Phil is one syllable: One more attempt to clarify

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjaya,

 

Because I tried to make too many points at once, the main point may

have been lost. I will try to focus and make it clearer. PLEASE READ

THIS MAIL COMPLETELY.

 

Until I convince you or you convince me, I suggest that students

should leave this lesson. Otherwise, they end up giving wrong answers

and you end up certifying wrong answers as right answers. This is a

waste of energy.

 

> RIGHT NOW, THE POINT IS TO GET TO THE NUMBER OF AKSHARA.

> So, please tell me those cases where this does not work

> rather than deviating.

 

There are two disagreements between us. But the main one is regarding

the number of aksharas in Phyl, Phyllis, Robert, Brendan etc (all

words that end in consonants). Let us concentrate on that issue. I

will try to sum up the argument.

 

I know why you are thinking that " Phil " has two syllables. The way

Hindi speakers of today write Phil in Devanagari contains two letters

in it. They write it as " phi la " , but pronounce it as phil. But that

is not the right way of writing " phil " . The correct way of

representing the pronunciation of " phil " in Sanskrit is different

from how today's Hindi speakers write it. It requires writing phi as

one letter and la as the second letter WITH A HALANTA MARK under la

(a slanted line under la). The halanta mark shows that it is not a

separate akshara and part of the previous akshara.

 

The same halanta mark is found under na in " treen " and " lokaan " in

the anushtup sloka I quoted. You can check the sloka and verify that

treen is taken as ONE akshara (i.e. na with a halanta mark - slanted

line - under it is not considered as a separate akshara) and lokaan

is taken as TWO aksharas (lo+kaan and not lo+kaa+n). Otherwise

chhandas is broken. This should make it clear to you that consonants

with a halanta mark under them are NOT counted as aksharas.

 

BTW, this is not a lone example. There are umpteen examples

everywhere in Sanskrita literature. For another example, see the same

Vishnu's 1000 names:

 

anirdesya vapuh sreemaan

ameyaatmaa mahaadridhrik

 

You can see that N at the end of the first line (sreemaaN) and K at

the end of the second line (dhriK) are again written in Sanskrita as

na and ka (respectively) with a slanted line (halanta mark) under

them. Again they don't count as separate aksharas. Else, anushtup

meter gets broken again.

 

The la at the end of " Phil " is to be written exactly like these

consonants at the end of words in the quoted slokas, i.e. with a

halanta mark (a slanted line) at the bottom of " la " to make it " l " .

Hence it is also not considered as a separate akshara or syllable. I

rest my case.

 

Thus Phyl is 1 akshara (not 2). Phyllis, Brendan and Robert are 2

aksharas/syllables each (not 3). The hanging consonants at the end of

these words have no vowel and written with a halanta notation

(slanted line under them) and do not count as aksharas.

 

Your basic mistake is to forget that svaras (vowels) are the prana

(lifeforce) of aksharas (syllables). Without svara, a sound is just

kshara. It decays and cannot be sustained. Vowels give life to sounds

and make them aksharas. This is the basic principle of Sanskrita

grammar and chhandas (metrology).

 

You are a great Jyotish teacher and I am grateful that I am your

student and grateful for the special kindness you always showered on

me. I accept your Jyotish teachings with gratitude. But I cannot

accept wrong teachings in other subjects.

 

This is the clearesr explanation I can give. If it is still unclear,

I don't know what to do. I can perhaps write the words in question in

Devanagari script and send it as a picture to make it clearer. I will

probably do it from home tonight or tomorrow.

 

Your sishya,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Om Gurave Namah

------------------------

 

 

 

> Pranaam Sanjaya,

NAMASKAR NARASIMHA

 

> Because I tried to make too many points at once, the main point may

> have been lost. I will try to focus and make it clearer. PLEASE READ

> THIS MAIL COMPLETELY.

YOU ASSUME THAT I DON'T READ COMPLETELY ..TRUE MOST OF THE TIME I HAVE MORE

IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE I WAS READING PRABHUPADA LILAMRITA TODAY.

 

> Until I convince you or you convince me, I suggest that students

> should leave this lesson. Otherwise, they end up giving wrong answers

> and you end up certifying wrong answers as right answers. This is a

> waste of energy.

NO, THE LESSON GOES ON. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONVINCE YOU

AS YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND. THIS IS AN ADVANCED CLASSROOM AND THE

JYOTISHA HERE ARE NOT KIDS THAT THEY CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES. THEY ARE

WELCOME TO ATTEMPT AND MAKE THEIR VIEWS AND SUGGESTIONS AS WELL AS TO WORK ON

THE IMPROVEMENT.

 

> > RIGHT NOW, THE POINT IS TO GET TO THE NUMBER OF AKSHARA.

> > So, please tell me those cases where this does not work

> > rather than deviating.

>

> There are two disagreements between us. But the main one is regarding

> the number of aksharas in Phyl, Phyllis, Robert, Brendan etc (all

> words that end in consonants). Let us concentrate on that issue. I

> will try to sum up the argument.

>

> I know why you are thinking that " Phil " has two syllables. The way

> Hindi speakers of today write Phil in Devanagari contains two letters

> in it. They write it as " phi la " , but pronounce it as phil. But that

> is not the right way of writing " phil " . The correct way of

> representing the pronunciation of " phil " in Sanskrit is different

> from how today's Hindi speakers write it. It requires writing phi as

> one letter and la as the second letter WITH A HALANTA MARK under la

> (a slanted line under la). The halanta mark shows that it is not a

> separate akshara and part of the previous akshara.

JUST LIKE WRITING RAMA AND PRONOUNCING RAM. THIS IS THE EFFECT OF THE KALI YUGA

AS MAN HAS LESSER AND LESSER TIME..THERE IS NO TIME. THIS IS THE AGE OF

SMS..YET, I INSIST ON USING THE SYSTEM GIVEN THAN DIVISING A NEW PARADIGM

ALTOGETHER. THE FUNDAMENTAL PARADIGM REMAINS AND ALTHOUGH PRONUNCIATION VARIES

SLIGHTLY, THERE IS NO MAJOR CHANGE.

 

> The same halanta mark is found under na in " treen " and " lokaan " in

> the anushtup sloka I quoted. You can check the sloka and verify that

> treen is taken as ONE akshara (i.e. na with a halanta mark - slanted

> line - under it is not considered as a separate akshara) and lokaan

> is taken as TWO aksharas (lo+kaan and not lo+kaa+n). Otherwise

> chhandas is broken. This should make it clear to you that consonants

> with a halanta mark under them are NOT counted as aksharas.

TREEN IS NOT A NAME. IN FACT THE LESSON WAS BASICALLY ABOUT NAMES AND SIMPLE

MANTRA WHICH I WAS TRYING TO TEACH. I HAVE ALSO WARNED THE JYOTISHA IN THIS LIST

ABOUT BEEJAKSHARA'S.

>

> BTW, this is not a lone example. There are umpteen examples

> everywhere in Sanskrita literature. For another example, see the same

> Vishnu's 1000 names:

>

> anirdesya vapuh sreemaan

> ameyaatmaa mahaadridhrik

>

> You can see that N at the end of the first line (sreemaaN) and K at

> the end of the second line (dhriK) are again written in Sanskrita as

> na and ka (respectively) with a slanted line (halanta mark) under

> them. Again they don't count as separate aksharas. Else, anushtup

> meter gets broken again.

RIGHT

 

>

> The la at the end of " Phil " is to be written exactly like these

> consonants at the end of words in the quoted slokas, i.e. with a

> halanta mark (a slanted line) at the bottom of " la " to make it " l " .

> Hence it is also not considered as a separate akshara or syllable. I

> rest my case.

NO PHIL IS STILL TWO LETTERS. THIS IS WHAT I WANTED YOU TO THINK ABOUT. THINK AS

TO WHY THE NUMBERING STARTS FROM 2 AND NOT 1...THAT IS WHY THE EXTENSION THAT I

HAVE MADE INTO MANTRA IS OK IF SIMPLE MANTRA ARE DISCUSSED, BUT THE MOMENT WE

GET INTO GAYATRI OR ANUSTHUP OR SUCH MALA MANTRA THAT BELONG TO A VERY DIFFICULT

SANSKRIT LIKE THE RIG VEDA, WE SHALL SURELY GET INTO TROUBLE.

THE FORMULA WILL WORK WITH OM NAMAH SHIVAAYA, BUT TRY MRITUNJAYA ANUSTHUP MANTRA

AND WE GO FOR A SIX. THIS IS THE CAUTION I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN, SO WHAT IS THE

NEW THING ABOUT IT.

 

>

> Thus Phyl is 1 akshara (not 2). Phyllis, Brendan and Robert are 2

> aksharas/syllables each (not 3). The hanging consonants at the end of

> these words have no vowel and written with a halanta notation

> (slanted line under them) and do not count as aksharas.

PHIL = 2 AKSHARA..I HOPE YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RULE THAT A NAME CANNOT BE OF ONE

AKSHARA ONLY. IN THAT CASE THE BEEJAKSHARA MANTRA OF THE DEVATA WOULD BECOME

TOTALLY MEANINGLESS. TAKE SHREEM FOR RAMA AS HIS BEEJAKSHARA, AND YOU WILL SEE

MY POINT. THUS THE HALANT IN NAMES IS TO BE IGNORED IN MOST COUNTS.

>

> Your basic mistake is to forget that svaras (vowels) are the prana

> (lifeforce) of aksharas (syllables). Without svara, a sound is just

> kshara. It decays and cannot be sustained. Vowels give life to sounds

> and make them aksharas. This is the basic principle of Sanskrita

> grammar and chhandas (metrology).

I KNOW THAT, AND IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT NEW THEORY YOU GIVE. THE KATAPAYADI

VARGA ACTUALLY REMOVES THE SVARA'S AND MATRAS THAT LIVEN AND I HAVE SIMPLY

FOLLOWED THE MAHARISHI'S IN THIS MATTER. IF YOU THINK A BOT MORE DEEPLY YOU WILL

UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT IN THIS MATTER. OK I ASK..WHAT IS YOUR 'REAL NAME'? WAS

THIS YOUR NAME IN YOUR LAST BIRTH? IF NOT THEN THE NAME IS NOT THE LIFE FORCE IN

ANY CASE.

THE VARGA'S YOU TALK OF ARE THE ACHYUTAYA VARGA WHICH ARE DIFFERENT FROM

KATAPAYADI. STICK TO KATAPAYADI IN THIS EXERCISE.

>

> You are a great Jyotish teacher and I am grateful that I am your

> student and grateful for the special kindness you always showered on

> me. I accept your Jyotish teachings with gratitude. But I cannot

> accept wrong teachings in other subjects.

THIS IS A PATHETIC STATEMENT. I AM VERY HARD PRESSED THESE DAYS AND YOU SHOULD

UNDERSTAND. SINGLE HANDEDLY WORKING ON THE MAGAZINE AS ALMOST EVERYONE HAS

'SUDDENLY BECOME VERY BUSY'....TOO MANY OTHER WORRIES AND FAMILY RELATED

PROBLEMS. YOU CAN SEE THIS FROM THE CHART, YET I DO NOT FAIL MY GURU IN THIS

DUTY.

 

> This is the clearesr explanation I can give. If it is still unclear,

> I don't know what to do. I can perhaps write the words in question in

> Devanagari script and send it as a picture to make it clearer. I will

> probably do it from home tonight or tomorrow.

NO NEED. TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE SAID. THIS IS THE VEIL OF KALI AND IN ANY

CASE WHN I AM IN THE US WE CAN DISCUSS THIS THREADBARE..

> Your sishya,

> Narasimha

BLESSINGS

SANJAY

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjaya,

 

> TREEN IS NOT A NAME. IN FACT THE LESSON WAS BASICALLY ABOUT NAMES

AND

> SIMPLE MANTRA WHICH I WAS TRYING TO TEACH.

 

Whether we are discussing a name or a general word is immaterial. The

heart of the matter is - what combination of sounds qualifies as

akshara? Its definition cannot change from general words to names.

 

Whether in the name " Brendan " or in the word " treen " , the last

sound " n " is the same and pronounced the same way. Are you saying

that the same sound counts as akshara (imperishable) in one word and

as kshara (perishable) in the other? If not, are you saying

that " treen " is two aksharas/syllables and Vyasa erred?

 

The bare sound " n " , when alone, cannot even be pronounced. How can

such a perishible entity be considered as an akshara?

 

> I HAVE ALSO WARNED THE JYOTISHA IN THIS LIST ABOUT BEEJAKSHARA'S.

 

So, according you, does the sound " Phat " used in mantras have two

aksharas or one?

 

> NO NEED. TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE SAID. THIS IS THE VEIL OF

KALI

> AND IN ANY CASE WHN I AM IN THE US WE CAN DISCUSS THIS THREADBARE..

 

Well, my best and most sincere attempt proved useless. Unfortunate. I

will wait for the next opportunity.

 

Your sishya,

Narasimha