Dhai akshar prem ke- Last explanation

December 2, 2007

Dear Jyothi,

I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation of

hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as following:

Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as half. Re

is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two akshatras,

it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one is

full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar and " na "

is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples to

verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with the

full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows that the

akshara does not have a swara.

Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara assigned to

them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes it

2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re " is

below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

Hope I am clear.

Regards

Sarajit

On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

>

> Respected members,

>

> I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally mailing

> me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and half

> letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt wish to

> post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying his

> interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

>

> Here is it:

>

> " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we speak

> Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a slaint line

> in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> "

>

> As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in Hindi to

> correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came. So I

> thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the politeness

> with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave, in

> their minds.

>

> I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will forgive

> me.

>

> Regards,

> Jyothi

>

--

Best Wishes

Sarajit Poddar

December 3, 2007

Dear Sarajitji,

That was the last!!! My head is spinning:)). Now I think we have got

all permutations and combinations:)). I really dont know which to

believe. All suggestions seem to be correct to me when thought in

different ways. How to decide the really correct one?

But I am not very clear about Pa as an incomplete letter. Let me

think over and will let you know my doubts offline. (This group

being an astro forum, I am afraid members will start attacking me

for discussing these grammatical issues:)

Regards,

Jyothi

, " Sarajit Poddar "

<sarajit.poddar wrote:

>

> Dear Jyothi,

>

> I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation of

> hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as following:

>

> Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as half.

Re

> is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

akshatras,

> it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one is

> full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

and " na "

> is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples to

> verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with

the

> full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows that

the

> akshara does not have a swara.

>

> Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

assigned to

> them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

>

> Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes it

> 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re " is

> below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

>

> Hope I am clear.

>

> Regards

> Sarajit

>

> On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi

wrote:

> >

> > Respected members,

> >

> > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

mailing

> > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and half

> > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

wish to

> > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying

his

> > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> >

> > Here is it:

> >

> > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we speak

> > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a slaint

line

> > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > "

> >

> > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in Hindi

to

> > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came. So I

> > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the politeness

> > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave, in

> > their minds.

> >

> > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

forgive

> > me.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Jyothi

> >

>

> --

> Best Wishes

> Sarajit Poddar

>

December 3, 2007

Dear Jyothi,

Study of the aksharas is also part of Jyotish since some classics like

Jaimini Sutras need this knowledge for deciphering the slokas. Hence

it is not non-jyotish. If you study mantra which is part of Jyotish

remedies, the knowledge of aksharas is vital too.

You can anyway communicate with me offline if you need further clarification.

Regards

Sarajit

On Dec 3, 2007 3:13 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

>

> Dear Sarajitji,

>

> That was the last!!! My head is spinning:)). Now I think we have got

> all permutations and combinations:)). I really dont know which to

> believe. All suggestions seem to be correct to me when thought in

> different ways. How to decide the really correct one?

>

> But I am not very clear about Pa as an incomplete letter. Let me

> think over and will let you know my doubts offline. (This group

> being an astro forum, I am afraid members will start attacking me

> for discussing these grammatical issues:)

>

> Regards,

> Jyothi

>

> , " Sarajit Poddar "

>

> <sarajit.poddar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jyothi,

> >

> > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation of

> > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as following:

> >

> > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as half.

> Re

> > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

> akshatras,

> > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one is

> > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

> and " na "

> > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples to

> > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with

> the

> > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows that

> the

> > akshara does not have a swara.

> >

> > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

> assigned to

> > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> >

> > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes it

> > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re " is

> > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> >

> > Hope I am clear.

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> >

> > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi

>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

> mailing

> > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and half

> > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

> wish to

> > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying

> his

> > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > >

> > > Here is it:

> > >

> > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we speak

> > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a slaint

> line

> > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > "

> > >

> > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in Hindi

> to

> > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came. So I

> > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the politeness

> > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave, in

> > > their minds.

> > >

> > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

> forgive

> > > me.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Jyothi

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Best Wishes

> > Sarajit Poddar

> >

>

--

Best Wishes

Sarajit Poddar

December 3, 2007

Dear Sarajit ji and Lakshmi ij,

There is seems to be some confusion all around. Possibly the wording

2.5 letters refers to matras - i.e. phonetic sound duration for

uttering the letters. They are of 2 type Laghu (short) and Guru

(long). All laghu letters (sounds with no long vowels associated with

it) takes one matra to be be uttered. Eg - Ka, Kha, Ga etc. The Guru

letters (sounds with long vowels asscociated with it, and conjuct

letters) takes two matra to be uttered. Eg - kaa, khaa, Aaa, Eee and

so on. Note Pra is a leghu taking only 1 matra, but Pree (i am using

double 'e' just to denote the difference when the sound is uttered)

takes 2 matra to be uttered. Not that any short sound like 'M' (the

half sound) takes 1/2 matra to be uttered.

Thus 'Prem' is 2.5 letters or 2.5 matras because 'Pre' is joint

letter which is 2 matra long and 'M' is a half sound which is 1/2

matra long. This is why the prem is 2.5 letter I believe.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, " Sarajit Poddar "

<sarajit.poddar wrote:

>

> Dear Jyothi,

>

> I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation of

> hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as following:

>

> Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as half. Re

> is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two akshatras,

> it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one is

> full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar and " na "

> is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples to

> verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with the

> full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows that the

> akshara does not have a swara.

>

> Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara assigned to

> them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

>

> Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes it

> 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re " is

> below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

>

> Hope I am clear.

>

> Regards

> Sarajit

>

> On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

> >

> > Respected members,

> >

> > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally mailing

> > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and half

> > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt wish to

> > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying his

> > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> >

> > Here is it:

> >

> > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we speak

> > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a slaint line

> > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > "

> >

> > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in Hindi to

> > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came. So I

> > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the politeness

> > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave, in

> > their minds.

> >

> > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will forgive

> > me.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Jyothi

> >

>

> --

> Best Wishes

> Sarajit Poddar

>

December 3, 2007

Dear Srinadhji,

Thank you for the input. May be. I am ignorant of the grammatical

issues related to this. I am keeping in mind everybody's comments.

But frankly speaking, when I posted the doha, I never thought

this " Dhai akshar " will create such a confusion in everybody

including me:)). If just 2 and 1/2 letters, that too of such a sweet

word " Prem " can create such a lot of confusions, no wonder the

thousands of words we utter/write daily create 'n' number of

problems ).

(By the way, Srinadhji, pls address me as Jyothi (my first name is

Jyothi, so when you address Lakshmi, I feel you are addressing

somebody else:))

Regards,

Jyothi

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Sarajit ji and Lakshmi ij,

> There is seems to be some confusion all around. Possibly the

wording

> 2.5 letters refers to matras - i.e. phonetic sound duration for

> uttering the letters. They are of 2 type Laghu (short) and Guru

> (long). All laghu letters (sounds with no long vowels associated

with

> it) takes one matra to be be uttered. Eg - Ka, Kha, Ga etc. The

Guru

> letters (sounds with long vowels asscociated with it, and conjuct

> letters) takes two matra to be uttered. Eg - kaa, khaa, Aaa, Eee

and

> so on. Note Pra is a leghu taking only 1 matra, but Pree (i am

using

> double 'e' just to denote the difference when the sound is uttered)

> takes 2 matra to be uttered. Not that any short sound like 'M' (the

> half sound) takes 1/2 matra to be uttered.

> Thus 'Prem' is 2.5 letters or 2.5 matras because 'Pre' is joint

> letter which is 2 matra long and 'M' is a half sound which is 1/2

> matra long. This is why the prem is 2.5 letter I believe.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Sarajit Poddar "

> <sarajit.poddar@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jyothi,

> >

> > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation

of

> > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as

following:

> >

> > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as

half. Re

> > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

akshatras,

> > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one

is

> > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

and " na "

> > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples

to

> > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with

the

> > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows

that the

> > akshara does not have a swara.

> >

> > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

assigned to

> > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> >

> > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes

it

> > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re "

is

> > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> >

> > Hope I am clear.

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> >

> > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

mailing

> > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and

half

> > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

wish to

> > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying

his

> > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > >

> > > Here is it:

> > >

> > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we

speak

> > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a

slaint line

> > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > "

> > >

> > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in

Hindi to

> > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came.

So I

> > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the

politeness

> > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave,

in

> > > their minds.

> > >

> > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

forgive

> > > me.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Jyothi

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Best Wishes

> > Sarajit Poddar

> >

>

December 3, 2007

Dear Jyoti ji,

==>

> If just 2 and 1/2 letters, that too of such a sweet

> word " Prem " can create such a lot of confusions,...

<==

You know, 'Prem' (Love) is one of the sweetest and most used words

in the world and it has many other specialties as well. To mention

one -

* Prem (Love) is the only feeling that can include its opposite

(Hate) also within itself!! Don't you see the lovers fighting and

still continue loving? Remember pillow fights and many more. It is

said that when the fighting stops, love itself stops. If lovers are

not fighting at all - either they are indifferent to each other (in

which case no love exists between then and they are not lovers at

all) or one of them is too submissive (in which case also it is no

more a love relation). Love is so vast that it can include its

opposite hate in it! There is only very few things in world which can

include its diametrically opposite thing in it - and still grow

beyond! Therefore essentially it is bound to cause confusion ;=)

==>

> word " Prem " can create such a lot of confusions, no wonder the

> thousands of words we utter/write daily create 'n' number of

> problems ).

<==

Yes sure words cause trouble. If some one says " Jyoti is good " -

1) one who knows you many understand " The lady named Jyoti is of good

nature " it means, and many decide to agree or disagree with it.

2) Some one else who does not know the context many translate Jyoti

as light, and may understand, " Light is always good " and may decide

to agree or disagree with it.

3) If Pandit Arjun ji happen to hear the same statement while he was

in Sabarimala where " Makara Jyoti " is so famous, he many conclude

that that the statement is about Makara Jyoti and may understand that

the statement is about the same and means " Makara Jyoti is very

bright and divine "

4) Some one who does not know you and assume that Jyoti is a name of

some women, may think that the statement is about a woman and may

ask " Who is Jyoti? "

Of course the meaning of words and out of context interpretation of

words can cause a lots and lots of problems. Also not that it is due

to the very same reason that astrology is today in its bad condition -

many Sanskrit scholars (without proper practical understanding about

astrology) came and started interpreting words and sentences and poor

astrological statements - their condition became like that of " Jyoti "

in the above sentence! :=)

Take the example of the word " Saundhika " , the result ascribed

to 'Sun in Libra'. Some say that the word means the elephant driver

(I don't know what is the proper word - in Malayalam he is known

as 'Pappan') and some one else says that it means 'Liquor seller'.

Can we think that -

All elephant drivers are liqure sellers or that all liquor sellers

will become elephant drivers?!! Of course there is no indication in

the word as well that it suggested any " EITHER-OR " in it. So what is

the result? Everybody is in confusion today - out of these two - what

result to be attributed to 'Sun in Libra'!

Note: There would be many with 'Sun in Libra' who are

neither 'Elephant drivers' nor 'liquor sellers' I know. Neither they

would be drivers or drunkards. It is another big subject - and so

I request people NOT TO come up with example charts regarding the

same. :=)

Love,

Sreenadh

, " jyothi_b_lakshmi "

<jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

>

> Dear Srinadhji,

>

> Thank you for the input. May be. I am ignorant of the grammatical

> issues related to this. I am keeping in mind everybody's comments.

> But frankly speaking, when I posted the doha, I never thought

> this " Dhai akshar " will create such a confusion in everybody

> including me:)). If just 2 and 1/2 letters, that too of such a

sweet

> word " Prem " can create such a lot of confusions, no wonder the

> thousands of words we utter/write daily create 'n' number of

> problems ).

>

> (By the way, Srinadhji, pls address me as Jyothi (my first name is

> Jyothi, so when you address Lakshmi, I feel you are addressing

> somebody else:))

>

> Regards,

> Jyothi

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sarajit ji and Lakshmi ij,

> > There is seems to be some confusion all around. Possibly the

> wording

> > 2.5 letters refers to matras - i.e. phonetic sound duration for

> > uttering the letters. They are of 2 type Laghu (short) and Guru

> > (long). All laghu letters (sounds with no long vowels associated

> with

> > it) takes one matra to be be uttered. Eg - Ka, Kha, Ga etc. The

> Guru

> > letters (sounds with long vowels asscociated with it, and conjuct

> > letters) takes two matra to be uttered. Eg - kaa, khaa, Aaa, Eee

> and

> > so on. Note Pra is a leghu taking only 1 matra, but Pree (i am

> using

> > double 'e' just to denote the difference when the sound is

uttered)

> > takes 2 matra to be uttered. Not that any short sound like 'M'

(the

> > half sound) takes 1/2 matra to be uttered.

> > Thus 'Prem' is 2.5 letters or 2.5 matras because 'Pre' is joint

> > letter which is 2 matra long and 'M' is a half sound which is 1/2

> > matra long. This is why the prem is 2.5 letter I believe.

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Sarajit Poddar "

> > <sarajit.poddar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Jyothi,

> > >

> > > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation

> of

> > > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as

> following:

> > >

> > > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as

> half. Re

> > > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

> akshatras,

> > > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd

one

> is

> > > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

> and " na "

> > > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other

examples

> to

> > > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging

with

> the

> > > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows

> that the

> > > akshara does not have a swara.

> > >

> > > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

> assigned to

> > > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> > >

> > > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which

makes

> it

> > > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way

that " re "

> is

> > > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> > >

> > > Hope I am clear.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Sarajit

> > >

> > > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi@>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Respected members,

> > > >

> > > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

> mailing

> > > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and

> half

> > > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

> wish to

> > > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am

copying

> his

> > > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > > >

> > > > Here is it:

> > > >

> > > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we

> speak

> > > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a

> slaint line

> > > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > > "

> > > >

> > > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri

Jainji's

> > > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in

> Hindi to

> > > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came.

> So I

> > > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the

> politeness

> > > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his

comments

> > > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave,

> in

> > > > their minds.

> > > >

> > > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

> forgive

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Jyothi

> > > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Best Wishes

> > > Sarajit Poddar

> > >

> >

>

December 3, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

This is a well known concept of counting the aksharas in mantras to

know the their effects on the person who is chanting; for instance

" Namah Shivaya " is a panch-akshari; " Om Namah Shivaya " is a

shad-askshari; Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya is a dwadas-akshari. The

rules which I narrated in my previous mail is based on the way we

count akshars in the mantras. Usually half akshars are ignored in the

mantras and full ones are taken into consideration for counting the

aksharas. Hence the knowledge of half and full akshars are essential

for understanding the count of aksharas in the mantras. The same

concept is used in Katapayaadi varga system in which numbers are

converted to shabdas (words), where the half aksharas are ignored in

converting the sabdas to numbers. This is the basis for some classics

like Jaimini Sutras.

Thus dhai akshar is 2.5 akshar and not 2.5 matras as you proposed.

Among them " p " is half " re " is full and " ma " is full thus making them

2.5 " p+re+ma " . Laghu or Guru swaras (or matras) can be counted as 1

aksharas only when they stand alone like Ishta (here " I " is one " sh "

is half and " ta " is full making it 2.5 as well.. .which in mantra

shastra would be considered as 2)

Regards

Sarajit

On Dec 3, 2007 9:25 PM, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Sarajit ji and Lakshmi ij,

> There is seems to be some confusion all around. Possibly the wording

> 2.5 letters refers to matras - i.e. phonetic sound duration for

> uttering the letters. They are of 2 type Laghu (short) and Guru

> (long). All laghu letters (sounds with no long vowels associated with

> it) takes one matra to be be uttered. Eg - Ka, Kha, Ga etc. The Guru

> letters (sounds with long vowels asscociated with it, and conjuct

> letters) takes two matra to be uttered. Eg - kaa, khaa, Aaa, Eee and

> so on. Note Pra is a leghu taking only 1 matra, but Pree (i am using

> double 'e' just to denote the difference when the sound is uttered)

> takes 2 matra to be uttered. Not that any short sound like 'M' (the

> half sound) takes 1/2 matra to be uttered.

> Thus 'Prem' is 2.5 letters or 2.5 matras because 'Pre' is joint

> letter which is 2 matra long and 'M' is a half sound which is 1/2

> matra long. This is why the prem is 2.5 letter I believe.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Sarajit Poddar "

> <sarajit.poddar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jyothi,

> >

> > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation of

> > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as following:

> >

> > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as half. Re

> > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two akshatras,

> > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one is

> > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar and " na "

> > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples to

> > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with the

> > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows that the

> > akshara does not have a swara.

> >

> > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara assigned to

> > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> >

> > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes it

> > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re " is

> > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> >

> > Hope I am clear.

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> >

> > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

> > >

> > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally mailing

> > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and half

> > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt wish to

> > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying his

> > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > >

> > > Here is it:

> > >

> > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we speak

> > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a slaint line

> > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > "

> > >

> > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in Hindi to

> > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came. So I

> > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the politeness

> > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave, in

> > > their minds.

> > >

> > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will forgive

> > > me.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Jyothi

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Best Wishes

> > Sarajit Poddar

> >

>

--

Best Wishes

Sarajit Poddar

December 3, 2007

Dear Sarajit,

I would differ - In the word 'Prem' - 'P' is 1/2 akshar for sure,

Re could be full akshar, and 'M' is 1/2 akshar for sure. Thus as per

akshar count it is just 1/2+1+1/2 = 2 letters only, and NOT 2.5

letters.

It is only when we consider this as matras it becomes 2.5 matras

(2.5 letters) because 'Pre' being a joint letter is 2 matras, and 'M'

being an anuswara is 1/2 matra. Thus the word is of 2.5 matras.

Katapayadi is a system originated around 4th century AD, and

Vararuchi is known as the originator of the system. There is no

datable text prior to 4th century AD which uses Katapayadi. Katapaya

is all about " digits attributed to letters " or about " letter based

notation methods for digits and numbers " similar to " Bhoota Sankya

method " or " Aryabhateeya system " . In such matra count (as noted

above) based on guru/leghu or letter count (as in Namasivaya = 5

letters) - the system Katapayadi has nothing to do with. Considering

Katapayadi here would be out of context.

==>

> Among them " p " is half " re " is full and " ma " is full thus making

> them 2.5 " p+re+ma " .

<==

Please note that an Anuswara (such as 'M') can never be full and it

is always half (i.e. half letter, half sound, 1/2 matra).

==>

Laghu or Guru swaras (or matras) can be counted as 1 aksharas only

when they stand alone.

<==

This is wrong. Anuswaras are always 1/2 matra; also note that 1/2

matra ('Ara matra' in Malayalam) is a popular notion in many

languages including Sanskrit and malayalam; where it is counted as

the time necessary for the blinking of eyelid.

Thus in short, the 2.5 refering to 'Prem' defenitly points to 2.5

matras and nothing else.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, " Sarajit Poddar "

<sarajit.poddar wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> This is a well known concept of counting the aksharas in mantras to

> know the their effects on the person who is chanting; for instance

> " Namah Shivaya " is a panch-akshari; " Om Namah Shivaya " is a

> shad-askshari; Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya is a dwadas-akshari. The

> rules which I narrated in my previous mail is based on the way we

> count akshars in the mantras. Usually half akshars are ignored in

the

> mantras and full ones are taken into consideration for counting the

> aksharas. Hence the knowledge of half and full akshars are essential

> for understanding the count of aksharas in the mantras. The same

> concept is used in Katapayaadi varga system in which numbers are

> converted to shabdas (words), where the half aksharas are ignored in

> converting the sabdas to numbers. This is the basis for some

classics

> like Jaimini Sutras.

>

> Thus dhai akshar is 2.5 akshar and not 2.5 matras as you proposed.

> Among them " p " is half " re " is full and " ma " is full thus making

them

> 2.5 " p+re+ma " . Laghu or Guru swaras (or matras) can be counted as 1

> aksharas only when they stand alone like Ishta (here " I " is one " sh "

> is half and " ta " is full making it 2.5 as well.. .which in mantra

> shastra would be considered as 2)

>

> Regards

> Sarajit

>

> On Dec 3, 2007 9:25 PM, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sarajit ji and Lakshmi ij,

> > There is seems to be some confusion all around. Possibly the

wording

> > 2.5 letters refers to matras - i.e. phonetic sound duration for

> > uttering the letters. They are of 2 type Laghu (short) and Guru

> > (long). All laghu letters (sounds with no long vowels associated

with

> > it) takes one matra to be be uttered. Eg - Ka, Kha, Ga etc. The

Guru

> > letters (sounds with long vowels asscociated with it, and conjuct

> > letters) takes two matra to be uttered. Eg - kaa, khaa, Aaa, Eee

and

> > so on. Note Pra is a leghu taking only 1 matra, but Pree (i am

using

> > double 'e' just to denote the difference when the sound is

uttered)

> > takes 2 matra to be uttered. Not that any short sound like 'M'

(the

> > half sound) takes 1/2 matra to be uttered.

> > Thus 'Prem' is 2.5 letters or 2.5 matras because 'Pre' is joint

> > letter which is 2 matra long and 'M' is a half sound which is 1/2

> > matra long. This is why the prem is 2.5 letter I believe.

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Sarajit Poddar "

> > <sarajit.poddar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Jyothi,

> > >

> > > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation

of

> > > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as

following:

> > >

> > > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as

half. Re

> > > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

akshatras,

> > > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd

one is

> > > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

and " na "

> > > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other

examples to

> > > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging

with the

> > > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows

that the

> > > akshara does not have a swara.

> > >

> > > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

assigned to

> > > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> > >

> > > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which

makes it

> > > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way

that " re " is

> > > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> > >

> > > Hope I am clear.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Sarajit

> > >

> > > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Respected members,

> > > >

> > > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

mailing

> > > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and

half

> > > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

wish to

> > > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am

copying his

> > > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > > >

> > > > Here is it:

> > > >

> > > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we

speak

> > > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a

slaint line

> > > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > > "

> > > >

> > > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri

Jainji's

> > > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in

Hindi to

> > > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came.

So I

> > > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the

politeness

> > > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his

comments

> > > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave,

in

> > > > their minds.

> > > >

> > > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

forgive

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Jyothi

> > > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Best Wishes

> > > Sarajit Poddar

> > >

> >

>

> --

> Best Wishes

> Sarajit Poddar

>

December 4, 2007

Dear Sreendh,

I have no problem in differing views. Whatever I have stated is based on my learning on mantra shatras and Jaimini Sutras. Like you I am fully convinced about my points being true; the same way you are for yourself ;-).

> I would differ - In the word 'Prem' - 'P' is 1/2 akshar for sure,

> Re could be full akshar, and 'M' is 1/2 akshar for sure. Thus as per

> akshar count it is just 1/2+1+1/2 = 2 letters only, and NOT 2.5

> letters.

This is incorrect to take all 'Ma' as anusvara. It is just one of the anu-naasikas. Only when a anunaasika ends without a svara, it becomes a anusvara and then it can be taken as 1/2 such as in " Gam "

(à¤—à¤‚) in " Gam Ganapataye Namah " (à¤—à¤‚ à¤—à¤£à¤ªà¤¤à¤¯à¥‡ à¤¨à¤®à¤ƒ). In this case Gam is of 1.5 aksharas (to be counted as 1 in mantra shastra making the mantra an asht-akshari). If I take your arguement that " Ma " should be counted as 1/2, then instead of writing " à¤ªà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤® " we should be writing " à¤ªà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤‚ " or " à¤ªà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤®à¥ " and prema patra " à¤ªà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤® à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤°

" (love letter) becomes prempatra (à¤ªà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤®à¥à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤° or à¤ªà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤‚à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤°).

> It is only when we consider this as matras it becomes 2.5 matras

> (2.5 letters) because 'Pre' being a joint letter is 2 matras, and 'M'

> being an anuswara is 1/2 matra. Thus the word is of 2.5 matras.

> Katapayadi is a system originated around 4th century AD, and

> Vararuchi is known as the originator of the system. There is no

> datable text prior to 4th century AD which uses Katapayadi. Katapaya

> is all about " digits attributed to letters " or about " letter based

> notation methods for digits and numbers " similar to " Bhoota Sankya

> method " or " Aryabhateeya system " . In such matra count (as noted

> above) based on guru/leghu or letter count (as in Namasivaya = 5

> letters) - the system Katapayadi has nothing to do with. Considering

> Katapayadi here would be out of context.

> ==>

I am not concerned about when the katapayadi system is originated since I am not considering Katapayaadi here for the sake of converting akshatras to numbers, but nevertheless the reckoning full aksharas are the same all accross.

>

> > Among them " p " is half " re " is full and " ma " is full thus making

> > them 2.5 " p+re+ma " .

> <==

> Please note that an Anuswara (such as 'M') can never be full and it

> is always half (i.e. half letter, half sound, 1/2 matra).

> ==>

You are saying this becasue you consider " Ma " a Anunaasika as Anusvara straight away, which is incorrect. Only when it loses the svara ( " a " in " Ma " ) it becomes a anusvara ( " M).

>

> Laghu or Guru swaras (or matras) can be counted as 1 aksharas only

> when they stand alone.

> <==

> This is wrong. Anuswaras are always 1/2 matra; also note that 1/2

> matra ('Ara matra' in Malayalam) is a popular notion in many

> languages including Sanskrit and malayalam; where it is counted as

> the time necessary for the blinking of eyelid.

> Thus in short, the 2.5 refering to 'Prem' defenitly points to 2.5

> matras and nothing else.

Yeah! Note, it is 2.5 Aksharas (as what Kabir says) and could be 2.5 matras (as you say). I am not quite aware of the matra system and hence, please pardon my ignorance. What you say could be true, but I am more concerned about the akshara counting as mentioned in the doha.

Regards

Sarajit

On Dec 4, 2007 1:55 PM, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Sarajit,