[Advaita-l] About a sanskrit usage

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

If  we translate  "viSeshah" as special can we not translate  " viSeshatah" as specially?

Regards,

Sunil KB



________________________________
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] About a sanskrit usage

Thank you Siva for the reply.  My question is: can 'visheShataH' give the
meaning of 'visheShaH' which is what is intended in the verse? I am asking
this because I have not come across the former word used to mean the latter.
For example 'ghaTaH paTayoH ko visheShaH/bhedaH'?

Regards
subrahmanian.v

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Sir
>
> The chandas of the Sloka is anushThup, which has many versions with minor
> deviations also being common. Technically it must have eight letters in evey
> paada. If you replace viSeshatah with viSeshah, you will have only 7 letters
> in the second foot. So it is a fault.
>
> You are right in that taa is better than tah; but then tasil pratyaya
> (which when added to viSesha gives viSeshatah) gives ries to a wide variety
> of meanings; if you want you can still the required meaning into it. Then,
> there is one more issue: chintaa should be written, as per
> SishTaachaara, with the dental anunaasikaa 'na' and not the anusvaara or
> bindu, 'm'.
>
> Regards
> N. Siva Senani
>
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> >To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:52 PM
> >Subject: [Advaita-l] About a sanskrit usage
> >
> >*Namaste.
> >
> >I have a question about this verse:
> >*चिंतायास्तु चितायास्तु बिन्दुमात्रं विशेषतः||
> >सजीवं दहते चिंता निर्जीवं दहते चिता ||
> >
> >The word 'विशेषतः' is not the same as 'विशेषः’ which alone would mean
> >'difference/bheda'.  The former is used in the sense of 'especially'. I
> >think it is an avyayaH.
> >
> >However, in the following verse, also giving the same meaning as the
> earlier
> >quoted verse, we have the word 'visheShatA':
> >
> >*चिता चिन्ता समा प्रोक्ता* बिन्दुमात्रं विशेषता |
> >सजीवं दहते चिन्ता निर्जीवं दहते चिता ||
> >
> >Here the word is quite alright.
> >
> >Will member/s kindly explain? Will there be a 'chandobhanga' if the word
> >'visheShaH' is used in the first verse?
> >
> >Regards,
> >subrahmanian.v
> >_______________________________________________
> >Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> >To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> >For assistance, contact:
> >listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org