गोविन्दवैभवम्

vavre

I chose (वव्रे) Vasudeva (वासुदेवम्) as my supporter (सहायम्) in this (अस्मिन्) war (युद्धे) instead of (पुरस्तात्) the thunderbolt-wielding (वज्रहस्तात्) Mahendra (महेन्द्रात्). He (), Krishna (कृष्णः), was found by me (मे लब्धः) for the smiting of dasyu-s (दस्युवधाय), and () I consider (मन्ये) this (एतत्) to be enjoined (विहितम्) for me (मे)  by the gods (देवतैः)

He who (यः) should wish to defeat (जिगीषेत्) the brilliant (तेजस्विनम्) and exceedingly heroic (अत्यन्तशूरम्) Krishna (कृष्णम्), son of Vasudeva (वासुदेवम्), is [like] he () who wishes to cross (उत्तितीर्षेत्) the ocean (सागरम्), the great water-vessel (महोदधिम्) of immeasurable waves (सलिलस्याप्रमेयम्), with his arms (बाहुभ्याम्).

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “गोविन्दवैभवम्

  1. Namaste Jaskaran,

    I have a doubt for some time: for example, is वव्रे वासुदेवम् सहायम् alright, or is वव्रे वासुदेवम् सहाय more perfect, where सहाय is in sambodhan vibhakti.

    btw I will like it better if you can provide reference to the texts. Thanks.

    1. جسکرن دھالیوال

      Pranam,
      I would think that sambodhana vibhakti would be odd, because here, सहाय is describing वासुदेव, which is the object of the verb वव्रे, so they should both be in dvitiya vibhakti (so वव्रेऽहंवासुदेवंसहायम्), just like how vajrahasta is describing mahendra and both are in panchami vibhakti (hence वज्रहस्तान्महेन्द्रात् or महेन्द्राद्वज्रहस्तात्). You could also have वव्रेऽहंसहायवासुदेवम् or वव्रेऽहंवासुदेवसहायम् and they would have the same meaning as the original passage, but there the would function as part of a samasa and not as a separate word in sambodhana vibhakti. If you did mean for it to be in sambodhana vibhakti, it would change the meaning.

      Oh yes, and this verse comes from the Mahabharata and the story of the destruction of Tripura by Rudra comes from the Yajurveda.

      1. Thank you for the reply, also for providing references as it helps the readership build their context while reading the blogs.

        Yes I agree with what you say, but let me put this way, as in this prAkrita (Hindi) sentence:
        अशोक ने विदिशा को राजधानी बनाया ।

        Now here both vidishA and rAjdhAnI are in accusative per se, but note there is no explicit or implicit को following rAjdhAnI. This word almost looks like a prAtipadika, until I realised it to be sambodhana.

        See the same sentence in Sanskrit now:
        अशोक: विदिशाम् राजधानीम् चकार ।

        And it is difficult to disambiguate if Vidisha is made capital here or capital is made Vidisha (or, say, “Vidisha-like” for that matter) here.

        Note this is unlike the usual case of महेंद्रात् वज्रहस्तात् where both words are on “equal footing”, none making a “context” for the other.

        This idea has really grown up on me, forcing me to even reconsider importance of sambodhana vibhakti. Have you ever come across such usage? Do you think I am seriously in the wrong here?

    2. جسکرن دھالیوال

      You are probably correct, but I still feel that sambodhana can make it more confusing. If it was “सहाय” rather than “सहायम्,” you might read it as
      “हे सहाय, वव्रेऽहंवासुदेवमस्मिन्युद्धे वज्रहस्तान्महेन्द्रात्पुरस्तात्”
      or in Hindi
      “हे सहाय, इस युद्ध में मैंने इन्द्र की बजाय वासुदेव कृष्ण को चुना था”/ “हे सहाय, इस युद्ध में मैंने वासुदेव कृष्ण को इन्द्र से आगे स्थापित किया”

      But then again, I do agree that there are plenty of cases where Sanskrit meanings can vary.
      योगीश्वरः can mean योगि-ईश्वरः (lord of yogi-s) or योगी ईश्वरः (lord who is a yogi)
      न can mean no (e.g. इति न पश्यतु, don’t see this), or it can be similar to iva (e.g. रोचमानो न ताराः, glittering like the stars)
      मा can be similar to “don’t” or “not,” like in:
      मा भूरस्य पुत्रः (don’t become his son)
      मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः (I shall free [you], don’t worry)
      भवाशर्वौ मृडतं माभियातम् (be pleased, O bhava and sharva, do not strike)
      But मा can also function as माम्, as in:
      श्रीर्मा देवि जुषताम् (indulge your glory in me, O Goddess)
      यो माभिचष्टे अनृतेभिर्वचोभिः (he who slanders me with false statements).

      So yeah, you are probably corrrect that वासुदेवं सहाय is possible, but it can also easily be misread and can change the meaning.

      1. “हे सहाय, वव्रेऽहंवासुदेवमस्मिन्युद्धे वज्रहस्तान्महेन्द्रात्पुरस्तात्”
        or in Hindi
        “हे सहाय, इस युद्ध में मैंने इन्द्र की बजाय वासुदेव कृष्ण को चुना था”

        The problem with this is that the comma after हे सहाय makes it a separate clause; and we know we can have free word order only within a clause. So putting a comma and reinterpreting is disallowed.

        Since Sanskrit doesn’t traditionally use comma, we see exclamation as marking the isolator for sambohana. But when a sambodhana is within a clause (with other words), I would say it plays the role of defining a “context” for words those are in nominative, accusative or instrumental vibhakti-s.

        For example, in our example सहाय makes the context for वासुदेवम् that is in accusative. So, with this explanation what is your opinion now.

        Regarding other ambiguity instances in Sanskrit quoted here, first, I am against any external sandhi-s at all. I strongly believe this as a serious abuse of internal sandhi properties (which are, in fact great things to have in a language) that make a word out of dhatu-s and pratyaya-s etc. In support of this I can only point to some primitive languages of the world where we find a similar tendencies to form too long words (e.g. single word sentences).

        So to me these examples are irrelevant.

        However, in this example of सहाय, considering that Mahabharata shouldn’t be wrong, we then must modify the translation itself. Which is something like this–

        “इस युद्ध में मैंने इन्द्र की बजाय वासुदेव को, मददवाले को, चुना था”

        I believe indeed this is the manner in which this was supposed to be understood.

        Yet, the sambodhana is still vital in other instances such as the विदिशा example.

        I have a suspicion, however, that the modern writers, for quite some time, don’t know about it at all, and thus are doing away with sambodhana in all cases, with devastating results.

  2. Let me give one more simple example, from Hindi first:

    जसकरण तुम मेरे प्रश्न का उत्तर (को) दो ।

    So here Jasakarana is in sambodhana contextualising तुम which is in nominative.

    I am quite clear at this point that sambodhana only qualifies nominative, accusative and instrumental.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s