vishnu <vsmvishnu> wrote: > > . > > > > 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 > 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.