shriilalitaa trishatii stotram

[Guest guest]

http://www.ambaa.org/pdf/lalita_trishati_san.pdf (only in devanaagari lipi )

 

This document has puurva bhaaga, stotram, naamaavali, and the

uttarabhaaga. This is draft 1. If you can point out the errors, your

help will be gratefully appreciated.

 

I have another document which the meaning from Saankara bhaashhyam

typed upto 170 names and the meanings for puurva bhaagaH - I posted

these to and advaita-l in the past. I will be complete this

file by early next year and make it available,

 

 

Ravi

[Guest guest]

Sarvebhyo Gurubyo Namah.

Sarvebhyo Devathaabhyo Namah.

 

Om Shri Mahaaganapathaye Namah.

Om Shri Gurubhyo Namah.

 

Dear Shri Mayavaram:

 

Congratulations on the production of this text.

I read with much respect and admiration, your publication of the Shri Lalitha

Thrishathi.

 

As a typesetter of various Sanskrit texts, I do know how difficult it can be to

get the correct spellings for publishing quality. However much one tries, errors

always creep in.

 

Also, paathabhedanais create all kinds of controversy, which distract from the

main objectives of this text, and of the publisher. Hopefully, this e-mail will

be received in the correct spirit by the audience and appreciate the effors you

have put in. For my part, I have nothing but the deepest admiration and respect

for those who attempt to publish this type of work, to preserve and protect our

heritage.

 

There are some differences in the text that I encountered. I am comparing the

text of Shri Vidya Nityaanusthaanam published by Bhaskara Prakaasha Ashramama in

R.A. puram , Chennai, (for which my parents and I did the typesetting), and the

text you published on the Amba-l site. Even though we had multiple sets of eyes

look and proof-read the text, we still had a few errors in that book. It is

amazing how easily the eyes get deceived. I have attempted in some small way to

try and do what I can to preserve accuracy. Please accept this humble

contribution.

 

I wanted to send this e-mail rather quickly, so I have only put English

spellings. Apologies for that. However, from past posts, I do know that you are

scholarly enough to grasp and understand the differences that are encountered.

 

In this email, " Version 1 " means the book published by our Ashramam. " Text "

means the published text on the Amba-l site.

I have also looked only at the Shri Lalitha Thrishathi Sthothram, and not the

Purva and Uttar Peethikas.

 

Digbandhanam:

 

Version 1: " BoorbhuvassuvarOM iti digbandhah ? "

Text says: " BhoorbhuvasuvaRM iti digbandhah " .

 

Beejam, Shakthi and Keelakam.

 

Are they not the Panchadashakshari thrikootas ?

 

Dhyana Shlokam: Line 1.

 

Version 1: " Aparimithaamodabaana Sowrabhyam " .

Text says: " Aparimithaamodabaana Sowgbhaagyaam " .

 

 

Lamityaadi Nyaasam.

 

Version 1: " Rum Agnyatmikaayai " .

Text says: " Rum Vahnyatmikaayai " .

 

Para number 9, line 1.

 

Version 1: " EekaararoopiNiishithrii " .

Text says: " EekaararoopaaCheshithrii " .

 

Para number 15, line 1.

Version 1: " LakshaNojjwala divyaangi " .

Text says: " LakshaNonjwala divyaangi " .

(Is this a problem with the font or a spelling error or just a paathabhedanai

?).

(Please also see the formation of " jj " in para 37 " lajjaapada " ).

 

Para number 20, line 2.

Version 1: " Hari Brahmendra Sevitaa "

Text says: " Hari Brahmendra Vanditaa " .

 

Para number 22. line 2.

 

Version 1: " HastikumbhotThungakuchaa " .

Text says: " HastikumbhotThunkakuchaa " .

(Please see Naamavali in text ... It appears to be correct in naamavalii as

KumbhotTunga Kuchaa ).

 

Para number 24. line 1.

Version 1: " Sarva karthrii Sarva Dhaathri " .

Text says: " Sarva karthrii Sarva Bharthrii " .

 

Para number 24. line 2.

Version 1: " Sanaathanii " .

Text says: " Sanaathanaa " .

(Naamavalii appears to correct as " Sanaathanyai " .)

 

Para number 26. line 2.

Version 1: " SarvaabharaNa bhooshithaa " .

Text says: " SarvabhooshaNa bhooshitaa " .

 

Para number 30, line 1.

Version 1: " Kasthoorii Tilakojjwalaa " .

Text says: " Kasthoorii Tilakaanchithaa " .

 

Para number 30, line 2.

Version 1: " haaTakaabharanojjwalaa " .

Text says: " haaTakaabharanoNjwalaa "

Is this a problem with the font ?

Perhaps it would be better to use the " jj " as it appears in para 37,

" lajjaapada.. " .

 

Para number 33, line 2:

Version 1: " Harikopaarunaamshuka " .

Text says: " Harigopaarunaamshuka " .

(please also see naamaavalii, where it appears to be correct as

HariKopaarunaamshuka).

 

Para number 36 line 2.

Version 1: " Labhyetharaa " .

Text says: " Labhyatharaa " .

(Please also see naamaavalii, where it appears to be correct as Labhyetharaa).

 

Para 40, line 1.

Version 1: " Hreemkaarodyaanakekinii " .

Text says: " Hreemkaarodyaana " .

This appears to be a typographic error. Naamaavalii is correct.

 

Para 44 line 1.

Version 1. " Sakalaa Sacchidaanandaa Saadhvii sadgathi daayinii " .

Text says. " Sakalaa Sacchidaanandaa Saadhyaa sadgathi daayinii " .

 

Para 45 line 1.

Version 1. " Sarvotthungaa sangaheena sadgunaa sakaleshTadaa "

Text says. " Sarvotthungaa sangaheena sagunaa sakaleshwarii " .

(There are two bhedanais here.. sadgunaa vs. sagunaa and also sakaleshTadaa

vs. sakaleshwarii).

(The saguna matches with the Naamaavalii, but the sakaleshTadaa seems to be

correct in the naamaavalii).

 

Para 52 line 2.

Version 1. " Labdhabuddhir -Labdhaleelaa Labdha yowvanashaalinii " .

Text says. " LabdhaVriddhir-Labdhaleelaa Labdha yowvanashaalinii " .

(The naamaavalii seems to be correct as Labdhabuddhyai).

 

Para 53 line 2.

Version 1. " Labdharaagaa Labdhagathir LabdhaanangaagamasThithih " .

Text says. " Labdharaagaa Labdhapathir LabdhanaanaagamasThithih " .

(Labdhagathih vs. Labdhapathih)

Para 55 line 2.

Version 1. " HreemkaarapeTakamaNirHreemkaaraadarshabimbikaa " .

Text says. " HreemkaarapeTakamaNirHreemkaaraadarshabimbithaa " .

(bimbikaa vs. bimbitaa).

 

I think that some of the differences shown above are true paathabhedanais, some

are inconsequential differences that need not be addressed at all, but some of

the differences need to be resolved. I have not attempted to provide any

corrections, because that is contentious and could create controversy and

argument. In this regard, we are guided by the verbiage as given by our

Gurunaatha.

 

For the larger audience, however, I want to mention that this is a very divine

text. Please do not get caught up in small differences. If you see a

paathabhedanai, instead of arguing about accuracy of one version over the other,

I would recommend absorbing both paathabhedanais, understanding the bhedanai and

then coming to your own conclusions. You will find that a much more

enlightening path than the confrontational one.

 

Hope this small contribution to your great effort helps to bring out a better

final product result.

 

Pranaams.

 

Shree Maathre Namah.

 

KR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Ravisankar Mayavaram

; advaita-vedAnta List

Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:45 PM

shriilalitaa trishatii stotram

 

 

http://www.ambaa.org/pdf/lalita_trishati_san.pdf (only in devanaagari lipi )

 

This document has puurva bhaaga, stotram, naamaavali, and the

uttarabhaaga. This is draft 1. If you can point out the errors, your

help will be gratefully appreciated.

 

I have another document which the meaning from Saankara bhaashhyam

typed upto 170 names and the meanings for puurva bhaagaH - I posted

these to and advaita-l in the past. I will be complete this

file by early next year and make it available,

 

Ravi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste

 

Thank you very much for your corrections. I used Vol. 5 of collected

works of Sankara as a reference. I am aware of the paaTha bheda-s, but

I decided to stick with this. Sri Chidanandanaatha's book also uses

the same version. Ideally we should give the variations as a footnote,

but I am planning to stick to this version.

 

I will go over your list and verify all the items. Thanks again for

your valuable help.

 

Ravi

 

 

, " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach wrote:

>

>

[Guest guest]

As mentioned before, they are not meant as corrections...

What a wonderful world it could have been if only we could have somehow seen

Shri Bhaskara Makhin debate with Shri Shankara.

 

 

KR

 

-

MSR

Monday, October 22, 2007 11:22 AM

Re: shriilalitaa trishatii stotram

 

 

namaste

 

Thank you very much for your corrections. I used Vol. 5 of collected

works of Sankara as a reference. I am aware of the paaTha bheda-s, but

I decided to stick with this. Sri Chidanandanaatha's book also uses

the same version. Ideally we should give the variations as a footnote,

but I am planning to stick to this version.

 

I will go over your list and verify all the items. Thanks again for

your valuable help.

 

Ravi

 

, " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach wrote:

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Is there any idea about the details of the oldest manuscript of the

LTS? I know from a friend of a manuscript whose original is from the

1600s from Kanchi, Tamil Nadu. I was told that there is no evidence

for any manuscripts of LTS from north of Gujarat.

 

LS is known somewhat infrequently in Northern India (attested in UP,

Rajasthan, Himachal, J & K may be also Bengal/Assam). But I am unaware

of trishati manuscripts.

 

Cheers

Rajita