Vigraha Samasa in Sanskrit
Vigraha Samasa in Sanskrit
Vigraha Samasa in Sanskrit
.
Words like ,
also are already in
.
But doing of a would need
being conscious of the meaning intended to be
conveyed.
Note = every day
= with wonder. Every day
would be an answer to a question When ?
Similarly with wonder would be an answer to a
question how ? So and
have an adverbial intent,
which in Sanskrit is called as
of a is primarily an exercise
in detailing the meaning of the word. And
should do that.
of is detailed as
.
of is detailed as
.
--s are another type of
-s.
Both these words and
have a prefix . In
detailing of as
what is detailed is really the
meaning lent by the prefix . Likewise in
detailing of as
, what is detailed is really
the meaning lent by the prefix . So in these
words, the prefixes are almost like component
words -s of the compound words.
Need to be conscious of the meaning intended
can be explained also by considering a word
in two different sentences (1)
Wear a clean
cloth (2)
Wash the cloth clean.
As can be seen, in
, the word is adjective of the noun
. In the other sentence, it is
adverb of the verb . Should we do
different for the same word ? My
answer would be Yes. Basically some people
may question whether every word, which has a
prefix and a noun , should be
treated as a compound word. Again, my answer
would be Yes. I say so with the basic premise
in mind, that of a is primarily
an exercise in detailing the meaning of the
word.
In I would
decipher the as
()
In I would
decipher the as
()
Even if one should be conscious of the
meaning intended to be conveyed, it is
important to be open-minded and receptive to
different meanings likely to be derived by
different of a given . Another
person may think of a different meaning. Why
not grant it ?
For example, in the word
, = ??
= field. Note, I am mentioning
= ?? Do we not know the meaning of
the word ? We do, but the word has
many, many shades of meaning. One common
meaning of is religion. But what is
religion ? It is a challenging question to
answer.
I would rather go by the meaning =
righteousness. So =
field of righteousness.
Now, what can make a battlefield a field of
righteousness ? Possibly there was history
associated with that particular battlefield, that in
any battle fought there, only that side prevailed,
which had righteousness with it. The battle
between -s and -s was also to
be fought to decide, which side had
righteousness. Because of its past history the
battlefield had come to be known as
= field of righteousness.
Rather, since the battle was to be fought to
decide which side had righteousness, it was the
field (for) decision about righteousness. The
word has this other shade of meaning
as = justice. Then we can say
= field (of)
righteousness OR field (for) justice about
righteousness.
Since the two prepositions of and for connote
and -s
respectively, of
can be
OR
.
On that battlefield there was also the person
whose name was . Being a battlefield,
there were two parties and there was the
allotted field for each party. So by another
meaning of = domain, meaning
of becomes the domain
of the person whose name was . So
even by the as
, there can be two meanings of
(1)
= field of righteousness
(2) = domain of the
person whose name was .
-s of -s make Sanskrit
literature very engaging and enjoyable,
revealing, refreshing and vibrant, especially
when one gets to derive a range of meanings
from the same given words.