Modified rules that always work (Hreem ...)

[Guest guest]

Namsate Sanjay ji & Narsimha ji,

 

I hope I am not over-stepping for, with your permission, I would like to add my 2 paise worth.

 

The rules vaild for Indian languages will, generally, not work for Western languages, especially for English.

 

The specialists in phonetics will be able to explain it better but, as per my limited knowledge, in most Indian languahes, and many of classical Europeans languages too, while pronouncing, each syllable is given equal 'weight'.

 

In English, each word has a key syllable, which gets all the 'weight' - for example, while pronouncing AMERICA, 'ME' gets stressed, or streched more. So is the case with, say GErmany, BAttle, gREAt, etc.

 

And, as Narsimha ji has pointed out, most Western names, especially masculines, end with consonants which are not PRONOUCED at all, or not pronounced fully. The case with words which end with vowels is also similar.

 

Perhaps, we need a phonetic based rule! ! !

 

Please excuse me if you feel I am intruding.

 

With best regards,

 

Shailesh

 

PS: Narsimha ji, Tripura Sundari mantra is there, also in Devnagari, on pg. 249 of VRIA. (In 'skhl' a it is S- K- H- L, not S- KH- L)

 

 

 

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

Sanjay Rath ; varahamihira ; sjvc

Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:33 PM

[Hare Rama Krishna] Modified rules that always work (Re: Hreem ...)

Jaya JagannathaPranaam Gurudeva,I am glad you agreed on hreem and namah. It is now crystal-clear that thedisagreement between us is very minimal and mainly in names. We can easilyreconcile now.I understand that your motivation in coming up with this formula is to givesome rules for people who don't know any Indian language script. But, as youalso acknowledge, this formula fails in some cases. I think I can help.The procedure I gave previously will work perfectly in all cases, even forbeeja aksharas and also for the very complex koota beeja aksharas. Youprobably want to make one small modification in the case of names, toconsider Sanjaya instead of Sanjay.I will state my slightly modified rules again:(1) Try to represent the correct pronunciation. For example, write India as"indiya", ethiopiya as "ethiyopiya", Russia as "rashya", Phyllis as"philis", Narayan as "narayan", national as "neshanal", om as "om", hreem as"hreem", phat as "phat" etc.(2) In the case of NAMES, take the intended name behind the name, which isvalid in Sanskrit. This usually involves adding "a" at the end of a NAMEending in a consonant. For example, "sanjay" is an invalid word in Sanskrit(Arab influence!) and "sanjaya" is the valid Sanskrit word corresponding toit. Thus, change the name. For example, change bharat to "bharata", sanjayto "sanjaya", narayan to "narayana", raam to "raama", saar naath to "saaranaatha" (note that a is added to both the words)), shiv to "shiva", Rajiv to"rajiva" etc. Names ending in vowels need no change. For example, yogendrasays yogendra, hari stays hari, narayana stays narayana, guru stays guruetc.[Note 1: I am assuming here that if a name ending in a consonant is a validSanskrit word (e.g. Sarajit, Satyavak, Marut), no change is needed, as thename itself is the desired name (adding a to sarajit changes its meaning andadding a to satyavak and marut makes them meaningless. BTW, maaruta isright, but maruta has no meaning. Only marut has meaning). But those whodon't know Sanskrit may ignore this point for now. In any case, I don't knowif Sanjay agrees with me on this note. Moreover, for non-Sanskrit names likeBrendan, Phyl, Sanjay seems to suggest that this change is needed, i.e. youhave to take brendana, phila instead. I will not comment.Note 2: If what you have is not a name (e.g. beeja aksharas like hreem,phat, namah etc), this rule does not apply. Do NOT change hreem tohreema and phat to phata.](3) Now, count the vowels. Treat "ai", "aa", "ae", "au", "ou", "ee", "ei","ie", "oe", "ea", "oo", "ue" etc as ONE vowel each, because they ARE (interms of sound). For example, "ai" in "sailaja" is one long vowel and nottwo vowels, oo in "anoosha" is one long vowel and so on.(4) The number of vowels in a word exactly corresponds to the number ofsyllables or aksharas.ExaAmples:indiaya = I nd I y A. It has 3 vowels - I, I, A.solai = s O l AI. It has 2 vowels - O and AI.ethiyopiya = E th I y O p I y A. It has 5 vowels - E, I, O, I, A.narayana = n A r A y A n A. It has 4 vowels - 4 A's.narasimha = n A r A s I mh A. It has 4 vowels - A, A, I, A.hreem = hr EE m. It has 1 vowel - EE (it is one long vowel).phat = ph A t. It has 1 vowel - A.sklhreem = sklhr EE m. It has 1 vowel - EE.vashat = v A sh A t. It has 2 vowels - A, A.pratyoosha = pr A ty OO sh A. It has 3 vowels - A, OO and A (oo is one longvowel equal to u).bharata = bh A r A t A. It has 3 vowels - 3 A's.This procedure is fool-proof.Now, if you want to mark the start of each syllable, Sanjay and I havedifferent ways - his based on modern Devanagari script and mine based onancient-cum-modern grammar rules. For now, the issue is to find the numberof aksharas anyway. So, let us leave akshara boundaries for now.BTW, Sanjay, thank you for the Tripura Sundari mantra. On Vijaya Dasami lastyear, we had a Soubhagya Panchadasi homam in Boston, in which we did havanwith this mantra. The gentleman who conducted it is a very devoted andsincere individual, but I somehow felt that the mantra was inaccurate. As Iwas doing the havan, I did not feel like the mantra was right. He gave themantra by inserting "a" after almost every consonant (om kai la hreem ha saka ha la hreem sa ka la hreem). This converts each koota beeja akshara(complex seed syllable) into several aksharas and greatly increases thenumber of aksharas.Though pronouncing koota beejas is difficult, breaking them up into multipleaksharas is no good. It changes the mantra drastically.I left it then and today I got the right version from you. Thank you! Thingsfall in place for me now. But is "skhl-hreem" right? It somehow seems wrongto me. If you can clearly write down this mantra again after cross-checkingit, I will greatly appreciate it. I want to read it correctly this time, asI have already read it incorrectly thousands of times.I am grateful for your confidence in me. I was worried by your latest mailto varahamihira.Your sishya,NarasimhaPS: You cc'ed your mail to sjvc and left varahamihira, theoriginal forum of all the argument. I am cc'ing to varahamihira too.-"Sanjay Rath" <srath"Com Sjvc (AT) (DOT) " <sjvc >; "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao"<pvrSaturday, May 18, 2002 4:58 AMRE: Hreem - To Narayan and Sanjay (Re: Assignment - Phonemes)> Dear Narasimha> Jaya Jagannath>> You are right at every point in this letter. Hreem is a beejakshara and> inspite of my mentioning this specifically too many mistakes are beingmade.> Namah is as correctly shown by you. The importance of the lesson is thatthe> names will work with this method but with mantra and beejakshara and even> those tough KUTA BEEJA, this formula will simply go for a six. Take the> tripura sundari mantra:>> om kail-hreem hskahl-hreem skhl-hreem.> each of the words is actually only ONE Beejakshara called a Kuta Beeja and> this cannot be computed by the formula I have given. Thus, you willrealise> the limitations of the formula for using with names and maybe with simple> mantra only.>> By the way, I know you mean nothing. Your heart is clean else you wouldnot> be BORN WITH A DHARMAKARMADHIPATI YOGA. I believe in Jyotish vidya. Now,the> essence is that we should try to derive simple methods to help the people> not familiar with devanagari.>> Sanjay Rath>> > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr]> Saturday, May 18, 2002 6:56 AM> varahamihira > Cc: srath Hreem - To Narayan and Sanjay (Re: Assignment - Phonemes)>>> Jaya Jagannatha> Dear Narayan,>> > (d) As explained earlier om namo narayanaya is Ashtakshari.> > om hreem narayanaya namah> > om = 1> > hree|ma = 2> > na|ra|ya|na|ya = 5>> This is exactly what I was afraid of and why I argued so strongly against> Sanjay's rules!>> The sound "hreem" is most certainly not two aksharas. It is a beejaakshara> (seed syllable) and I am MOST POSITIVE that it is just oneakshara/syllable.> There is absolutely no doubt.>> Sounds like "phat", "hreem", "shreem", "kleem", "kshroum", "hum", etc are> SINGLE aksharas. They cannot be taken to be two aksharas, as you didabove.>> When you count the aksharas in mantras, remember the above. Sometimes the> rules given by Sanjay will mislead you here, but the alternative rules I> gave will always work. In any case, remember that the above are beeja> aksharas and hence one akshara each. For example, Sanjay also conceded> previously that phat is a beeja akshara, though his rule would have you> thinking that it is two aksharas (pha | t).>> Sanjay's rule seems to be tailormade for _names_ where he takes "Sanjaya"> instead of "Sanjay" etc (doubt: If somebody's name is "Satyavaak", whichis> a perfectly meaningful Sanskrit word with 3 syllables, will you change itto> "Satyavaaka" and make it a meaningless word of 4 syllables?). I have an> issue with that, especially for non-Sankrit names like Brendan, but we can> atleast agree in the case of mantras (i.e. not names). I will be shockedif> Sanjay says that Hreem is two aksharas as you wrote.>> To Sanjay: I apologize for any harshness in whatever I wrote in the last> several days. We've had many arguments, but I've never been so aggressive> and dismissive of your view as I've been this time and you've never beenso> offended. I apologize for whatever happened. We can arrive at a consensus> after a discussion when you come here.>> Meanwhile, I will greatly appreciate it if you can confirm that you also> agree that all the beeja aksharas I wrote above are one akshara each.> Otherwise, there will be some doubt and confusion in the minds of some> students.>> > na|ma|ha = 3> > Total Aksharas = 11>> "Namaha" is a wrong south Indian pronunciation and the correctpronunciation> is namah, with "h" (visarga) pronunced gently with a release of air. It is> almost like "nama". I don't know if Sanjay will agree or not, but visarga> does not count as an akshara. So "namah" is only two aksharas (na | mah).I> am most certain, but, in case Sanjay says otherwise, I will not argue for> now. I will leave it to Sanjay.>> May Jupiter's light shine on us,> Narasimha>> PS: In case you lost mail in the email address transition, let me clarify> again that I never accused you of wrong Jyotish teachings. I only asserted> that you were passing on wrong knowledge in akshara counting and Iprobably> should not have done that also. You know me enough to know how muchrespect> I have for you. You know what kind of a person I am.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mitesh,

 

At least in the case of mantras, wrong pronunciation changes the number of

syllables and changes the working and the impact of the mantra. Though there

may be differences between various parts of India, the fact of the matter is

that there is only one way to pronounce. Intonation etc can be different

(even that is actually fixed for Vedic mantras), but the basic pronunciation

of various sounds is fixed.

 

It is the nature of Kali Yuga that so many mistakes crept into common use

based on the region. South India, north India, east India and west India

have their own common mistakes. For example, I said that the south Indian

pronunciation of " namah " as " namaha " wrongly changes it from 2 syllables to

3.

 

If somebody pronounces " hreem " as " hireem " , it becomes 2 syllables instead

of 1. If somebody pronounces " skleem " as " iskleem " , it becomes 2 syllables

instead of 1. If somebody pronounces " skleem " as " skileem " , it becomes 2

syllables instead of 1. If somebody pronounces " skleem " as " sikileem " , it

becomes 3 syllables instead of 1. If somebody pronounces " skleem " as

" iskileem " , it becomes 3 syllables instead of 1. In all the cases, it is a

wrong pronunciation. Even if it is prevalent in a large region of India, it

is nonetheless wrong.

 

After Jupiter enters Cancer, I will send a detailed list of common mistakes

in Sanskrit pronunciation. Mistake is a mistake, even if whole of Gujarat

makes it or the whole of Andhra Pradesh makes it.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

PS: For all the correct and wrong pronunciations I mentioned above, check

the number of syllables based on the rules I gave and verify that you get

the same numbers I mentioned above.

 

> Pardon my ignorance,

> but The pronountiations and spellings are mostly South

> Indian, me from West India pronounce and shall spell

> slightly different and on the same vein a frenchmen a

> german and an englishmen, shall be quite different,

> so I am little bit confused with the rules that spell

> according to one's pronountiation. So from this

> perspective I disagree with the rules and the theory,

> it can work in a speciazied way but does not seem

> generic.

>

> Again as I said please accept this in the right

> spirit, I may have missed the entire point but just my

> two cents worth in mercury retro time frame.

>

> I am reading your book and is quite nice and

> comprehensive, and may I suggest to you and Pandit

> Rathji, and all the authors in this group, please add

> an index at the end of the book for easy reference, it

> helps a lot specially when one is a beginer, by the

> way nothing to do with mercury retro in this regard

> :-).

>

> A good index helps a lot to refer something quickly

> and it makes a grear book better.

>

> Best Regards

> Mitesh