केयूरा न विभूषयन्ति पुरुषं हारा न चन्द्रोज्ज्वला
न स्नानं न विलेपनं न कुसुमं नाSलंकृता मूर्धजा
वाण्येका समलंकरोति पुरुषं या संस्कृता धार्यते
क्षीयन्ते खलु भूषणानि सततं वाग्भूषणं भूषणं
Keyuraa na vibhushyanti purusham haraa na chandrojjwalaa
Na snaanam na vilepanam na kusumam naalankrataa moordhajaa
vaanyekaa samalamkaroti purusham ya sanskritaa dharyate
ksheeyante khalu bhushanaani satatam vaagbhushnam bhushanam
i.e. Even if a person beautifies himself with ornaments and a necklace shining like full Moon, bathes and applies cosmetics, grooms his hair with scented oil and flowers, all these accessories do not make him a cultured person, if his diction (way of speaking) is not proper and refined and he is treated as a dirty person . On the other hand if a person is soft spoken and has command over his speech, even if he is not adorned with ornaments etc., he is always treated as a cultured person. So proper diction and command over language is the real ornament (bhushan) of a person.
Keyura = an ornament worn over the arm Moordhaja = hairs of the head Vilepanam = paste applied over the body (cosmetics) Vaani = way of speaking Bhushan = ornament
ksheeyante = become insignificant Hara = necklace Dharyate = wears or possesses
(Here the word 'Samalamkaroti' in association with the word 'ya' denotes two different meanings due to para-phrasing (i) Sa + Malam karoti means makes him unacceptable like faeces (human excreta) and (ii) Samyag + Alankaroti i.e. makes him overall adorable, if a person is 'sanskrat' i.e. cultured with proper diction (ya sanskrita dhaaryate) and all outwardly ornamentation becomes insignificant.
There is not much to comment. These are universal gems. They shine forever!
ReplyDeleteI am afraid of your interpretation : (i) Sa + Malam karoti means makes him unacceptable like faeces (human excreta) - MAY BE WE SHOULD NOT split the word - ITS 'SAMA'(balanced) + alankrita - in my understanding..all efforts are appreciated by universe!
ReplyDeletePranaam
DeleteTrue
DeleteThen sama + alankrita = samaalankrita ...from my little Sanskrit knowledge ....but ...the subhashitam says samalankrita
ReplyDeleteThen sama + alankrita = samaalankrita ...from my little Sanskrit knowledge ....but ...the subhashitam says samalankrita
ReplyDeleteIn the book 'Subhashita
DeleteIn the book "Subhashita Ratnakar" from where this subhashita has been adopted, there is a footnote by the authorm whichm I have given in my translation. I also feel that it is an embellishment of the shloka by its author. I have nothingfurther to say in this matter. you can consult some some Sanskrit scholar to clear your doubt. I daily post these subhashitas in my facebook account also titled "Sanskrit Subhashits" You can become a member of the Group and enjoy reading them So far I have posted 1684 subhashitas. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, MC Joshi
Dear joshi ji. You have done a great job. The beauty of sanskrit that people can have as many interpretations as they want. This subhashit is so beautiful that it can't talk about anything malin. So my take will be that of vani gives the same beautification as all others put together. Regards. Will look for you group on Facebook.
DeleteDear joshi ji. You have done a great job. The beauty of sanskrit that people can have as many interpretations as they want. This subhashit is so beautiful that it can't talk about anything malin. So my take will be that of vani gives the same beautification as all others put together. Regards. Will look for you group on Facebook.
DeleteSam+alankrita is correct. There would be halant under m. सम्+अलंकृत
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood attempt sir
ReplyDeleteVery nice sir.with this iam somuch interested to learn Sanskrit
ReplyDeleteNice gem of thought.
ReplyDeleteyes sam + alankrita is right. Joshi ji is doing a good job
ReplyDelete