clarification

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> I was hoping someone would reply to this, I am confused by the
> statement myself, Anyway my understanding:
>
> apashavah - plural, nominative of a-pashu = not animal.
> go = root for bull.
> ashva = root for horse
> anye = nominative plural of anya (anya = other is declined like
> sa=he).
>
> asvebhayaH taken alone is either the dative or ablative plural of
> ashva
> which would mean "to horses" or "from horses". But I don't see how the
> compound with the root go and ashva can be written as go + ashva = go
> ashva.  For example if we want to form a compound bAla + ashva it
> would become bAlAshva. So go + ashva = gA ashva or is the rule of
> external sandhi not applicable here?
>

Just to be sure I checked this in the Laghusiddhantakaumudi.  The word go
is a special case as per the sutra sarvatra vibhasha goh (6. 1. 122)  In
the place of an at or eng there is optionally avagraha or it is as is.
E.g. go'shva or go ashva.  for other cases of ach there is guna.  E.g. go
+ indra = gavendra.  For hal it is as is.  go + loka = goloka.

> >From bulls and horses, others (are) not animals
> or
> To Bulls and horses, others (are) not animals.
>
> I am unable to grasp the idiom in either case :-).
>

Ok how about "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."?

The idea I think is because Nilakantha Dikshita is a fan of sharanagati,
he thinks it is the answer to everything.  In fact it is one of several
ways appropriate for some people but not necessarily everyone.

However this is not the same as the "anything goes" theory of the moderns!
Any path that purports to lead to Moksha must meet certain standards.  But
within the parameters set by the shastras, there is room for different
approaches and the task of a Guru is to determine which is the right one
for a particular shishya.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>