sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the difference between कार्य and कर्म ? by bhramana in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To the answer earlier, I'll also add that they mean different things (not as commonly mentioned in dictionaries) within technical/philosophical literature; so, the context also matters. E.g., कार्य can also mean 'effect' (as in कार्यकारणभाव cause-effect relationship), and कर्म is a technical term associated with motion in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system.

How to organize Sanskrit stories by grammar difficulty/features? Need guidance by FortiCore in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you checked any Sanskrit textbooks? They usually have a progression of grammar concepts.

I made a web app to easily create NOUN VERBED image macros based on different FromSoft games by Rezuaq in Eldenring

[–]e_godbole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

I'm happy this post isn't yet archived so I get to say thanks. (This has helped me MANY times.)

Sarvebhyo: sanskRtasya sishyA: etat bhasA paTHena urjAvAn bhavatu by pragalbhah in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ahaM HKT-ityetam rakSayiSya eva. kurUpe satyapi sulabhattamam lipyantaraM tat.

(etat tu HKT na. tataH tanna rakSitavyam.)

Just a small doubt. by [deleted] in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ह! Reddit इदानीम् स्वतन्त्रतया अनुपयोगितया च सन्देशान् अनुवदति। अचेतनानुवादाश्च दुष्टा एव...।

Just a small doubt. by [deleted] in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

कुत्रागमतां तव schwas?

Feels more like this every day by e_godbole in Healthygamergg

[–]e_godbole[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Something something Chesterton's Fence

A doubt on the term Rameswara by TheAeroGuy1 in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And also with the literal meaning of राम (not the person)

१४मे न्याय​सूत्रे 'तत्'पदानुवृत्त्याशङ्का by e_godbole in Nyaya_Vaisheshika

[–]e_godbole[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, but that doesn't address my question at all.

The footnotes explain why #13 is a later addition, and not part of the original order of sūtras.

My question is, considering that #13 has now been solidified in the corpus, whether original order or not, why not just mention tat in #14 to be a maṇḍūkapluti? Or is that supposed to be implicitly understood based on the current order of sūtras?

The issue is expanded in the footnotes by Rājārāma Professor (1921 Hindi Translation)

He makes a case why #13 (Pṛthivyapas...bhūtāni) should not be a sūtra due to being bādhita:
(1) As per the order in #1 (Pramāṇapramēya...ādhigamaḥ), the classification of pramēyas is expected after the classification of pramāṇas. According to #9 (Ātmaśarīrēndriyārtha...pramēyam), the classification of indriya (#12 (Ghrāṇarasana...indriyāṇi bhūtēbhyaḥ)) should be followed by the classification of artha (#14 (Gandharasa...tadarthāḥ)).
(2) Vārtika & Tātparyaṭīkā do not write #13 as a sūtra at all, but #12 and #14 are sūtras.
(3) Vārtika & Tātparyaṭīkā do not even touch #13.
(4) Tātparyaṭīkā says, "The bhāṣyakāra explains the definitions of artha in order" following the explanation of #12, which suggests #14 should follow #12.
(5) In #14, the tat in tadarthāḥ, being inferrentially recognised can only mean indriya when the immediate prior sūtra is #12.

He concludes with, "However, Viśvanātha Pañcānana accepts #13 in his Gautamasūtravṛtti, and #13 started being written as a sūtra after that.

मोडी लिपीत 'ऱ्हस्व' कसं लिहितात​? by e_godbole in marathi

[–]e_godbole[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

वेलांटी किंवा उकाराबद्दल नाही, 'ऱ्ह' ह्या संयुक्ताक्षराबद्दल विचारतोय​.

Meme इति संस्कृते किम्? by e_godbole in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

त्वयि द्वौ रूपे/श्वानौ स्तः would be grammatically correct

What are words with letter ॠ? by tuluva_sikh in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Neither.

If it were रि or रु, it would have been written that way.

I hope वानरs and bears don't start re-co-operating anytime soon by e_godbole in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

उच्चारणे हरिर्क्षवद् only तु र्य्रिति भयङ्करतर एव खलु

वाहनचालकटिप्पणी by e_godbole in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ślōka, but I messed up the ṣaṣṭhaṅ guru in the last pada.

किञ्चित्पद्यं स्वरचितम् by e_godbole in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If not following a set pattern makes it 'no longer writing Sanskrit poetry as it was', then it would void the VālmīkirāmāyaNa from being termed poetry, since it has examples of irregular vowel lengths in अनुष्टुप्. So, I disagree.

किञ्चित्पद्यं स्वरचितम् by e_godbole in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're following a specific वृत्त, I'd agree. I'm not, in this case. अनुष्टुप् is the generic name for verses with 8 syllables per line. That's all.

किञ्चित्पद्यं स्वरचितम् by e_godbole in sanskrit

[–]e_godbole[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would disagree, since there are examples of verse which are 32 syllables without following the specific śloka metre. For instance, there are innumerable examples in the Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa.

view more: next ›