Counting the number of verses

[Guest guest]

> Two questions give me no rest for a long time - what is the proper way to

> count the verses in the scriptures? I've heard that the number of

> syllables in whole scripture when divided by 32 (the number of syllables

> in sloka) gives the true number of verses in it. But what is the reason

> for dividing by 32 if there are so many different meters even in one

> writing?

 

One divides the total number of syllables in a Sanskrit text by 32, so that

one gets a "sloka count," something that everybody who knows, for example,

the Gita or the Mahabharata, can relate to. You could compare it with our

modern kilo bytes, when we talk about the size of a text. The 32 syllable

sloka was pretty much of a standard text measure.

 

In that case what is the use of verse numeration in sanskrit text

> (e.g. it is said that there are 18 000 verses in Bhagavatam, but I read

> that some devotees have counted only 12 000 with our usual numeration)?

 

Verse numbers are useful as references, as long as one also tells to which

edition or recension they belong. The ancient commentators never used verse

numbers. Verses were not numbered, in the old days. This came later, when

printing was introduced. In older manuscripts it is often hard to tell where

one verse ends and where the next verse begins. The different recensions of

the Bhagavatam break the verses in different ways. You may have seen those

slokas that have only two, or else six or more padas (verse feet), but still

count as a single verse. This is another reason why determining the size of

a text by telling how many numbered verses it has is useless if one wants to

tell how large it exactly is.

 

The Bhagavatam does not contain 18,000 verses, even if one counts all of its

syllables and divides by 32. One 19th century Bhagavatam commentator,

Ganga-sahaya, counted all the syllables in the Bhagavatam a couple of times.

When he could not get 18,000 verses, he used a trick to come up to that

figure by rather dubious means: he counted all "uvacas," like "brahmovaca",

that precede some of the verses in the Bhagvatam, as full 32-syllable

slokas! "brahmovaca" is of course no sloka, it is only four syllables, and

in some older editions there are far fewer uvacas than in more recent

editions. But even by adding the uvacas Ganga-sahaya could not obtain 18,000

verses. So he also added what is known as the "adhyayasamapti" passages.

Like the uvacas, these are not really part of the text. They also differ

from recension to recension, and they differ in syllable count from chapter

to chapter. These are the statements found at the end of each chapter, "iti

srimad-bhagavate mahapurane...." etc. Ganga-sahaya just picked an

adhyayasamapti string that had the syllable count that he needed, multiplied

by 335 (since there are 335 chapters in the Bhagavatam, and declared that he

found 18,000 verses in the Bhagavatam!

 

The sloka counts that are mentioned in the Purana-lists in all of the

well-known Puranas, do not match the figures of numbered slokas or the

figure of total syllables divided by 32, of the present printed Puranas.

Even the Bhagavatam itself declares that it has 18,000 verses. No known

commentator, apart from Ganga-sahaya, has ever attempted to explain how the

figure of 18,000 slokas is to be understood. All commentators that we know

of today, however, have commented on the verses that are found in the

present printed editions of the Bhagavatam. They have not commented on any

additional, unknown verses. The figure of 18,000, therefore, will probably

remain a mystery. Much to the chagrin of those who are lovers of numbers,

and who need to resolve numerical issues, lest they be deprived of sleep :-)

 

-ek

 

> It seems that the number of verses is not the same which can we see on the

> pages. Am I right?

>

> And the second one is how the words in devanagari transliteration are

> separated. I mean that sometimes sanskrit text may have one whole line of

> symbols and its english transliteration has a few words, either united

> with hyphen or separated. What is the common principle for separating

> uniting words while transliterating?

>

> Can anybody, kindly give any explanation on this subject? Maybe somebody

> has sastric statements for this?

>

> Aspiring to become your servant

> bh. Konstantin.