365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

啶多ぐ啷嵿ぎ啶掂う啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶距す啷嵿ぎ啶｀じ啷嵿�� 啶膏�嵿く啶距う啷� 啶班ぞ啶溹�嵿�炧�� 啶班�曕�嵿し啶距じ啶�啶ㄠ�嵿さ啶苦い啶�啷� 啷�
啶掂�堗ざ啷嵿く啶膏�嵿く 啶�啷佮し啷嵿�熰た啶膏�傕く啷佮�曕�嵿い啶� 啶多�傕う啷嵿ぐ啶膏�嵿く 啶�啷嵿ぐ啷囙し啷嵿く啶膏�傕く啷佮い啶�啷� 啷� 啷┼エ 啷�

艣armavad br膩hma峁嘺sya sy膩d r膩j帽o 谤补办峁Ｄ乻amanvitam |
vai艣yasya pu峁ａ弓isa峁儁ukta峁� 艣奴drasya pre峁�yasa峁儁utam || 32 ||

The name of the Br膩hma峁嘺 should be expressive of 鈥榩eace,鈥� that of the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, of 鈥榩rotection鈥�; that ot the Vai艣ya, of 鈥榩rosperity,鈥� and that of the 艢奴dra, of 鈥榮ubmissiveness.鈥欌��(32)

 

Medh膩tithi鈥檚 commentary (尘补苍耻产丑腻峁�y补):

[What appears to be the meaning is that] the actual term (鈥�艣补谤尘补苍,鈥� etc.) should form part of the name,鈥攁nd that the two terms (mentioned in the preceding and the present verse) should appear in the order stated, the 鈥榓uspicious鈥� term coming at the beginning and the term 鈥�艣补谤尘补苍鈥� at the end (of the name),鈥攁s illustrated above (鈥�Go-艣补谤尘补苍,鈥� 鈥�Dhana-艣补谤尘补苍鈥� and so forth).

But this would not be possible in regard to the names of the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补 and the rest; because the term 鈥�谤补办峁Ｄ�.鈥� (鈥榮ecurity,鈥� which is mentioned in connection with the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补) is of the feminine gender, and as such could not be co-ordinated with the names of males. Hence in view of conformity, and in view also of actual practice, and also in view of the two verses being syntactically distinct, we should take them as complementary to each other; the sense being that the 鈥榓uspicious name鈥� (mentioned in the preceding verse) should he 鈥榚xpressive of 艣补谤尘补苍, Peace鈥欌�攖his term standing for refuge, shelter, happiness. It is only if we take the term 鈥�艣补谤尘补苍鈥� of the text as standing for what is developed by it, that we have the possibility of names ending in 鈥�蝉惫腻尘奴,鈥� 鈥�datta,鈥� 鈥�产丑奴迟颈,鈥� and the rest; the name 鈥�滨苍诲谤补蝉惫腻尘墨鈥� meaning 鈥榟e who has Indra for his shelter鈥�; 鈥�Indra-datta鈥� also signifies the fact of Indra being the shelter.

Similarly with all the rest (the names of the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, etc.)

鈥淲hat does this argument mean鈥攖hat, in view of the two verses being syntactically distinct, we should take them as complementary to each other? Por the same reason, why are not the two sentences 鈥榦ne should sacrifice with 痴谤墨丑颈鈥� and 鈥榦ne should sacrifice with Yava鈥� taken as complementary (and not as optional alternatives, as they have been taken)?鈥�

What we have said is only what is indicated (by the words of the Text). The Text being the work of a human writer, if he had intended the statements to be optional alternatives, he should, for the sake of brevity, have said 鈥榯he name should be either auspicious or expressive of peace鈥�; when we have two distinct syntactical constructions, there are two verbs, and this becomes too prolix (and the prolixity cannot be justified except by taking the two as complementary). [All this reason ng, based upon intention and propriety of speech, cannot apply to the case of Vedic sentences, where there is no author.]

鈥�搁补办峁Ｄ�,鈥� is 鈥榩rotection,鈥� 鈥榩reservation.鈥�

鈥�笔耻峁ａ弓颈鈥� is 鈥榩rosperity鈥� as well as 鈥榮ecurity.鈥� Such names as 鈥�骋辞惫峁沝诲丑补鈥� 鈥�Dhanagupta.鈥�

鈥�笔谤别峁�y补鈥� is 鈥榮ubmissive鈥�; such names as 鈥�叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺-诲腻蝉补,鈥� and 鈥�顿别惫补诲腻蝉补,鈥� which means (respectively) 鈥榮ubmissive to, dependent upon, the Br膩hma峁嘺鈥� and 鈥榮ubmissive to and dependent upon a deity.鈥欌��(32)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in 痴墨谤补尘颈迟谤辞诲补测补 (Sa峁僺k膩ra, p. 243) also; and in 厂尘峁泃颈肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 (Sa峁僺k膩ra. p. 55) as laying down the subsidiary titles of the four caste-names;鈥攁lso in 痴颈诲丑腻苍补辫腻谤颈箩腻迟补 (p. 309);鈥攁nd in 狈颈谤峁嘺测补蝉颈苍诲丑耻 (p. 178).

笔补谤腻艣补谤补尘腻诲岣�a惫补 (膧c膩ra, p. 441) quoting the verse explains it to mean that 鈥�艣补谤尘补苍鈥� must be the suffixed word to the Br膩hma峁嘺鈥檚 name.

N膩raya峁嘺 and R膩ghav膩nanda opine that the name of the Br膩hma峁嘺 must always contain the word 鈥樑洸拱�尘补苍鈥� itself. But Medh膩tithi and several others hold that the name should connote what is connoted by the term 鈥�艣补谤尘补苍.鈥�

The present day practice, however, follows the former explanation鈥斺��艣补谤尘补苍鈥�.being regarded now as the suffixed title to every Br膩hma峁嘺鈥檚 name.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

笔腻谤补蝉办补谤补-骋峁沨测补蝉奴迟谤腻, 1. 17.4.鈥斺��艢补谤尘补 for the Br膩hma峁嘺, Varma for the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, Gupta for the Vai艣ya.鈥�

痴测腻蝉补-厂尘峁泃颈 (痴墨谤补尘颈迟谤辞诲补测补-Sa峁僺k膩ra, p. 213).鈥斺��艢补谤尘补 is the name commended for the Br膩hma峁嘺, Varma for the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, Gupta for the Vai艣ya, and 顿腻蝉补 for the 艢奴dra.鈥�

驰补尘补-厂尘峁泃颈 (顿辞.).鈥斺赌�艢补谤尘补 and Deva for the Br膩hma峁嘺, 搁腻箩腻 for the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补, Gupta and Datta for the Vai艣ya and 顿腻蝉补 for the 艢奴dra.

These titles have been thus explained by 膧艣val膩yan膩ch膩rya:鈥斺�楾he name of the Br膩hma峁嘺 should end with 艢补谤尘补 because he imparts 艢补谤尘补 (happiness) to the world through his religious character, calmness and self-control; that of the 碍峁�a迟谤颈测补 should end with 痴补谤尘腻, because like the Varma (armour), he protects the world from the three kinds of pain; that of the Vai艣ya should end with Gupta, because he fosters (驳辞辫腻测补迟颈) the people by giving them money at certain times; that of the 艢奴dra should end with 顿腻蝉补, because he keeps the twice-born people satisfied by constant service.鈥�