But, at first read, the verse seems to talk about the dramatis personae!
In fact no less than 12 of them!
👇🏼
Drona
Krishna
Arjuna
Bhima
Virata
Karna
Shakuni
Duryodhana
Bhishma
Yudhishtir
Abhimanyu
Virata’s Son
Virata’s cows😀
How is this possible? How is the poet doing this?
Lets take a look at a master’s amazing ability to convey multiple meanings in संस्कृतम्!
Poets typically give a hint of what’s to come in the introductory verse. This is termed ‘mudra’ - सूच्यार्थसूचनं मुद्रा प्रकृतार्थपरै पदैः।
Here Bhasa goes all out with शब्दश्लेषः (puns)।
The poet Bhasa creates an appropriate invocation while also signaling the names of various characters who are going to come in his play!
He does his magic while making sure ‘meaning’ is appropriate & also fully in a meter- Vasantatilaka!
Talk about skills 🔥
Lets break it up
द्रोण- also means black. द्रोणकाकः।
Hence कृष्णः
अर्जुनभीमदूतः - messenger to Arjuna & Bhima
कर्ण- also means rudder/helm
कर्णधार- one who controls
शकुनी- also means a bird
शकुनीश्वर - king of birds (Garuda)
दुर्योधन - means a warrior difficult to vanquish. Hence Krishna
भीष्मयुधिष्ठिर are used as adjectives for Krishna here
भीष्म - terrible when offended
युधिष्ठिर - one who is steady in fighting
विराज् - to shine विविधं राजभानत्वाद् विराट्
उत्तरगः - doing the best thing / going to the best
अभिमन्यु - who goes towards a sacrifice
So the full meaning of the invocation is
The source material: Pancharatra edited by Shivaram Paranjape
So the master poet has used शब्दश्लेषः to not only convey a wonderful invocation, but also pushed in multiple character names
Samskritam is a wonderful language
If you can’t access it to enjoy the vast riches, then you are missing something भोः।
पठतु संस्कृतम्। जयतु भारतम्।
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This thread by @dxrsam_0 is a good one to highlight Indological shenanigans in ‘historicizing’ पुराणम् & इतिहासः - thereby stripping out all that is sacred
Indology wants to destroy something explicitly designed for मोक्षप्राप्तिः & convert it to a sterile academic quibble
The traditional भारतीय view on पुराण/इतिहास is quite clear
Unlike western epics, इतिहासः are explicitly designed to embody Dharma & helping one move towards Moksha
Vedas are प्रभुसम्मित while Puranas are SuhrdSammita (instructions of a friend) & Kavyas are KantaSammita
Indology claims ALL texts are corrupted
However, traditional Indology process of stripping out ‘layers’ & additions via ‘text historic criticism’ to find the ‘original’ has been beaten to death
An excellent illustration of how today’s educated Indians are cut off from our own roots via lack of exposure to own cultural knowledge & access to संस्कृतम् !
विश्लेषणं करिष्यामः।
Claim:
Rajatharangini records wide-spread destruction of Viharas
Language ‘family’ notion while OK, risks concept over-extension into ‘in & out’ groups in real world!
cf “Dravidian vs Aryan” driven by linguistic notion of water-tight families
Definition of ‘language’ families & origin hypothesis frequently leads to absurd positions in the real world where Sanskrit & Kannada/Malayalam are conceptually less inter-related/alien than say Sanskrit & Albanian or Welsh
So linguistic family as a pure academic notion -OK
Debate is whether an “invading culture” speaking a “foreign language” came in,enslaved natives & wiped out all earlier linguistic evidence (toponyms etc) over a huge swathe of land causing a FUNDAMENTAL cultural schism that continues till today in modern India
Aryan Vs Dravidian
PIE Linguistics aims to substantiate AIT thesis by claiming
१ Language transmission= people transfer
२ Language families= ‘Fundamentally Different’ groups of cultures
३ Language ->Conquest/Cultural Hegemony
४ Movement from OUT to IN->Dravidian in North pushed to extreme South