शुक्रवार, 27 अप्रैल 2018

वृत्ति -- पाणिनीके संदर्भसे -- अल्गोरिथम के लिये

Kiran Varanasi 

Dear list members

Sorry for reviving this old post. I found the discussion on the Sanskrit equivalent for "algorithm" very interesting.

Prof. Kannan and Prof.Ramasubramanian suggested "Śaraṇī" सरणि (arrangement) which probably has previously been used by the Sanskrit mathematicians. Some others also  suggested "Kuṭṭaka" कुट्टक (iterative refinement) which was used by Āryabhaṭa.

But these suggestions ignore the historical trajectory of development of ideas in Europe. When Europe discovered the "Sind Hind" of Al-Khwarizmi, which is nothing but a translation and commentary of Brahmagupta's works, it experienced a major transformation in how a rigorous mathematical procedure should be formulated. Instead of relying on "proof" by geometry as the ultimate arbiter, we have a series of precise instructions for "constructively" accomplishing a task. This is a computational method of thinking, instead of a geometric method of thinking. This important turn in scientific thinking is described in the works of Prof. Roddam Narasimha and Prof. C.K. Raju. In western academia, India has not been credited for this important scientific revolution. So why not call "Āryabhaṭam" instead of "Algorithm" ? We can refer to the far earlier original Indian procedures instead of the secondary ideas of the later scholar Al-Khwarizmi. As a computer scientist, I have seen no single textbook, museum or university discuss Āryabhaṭa. People can visit the computer history museum in Mountainview, CA to see how marginally these Indian ideas are presented. Unless Indian computer scientists demand it, this place in history will not be ceded to India.

However, the computational method in India is even earlier to Āryabhaṭa. We can definitely state that Pāṇini's methods for word derivation are precise algorithms. Not only that, Pāṇini's Ashṭādhyāyi anticipated many future developments in computer programming: Lambda calculus, encapsulation in object oriented programming, and even some ideas which may not yet have been implemented in computer programming ! In short, Pāṇini's methods have far more rigor and computational creativity than what reached Europe via Al-Khwarizmi. In India, Vyākaraṇa (grammar) was clearly the queen of the sciences. The scientific texts in every single disciplone were shaped by the computational methods of Pāṇini and other grammarians.

The word that Pāṇini used to describe a precise computational instruction is "Vṛtti" वृत्ति. I suggest this nice paper by Paul Kiparsky for understanding how these computational instructions are given.( ) The objective of Pāṇini's Ashṭādhyāyi is greater than giving a series of instructions (algorithm) for one specific task. It is to produce a complete "generative model" for all the variations in language. In other words, he gives a set of algorithms for all possible tasks. This is known as a generative grammar, and it is only until Noam Chomsky's work that this is understood to be a precise equivalent to a Turing Machine. So in India, we started our computational thinking with a full Turing Machine, and not a half-baked idea like an "algorithm". 

The operational rules of "vṛtti" are of the form: A -> B (C_D). A is transformed into B, when it is enclosed between C and D. One such rule can encode a full algorithm. This is because the variables A, C and D can all be recursively defined using rules of the exact same form. It is an automaton or a state-transducing machine. As such, in my opinion, the word "vṛtti" वृत्ति has the full descriptive power of an algorithm. It is a short word and can be used to derive longer Sanskrit words to describe algorithms of different types and for different domains. Sanskrit is a very fecund language and many new words can be created for algorithm (e.g, Kalana-vidhi is perfectly fine), but we often forget (a) brevity and (b) importance of projecting the historical trajectory of ideas.

The understanding of "vṛtti" as a procedure for transformation is deployed in many other contexts. Patanjali uses this famously to describe the transformations of mental states : "Yōgas chitta vṛtti nirōdhaḥ". By using the word "vṛtti" he ties this understanding of human cognition to the computational methods of Pāṇini. Symbolism in Itihāsas like the ten heads of Rāvaṇa (more accurately, "daśa Kanṭha" or ten necks) is discussed by later philosophers as "daśēndriya vṛtti" (the transformations of mind owing to being bound by the sense-objects of the ten senses: 5 Jñānēndriya+5 Karmēndriya). Thus, we have a history of Indian scientists in psychology referring to the computational method of "vṛtti". It is only recently that such computational thinking has penetrated the cognitive sciences in "modern science". In India, we had it from the very beginning, owing to the importance of Vyākaraṇa and its computational methods.

The word "vṛtti" inherently refers to the cyclical understanding of time (vṛtta = circle). A transformative rule to a cyclical motion is obained to setting up of secondary cycles e.g, through a gear mechanism. This is precisely how the mind is transformed by getting entangled in secondary motions owing to the sense objects. This understanding of Yōga is very ancient, even earlier to Pāṇini, going back to the Vēdas. Another word Pāṇini used is Pratyāhāra, as an equivalent for compacting of information, to refer to a larger group of variables on which the same computational transformation (vṛtti) can be applied. In Yōga, pratyāhāra refers to withdrawing the mind away from the sensory objects i.e, moving towards the "Bindu" which is at the centre of the circle (vṛtta). These are very precise notions for encoding human-computer interaction, on which aspects of a computational system the user has to pay attention to.

It will be unfortunate if we don't refer to this native tradition of computational thinking in India, when we coin new Sanskrit words for computer science.

- Kiran Varanasi

शनिवार, 7 अप्रैल 2018

Zend Avesta -- chhand upastha

There Never Was A Language Called Avestan

The average reader can be excused for wondering what on earth Avestan might be and why anyone should be interested. Avestan is a language that ancient Zoroastrians (Parsis) are said to have spoken. If this is enough information for the reader – the rest of this article may not interest you. But it should be of interest to the general question of ancient Indian history and the history of Indian languages.
To simplify the story let me relate what philologists (scholars of the history of languages) of the 19th and 20thcenturies said about Avestan. They theorized that there was some mother language in Russia (or Europe) that was carried by migrating (or invading) people towards India. On the way – some people broke off from this group and became Zoroastrians, going towards Iran, inventing and speaking “Avestan” and the rest went to India and started speaking Sanskrit and composed the Vedas. Because the “Avestan” speaking people, the Zoroastrians, were in Iran – it was called an “Iranian language”. According to this theory, Sanskrit of India and Avestan of Iran were “sister languages” – having both sprung from an imaginary mother language.
So how was the name “Avestan” given to this language? There are no ancient Zoroastrian texts that refer to their language as “Avestan” In fact no one knew of any original Zoroastrian language of any name, be it Avestan or any other name. But here is how the name was given. In the late 1700s a man called Anquetil du Perron came to India and lived for a few months with Parsi priests in Surat, who taught him what they knew of Zoroastrian chants (gathas) and rituals. Perron also collected some Zoroastrian texts and returned to Europe where he wrote a book in French called “Zend Avesta – Ouvrage du Zoroaster” meaning “Zend Avesta – the work of Zoroaster”. Perron’s work was initially dismissed but 60 years later it was validated and corrected by a man called Eugene Burnouf. To make the corrections Burnouf used a 13th century Sanskrit book by an Indian called Neryosangh Dhaval. That book was a Sanskrit translation of a Pahlavi language version of Zoroastrian holy texts. So whatever is written about the  3000 plus year old “Zend Avesta” is derived from verbal accounts of 17th century Parsi scholars, contemporary texts and a 13th century book that was written in Pahlavi language and translated to Sanskrit. A 3000 year gap between the original language and the translation does not inspire confidence about the linguistic theories regarding the identity of the original Zoroastrian language.
The meaning of “Zend Avesta” itself has been the subject of confusion – with scholars and linguists thinking that it means Zoroastrian holy text, or alternatively, commentary in the Zoroastrian language.  “Avestan” was simply named as a language that existed 3000 years in the past spoken by Zoroastrians in Iran.  However the minor issue of a 3000 year gap did not discourage linguists from making up their own language and a story to go with it.  And linguists proceeded to “reconstruct” the ancient language from fragments of texts that were written 3000 years later. And since the main source of reconstruction was from a 1300 AD Sanskrit text they ended up with a language that sounded somewhat like Sanskrit but had some differences such as the sound “sa” being replaced by the sound “ha” and some other changes. Linguists called this language Avestan; claimed that it was spoken 3000 years ago by Zoroastrians and made up a story of how a mother language came from somewhere and split into Avestan that went to Iran and Sanskrit that developed in India
Here the reader would be justified in asking that if Avestan did not exist as a language, and was simply cooked up by linguists by a process of guesswork which they called “reconstruction”, what language did Zoroastrians speak?  Is there an alternate story and is there any proof for an alternate story?  Yes there is.
First, what does “Zend Avesta” mean? Modern scholars now claim that the word “Avesta” represents the texts and that “Zend” are commentaries on the texts. It is notable that Zend is also pronounced as Zand. In fact in French, the language of Perron’s translation, Zend would be pronounced as Zand. The greatest 20th century scholar who has translated the Zend Avesta is Jatinder Mohan Chatterji who points out that in Sanskrit “zand” has a cognate word “chhand”.  Zand Avesta corresponds to chhand upastha which simply means Vedic hymns.  Chatterji quotes Panini as evidence of authenticity of this meaning. The great grammarian Panini knew of the existence of these Zoroastrian texts. The connection between the Zend Avesta and the Vedas are profound and seminal.
The links between the Vedas, particularly the Atharva Veda and the Zend Avesta are critical to the question of what language the early Zoroastrians may have spoken and whether it was a “sister language” of Sanskrit that developed independently while a group of Euroasians migrated separately to Iran and India as postulated by theories proposed by linguists.
Jatinder Mohan Chatterji notes that the Gopatha Brahmana (a commentary on the Atharva Veda) speaks of five Vedas. The Mahabharata too mentions five Vedas. But all standard references to the Vedas speak of only four Vedas. So what is the missing “fifth veda”? Chatterji points out that the last and most recent Veda, the Atharva Veda was known as the “Bhrigu-Angirasa Veda” where Bhrigu and Angirasa are the names of ancient rishis (priestly scholars) associated with that Veda. However the modern Atharva Veda is associated only with the rishi Angirasa. It transpires that the Zend Avesta is the fifth Veda – the Bhrigu Veda or Bhargava Atharva Veda. This explains the great commonality in the two texts, with chanting in a characteristic meter as well as oral transmission over centuries.
These are not radical new revisionist constructs, but facts that have been published in multiple works by a series of scholars in the west.  But they are fatal to the theories of language spread favoured by linguists and hence lie buried in large and unopened volumes. Fortunately, in the age of the Internet, these volumes can be accessed and searched.
In his book, “The Zend-Avesta” first published in 1880 James Darmetester says: ”the Vedas come from the same source as the Avesta”.  Darmetester further records that other scholars too had noticed this. He writes “Roth showed after Burnouf how the epical history of Iran was derived from the same source as the myths of Vedic India, and pointed out the primitive identity of Ahura Mazda, the supreme god of Iran, with Varuna, the supreme god of the Vedic age.”  What Darmetester is trying to say is that the Vedas and the Zend Avesta arose from the same source. The statement is interesting because European scholars have always considered the Zend Avesta as the history of Iran as opposed to the Vedas representing an Indian past.
Dr. Martin Haug, in his book on the Zoroastrian religion notes that the Zend Avesta has references to the Atharva Veda, showing that the Atharva Veda already existed at the time of composition of the Zend Avesta.
In her book, “A History of Zoroastrianism (Volume 1)”, Mary Boyce includes a chapter on the “pagan gods” that existed before Zoroaster. Boyce describes in great detail how every one of these gods is also mentioned in in the Vedas. In other words, all pre-Zoroastrian gods that are mentioned in Zoroastrian texts and absorbed into the Zoroastrian tradition are also mentioned in the Vedas. There can be no better evidence of the origin of the Zoroastrian pantheon from an earlier Vedic one. Boyce and other scholars choose to term the earlier common pantheon as “Indo-Iranian” gods that were known before Zoroastrian and Vedic gods. There is no factual basis for this terminology, although it is semantically accurate. A fact that is consistently ignored by linguists is that at the time of the Vedas and Zoroaster – there was no separate country called “Iran”. Western India formed a continuum from Punjab, to Balochistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Common geographical references exist within the Vedas and the Zend Avesta.
The same gods find earlier mention in the Indian Vedas and later mention in the supposedly Iranian Zoroastrianism. These so-called Indo-Iranian gods are unknown outside Zoroastrianism and the Vedas. The evidence that Boyce presents points to the Vedic gods having existed earlier and Zoroastrian gods were selected as a later development from the Vedic pantheon. The name “Indo-Iranian gods” might as well be replaced by the perfectly accurate name “Vedic deities”.
The facts clearly point to the following conclusions:
  1. The Vedas and the Zend Avesta have a common source
  2. The Vedas date from an era earlier than the Zend Avesta
  3. The last Veda (the Atharva Veda) and the Zend Avesta have a contemporaneous origin

Now we come back to the theory made up by linguists that the Vedas and the Zend Avesta represent separate religions that split off from a common source, with the Vedic people going toward India, and the Zoroastrians going towards Iran, and each developing a similar but distinct language.
Here is the problem. The three earlier Vedas, Rig, Yajur and Sama Veda were composed and existed before the Atharva Veda. All these works are in Sanskrit. There is evidence found by comparing the Atharva Veda with the Zend Avesta that the early Atharva Veda preceded the Zend Avesta. At some time in the remote past the Atharva Veda consisted of works of two “fire priests” – or Atharvans, named Bhrigu (Bhargava) and Angirasa. At that remote time the Atharva Veda was also known as the “Bhrigu-Angirasa samhita”. But the modern Atharva Veda as known to Hindus is associated only with Angirasa.  The Zend Avesta is associated with the rishi “Bhrigu” (or Bhargava).  The Atharva Veda and the Zend Avesta are both orally transmitted hymns chanted to a characteristic “meter” – a rhythmic pulse within the beat of the chant. The main part of the Zend Avesta are called “gathas” which is a word recognizable by almost any Indian as relating to music or chanting.
In detail, the Zend Avesta appears to consider all the gods mentioned in the Atharva Veda as evil, or as enemies. This appears to have been a philosophical split within an existing Vedic group.
The “sound changes” indicating differences in pronunciation between the Zoroastrian holy texts and the Vedas – such as Vedic “soma” being Zoroastrian “haoma” cannot irrefutably indicate a separate people and separate geography. In fact the main Atharvan priest of the Zend Avesta – Bhrigu has an ancient town bearing his name in the Indian state of Gujarat – namely Bharuch. The historic name of Bharuch was “Bhrigu-kaksha”. Even today – “Bharucha” is a well-known name among Parsis. That apart there are certain areas of modern day Gujarat where the people speak Gujarati with the exact same “sound changes” of “sa” to “ha” – which linguists claimed is a special change that occurred among Zoroastrians in Iran. Obviously that sound change is no Iranian specialty.
From these facts it is impossible to claim that the language of the Zend Avesta developed separately in Iran in parallel to a separate development of Sanskrit in India. The holy texts have a common origin, with the Vedas being earlier. It is most likely that the early Zoroastrians spoke Sanskrit or a dialect of Sanskrit rather than the “reconstructed” and patently artificial imagined language that linguists created and called “Avestan”. The Zoroastrian language probably split off from Sanskrit as the Zoroastrians migrated further towards Iran, and is more likely to be a daughter language of Sanskrit than a sister language. The idea of Avestan as a “sister language” of Sanskrit is needed only to support a particular theory of migration of languages that is favoured by linguists but is increasingly being shown to be false by archaeological and genetic evidence. But even without these modern developments it is clear that the linguistic story is contrived and untenable. There was never a language called Avestan.

रविवार, 25 मार्च 2018

TAMIL and Sanskrit


Regarding the Tamil language statement of Mr. Modi, and the posts on Tamil, as a Savarkarian HindutvaVaadin, this is what I feel should be the national narrative....
1. Whether the earliest language of India is Sanskrit or Tamil, both are MY Hindu languages. So the issue of which is older should be a matter of objective interest and not provincial ego. This can actually bind us together instead of feeding the Dravidianist-Dalitist Breaking India faultline. 
2. Tamil is definitely older than my own Marathi. And also older than the current standard Hindi or Gujarati or Assamese.
But Kashmiri is also a very old language. The older the language, the more definitely it gets classical status (abhijaat bhasha अभिजात भाषा). Saying that supports the greatness of Tamil or Kashmiri but does not undermine the greatness of my own Marathi.
Will non-Marathi speakers not acknowledge the greatness of Marathi too?
3. It is believed Tamil was created by Shiva and Agastya. Theistically speaking, all languages are formed through Shiva Mahadeva or Krishna or Sarasvati or Brahma. Also, Sanskrit is the language of the Devas and Devis, the Geervaanabhasha.
Why cannot Northern Hindus be exposed to classical Sangam Tamil literature?
Why cannot Tamil people study Sanskrit, the language of Perumal, Amman, Murugan and Sivan whom they (the Tamilians) worship?
4. Let the Kashmiri and the Tamilian not quickly understand each other's language; yet they both pray to Shiva. And this Shiva Bhakti defines our Hindu nationalism. Not some Ambedkar Smruti, sorry, constitution.
5. Tamil culture is MY Hindu culture, Tamil glory is not just Tamilian glory but also MY heritage. So is Marathi culture, so is Hindi culture. So is Meitei culture and Chakma culture. We have a common heritage. But I won't accept Urdu culture as Hindu culture, so what if Hindu singers sing Qawwalis and Sufi songs to get rich.
6. Hindi and Tamil may be different language family groups but share a lot in common in structure. Hindi may shares family ties with English in the Indo-European family of languages that are not shared by Tamil, but Hindi and Tamil share family bonds in the Bharateeya Bhasha Parivaar as Subhah Kak Sir has stated, and English does not belong to the Bharateeya Bhasha (whose definite commonalities go beyond just being geographically being one habitat). And I support Shri Kak's assertion. 
7. There is a view that Sanskrit was actually created from a bedrock of many other existing languages, which is why Sanskrut has 'Krut'. Am skeptical, but I commit to remain academically open to the thesis. Yet the Apa-Bhramsh Bhasha and Prakruts are still posterior to Sanskrit, cannot be anterior to it.
By that standard, even Hindi was ‘created’ by the bhasha-mandal of the Northern Hindus from the substrate of languages that always existed. Implying, Hindi came much later while Awadhi, Vraj, Bhojpuri, Haryanvi, Maithili, Chhapraiyya, Madhubani, Maru-Gurjari, etc. are the ancient languages. Are the speakers of chaste Hindi ready to accept Awadhi as a pre-Hindi tongue, and accord Awadhi that status? What would the speakers of Khadi Boli (Merath / Meerut / old Hastinapur) say about whether they are the oldest extant dialect of standard Hindi? What would the Madhya Pradesh Hindi speakers say, as MP Hindi is supposed to be sweet, pure and least corrupted with Urdu (Gandhi’s silly syncretic Hindustani)?
Also, for a Marathi person like me, understanding Hindi is far easier than understanding Maithili and Magahi. And understanding Kashmiri and understanding Maithili are equally difficult. I cannot follow Tamil. So, Hindi stays. I vote Hindi.
But even if Tamil is made the national language, one must cheerfully learn it, if we could learn English, as Tamil is all said and done, MY language.
8. Thulu or Tulu may be older to Tamil. But that will be opposed by Tamil jingoists. I see Tulu literarily being forgotten. Come on, so many Hindu Vidyaas may be locked in Tulu manuscripts awaiting rediscovery! And I see no initiative from Tulu speakers towards transliterating Tulu scripts, all plans stay trapped within Karnataka government red tape. But then, Tulu has no jingoists while Tamil as a language is full of them, with no fault of the Tamil language but of Tamil language speakers.
9. If Hindus don't watch out, Tamil heritage will be usurped by Christianity - what with fictions from the Church that Thirukkural is supposed to be inspired by Saint Thomas speaking to Thiruvallluvar on Marina beach. Ha Ha Ha! No Saint Thomas came to India. But would Tamil jingoists pay attention to a Hindu topic? Come on, a Tamil jingoist can remain a DMKist jingoist, not credit Tamil to originating from Sanskrit if he politically chooses to, but no Jew is responsible for the deep adhyaatma of the Thirukkural.
10. Whether the national language is Sanskrit, Hindi or Tamil, my inconvenience is less important to nationalism. All Hindu languages are MY languages. But I cannot accept English being made the official national language, though one speaks it flluently.
11. Pali, Ardhamagdhi also deserve attention. They too are classical languages. They were used by Boudhda and Jaina mata people, but there is nothing Vaidik or Jaina or Boudhda about Pali or Ardhamagdhi. Under the Hindu umbrella, Ardhamagdhi is mine, Pali is mine too. And so are Boudhda and Jaina matas. Let Ardhamagdhi and Pali too benefit from a revival. Let Ardhamagdhi and Pali be freed from the clutches of separatist Ambedkarites and Jain separatists and be studied by all. Also, Tibetan is spoken in Ladakh, Lahaul-Spiti (Himachal), Sikkim, Bhutan, Arunachal... and must be studied.
12. The languages of the Andamanese tribals, the Nicobarese tribals, though not literary, are also my own. So also, the languages of the Mizos, Hazongs, Adi Mishmis, Digaru Mishmis, Angame Nagas, Kukis, Garos, Khasis, Jaintias, etc They are also the responsibility of the Indian Union, to be protected and nurtured, not the career of some Christtian missionary. I may not understand any word from them, but that their first book is the Bible and in some Roman-Latin alphabet is just not commendable to Hindu pride. Why not make Shiva Puraan, Ramayan, Krishan Bhajans, Jaina stories, Hitopadesha, Jataka Buddhist tales, Mahabharata and Thirukkural available in North Eastern languages with the Devanagari script? And also their local tribal folklore? So what if the bulk of their speakers are Christianised? They can learn the stories, it will help in deAbrahamisation and DharmaPunarPravesh.
13. Chakmas, Meiteis, etc, actually have their ancient Burmese-like scripts. These languages are also literary. Let more literature bee created there.
14. The refusal to speak any language other than Hindi (and not learn Marathi) by Hindi speakers in Maharashtra or Gujarat, and the refusal to speak any language other than Tamil by Tamil Nadu residing Tamilians are both the same version of linguistic and regional chauvinism. The political opposition to learning Marathi by leaders of migrant Hindi speakers in Maharashtra is utterly anti-national politics. So is the bashing up of Hindi speakers in Maharashtra by MNS, which is still a reaction to the politics of Hindi speakers community leaders fanning hatred in Maharashtra.
With the common Devnagari and the common origin in Sanskrit, there is just no excuse for the political opposition of Hindi speaker community leaders in Maharashtra, to not asking their migrant community members to take up learning Marathi. The ugliest turn to attacking migrants is killing of Hindi speakers in Assam by ULFA and the anti-Northeastern chauvimism in the rest of India. The blame is shared by all.
15. Nepali, Hindi are connected by ancient ties. So are Kumaoni and Nepali, Gadhwali and Nepali, Maithili and Nepali. Similarly, Bishnupriya Manipuri, Assamese, Bengali are also united by the same script. Bengali is quite a deep language.
Then, Sanskrit, Hindi, Hindu Sindhi, Marathi, Konkani, Nepali, Pali, Ardhamagdhi are all also united by the Devnagari script. Sinhala, Marathi, standard Dhivehi (Maldives), Bahl dialect of Dhivehi (Minicoy – Southern Lakshadwip), Konkani are all Maharashtri Prakruts. Our unity factors run deep, we just have to recognise them.
Lakshadwip got converted to Islam from a Buddhist identity, but the languages of Minicoy (a Southern island of Lakshdwip archipelago) and Maldives are a Maharashtri prakrut. Sinhala is also a Maharashtri Prakrut. Will the neo-Buddhist Ambedkarites - who speak Marathi - and who support the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, do research into the pre-Islamic status of Dhivehi on the basis of language and Buddhism? Can not the Secular Indian Union sponsor this research?
16. We ought to weed out Urdu, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, European words from our Hindu languages. They are infiltrators into our collective national mindscape (मनोविश्व / भावविश्व) and will destroy our unity. They indicate colonisation and conquest over us, even mental colonisation. Has not Rajiv Malhotra spoken of non-intertranslatability? We should use Sanskrit words for native languages. Yet, Urdu and English may deserve objective respect. Let English be enjoyed in its Hinduised versions (like in Amar Chitra Katha or before the narration prior to a classical dance recital on Doordarshan or on the boards of Southern Indian temples).
17. The extremism of a linguistic pride can support LTTE (Tamil) or ULFA (Assamese). Beware. No support and zero tolerance to separatism and jingoim, leave alone extremism. No division amongst regional states.
18. According status of being a separate language can make a dialect speaking community demand a new smaller state. Odisha may either grow into greater Odisha (including Bastar, Purulia, Seraikela, Berhampur, etc.) or contract in size with secessionism from Kosali. We need to be watchful. Whenever provincial pride prevails over regional pride, there are careers for Leftists, Maoists and all types of anti-nationals. Wasn't linguistic pride the domains of rightists? We need to rethink labelling, but we need to preserve unity even at regional levels.
Seraiki language is the Southern Punjabi languge of Seraikistan, which has Baloch, Rajputana, Kutchchhi, Punjabi, Sindhi and Gujarati influences. Seraikistanism is a separatist movement within Pakistan, centred on Multan and Bahawalpur.
Well, Seraiki has its own script used by traders. So this too is a case of separatism, but within Pakistan. India should pay attention.
Yes, trader scripts exist too. For accounts. Used by mercantile groups.
Can Sylheti pride be tapped to create instability in Bangladesh by Indian strategistst? The original extent of Bangla Bhoomi is from KarnaSuvarna (Islamic name Murshidabad) to Tripura.
19. India's diversity in all aspects, including languages is a treasure to be protected and practised. As long as a golden thread of Dharma and Rashtra do not unite Indic language speakers, the unity will keep getting undermined by Marxists. Let us snatch back the initiative and narrative from them.
20. It remains the duty of Hindus of reHinduise scripts of languages like Sindhi or Pashtu or the Baloch languages. Their current status is of an Islamised script and vocabulary interpolating into an Indo-European language.
We need to disconnect language from Chrislam.

Willl Tamil jingoists invest time to study Brahui, a Dravidian language of the Baloch? That too with deIslamisation and DharmaPunarPravesh in mind, as the अंतस्थ हेतु?
We have the same undecided status of Konkani vis-à-vis Marathi. Flames fanned by the Roman Catholic Church which moots the Roman Script for Konkani.
We also need to revive the Sharada script of Kashmiri. It is part of the strggle against Islamic fundamentalism and this point needs to be discussed a lot.
There is a simillarity os scripts between pre-Arabic Sindhi, Kashmiri (Sharada), Punjabi (Gurumukhi), Tibetan and Seraiki.

21. It is also a lesser known fact that Manipur has two official languages - Meitei and Bishnupriya - spoken by the eponymous communities and with both being recognised by the Indian Union. Bishnupriya is an Indo-European language and the easternmost language of the Indo-European family; Meitei is another language family. Its script is similar to that of Assamese and Bangla.
In case of Bangla, Odia, Assamese and Bishnupriya, their phonetic pronunciations and vocabulary are similar. 
Let this be known by the jingoists of the speakers of Tamil and Hindi.
Assamese speakers had to struggle to clarify, Assamese was a separate standalone language with its own grammar, script peculiarities and pronunciations, itts own literary evolution and that Assamese was not a dialect of Bangla, and was not spolit Bangla. 
But wait. While you sympathise with Assamese, Bishnupriya had to struggle to prove that it wasn't Assamese either (to counter the objection of Assamese speakers who were intent on making Bishnupriya just a dialect of Assamese), while Bishnupriyas were struggling equally to not let Bishnupriya being called a dialect of Bangla, or a part of Bangla either.
But Bishnupriya and Meitei together are part of the 
Dr. Koenraad Elst Sir, we had discussed this.
Besides, in the framework of a Bharateeya Bhasha Parivaar, both languages Bishnupriya and Meiteei have Vaishnav vocabulary, with loan word osmosis. 
Meitei suffered a Bangla-isation of its script, let the Burmese script of Meitei Manipuri be revived.
Also, there is a provincial similarity between KokBarak (Kokborok), the llanguage of the Tripura tribal communities (named after the Barak river) and Bangla, within the state fo tripura. Bangla is Indo-European, quite ancient, and deeply literary. But Kokborok uses thee Bangle script. R D Burman, S D Burman etc spoke Kokborok as their mother tongue. Can the same model of amity be applied to Meitei-Bishnupriya and Kokborok-Bangla?

सोमवार, 16 अक्तूबर 2017

Sarasvati river basin

Region of Bronze Age Meluhha speakers is Sarasvati river basin and Śakasthāna
I suggest that Arachosia < Haraxvaitī- < सरस्वती (R̥gveda) is the Sarasvati Vedic River Basin, Meluhha speakers moved westwards to Drangiana which is Śakasthāna. Both the regions constituted the region of Meluhha speakers of Sarasvati Civilization, from ca. 8th millennium BCE and constituted the underlying speech for mlecchita vikalpa (Meluhha Indus Script cipher). The migrations of people from Kurukshetra (Sarasvati Basin) isattested in Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra.
The presence of Meluhha settlements in Ancient Near East is attested in cuneiform texts. this finds confirmation in an ancient text.
Baudhāyana śrautasūtra 18.44 which documents migrations of Āyu and Amavasu from a central region:pran Ayuh pravavraja. tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah Kasi-Videha ity. etad Ayavam pravrajam. pratyan amavasus. tasyaite Gandharvarayas Parsavo ‘ratta ity. etad AmavasavamTrans. Ayu went east, his is the Yamuna-Ganga region (Kuru-Pancala, Kasi-Videha). Amavasu went west, his is Gandhara, Parsu and Araṭṭa.Ayu went east from Kurukshetra to Kuru-Pancala, Kasi-Videha. The migratory path of Meluhha artisand in the lineage of Ayu of the Rigvedic tradition, to Kasi-Videha certainly included the very ancient temple town of Sheorajpur of Dist. Etawah (Kanpur), Uttar Pradesh. See:
Sealed failaka jar and 14 Ancient Near East artifacts (including seals) with Indus Script hieroglyphs signify iron (metal) smelting work of Bronze Age
I suggest that the Meluhha word for aloe, 'eagle wood' and cognates in Hebrew, affirms the wesward migrations detailed in Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra:
Periplus maris Erythaei, 37, 39, 49 refers to sailors bring bdellium from Gedrosia and India. (cf. Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, I, 289 f. 530,iii,43 Ta. akil (in cpds. akiṛ-) eagle-wood, Aquilaria agallocha; the drug agar obtained from the tree; akku eagle-wood. Ma. akil aloe wood, A. agallocha. Ka. agil the balsam tree which yields bdellium, Amyris agallocha; the dark species of Agallochum; fragrance. Tu. agilů a kind of tree; kari agilů Agallochum. / Cf. Skt. aguru-, agaru-; Pali akalu, akaḷu, agaru, agalu, agaḷu; Turner, CDIAL, no. 49. (DEDR 13) agaru m.n. ʻ fragrant Aloe -- tree and wood, Aquilaria agallocha ʼ lex., aguru -- R. [← Drav. Mayrhofer EWA i 17 with lit.] Pa. agalu -- , aggalu -- m., akalu -- m. ʻ a partic. ointment ʼ; Pk. agaru -- , agaluya -- , agaru(a) -- m.n. ʻ Aloe -- tree and wood ʼ; K. agara -- kāth ʻ sandal -- wood ʼ; S. agaru m. ʻ aloe ʼ, P. N. agar m., A. B. agaru, Or. agarū, H. agar, agur m.; G. agar, agru n. ʻ aloe or sandal -- wood ʼ; M. agar m.n. ʻ aloe ʼ, Si. ayal (agil ← Tam. akil).. (CDIAL 49)
aloe is said to derive from the Hebrew ahal אהל: O.E. aluwan (pl.) "fragrant resin of an E. Indian tree," a Biblical usage, from L. aloe, from Gk. aloe, translating Heb. ahalim (pl., perhaps ult. from a Dravidian language). The Gk. word probably was chosen for resemblance of sound to the Heb., since the Gk. and L. words originally referred to a genus of plants with bitter juice, used as a purgative drug, a sense which appeared in Eng. 1398. The word was then mis-applied to the American agave plant in 1682. "So perhaps there were two similar words - one Semitic, one from Sanskrit. Both ended up as ahal (in Hebrew) or aloe (in English - eventually)."
सरस्वती [p= 1182,3] N. of a river (celebrated in RV. and held to be a goddess whose identity is much disputed ; most authorities hold that the name सरस्वती is identical with the Avestan Haraquaiti river in Afghanistan , but that it usually means the Indus in the RV. , and only occasionally the small sacred rivers in मध्य-देश [see below] ; the river-goddess has seven sisters and is herself sevenfold , she is called the mother of streams , the best of mothers , of rivers , and of goddesses ; the ऋषिs always recognize the connection of the goddess with the river , and invoke her to descend from the sky , to bestow vitality , renown , and riches ; elsewhere she is described as moving along a golden path and as destroying वृत्र &c ; as a goddess she is often connected with other deities e.g. with पूषन् , इन्द्र , the मरुत्s and the अश्विन्s ; in the आप्री hymns she forms a triad with the sacrificial goddesses इडा and भारती ; a myth told in the VS. xix , 12 , सरस्वती through speech [वाचा] communicated vigour to इन्द्र ; in the ब्राह्मणs she is identified with वाच् , " Speech " , and in later times becomes goddess of eloquence » below) RV. &c (Monier-Williams)
Arachosia bordered Drangiana to the west, Paropamisadae (i.e. Gandahara) to the north, a part of ancient India to the east, and Gedrosia (or Dexendrusi) to the south. Drangiana refer to Śakastana शक--स्थान [p= 1045,3] name of a country (Monier-Williams) Śaka are mentioned in ākhyāna historical narratioves in contests between वसिष्ठ and विश्वामित्र. The शकs are fabled to have been produced by the Cow of वसिष्ठ , from her sweat , for the destruction of विश्वामित्र's army ; in Mn. x , 44; they are mentioned together with the पौण्ड्रकs , ओड्रs , द्रविडs , काम्बोजs , जवनs or यवनs , पारदs , पह्लवs , चीनs , किरातs , दरदs , and खशs , described by Kull. as क्षत्रियs called after the districts in which they reside: according to the VP. iv , 3.They are sometimes regarded as the followers of शक or शालि-वाहन , and are probably to be identified with the Tartars or Indo-Scythians [Lat. Sacae] conquered by विक्रमा*दित्य (AV.Paris3. Mn. MBh. &c). शकm. a kind of animal Pan5car. (v.l. शल) m. a kind of animal Pan5car. (accord. to L. " a camel " or " an ass "). Since śaka is a synonym of śala, śaka era is a synonym for śālivāhana शालि-वाहन.
विक्रमा* दित्य N. of a celebrated Hindu king (of उज्जयिनी and supposed founder of the [मालव-] विक्रम era [cf.संवत्] , which begins 58 B.C.E [but subtract 57-56 from an expired year of the विक्रम era to convert it into C.E.] ; he is said to have driven out the शकs and to have reigned over almost the whole of Northern India ; he is represented as a great patron of literature ; nine celebrated men are said to have flourished at his court [see नव-रत्न] , and innumerable legends are related of him all teeming with exaggerations ; according to some he fell in a battle with his rival शालि-वाहन , king of the south country or Deccan , and the legendary date given for his death is कलि-युग 3044 [which really is the epoch-year of the विक्रम era] ; there are , however , other kings called विक्रमा*दित्य , and the name has been applied to king भोज and even to शालि-वाहन)Inscr. Katha1s. Vet. &c.
In a well-documented and logically argued monograph, Vedveer Arya suggest a date for the saka era. "Since the calendar of Saka era was Chaitradi and amanta, the epoch of the Śaka era must have commenced on 19th Feb 583 BCE."…/the-chronology-of-ancie…
"Arachosia" is the Latinized form of Greek Ἀραχωσία - Arachōsíā. "The same region appears in the Avestan Vidēvdāt (1.12) under the indigenous dialect form Haraxvaitī- (whose -axva- is typical non-Avestan)."[1] In Old Persian inscriptions, the region is referred to as 𐏃𐎼𐎢𐎺𐎫𐎡𐏁, written h(a)-r(a)-u-v(a)-t-i.[1] This form is the "etymological equivalent" of Vedic Sanskrit Sarasvatī-, the name of a river literally meaning "rich in waters/lakes" and derived from sáras- "lake, pond." (cf. Aredvi Sura Anahita).
"Arachosia" was named after the name of a river that runs through it, in Greek Arachōtós, today known as the Arghandab, a left bank tributary of the Helmand.( Schmitt, Rüdiger (August 10, 2011). "Arachosia". Encyclopædia Iranica.)
Gedrosia (/dʒɪˈdroʊʒə/; Greek: Γεδρωσία) is the Hellenized name of the part of coastal Baluchistan that roughly corresponds to today's Makran.
Jiroft Civilization covered parts of Sistan and Kerman Province (possibly as early as the 3rd millennium BCE)..
The gates of Haozdar, in Sistan (Persian/Baloch/Pashto: سیستان), known in ancient times as Sakastan (Persian/Baloch/Pashto: ساكاستان; "the land of the Saka"), is a historical and geographical region in present-day eastern Iran (Sistan and Baluchestan Province), southern Afghanistan
(Nimruz, Kandahar) and the Nok Kundi region of Balochistan (western Pakistan).
The approximate extent of Eastern Iranian languages and people in Middle Iranian times in the 1st century BCE is shown in orange
'Gorytos' from the Tomb of Philip
Gold 'gorytos' (quiver-and-bow-case) with repousse representation of the capture of a city, from the Tomb of Philip second half of 4th century BC, Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum.
saka or Scythian warriors, drawn after figures on an electrum cup from the Kul-Oba kurgan burial near Kerch, Crimea. The warrior on the right strings his bow, bracing it behind his knee; note the typical pointed hood, long jacket with fur or fleece trimming at the edges, decorated trousers, and short boots tied at the ankle. Scythians apparently wore their hair long and loose, and all adult men apparently bearded. The gorytos appears clearly on the left hip of the bare-headed spearman. The shield of the central figure may be made of plain leather over a wooden or wicker base. (Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg)
Skunkha, king of the Sakā tigraxaudā ("pointed-cap-wearing Sakae"). Detail of Behistun Inscription.
Sakas were a Scythian tribe which from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century migrated to the Iranian Plateau and India, where they carved a kingdom known as the Indo-Scythian Kingdom. The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Ancient Greek: Σκύθαι), also known as Scyths, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai, were a large group of Iranian. Eurasian nomads who were mentioned by nearby literate peoples as inhabiting large areas in the central Eurasian steppes from about the 9th century BC until about the 1st century BC.[5] The Scythian languages belonged to the Eastern branch of the Iranian languages.
Saka migrated into northwest area of India, attested by a contemporary Kharosthi inscription found on the Mathura lion capital belonging to the Saka kingdom of the Indo-Scythians (200 BC – 400 CE) in northern India,.. In the Persian language of contemporary Iran the territory of Drangiana was called Sakastāna, in Armenian as Sakastan, with similar equivalents in Pahlavi, Greek, Sogdian, Syriac, Arabic, and the Middle Persian tongue used in Turfan, Xinjiang, China. (Bailey, H.W. (1996) "Khotanese Saka Literature", in Ehsan Yarshater (ed), The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol III: The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian Periods, Part 2 (reprint edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 1230–1231.)
Silver coin of Indo-Scythian King Azes II (ruled c. 35–12 BC). Left field on the reverse shows the srivatsa hypertext which also appears on Sanchi and Bharhut stupa toraṇa-s to signify Indus Script hypertext: ayo 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'alloy metal' PLUS khambhaṛā 'fish-fin' rebus: kammaṭa 'mint, coiner, coinage; PLUS dhāī f. ʻ wisp of fibres added from time to time to a rope; dāya 'dotted circle' dhāū, dhāv m.f. ʻa particular soft red ore'. Rebus: dhā̆vaḍ 'iron-smelter',Thus, together vākyārtha, meaning of sentence of hypertexts on the coin -- as a Meluhha expression -- is: mineral ore, alloy metal mint, iron smelter.
Sakastan ("the land of the Saka")> Sistan > Saka > Elamite (Sir-ra-an-qa > Old Persian z-r-k (i.e., Zranka) > Sarangian > Zarangian > Drangiana
"DRANGIANA (or Zarangiana), territory around Lake Hāmūn and the Helmand river in modern Sīstān. The name of the country and its inhabitants is first attested as Old Persian z-r-k (i.e., Zranka)in the great Bīsotūn iii inscription of Darius I (col. I l. 16), apparently the original Herodotus’ tribute list (3.93.2) the Sarangians, Sagartians, Thamanaeans, Utians, Mycians (i.e., all the peoples living in the lands extending from the Iranian central desert through Baluchistan to the Persian Gulf), and neighboring islanders were included in the fourteenth tax district, required to pay the relatively high amount of 600 talents annually. " (
The ancient Arachosia and the Pactyan people during 500 BCE

बुधवार, 20 सितंबर 2017


HP Rao Akella --

There is cear description of 27 stars in the braahmaNa part of kRShNa YajurvEda. 
Not only the description of names, but also their divine characteristic aspects are furnished in this section. The chapter starts with mantra- 
Agnirnah paatu krittikaah 
अग्निर्नः पातु कृत्तिकाः 
This reference of krittikaas in the opening itself has given rise to a lot of research. This resulted in the opinion of some historians that the KRShNa YajurvEda was composed when the krittikaas are the presiding stars with respect to the earth. Thus dating of Vedas has become an important topic for vedic research. 
Veda is formed with the combination of mantra portion and braahmaNa portion. The mantra portion mainly concentrates on devata and dravya ( the materials associated with sacrificial processes).The braahmaNa portion comprises of statements of vidhi (do’s ) and niShEdha (don’ts) types. 
A section of the critics have been arguing that the brahmaNa portion is like a commentary and hence the former (i.e. brahmaNa portion ) cannot be taken as part of vEda , but it may be given the status of puraaNa. However the above argument is rejected by the traditionalists. They state that it cannot be denied the status of vEda just because the brahmaNa portion is like a commentary. In support of their argument, they quote that the Patanjali’s mahaabhaaShya is also called VyaakaraNa shaastra though it is commentary to original ‘AShThaadhyaayi’ of PaaNini. Similarly the commentary of Vaatsaayana to nyaaya sootras is also given the status of nyaaya shaastra. Further the traditionalists quote the Asvalaayana sootra which mentions brahmaNa and puraaNa separately. 
Atha svaadhyaayamadheeyeeta rchO yajoogmShi saamaani atharvaangirasO braahmanNaani ………. itihaasapuraaNaani. 
अथ स्वाध्यायमधीयीतर्चो यजूगम्षि सामानि अथर्वाङ्गिरसो ब्राह्मणानि .......इतिहासपुराणानि 
The nyaaya darshana declares that the subject matter of manthra and brahmaNa portions is called ‘yaJna’, where as the subject matter of Itihaasaas and puraaNaas is called ‘lokavritta’. 
यज्ञो मन्त्र ब्राह्मणस्य लोकवृत्तमितिहासस्य 
yajnO mantrabraahmaNasya LokavRttamitihaasasya 
In recent times , say during the last two centuries , Svaami Dayaananda Saraswati and his followers made a strong contention that only samhitaa part constitutes vEda, but notr braahmaNa part. They continue their tirade against brahmaNa portions as they have several references regarding animal sacrifice. 
However , this propositions is vehemently countered by Raja Siva Prasad and Kalu Ramasastri who strongly defended the traditional opinion. They maintain that the concept of of violence is to be analysed properly. Just because some words indicating violence are foumd in BraahmaNaas , they cannot be denied the status of being part of vEdas. Even mantra portions have such words. If that argument is pursued , even mantra portion of Vedas also have to be denied the status of ‘parts of vEdas’. 
Then there will be no portion will be left which can be called vEdas. 
These posts on Krishna yajurveda are taken from a book named " THE SPLENDOR OF KRISHNA YAJURVEDA" WRITTEN BY DR. REMELLA AVADHANULU.

सोमवार, 11 सितंबर 2017

ॐ तच्चं॒ योरावृ॑णीमहे । गा॒तुं य॒ज्ञाय॑ । गा॒तुं य॒ज्ञप॑तये । दैवी॓ स्व॒स्तिर॑स्तु नः । स्व॒स्तिर्मानु॑षेभ्यः । ऊ॒र्ध्वं जि॑गातु भेष॒जम् । शं नो॑ अस्तु द्वि॒पदे॓ । शं चतु॑ष्पदे ।
ॐ शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॑ ॥
स॒हस्र॑शीर्षा॒ पुरु॑षः । स॒ह॒स्रा॒क्षः स॒हस्र॑पात् ।
स भूमिं॑ वि॒श्वतो॑ वृ॒त्वाSत्य॑तिष्ठद्दशाङ्गु॒लम् ॥
पुरु॑ष ए॒वेदग्ं सर्वम्॓ । यद्भू॒तं यच्च॒ भव्यम्॓ ।
उ॒तामृ॑त॒त्व स्येशा॑नः । य॒दन्ने॑नाति॒रोह॑ति ॥
ए॒तावा॑नस्य महि॒मा । अतो॒ ज्यायाग्॑‍श्च॒ पूरु॑षः ।
पादो॓‌உस्य॒ विश्वा॑ भू॒तानि॑ । त्रि॒पाद॑स्या॒मृतं॑ दि॒वि ॥
त्रि॒पादू॒र्ध्व उदै॒त्पुरु॑षः । पादो॓‌உस्ये॒हा‌உ‌உभ॑वा॒त्पुनः॑ ।
ततो॒ विष्व॒ण्-व्य॑क्रामत् । सा॒श॒ना॒न॒श॒ने अ॒भि ॥
तस्मा॓द्वि॒राड॑जायत । वि॒राजो॒ अधि॒ पूरु॑षः ।
स जा॒तो अत्य॑रिच्यत । प॒श्चाद्-भूमि॒मथो॑ पु॒रः ॥
यत्पुरु॑षेण ह॒विषा॓ । दे॒वा य॒ज्ञमत॑न्वत ।
व॒स॒न्तो अ॑स्यासी॒दाज्यम्॓ । ग्री॒ष्म इ॒ध्मश्श॒रध्ध॒विः ॥
स॒प्तास्या॑सन्-परि॒धयः॑ । त्रिः स॒प्त स॒मिधः॑ कृ॒ताः ।
दे॒वा यद्य॒ज्ञं त॑न्वा॒नाः । अब॑ध्न॒न्-पुरु॑षं प॒शुम् ॥
तं य॒ज्ञं ब॒र्॒हिषि॒ प्रौक्षन्॑ । पुरु॑षं जा॒तम॑ग्र॒तः ।
तेन॑ दे॒वा अय॑जन्त । सा॒ध्या ऋष॑यश्च॒ ये ॥
तस्मा॓द्य॒ज्ञात्-स॑र्व॒हुतः॑ । सम्भृ॑तं पृषदा॒ज्यम् ।
प॒शूग्-स्ताग्‍श्च॑क्रे वाय॒व्यान्॑ । आ॒र॒ण्यान्-ग्रा॒म्याश्च॒ ये ॥
तस्मा॓द्य॒ज्ञात्स॑र्व॒हुतः॑ । ऋचः॒ सामा॑नि जज्ञिरे ।
छन्दाग्ं॑सि जज्ञिरे॒ तस्मा॓त् । यजु॒स्तस्मा॑दजायत ॥
तस्मा॒दश्वा॑ अजायन्त । ये के चो॑भ॒याद॑तः ।
गावो॑ ह जज्ञिरे॒ तस्मा॓त् । तस्मा॓ज्जा॒ता अ॑जा॒वयः॑ ॥
यत्पुरु॑षं॒ व्य॑दधुः । क॒ति॒था व्य॑कल्पयन् ।
मुखं॒ किम॑स्य॒ कौ बा॒हू । कावू॒रू पादा॑वुच्येते ॥
ब्रा॒ह्म॒णो॓‌உस्य॒ मुख॑मासीत् । बा॒हू रा॑ज॒न्यः॑ कृ॒तः ।
ऊ॒रू तद॑स्य॒ यद्वैश्यः॑ । प॒द्भ्याग्ं शू॒द्रो अ॑जायतः ॥
च॒न्द्रमा॒ मन॑सो जा॒तः । चक्षोः॒ सूर्यो॑ अजायत ।
मुखा॒दिन्द्र॑श्चा॒ग्निश्च॑ । प्रा॒णाद्वा॒युर॑जायत ॥
नाभ्या॑ आसीद॒न्तरि॑क्षम् । शी॒र्ष्णो द्यौः सम॑वर्तत ।
प॒द्भ्यां भूमि॒र्दिशः॒ श्रोत्रा॓त् । तथा॑ लो॒काग्म् अक॑ल्पयन् ॥
वेदा॒हमे॑तं पुरु॑षं म॒हान्तम्॓ । आ॒दि॒त्यव॑र्णं॒ तम॑स॒स्तु पा॒रे ।
सर्वा॑णि रू॒पाणि॑ वि॒चित्य॒ धीरः॑ । नामा॑नि कृ॒त्वा‌உभि॒वद॒न्॒, यदा‌உ‌உस्ते॓ ॥
धा॒ता पु॒रस्ता॒द्यमु॑दाज॒हार॑ । श॒क्रः प्रवि॒द्वान्-प्र॒दिश॒श्चत॑स्रः ।
तमे॒वं वि॒द्वान॒मृत॑ इ॒ह भ॑वति । नान्यः पन्था॒ अय॑नाय विद्यते ॥
य॒ज्ञेन॑ य॒ज्ञम॑यजन्त दे॒वाः । तानि॒ धर्मा॑णि प्रथ॒मान्या॑सन् ।
ते ह॒ नाकं॑ महि॒मानः॑ सचन्ते । यत्र॒ पूर्वे॑ सा॒ध्यास्सन्ति॑ दे॒वाः ॥
अ॒द्भ्यः सम्भू॑तः पृथि॒व्यै रसा॓च्च । वि॒श्वक॑र्मणः॒ सम॑वर्त॒ताधि॑ ।
तस्य॒ त्वष्टा॑ वि॒दध॑द्रू॒पमे॑ति । तत्पुरु॑षस्य॒ विश्व॒माजा॑न॒मग्रे॓ ॥
वेदा॒हमे॒तं पुरु॑षं म॒हान्तम्॓ । आ॒दि॒त्यव॑र्णं॒ तम॑सः॒ पर॑स्तात् ।
तमे॒वं वि॒द्वान॒मृत॑ इ॒ह भ॑वति । नान्यः पन्था॑ विद्य॒ते‌உय॑नाय ॥
प्र॒जाप॑तिश्चरति॒ गर्भे॑ अ॒न्तः । अ॒जाय॑मानो बहु॒धा विजा॑यते ।
तस्य॒ धीराः॒ परि॑जानन्ति॒ योनिम्॓ । मरी॑चीनां प॒दमिच्छन्ति वे॒धसः॑ ॥
यो दे॒वेभ्य॒ आत॑पति । यो दे॒वानां॓ पु॒रोहि॑तः ।
पूर्वो॒ यो दे॒वेभ्यो॑ जा॒तः । नमो॑ रु॒चाय॒ ब्राह्म॑ये ॥
रुचं॑ ब्रा॒ह्मं ज॒नय॑न्तः । दे॒वा अग्रे॒ तद॑ब्रुवन् ।
यस्त्वै॒वं ब्रा॓ह्म॒णो वि॒द्यात् । तस्य॒ दे॒वा अस॒न् वशे॓ ॥
ह्रीश्च॑ ते ल॒क्ष्मीश्च॒ पत्न्यौ॓ । अ॒हो॒रा॒त्रे पा॒र्श्वे ।
नक्ष॑त्राणि रू॒पम् । अ॒श्विनौ॒ व्यात्तम्॓ ।
इ॒ष्टं म॑निषाण । अ॒मुं म॑निषाण । सर्वं॑ मनिषाण ॥
तच्चं॒ योरावृ॑णीमहे । गा॒तुं य॒ज्ञाय॑ । गा॒तुं य॒ज्ञप॑तये । दैवी॓ स्व॒स्तिर॑स्तु नः । स्व॒स्तिर्मानु॑षेभ्यः । ऊ॒र्ध्वं जि॑गातु भेष॒जम् । शं नो॑ अस्तु द्वि॒पदे॓ । शं चतु॑ष्पदे ।
ॐ शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॒ शान्तिः॑ ॥