Why is Vaagarthaaviva a Samaasa? | Dr. Sowmya Krishnapur
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये ।
जगतः पितरौ वन्दे पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ ॥
This is the famous mangalashloka of the mahakavya Raghuvamsha composed by Kalidasa.
Here, Mallinatha starts his commentary by saying, वागर्थाविव इत्येकं पदम् । i.e., वागर्थाविव is a compound word, and not two independent words, वागर्थौ, इव । This video explains why it is necessary to adopt this stand.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL FOR MORE CONTENT
www.youtube.co...
For Free Course materials, Free audio and video access, visit www.sanskritfr...
THE LARGEST ONLINE STRUCTURED SANSKRIT E-LEARNING and REGISTER NOW FOR FREE
To buy our products, visit
digitalsanskri...
Contribute now, to help us create this transformation: in INR or USD
www.sanskritfr...
For receiving regular updates, follow us on
Facebook - / sanskritfromhome
Twitter - / sfhvyoma
Instagram - / sanskrit_from_home
#vyomasanskrit #sanskrit
Wonderful, very elegant presentation. Thank you
It's pure joy listening to you sowmyabhagini...joy of learning...teachers like you are rare to find...anantapranaamaa:🙏🙏🙏
"Jagathah pitharau " - you translated " like mother and father " Is the "like" part justifiable ? Apparently the poet consider them the mother and father - not "like" mother and father.
Excellent explanation. We bow down to your mastery of Samskritam 🙏🙏.
Blessed to learn from you.
Awesome explanation! I bow down to your scholarship bhagini.
Thank you so much, professor, for the crisp explanation.
That was a very interesting explanation. But I see that taking वागर्थाविव as one unit and treating it as वागर्थसदृशौ runs into some problems. Kindly me know if the points that I am presenting here are making sense or not. I am not well-versed with Sanskrit so please forgive me if there are glaring mistakes in my understanding and point out my errors.
1. I feel that it is missing the point that वागर्थाविव is connected with सम्पृक्तौ - as in कथं सम्पृक्तौ? = एवं सम्पृक्तौ (like word and meaning). This intuition can be verified by dropping सम्पृक्तौ and analysing the sentence again: 'वागर्थाविव पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ वन्दे' (I worship Pārvatī and Parameśvara like word and meaning) - here वागर्थावि need not behave like a qualifier for पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ, it has the force of being linked to vande . On the other hand, 'वागर्थसदृशौ पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ वन्दे' (I worship Pārvatī and Parameśvara who are like word and meaning) gives the interpretation that पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ are qualified by वागर्थसदृशौ. Here we see that वागर्थाविव and वागर्थसदृशौ are not equivalent constructions.
2. Secondly taking वागर्थाविव as dual accusative case (2.2) and treating it a qualifier for पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ (2.2) looks like a posthoc analysis. We can reason about this by imagining another sentence 'वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्ताभ्यां पार्वतीपरमेश्वराभ्यां नमः'. In this case, we will be forced to analyse वागर्थाविव as वागर्थसदृशाभ्याम् (4.2) qualifying पार्वतीपरमेश्वराभ्यां (4.2) for the sake of consistency. I think even in this imaginary example, the connection is between वागर्थौ and संपृक्तत्वम्, where the first unit answers the question of how they are inseperable (like word and meaning).
Could it be that {वागर्थौ (1.2) इव} is interpreted as {वागर्थौ (1.2) यथा [संपृक्तौ (1.2)] तथा} संपृक्तौ (2.2) पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ (2.2) वन्दे. By doing so, we are linking वागर्थौ with an implicit [संपृक्तौ] - both in first case dual and not link them with वन्दे. Only the second explicit संपृक्तौ is in second case dual and agrees with पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ - both linked to वन्दे.
Since इव provides a connection between two similar clauses, my feeling is that only one clause is explicit and the other is implicit. For example, in a sentence like 'रावणः इव अहं शिवम् पूजयामि', the analysis is '{रावणः यथा [पूजयति] तथा} अहं शिवं पूजयामि'. रावणः is connected only to to an implicit [पूजयति] but not with the explicit पूजयामि.
There is no missing the point the वागर्थाविव is connected to सम्पृक्तौ । Any upamaa is governed by and based on sadharana dharma, whether we treat it as samaasa or not, the sadharana dharma is सम्पृक्तत्व, which is not affected in any way by making the samaasa.
The main point of the video is that वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ जगतः पितरौ पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ वन्दे - as a single sentence with the kriyapada वन्दे, cannot be justified by taking वागर्थौ & इव as separate words. In such a case, neither प्रथमा nor द्वितीया will complete the sentence structure accurately. By treating this as a samaasa, it makes a complete, coherent sentence, without affecting or harming the upamaa.
The structure suggested by you requires the adhyahara of multiple words - यथा, तथा, स्तः, repetition of सम्पृक्तौ (वागर्थौ यथा सम्पृक्तौ स्तः, would have to be the first part of the sentence) - none of which is indicated in the shloka. Yes, grammatically it is a feasible structure, because it separates वागर्थौ into a different sentence and solves the problem of vibhakti. But as the shloka seems to flow as a single sentence, Mallinatha's way of interpretation has nothing against it).
The counter-example suggested by you 'रावणः इव अहं शिवम् पूजयामि' - is not really of the same category, because रावणः is connected to the action of worship in the same way as अहम् is, that is, as the kartaa.
Lastly, in the other example you quoted, 'वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्ताभ्यां पार्वतीपरमेश्वराभ्यां नमः', you are perfectly right, making a samaasa of वागर्थाविव allows us to use it freely with the sense of any vibhakti, without harming the sentence structure or anvaya. There is no inconsistency there.
Thank you very much for the detailed reply. I am still not clear about how the connection between वागर्थाविव and सम्पृक्तौ is not lost in Mallinatha's analysis. Yes, the semantic connection between the two is still there as the sadharana dharma, but syntactically are we still able to perceive a dependency link between वागर्थाविव and सम्पृक्तौ? The problem I face in understanding this analysis is, syntactically, वागर्थाविव seems to become a direct qualifier for पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ while सम्पृक्तौ behaves like another independent qualifier linked with वागर्थाविव and पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ incidentally because of the semantics of being a sadharana dharma. Intuitively, does not one expect वागर्थाविव to be connected to सम्पृक्तौ directly even at the syntactic level (e.g. in English when I say 'inseparable like word and meaning', I understand 'like word and meaning' as an adverb for the adjective 'inseparable' thus answering the question 'How inseparable?' 'Like word and meaning').
The explanation is excellent . However I would like to add : if we take स्तःas अध्याह्रृतं additional verb of the sentence , the sentence may be read as: वागर्थाविव पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ संपृक्तौ( स्तः, ) तौ वन्दे। Pl point out my mistake in this reading.
Grammatically feasible. But तौ would also have to be taken as adhyahara. We are breaking the sentence into two, when the poet has given no indication of that break... adhyahara is usually not forced, it flows naturally from the context. And in any case, this being the Mangala shloka, it should ideally start with Vandana - Making the first sentence of the mahakavya as an assertion (पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ सम्पृक्तौ स्तः) rather than a salutation (पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ वन्दे) doesn't seem to fit...
Superb. I should have tried to get Mallinatha's terse label of वागर्थाविव as one word and its implication; and the reason why you chose to give a detailed explanation. Thank you.
Fantastic explanation Bhaghini. 🙏🏽❤️🕉
You are powerhouse of knowledge and a great teacher with fabulous clarity of thought about the nuances of the language and so well articulated. Sahasra Pranams.🙏🏽
What a fantastic explanation 🙏
अद्भुतं विवेचनम्। धन्यास्स्मः सौम्यावर्ये। 🙏
The graphical representation depicting the mirroring effect of upamana n upameya is brilliant, simplified to the core, understanding the concept becomes much much easier, pranams to Guru......
Beautifully explained and doubts clarified. धन्यवादः भगिनी 🙏🏻।
અદભૂત. સંસ્કૃત એન્ડ ઇટ્સ ટીચિંગ બોથ અરે awesome.
How beautifully explained Mahodaye..
Anantaananta
Dhanyavaadaaha