[[Mohan K.V 2013-08-01, 00:20:26 Source]]
सदास्वादरोमन्थः
Dear readers,
We’ve chugged along to our tenth reminiscence already! Thank you again for your continued support. We continue to receive your encouraging letters and feedback, and are very grateful.
In edition #37 on Appayya Dīkṣita, we had mistakenly attributed the Vairāgya-śataka (in the Thought for the day) to Appayya; the work was actually written by Appayya’s protege, NīlakaṇṭhaDīkṣita.Our thanks to Śatāvadhāni Dr. R. Ganesh for pointing this out. Dr. Ganesh also told us that the hilariously named “Appayya-kapola-capeṭikā” (“A slap to Appayya’s face”) was in response to his work, “Madhva-tantra-mukha-mardana” (“Crushing the face of the Madhvas”) :-)
About edition #38, Dr. Ganesh commented that the title verse was actually re-used multiple times by Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha – first to describe Jagat Singh, then Jahangir/Shah Jahan, and then the Assamese king Prana-narayana. It reflects the vagaries of Jagannātha’s patronage.
About edition #40, Dr. Ganesh mentioned that the Telugu scholar Potakuchi Subramanya Shastry had done a tremendous amount of work on Gangādevi’s Madhurāvijaya, and had written an excellent commentary on it. Indeed, such rejuvenation in the hands of a skilled contemporary is necessary for every work in every age.
As always, we welcome any thoughts, feedback and suggestions from you all. Please email us at kvm….@gmail.com and shree…@gmail.com
Thought for today
People vastly differ in how much they value different aspects of language. One may be a stickler for grammar, but another may care for nothing but beautiful sound, and yet another may not care for either if the meaning is clear. One such classical difference of opinion is between Vaiyyākaraṇis (grammarians) and Tārkikas (logicians). The grammarian cares very much for grammar, but the logician is interested only in soundness of reasoning. A joke lays it out:
In the heat of an argument, the Tārkika says, “इदं तु पटम्!” (“This is a cloth!”).
This is incorrect, because “Paṭa” is masculine, and he should have said, “अयं तु पटः”.
The Vaiyyākaraṇi jumps on this: “कथं कथं पटम् इति?”(“How come you’re calling it Paṭam [when it should be Paṭaḥ]?”
The Tārkika coolly replies, “घटम् इव पटम्!” [“Paṭam is like the word Ghaṭam!”]
This is wrong too – Ghaṭa is masculine as well! The Vaiyyākaraṇi is flabbergasted, and shouts “कथं कथं घटम् इति?!”
The Tārkika has a ready answer: “यथं इव घटं, तथं इव पटम्!”
Aaargh! He’s twisting avyayas also to fit his logic!The words should be यथा and तथा!
The Vaiyyākaraṇi plaintively wails, “कथम् कथम्?!!!”
Pat comes the reply: “कथम् इव यथं, यथम् इव तथं, तथम् इव घटम्, घटम् इव पटम्”. Even ‘Katham’ has been enlisted, and the poor Vaiyyākaraṇi gives up and asks, “कथं कथं व्याकरणम् एव उल्लङ्घ्यते?” (“You’re violating every rule of grammar!”)
The Tārkika’s reply shuts him up permanently: “अस्माकोणां तार्किकेषाम् अर्थनि आसक्तिम्, न तु शब्दरि” (Every word here is wrong – it should read
अस्माकं तार्किकाणाम् अर्थे आसक्तिः न तु शब्दे, “We logicians are interested only in meanings, not in sounds”)
Please join the Google Group to subscribe to these (~ weekly) postings: https://groups.google.com/group/sadaswada/subscribe?hl=en