Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2012 07:42

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=6313
BR-philosophers need to move to this thread. Please feel free to change the topic name.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 12 Jan 2012 07:55

ramana wrote:Is philosphy a religion?

Saar,
Philosophy may not necessarily be a religion and similarly a religion has components other than philosophy. However, Hindu Kathas, Epics and Texts are empty shells without the inherent philosophy. The characters/personalities in these stories eat, drink and live philosophy. Otherwise, why would those stories be so important? The point I am trying to make is that while other religions can distinguish between philosophy and religion, it is not possible in case of Hinduism.

I understand your point that these discussions are off-topic. I agree that deep philosophizing may be off-topic here, but elementary knowledge can be allowed. The term 'treatise' in the name of the topic would cover it. My post was made with that intention. I avoided making obscure philosophical 'hairsplitting'.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jan 2012 08:53

I do know all that. And if we continue we will have a mishmash thread. Clarifying and classifying is a Hindu trait too. Hence lets the threads be.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 12 Jan 2012 14:12

We have used this occassion of Swami Vivekanand's Birth Anniversary to read excerpts from his work at our workplace.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jan 2012 02:43

ramana wrote:Is philosphy a religion?

It(philosophy) is a western concept and they use that to explore and describe 'religion'
'Religion' in western terms is actually political unity under a church head. It does not matter if the church is bogus or does not have genuine order or history.
"what is your religion" is asked to find out which "Church" you belong to. In other words which political group or which political order you belong to.

The west has started using the term 'spirituality' now and use it when some religious personal experience is being described. But there is nothing in their 'religion' which defines spirituality.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 13 Jan 2012 07:12

ramana wrote:Is philosphy a religion?

Ramana jee according to Osho, India didn't have any philosophy only Darshan or what he calls Philosia (Don't remember his explanation).

1. Knowable : Comes under science, what is unknown can be known tommorow.

2. Unknowable: Both Philosophy and Religion are born in it. But Philosophy tries to kill its own mother by trying to demystify the mystery of unknowable and fails.
Religion teaches how to merge and lose yourself in this unknowable thus not trying to destroy the mystery but sense of separation (Ego). Hence the process of dissolving the ego is called "Tap" so crystallized ice melts back into the water.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jan 2012 10:25

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:Is philosphy a religion?
It(philosophy) is a western concept and they use that to explore and describe 'religion'
'Religion' in western terms is actually political unity under a church head. It does not matter if the church is bogus or does not have genuine order or history.
.
.
.
But there is nothing in their 'religion' which defines spirituality.

Perhaps the reason why C.K. Raju claims that west had a bloody hard time trying to digest zero.

Acharya ji, if I claim that Darshan has as much to do with Philosophy as Dharma has to Religion and Raamayan has with say the best of hollywood, would I be stepping out of line.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2012 23:01

Atriji, Another way of looking at the Shisupala episode is that by becoming a vassal to Jarasandha, who was inimical to the Yadavas, he opened them up to negative security consequences and had to be neutralised. His moves to disrupt the Rajasuya should be seen in this light.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2012 07:33

Full text of commentary on Andhra Mahabaratamu

Andhra Mahabharatamu Commentary

at archive.org

It has beautiful verse by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan garu in his own hand.

Appears an ancestor funded one edition

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2012 10:29

The beginnings are in our ancient past. The Silappadikaram tells us of an evolved music. The singing saints of the seventh century knew a raga system and called it “Pann isai”. Their footprints covered the whole of South India. Bhakti had a ripple effect. Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Sanskrit and Manipravalam became the language communicating with the Supreme. These verses were linked in golden melodies which evolved into recognisable musical structures. The fragrance of song and verse spread far and wide and took new roots wherever devotees gathered in royal temples and palaces. The purpose of music, purely a vehicle of communing with the Divine, also absorbed the concept of celebration.

http://www.thehindu.com/arts/magazine/a ... epage=true

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2012 11:17

Pratap Chandra Roy version of 12 vol of Mahabharata!!!

http://www.holybooks.com/mahabharata-al ... pdf-files/

Mahabharata Resources:

http://www.mahabharata-resources.org/

The complete text of Chakravarti Rajagopalachari's retelling of the story, as a single online PDF file:

www.gita-society.com/pdf2011/mahabharata.pdf

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 16 Jan 2012 00:55

johneeG wrote:Goddess Saraswati== Gossess Vagdevi.
The Rigveda says: Pavakah Nah Sarasvati Vajibhir Vajinivati. Yajnyanam Vashtu Dhiya Vasu (1-131). The translation runs as: Saraswati- Sharada purifies the person who comes close to her. She bestows knowledge, strength, prospereity and intellect to the devotees.

R.V. 2-41-16Y

RV 6-49-7

JohneeG ji,

1-131 has no mention of Sarasvati. I think you meant 1-3.10. If yes, see my view on "dhī" below

2-41.16 seeks fame/commendation (praśasti) for the uncommended (apraśastā). Beseeching various Gods for fame is a common theme in RV poetry.

6-49.7 Interesting you quote this as this is quite controversial. The injunctive "dhiyaṃ dhāt" has been translated by many Indologists and Pandits as "give us intellect" - in light of the Gayatri mantra - "dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayāt". But this error comes from selective reading, it turns out even God Puṣan grants it - "dhiyaṃ pūṣā jinvatu"; so do the Aśvins called "dhiyaṃjinvā" and even other Gods. The more accurate meaning of "dhī" is "devotion/inspiration". 6-49.7 is a mantra for inspiration and protection. Sarasvati is called a vīra-patnī (Lady of the Hero), and poet seeks "dhī" and "śarma" (shelter) from her. I'm open to be corrected if you think otherwise.

Ditto for "sarasvatī sādhayantī dhiyaṃ".

The most important point is that every God/Goddess is complete and thus contains other features also(apart from the primary connections). Any Vedic God/Goddess can be seen as an amalgamation of all 'other' Gods/Goddesses(and thus contains all the features).

I think Carl ji also mentioned this. I think this view is a kind of schism-avoidance device, to nip catankerous debates of "my God is better than your God". The Grand Unified Theory may exist. But personally, I've found the discrete specialized Gods system in the older layers of RV closer to my heart.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jan 2012 20:51

"dhi"'s variuous uses seems to point to a commonality of "ability to concentrate" - which would include the "devotion" interpretation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2012 21:44

Here is a Youtube version of my favorite Panchatantra tale "The Brahmin and the Tiger"

I find it very relevant even today about the need for native wisdom to overcome the eilte intellect which blinds one frm proper judgment.

Wiki has a short synopsis of the story:

A brahmin passes a tiger in a trap. The tiger pleads for his release, promising not to eat the brahmin. The brahmin sets him free, but no sooner is the tiger free than he announces his intention to eat the brahmin.

{To me the brahmin is the Indian military forces. The tiger is the Indian civilian establishment :politicians and the civil service.}

The brahmin is horrified, and tells the tiger how unjust he is. They agree that they will ask the first three things they encounter to judge between them.

The first thing they encounter is a tree, who, having suffered at the hands of humankind, answers that the tiger should have his meal. Next a buffalo, exploited and then mistreated, feels it is only just that the brahmin should be eaten.

{The tree is like the IAF who think the IA dominates them and wants the IA to submit. The buffalo is retired IA who have been passed over and meekly submitted.}

Finally they meet a jackal, who at first feigns incomprehension of what has happened and asks to see the trap. Once there he claims still not to understand. The tiger gets back in the trap to demonstrate, and the jackal quickly shuts him in, suggesting to the brahmin that they leave matters thus.

{The jackal is the common people who see that IA needs to be not eaten as it protects them and wants to cage the tiger which is rampaging with out any checks and balances.}

So you see the tale applies!

If you think about it parts of it apply even to Gen VKS age issue. Especially the parts about asking the others/retired officials and service men as to the best course of action which is akin to the advice the protogonist got! Only the jackal gets it right.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 16 Jan 2012 21:59

brihaspati wrote:"dhi"'s variuous uses seems to point to a commonality of "ability to concentrate" - which would include the "devotion" interpretation.

"Concentrate", or "meditate"? I think the latter. E.g. dhIra = dhIH ramatE iti dhIraH.
ManishH ji, the "devotion/inspiration" definition was very apt, I think.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jan 2012 04:41

think of all the uses - the most common approximant will be "concentrate mentally/focus".

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 17 Jan 2012 21:04

ManishH wrote:I think Carl ji also mentioned this. I think this view is a kind of schism-avoidance device, to nip catankerous debates of "my God is better than your God". The Grand Unified Theory may exist. But personally, I've found the discrete specialized Gods system in the older layers of RV closer to my heart.

ManishH ji, I just want to repeat and clarify -
The idea that all Names of gods mentioned in the RigVeda ultimately apply to the One Supreme Personality is, of course, a RigVedic idea itself. ekaM sat viprAH bahudhA vadanti, etc.

However, the "specialized" gods is also considered a fact, and your heart's intuition is correct. These are discrete beings, or rather, these are "posts" (padavI) occupied by beings, as per commentators. Each post has certain differentiators and a locus of power. The posts can also be arranged in a specific ontological order (tAratamya) to depict an overall mood or tone, sort of like relative permutations of musical notes in a particular rAga. Similar to musical theory, only certain combinations and permutations are allowable, otherwise rasAbhAsa is committed in meditation, etc.. The set of possible permutations and one's personal selection of them is considered a matter of inner rasa, which is a matter of the enlightened heart. rasO vai saH, says the Upanishad.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 18 Jan 2012 00:30

ramana wrote:Is philosphy a religion?

Ramana garu

Will Durant, (in the preface to The Story of Philosophy IIRC), says that he did not write about Indian Philosophers like Shankara as that would have made the books much longer. In that context he also says that Indian Philosophy cannot be separated from Hindu Philosophy.

Regards

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 18 Jan 2012 09:06

Carl wrote:
ManishH wrote:I think Carl ji also mentioned this. I think this view is a kind of schism-avoidance device, to nip catankerous debates of "my God is better than your God". The Grand Unified Theory may exist. But personally, I've found the discrete specialized Gods system in the older layers of RV closer to my heart.
ManishH ji, I just want to repeat and clarify -
The idea that all Names of gods mentioned in the RigVeda ultimately apply to the One Supreme Personality is, of course, a RigVedic idea itself. ekaM sat viprAH bahudhA vadanti, etc.

And I do agree with you

that's why I wrote "the older layers". Those upamandalas of RV 1 that are understood to be older do not yet have the exploration of oneness. Your quote is from RV 1.140-164 which are composed by Rshi Dirghatamas - these are considered by linguists to be newer due to use of word "palita" - Vedic Sanskrit (parita) starts to lose the rhotacism gradually as it moves to classical Sanskrit (palita). A lot of his ideas are later built upon in the Upanishads.

Of course this is hotly contested by those who rely on Rshi lineages. And I'm sure if B-ji reads this post, he will take exception to it.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Jan 2012 09:32

^^^ ManishH ji, that's interesting. I've always wondered how the linguists decide whether a "parita" leads to a "palita", and why not the other way round, or why not both existing side by side (as words in British and American English do today, for instance). How is the "evolution"/"devolution" of language historically mapped?

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 18 Jan 2012 09:51

There's no law which says only R->L progession is allowed, even reverse happens in a different historical period or a different region (look at Japanese or Chinese articulation of english). We have to judge it empirically. We can see that from comparing words between Vedic dialect and Classical ones - vedic rohita, classical lohita. There are many such examples and all show the R->L progression. RV has a starkly low %age of L sound (something like 0.01% of mutes). Much higher for a classical text like Bhagavatam. Old Iranian doesent even have the L sound. So we can determine that when "sanskrit" and "iranian" dialects were in their united proto form, their phonology had rhotacism (excessive use of R).

You'll even find some early texts mock the barbarian speech of asuras specificially usage of L for R. Eg śatapatahh brahmaṇa mocks the asuras who cry "he lavo! he lavaḥ" instead of "he aravo, he aravaḥ" when they see their supposed arya foes. What is ironical is that the author himself uses words with R->L change elsewhere!

A good 2 page summary of rhotacism in Sanskrit is in MacDonnell's book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YKI3TQ ... sm&f=false

PS: none of this should be assumed to mean "older" is "truer". In the spirit of RV, I'll concede, there may be a Oneness.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2012 10:07

I thought we created a phil thread.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 18 Jan 2012 17:20

ManishH wrote:There's no law which says only R->L progession is allowed, even reverse happens in a different historical period or a different region (look at Japanese or Chinese articulation of english). We have to judge it empirically. We can see that from comparing words between Vedic dialect and Classical ones - vedic rohita, classical lohita. There are many such examples and all show the R->L progression. RV has a starkly low %age of L sound (something like 0.01% of mutes). Much higher for a classical text like Bhagavatam. Old Iranian doesent even have the L sound. So we can determine that when "sanskrit" and "iranian" dialects were in their united proto form, their phonology had rhotacism (excessive use of R).

You'll even find some early texts mock the barbarian speech of asuras specificially usage of L for R. Eg śatapatahh brahmaṇa mocks the asuras who cry "he lavo! he lavaḥ" instead of "he aravo, he aravaḥ" when they see their supposed arya foes. What is ironical is that the author himself uses words with R->L change elsewhere!

A good 2 page summary of rhotacism in Sanskrit is in MacDonnell's book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YKI3TQ ... sm&f=false

PS: none of this should be assumed to mean "older" is "truer". In the spirit of RV, I'll concede, there may be a Oneness.

Old Iranian dialects & United proto form of Iranian & Sanskrit - No L lot of R
RV – Low on L higher on R
Bhagavatam – Higher on L lower on R

Hence R->L

But what if it was the same yesterday as it is today.

I am Ravi the father, I understand that I am a father
To my daughter I am Lavi the father, and both I and the 3 year old understand that I am Lavi the father
Nonetheless I tell my daughter to call me Ravi the father, she rolls her eyes

, decides no point in R/L jamela, father remains the father, the daughter remains the daughtel and mole Shinchan is bettel. And Ravi decides to be Lavi without loosing his fatherhood realizing that to Lavi the father his own father was Lamesh the Father and its no use forcing the lovely child.

On a more serious note, is it trend following?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Jan 2012 20:13

Well, what the linguists do not satisfactorily explain is that why only certain words were chosen to be chopped off their "r" and replaced with "l", while others remain as they are. Digging deeper, one finds that the linguists badly need the relative dating assumptions on various texts - which in turn are based on historical migration assumptions.

Language in its interactive form is essentially a game - or strategic interaction. It is trying to communicate a message between a sender and a recipient, and for both successfully decoding as much as possible by the recipient is a payoff. Thus both sides may improvise and compromise or mutate in context their own sets of matching symbols to maximize "understanding". Therefore, within multiple interacting groups, we always have variations in sound meaning generally the same thing - our ears and brain our excellent robust interpreters of sounds. Just imagine the wide variety of pronunciations we still identify correctly as meaning the same thing. Its not that we are not aware of the subtle almost unnoticeable differences - because we use it to identify native or non-native speakers. So just because one group seems to love "l" and another "r" for the same meanings - does not necessarily imply that one came before the other. This is why the linguists use other extraneal historical assumptions to fix direction of change.

Think of an alternative scenario - that a whole pool of approximately similar but subtle to substantial phonetic deviations - subfamilies of language existed on the subcontinent before the the major expansions. Some stressed "r"some stressed "l". Over time what is called RVedic crystallized in one group while what became the ancestor of "Sanskrit" (which itself indicates it was a reformed/reshaped/concretized from pre-existing ones) crystallized in another group. These were not completely antagonistic cultures and remained in interaction (even the asuras are clearly and openly recognized as having common descent from the non-asuras) and hence overlapped and mutually influenced each other. They merely differed in different fondness for different sounds for the same meaning.

Yes that messes up the historical timeline. But that is the whole point of weakening the assumptions one by one and see how robust the earlier conclusions remain!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jan 2012 01:45

ramana wrote:Pratap Chandra Roy version of 12 vol of Mahabharata!!!
http://www.holybooks.com/mahabharata-al ... pdf-files/

Ramana garu

Do you know whether this version is same as the one by Kisari Mohan Ganguly?

Regards

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 19 Jan 2012 09:31

brihaspati wrote: Think of an alternative scenario - that a whole pool of approximately similar but subtle to substantial phonetic deviations - subfamilies of language existed on the subcontinent before the the major expansions. Some stressed "r"some stressed "l".

B-ji I do agree with this point. It's not logical to assign geographical regions or ascertain invasions from linguistics.

However, I think we have sufficient empirical data to establish temporal relations - esp the instance of rhotacism. If it was not a clear progression from R->L, we'd have seen at least 1 word that exhibits the reverse behaviour - always L in vedic and always R in classical. But that just isn't so. Take even non-liturgical verbs as simple as 'calati' - there is no 'calati' in RV; only 'carati'.

Well, what the linguists do not satisfactorily explain is that why only certain words were chosen to be chopped off their "r" and replaced with "l", while others remain as they are.

I'll try to find the reason if you provide an example of a vedic 'L' sound that remained as it were. There could be good phonetic reasons for that - dissimilation for one.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2012 10:41

Its a prose version. I downloaded three vols and will get all of them.

niran · Post by **niran** » 19 Jan 2012 14:44

matrimc wrote:
Ramana garu

Do you know whether this version is same as the one by Kisari Mohan Ganguly?

Regards

let me if you do not mind

they are different, particularly the chronological order of what took place at Kurushetra.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jan 2012 22:18

ManishH wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Think of an alternative scenario - that a whole pool of approximately similar but subtle to substantial phonetic deviations - subfamilies of language existed on the subcontinent before the the major expansions. Some stressed "r"some stressed "l".
B-ji I do agree with this point. It's not logical to assign geographical regions or ascertain invasions from linguistics.

However, I think we have sufficient empirical data to establish temporal relations - esp the instance of rhotacism. If it was not a clear progression from R->L, we'd have seen at least 1 word that exhibits the reverse behaviour - always L in vedic and always R in classical. But that just isn't so. Take even non-liturgical verbs as simple as 'calati' - there is no 'calati' in RV; only 'carati'.

Well, what the linguists do not satisfactorily explain is that why only certain words were chosen to be chopped off their "r" and replaced with "l", while others remain as they are.
I'll try to find the reason if you provide an example of a vedic 'L' sound that remained as it were. There could be good phonetic reasons for that - dissimilation for one.

Well to start with, you are inherently assuming that the "classical" represents a "later" origin than the Vedic. My argument started out by dropping that assumption of unilinear mutation from one supposed period to another. You are taking the Vedic as representing a specific time point and representing editing by one single linguistic culture. The r-l transition even within the Vedic is based on a certain unilinear schema in time of the various components. Whereas they could be simply slightly different schools of scholars/bards not necessarily coexisting or sequentially existing in time.

Once cultural distinctions - especially language gets tagged to group identities - even now, groups will try to enhance the subtle differences in language use (even within the same dialect) by sharpening the phonetic and usage divide on exchange between in-group and out-group. A r-stressing group will hold on to its r - until it gets submerged demographically within the l-group. This will be reflected in an apparent growth of substitutions of r with l over time - but it does not necessarily imply that the l version did not exist simultaneously before.

The thing is if you go down to phonetic dissimilation - it is still arbitrary - there is no clear cut obvious rule to show as to why say raksha was not converted to laksha, in all versions. If you say they already existed before as words of divergent meanings, simultaneosuly, hence dissimilation of meaning preserved their phonetic dissimilation [alternatives already occupied] then it implies at that one point r and l were equally likely to have formed in usage. If you say that r-l was a unidirectional transitional feature [people preferred l whenever there was a r] then we should have seen the trend continue in what you term the classical, and by this time we would not see any r left. Ease of pronunciation argument definitely would make "Lulu" preferable to "Ruru", for example.

One counter point to note is that the liquid sounds appear in a wide spectrum of ancient tongues, and "ululation" was a common theme in many ancient cultures, from Africa and the ME to possibly India. In that sense "l" could have been more ancient that the divergence of the Vedic and the classical, and could have been retained in the wider body of the subcontinental peoples compared to a smaller subculture represented in some parts of the Vedic texts. With time, as the ideologies intermingled and the Vedic submerged in the body politic - the latter's representations of coincidental events - dominated.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jan 2012 02:59

niran wrote: let me if you do not mind they are different, particularly the chronological order of what took place at Kurushetra.

Thanks, Niran ji.

I had previously downloaded Ganguly's version (Ramana garu, that is also prose) and started reading. It is a little heavy going due to the facsimile xlation. Now I downloaded Pratap Roy's version. The difference is that Ganguly's version is text so the display is quite quick and of good quality on my Kindle and EZreader eReaders. Pratap Roy's version is rendering slowly on my Linux Desktop as it is a large PDF and I am not very enthu'd to load into my eReaders, unless it is different and less detailed. I will report back if I ever finish both the versions.

Regards

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 21 Jan 2012 10:20

brihaspati wrote: Well to start with, you are inherently assuming that the "classical" represents a "later" origin than the Vedic.

This isn't my assumption. It is well understood that vedic precedes classical; Pāṇini knows about Prātiṣākhyā; not vice versa.

This will be reflected in an apparent growth of substitutions of r with l over time - but it does not necessarily imply that the l version did not exist simultaneously before.

Sure I agree with you there - the L group did exist. But it was out of the Vedic Sanskrit fold; when it comes in the fold, it starts influencing things.

The thing is if you go down to phonetic dissimilation - it is still arbitrary - there is no clear cut obvious rule to show as to why say raksha was not converted to laksha, in all versions.

It'll be unreasonable to expect every R->L. It's not like these humans lose the ability to make the R sound. Non-uniformity exists even in sound changes of modern languages Eg

- American pronunciations 'antimatter' v/s 'helipad'
- Sanskrit 'bhikṣu' -> Kannada 'bhikku' but 'akṣayā' remains unchanged.
- 50s American accent - R's aren't uniformly retroflex

If R sound is followed by a class of sounds called stops, like the dental t or the labial o/b/p etc, it has a greater likelihood to change to L by assimilation. The R which is closer to a 'trill' sound assimilates into L that is closer to the 'stop' sound. Eg. 'roma', 'rohita', 'rabhate' all change.

So 'rakṣā' didn't change as it is followed by a velar retroflex consonant cluster.

We see this assimilation in inflections of the same verb - eg. 'mrucaḥ' (R followed by a palatal) but 'mluktam' (R followed by a velar-dental cluster), 'gocara' versus 'calati'.

If you say that r-l was a unidirectional transitional feature [people preferred l whenever there was a r] then we should have seen the trend continue in what you term the classical, and by this time we would not see any r left.

The R->L change is unidirectional in Vedic->Classical (reverse didn't happen); but I'm not saying it is uniform (All vedic Rs dont change to Ls).

One counter point to note is that the liquid sounds appear in a wide spectrum of ancient tongues, and "ululation" was a common theme in many ancient cultures

Fair point. But isn't ululation culturally used to stand out from normal speech.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 21 Jan 2012 14:54

ramana wrote:Atriji, Another way of looking at the Shisupala episode is that by becoming a vassal to Jarasandha, who was inimical to the Yadavas, he opened them up to negative security consequences and had to be neutralised. His moves to disrupt the Rajasuya should be seen in this light.

Ramana ji, did not see this hence the late reply.. My apologies..

All the yadava clans were aligned with Magadha.. not just shishupala. It was mathura branch which revolted after kansa's removal by the krishna-balrama duo.. that branch was chased out of ganga valley by magadha and allies.. krishna (which means the rebelling yadava lobby) tried to force their way in polity of GV and upper Saraswati valley by piggy backing on another rebels (the pandavas).

also there was personal angle of rejected love interest when Rukmini eloped with Krishna making Shisupala look like a fool twiddling his thumb..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jan 2012 04:29

A Hare Krsna site

True Meaning of Dharma

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jan 2012 05:45

ManishH wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Well to start with, you are inherently assuming that the "classical" represents a "later" origin than the Vedic.
This isn't my assumption. It is well understood that vedic precedes classical; Pāṇini knows about Prātiṣākhyā; not vice versa.

A particular author's compilation that includes a certain word/concept not belonging to another compilation does not prove the period of origin the language on the whole. There are many words in English that did not exist in it say even 20 years ago. Does it mean English did not originate before 20 years from the present?

This will be reflected in an apparent growth of substitutions of r with l over time - but it does not necessarily imply that the l version did not exist simultaneously before.
Sure I agree with you there - the L group did exist. But it was out of the Vedic Sanskrit fold; when it comes in the fold, it starts influencing things.

Again you are assuming that L was exclusive to one and R to another, and any transference or absorption happened unilinearly in one direction.

The thing is if you go down to phonetic dissimilation - it is still arbitrary - there is no clear cut obvious rule to show as to why say raksha was not converted to laksha, in all versions.
It'll be unreasonable to expect every R->L. It's not like these humans lose the ability to make the R sound. Non-uniformity exists even in sound changes of modern languages Eg

- American pronunciations 'antimatter' v/s 'helipad'
- Sanskrit 'bhikṣu' -> Kannada 'bhikku' but 'akṣayā' remains unchanged.
- 50s American accent - R's aren't uniformly retroflex

The English transformations are an entirely wider issue, I will not touch here. But even within the "Indic" the transformations typically are quite uniform. In most central-lower GV - "k-murdhanya-s" transforms uniformly to "k-k-h", e.g., bhiksu ->bhikkhu, ikshu -> ikkhu. There is a cultural mediation role here - that is another thing altogether - as to how particular religious/cultural modes may influence language mutations in different directions over the same period even within the same language group. It is not unidirectional.

If R sound is followed by a class of sounds called stops, like the dental t or the labial o/b/p etc, it has a greater likelihood to change to L by assimilation. The R which is closer to a 'trill' sound assimilates into L that is closer to the 'stop' sound. Eg. 'roma', 'rohita', 'rabhate' all change.

So 'rakṣā' didn't change as it is followed by a velar retroflex consonant cluster.

We see this assimilation in inflections of the same verb - eg. 'mrucaḥ' (R followed by a palatal) but 'mluktam' (R followed by a velar-dental cluster), 'gocara' versus 'calati'.

if the "stop" sounds are so effective and "o" so powerful an attractor towards L- then "ropana" should have become "lopana" even within the supposedly later "classical". Or even the "ropa" root - if you think of it - should go to "lopa", entirely different meanings.

If you say that r-l was a unidirectional transitional feature [people preferred l whenever there was a r] then we should have seen the trend continue in what you term the classical, and by this time we would not see any r left.
The R->L change is unidirectional in Vedic->Classical (reverse didn't happen); but I'm not saying it is uniform (All vedic Rs dont change to Ls).

Again the assumption - is that Vedic->Classical. Whereas, for me the proofs are not sufficient to dismiss the possible parallel or even pre-existence of the proto-classical group independent of Vedic in a wider portion of India.

One counter point to note is that the liquid sounds appear in a wide spectrum of ancient tongues, and "ululation" was a common theme in many ancient cultures
Fair point. But isn't ululation culturally used to stand out from normal speech.

[/quote]

I meant that it could have stemmed from a much earlier period of human language formation and hence would predominate or be given a strong presence from earlier.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 22 Jan 2012 07:30

brihaspati wrote:But even within the "Indic" the transformations typically are quite uniform. In most central-lower GV - "k-murdhanya-s" transforms uniformly to "k-k-h", e.g., bhiksu ->bhikkhu, ikshu -> ikkhu. There is a cultural mediation role here - that is another thing altogether - as to how particular religious/cultural modes may influence language mutations in different directions over the same period even within the same language group. It is not unidirectional.

Time permitting, I would like to hear more about this from you or ManishH ji. Thanks.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jan 2012 07:48

The R-L law would be curious indeed. For example it then seems to be restricted only to "o" sound. For example, none of the other vowel+"stop" as in "u+p" as in "rupa", "a+m" as in "ram" dhaatu for example ("enjoy") , "i+p" as in "ripu" - transfer to L. Even the "r+t" combinations in "rata" does not change to L+t.

The other curiosity then is that in "classical" there is greater "diversity" and plurality of usage for the same concept compared to the Vedic. In every genetic evolutionary process, the greatest diversity would be found in the original or ancestral or founding region, while as migrations take place the descendant populations will have decreasing diversity.

Language seems to have followed a similar genetic meme-route. But even apart from that, think of the derivatives of the R-L transforms. In the "classical", for example in the "roma"->"loma" transfer, the derivatives "romasa/lomasa" both appear, (with hair), but not "lomancha" but only "romancha". A Sanskritic obsessed syntactical puritan (I mean in good sense) of the Sanskrit grammarians, would have applied the same rules of derivation to "loma" as to "roma". But there is really no explanation as to why "lomancha" is not used.

This can in turn lead to the question : maybe the derivation is not there because it was not originally known to the users of "loma". They therefore adopted the "roma" versions wherever they afforded a wider usage than "loma". In that case, words with "R" were adopted where they supplemented the pre-existing "L" usage with added implications - not available to the "L" version before.

A restricted usage would indicate earlier usage and not later.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jan 2012 20:22

ravi_g wrote:
Perhaps the reason why C.K. Raju claims that west had a bloody hard time trying to digest zero.

Acharya ji, if I claim that Darshan has as much to do with Philosophy as Dharma has to Religion and Raamayan has with say the best of hollywood, would I be stepping out of line.

I dont understand. Can you elaborate

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 22 Jan 2012 22:08

Posting from Rajiv Malhotra's forum

Here's a look at what the current set of Wharton students think....
What is fascinating is how they have internalized the thought that Indians in general are
not ethical wheras "westerners" are ethical.
Is there a name for this kind of thinking ?
Using Rajiv's terminology - These mba-students have been digested and thrown out !

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/arti ... cleid=2897

Business vs. Ethics: The India Tradeoff?
Published: January 03, 2012 in Knowledge@Wharton

In both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, even gods resort to deceit and trickery to accomplish their ends. In the latter,
Lord Krishna repeatedly devises "underhanded" methods to defeat the opposing army -- going so far as to encourage
the protagonist, Arjuna, to attack and kill an unarmed adversary.
In addition, the Arthshastra is often cited publicly by prominent politicians and businessmen as the foundation of their
strategic thought. Written to advise a king on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy, the work advocates the
use of deception and sometimes brutal measures for the common good. Max Weber described Machiavelli's draconian
Prince as harmless when compared to Arthshastra, whose topics range from "when a nation should violate a treaty
and invade" to "when killing domestic opponents is wise."
.....
......
Currently, it is incumbent on the multinational managers to realize that business in India is held to a different set
of ethical rules than those found in the West.

This article was written by Ajay Anand, Kavitha Cherian, Arpan Gautam, Roopak Majmudar and Arzan Raimawala,
members of the Lauder class of 2013.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 23 Jan 2012 11:51

brihaspati wrote:In most central-lower GV - "k-murdhanya-s" transforms uniformly to "k-k-h", e.g., bhiksu ->bhikkhu, ikshu -> ikkhu.

B-ji, with my limited search of Bangla dictionary, even this is not uniform. Eg there are (at least) 3 classes ...

1. kṣ that is unchanged (tatsama) : শিক্ষক, চক্ষু, লক্ষ্য, সাক্ষী
2. kṣ -> kh : pakṣi -> পাখি
3. kṣ -> cha : makṣika -> মাছি

We see regularity; we don't see uniformity. The criterion of uniformity you demand is rather too strict to meet for human speech.

Whereas, for me the proofs are not sufficient to dismiss the possible parallel or even pre-existence of the proto-classical group independent of Vedic in a wider portion of India.

Evidence for Classical being later than Vedic is more than phonetic. There's also morphology and syntax. Some of these are even pointed out in the mahābhāṣya as well as aṣtadhyāyi.

However, epics which are first found to be compiled in classical sanskrit language could well owe their origins to a much ancient period. Eg. the language of a classical work like Bhagavatam or Ramayana is newer than Rgveda, but the theology of the former could easily be much much older - the first written forms being an amalgamation of different streams.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 23 Jan 2012 12:02

ManishH ji,

What about a case like modern Persian, grafted and transformed by the Arabic influence? Are the transformations of Pahlavi->Farsi consistent with the 'regularities' you describe for Vedic->Sanskrit?

Also, you mentioned that 'L' is absent in Avestan, where "R" is preponderant. I find that fascinating, if true. So then even ethnonyms like "Pahlavi", "Bahlika", etc were not known as such in Avestan?