Re: samasyaapuuraNam

Ramakrishna S. Pillalamarri (pkrishna@ARL.MIL)
Fri, 1 May 1998 10:59:35 -0400

At 17:20 +0500 01/05/1998, Bh. Krishnamurti wrote:
>svaataMtryambunak_aina haddugalad_oo
>        caanaa! bhavadbharta loo
>kaatiitaprathituNDu deevaguruD_a
>        nyaayambugaa candrun-ii
>riitin moohituceesi bhautikasukhoo
>        dreekambuloo munged(u)-oo
>"sii! taaraa! munik_iTl_onarchedave y-issii drooham_illaalav_ai !"
>---okanaaTi kavi

Does it mean that this is an old pUraNa?

The difficulty in the samasya, and the way it is resolved, remind me of the
way mEDasAni mOhan tackled the samasya

	rAmArAvu naSincu kAlamika samprAptince, nikkammu gAn

I don't remember the completed poem. I may have posted that somewhere,
sometime ago, in which case I can count on Sreenivas to give the relevant
details. In case I didn't post the full poem, it would take some amount of
search (going through video tapes) to get the full text. Sometime later.


PS: I noticed the transliteration employed by BhK. He seems to prefer
aa/ii/uu/ee/oo for the longer versions of a/i/u/e/o. While this scheme is
consistent, somehow it appears counter-intuitive; only because we have
grown accustomed to a/aa, i/ee, u/oo, e/E(?), o/O - which could be
considered as a trademark for inconsistency. I couldn't understand the use
of the underscore though. I am not able to see a pattern for its use, in
this small example.