करारविन्देन पदारविन्दं.
मुखारविन्दे
विनिवेशयन्तम्
वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे शयानं
बालं मुकुन्दं मनसा स्मरामि।।1।।
Answers
Answer:
Firstly, there are a couple of small typos in the verse. The correct version would be:
Firstly, there are a couple of small typos in the verse. The correct version would be:करारविन्देन पदारविन्दं मुखारविन्दे विनिवेशयन्तम्
Firstly, there are a couple of small typos in the verse. The correct version would be:करारविन्देन पदारविन्दं मुखारविन्दे विनिवेशयन्तम्वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे शयानं बालं मुकुन्दं मनसा स्मरामि
Firstly, there are a couple of small typos in the verse. The correct version would be:करारविन्देन पदारविन्दं मुखारविन्दे विनिवेशयन्तम्वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे शयानं बालं मुकुन्दं मनसा स्मरामिThe विन्द you see here is not related to "vandana". It is a part of the word अरविन्द, i.e. lotus. I am sure, you are familiar with the Sanskritic/Indic linguistic practice of comparing different body parts of a respected or beloved person to the lotus because of its beauty, fragrance and auspiciousness, e.g. in the standard Bengali (though borrowed directly from Sanskrit) opening salutation of letters to one's elders - श्रीचरणकमलेषु (in the exhaulted lotus feet). In the same way, in the first line of this verse a hand, a foot and the mouth of the baby Krishna are being compared with lotuses. The literal translation would go like this:
Firstly, there are a couple of small typos in the verse. The correct version would be:करारविन्देन पदारविन्दं मुखारविन्दे विनिवेशयन्तम्वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे शयानं बालं मुकुन्दं मनसा स्मरामिThe विन्द you see here is not related to "vandana". It is a part of the word अरविन्द, i.e. lotus. I am sure, you are familiar with the Sanskritic/Indic linguistic practice of comparing different body parts of a respected or beloved person to the lotus because of its beauty, fragrance and auspiciousness, e.g. in the standard Bengali (though borrowed directly from Sanskrit) opening salutation of letters to one's elders - श्रीचरणकमलेषु (in the exhaulted lotus feet). In the same way, in the first line of this verse a hand, a foot and the mouth of the baby Krishna are being compared with lotuses. The literal translation would go like this:I think (literally. "remember" स्मरामि) keenly (literally. "with mind" मनसा) of the young (बालं) Krishna/Vishnu (मुकुन्दं), lying (शयानं) in a banyan leaf basket* (वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे), putting (विनिवेशयन्तम्) his lotus-foot (पदारविन्दं) into his lotus-mouth (मुखारविन्दे) by his lotus-hand (करारविन्देन).
Firstly, there are a couple of small typos in the verse. The correct version would be:करारविन्देन पदारविन्दं मुखारविन्दे विनिवेशयन्तम्वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे शयानं बालं मुकुन्दं मनसा स्मरामिThe विन्द you see here is not related to "vandana". It is a part of the word अरविन्द, i.e. lotus. I am sure, you are familiar with the Sanskritic/Indic linguistic practice of comparing different body parts of a respected or beloved person to the lotus because of its beauty, fragrance and auspiciousness, e.g. in the standard Bengali (though borrowed directly from Sanskrit) opening salutation of letters to one's elders - श्रीचरणकमलेषु (in the exhaulted lotus feet). In the same way, in the first line of this verse a hand, a foot and the mouth of the baby Krishna are being compared with lotuses. The literal translation would go like this:I think (literally. "remember" स्मरामि) keenly (literally. "with mind" मनसा) of the young (बालं) Krishna/Vishnu (मुकुन्दं), lying (शयानं) in a banyan leaf basket* (वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे), putting (विनिवेशयन्तम्) his lotus-foot (पदारविन्दं) into his lotus-mouth (मुखारविन्दे) by his lotus-hand (करारविन्देन).*The word पुट does not refer specifically to a basket, but something concave or hollowed out in general which can hold something else inside it, often used to refer to the hollow of the palm of a hand, a leaf or a bird's wings, for example. So, in that regard, the most natural interpretation for "वटस्य पत्रस्य पुटे" would be "in the hollow of a banyan leaf", but I doubt a baby can be small enough to fit into one banyan leaf. That's why I used the translation "basket", but obviously this leaves some scope of improvement.