praNAm,
I came across a statement on the following website by a Argentinian Hindu:
Aadiendo un par de notas a la traduccin, la palabra bandhu, que traduzco en su ms usual acepcin de ‘pariente’ tambin podra significar ‘hermano’, sobre todo en traducciones ms poticas. Asimismo, la palabra sakhā, con ‘a larga’, significa ‘amigo’ pero en hindi, y al parecer se habra colado en este mantra de lengua snscrita (si fuera snscrito quedara sakhas).
The author, Naren Herrero (as quoted above) is arguing that the word sakhA is orginally a Hindi word and that the actual word in saMskR^it would be "sakhas." Why is that the case? As far as I know, sakhA is used in both saMskR^itam and Hindi. In addition, wouldn't sakhastvameva and sakhA tvameva mean the same thing? "sakhas" comes from the prAtipadika "sakha" (i.e. companion) whereas sakhA comes from the prAtipadika sakhi (i.e. friend). How then is सखा only a hindi word whereas सखस् a saMskR^ita word? त्वमेव बन्धुश्च सखा त्वमेव sounds like shuddha saMskR^itam to me; if I were trying to say it in Hindi, I would say "तू मेरा भाई और दोस्त अवश्य है."

What's even more odd is that he later states the following:
La conexin Rāmānuja

Sri Rāmānuja fue un gran santo y filsofo vaishnava del sur de la India, que vivi en el siglo XI-XII d.C. Es muy conocido por sus filosficos comentarios de las escrituras y por ser el precursor de lo que se conoce como la escuela del ‘No dualismo cualificado’ o Vishishtādvaita. Al mismo tiempo, Rāmānuja era un ferviente devoto y promulgador del camino del corazn, por lo que tambin escribi inspirados versos a su amado Seor Vishnu.



Especficamente nos interesa su Sharanāgati Gadyam, una plegaria de entrega total al Seor Nārāyana en que aparece un mantra familiar:

tvameva mātā ca pitā tvameva /

tvameva bandhush ca gurustvameva /

tvameva vidyā dravinam tvameva /

tvameva sarvam mama deva deva //

La nica diferencia es que la palabra sakhā (que ya dijimos sera en lengua hindi), es reemplazada por guru (“t eres ciertamente maestro espiritual”).
Why does he assume that the sharaNAgati gadyam/chUrNikai of bhagavadrAmAnujar is any less interpolated than the pANDava gItA (assuming that the latter is indeed interpolated)? This sounds like stupidity, especially if the difference between the two mantram-s (as he admits) is only ONE shabda. I seriously don't understand what this guy is trying to argue... Could someone please help me understand?