Surya, you are absolutely right in that 'go' is (also) used to mean 'Light'. And thanks for providing so many more words stemming from 'go'.
And yet, this is completely in synch with the meaning of go as 'sat'. Isn't sat 'perceived' as light too?
Let us understand this, using the opposite. 'tam' is the opposite of 'sat', and tam/tamas does (also) mean darkness. It is also evident from this very famous richa : asato mA sadgamaya, tamaso mA jyitirgamaya, mrityor ma amritamgamaya. (Let us go from asat to sat, from darkness to light, from death to eternal life)
But light is a perception. It is a perception that occurs when sat is perceived through the indriya of vision. (driSti-go-char) Sat can also be perceived through other indriyas - like karna, the hearing indriya (go-karNa : one who perceives go with karna; and; one who causes the go).
Also let us contemplate upon some other examples.
Gopuram. Temple's central column where devapratima is housed, 'the place of 'go' '. Now, that is not 'city of cows'. This is 'house of sat', and yes sat can be perceived as light too.
let us now expand a little bit, to some parallels.
Another beautiful, widelu used and oft mistranslated term, is Pasupati. Parallel to Gopal or Gopati. "literal" meaning of Pasu-pati is 'lord of animals'? But that adjective doesn't make sense to apply to Sri Mahadev, does it? Pasu means animal in exactly that much of sense as Go means cow! Much deeper meaning of Pasu is life (not 'just' animals), and Pasupati in vedic sense means 'lord of life/lives'.
I am not sure about the Bhagwat quotations. Maybe if you can give me the locator/sukta# I can try to study that. But I guess, by go-matar, it might have meant Aditi, as you meantion this as mother of Maruts.
Coming to ambiguity, there is none. From one term, if different meanings are derived, that in itself is not ambiguity. It depends upon context of usage - who is saying it, who is being addressed, what is the topic. Sanskrit is a very fluid language, the words take shape of the container in which these are placed.
Ambiguity comes when people 'misuse' the context. For example Mr. Wiztel is trying to find "historical" evidences from Ashtadhyayi, while largely undermining its authenticity on language-science. Ashtadhyayi is written in context of language, not history - so obviousely it makes sense to derive language-related meanings from it. Likewise Vedas are largely of spiritual concerns, so we should derive spiritual knowledge from it, not animal-husbandry related. Different texts may provide 'hints' into other contexts but it is important to primarily rely upon the context in which the text was developed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->gomedha yagna, would be a sacrifice for light of intellect.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my mind, it would be more generically 'enterprise to attain a sattvik brilliance', or 'efforts of a sattvik intellect'.
And yet, this is completely in synch with the meaning of go as 'sat'. Isn't sat 'perceived' as light too?
Let us understand this, using the opposite. 'tam' is the opposite of 'sat', and tam/tamas does (also) mean darkness. It is also evident from this very famous richa : asato mA sadgamaya, tamaso mA jyitirgamaya, mrityor ma amritamgamaya. (Let us go from asat to sat, from darkness to light, from death to eternal life)
But light is a perception. It is a perception that occurs when sat is perceived through the indriya of vision. (driSti-go-char) Sat can also be perceived through other indriyas - like karna, the hearing indriya (go-karNa : one who perceives go with karna; and; one who causes the go).
Also let us contemplate upon some other examples.
Gopuram. Temple's central column where devapratima is housed, 'the place of 'go' '. Now, that is not 'city of cows'. This is 'house of sat', and yes sat can be perceived as light too.
let us now expand a little bit, to some parallels.
Another beautiful, widelu used and oft mistranslated term, is Pasupati. Parallel to Gopal or Gopati. "literal" meaning of Pasu-pati is 'lord of animals'? But that adjective doesn't make sense to apply to Sri Mahadev, does it? Pasu means animal in exactly that much of sense as Go means cow! Much deeper meaning of Pasu is life (not 'just' animals), and Pasupati in vedic sense means 'lord of life/lives'.
I am not sure about the Bhagwat quotations. Maybe if you can give me the locator/sukta# I can try to study that. But I guess, by go-matar, it might have meant Aditi, as you meantion this as mother of Maruts.
Coming to ambiguity, there is none. From one term, if different meanings are derived, that in itself is not ambiguity. It depends upon context of usage - who is saying it, who is being addressed, what is the topic. Sanskrit is a very fluid language, the words take shape of the container in which these are placed.
Ambiguity comes when people 'misuse' the context. For example Mr. Wiztel is trying to find "historical" evidences from Ashtadhyayi, while largely undermining its authenticity on language-science. Ashtadhyayi is written in context of language, not history - so obviousely it makes sense to derive language-related meanings from it. Likewise Vedas are largely of spiritual concerns, so we should derive spiritual knowledge from it, not animal-husbandry related. Different texts may provide 'hints' into other contexts but it is important to primarily rely upon the context in which the text was developed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->gomedha yagna, would be a sacrifice for light of intellect.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my mind, it would be more generically 'enterprise to attain a sattvik brilliance', or 'efforts of a sattvik intellect'.