ईशोपनिषद्

[valerio virgini]

ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथाः मा गृधः कस्य स्विद् धनम् ॥१॥

In the above mantra, the word कस्य स्विद् is generally translated "to someone, that belongs to another." Evidently you consider the male gender कस्य.
In case you were considering the gender-neutral (which is identical), it would be the correct translation "of any kind"?
In other words, the verse could mean "every kind of wealth" instead of "the wealth of someone"?

thanks

valerio

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I think you are suggesting of considering the masculine gender, it seems to suggest that "Don't grab wealth belonging any man" ( and could grab any wealth from women!)

Just joked. Anyhow your translation as "any kind of wealth" is wrong, as स्विद् is related with the pronoun किम्, only gives the meaning or any body like the indeclineable चित् is used with the pronoun किम्. and not with any noun as I know.  

"the wealth belonging to somebody else" would be the correct translation, i.e. not belonging to you (is meant).

[Usha Sanka]

"I think you are suggesting of considering the masculine gender, it seems to suggest that "Don't grab wealth belonging any man" ( and could grab any wealth from women!)"

ha ha. Well that's how "ku-lawyers" (bad ones) make vakra-points and win cases..!!

Thankyou for the joke sir.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[Taff Rivers]

Valerio,

 स्विद्  is adverbial! 

Prescribing the manner in which a seeker of the soul is to go about accomplishing the task, and his/her/its attitude towards 'wealth' and 'riches'.

So, gender, of any kind, doesn't come into it.

The idea being, to look upon 'wealth' and 'riches' only as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

But first, the means . . .

  Taff Rivers

   I am assuming the context is the Īśopaniṣad.

[valerio virgini]

thanks for the clarification.
I still have a doubt arose from the numerous translations of this work.

असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसाऽऽवृताः ।

ताँस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ ३॥


The word "ātmahanah" is translated:

"Slayer of the soul"

But I think it is more appropriate "suicide" (the kṛdanta ātma-han)

because, as taught by the gītā, the ātman can not be killed.

Moreover, considering that han also means "injure, harass,"
It may mean "those who torment" any person (ye ke ca)?

thanks

valerio

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Taff Rivers <eddie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Valerio,

 स्विद्  is adverbial! 

Prescribing the manner in which a seeker of the soul is to go about accomplishing the task, and his/her/its attitude towards 'wealth' and 'riches'.

So, gender, of any kind, doesn't come into it.

The idea being, to look upon 'wealth' and 'riches' only as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

But first, the means . . .

Please see the usage of the particle in VS Apte.

 स्विद् with an Interrogative pronoun. Here it is kim + svid --- 

 स्विद् [L=31211] [p= 1163-a] ind. A particle of inter- 

rogation or inquiry, often imply- 

ing ‘doubt’, or ‘surprise’, and 

translateable by ‘what’, ‘hey’. 

‘hallo’, ‘can it be that’. 

It is added to interrogative 

pronouns in this sense or to give 

an indefinite sense; कास्विदवगुंठनवती 

नातिपरिस्फुटशरीरलावण्या S. 5. 13; 

Me. 14. 

Here it is the same case. 

Monier Williams also gives the same usage:

sometimes making a preceding interrogative indefinite e.g. kva svid, " anywhere " ; kaḥ svid, " whoever ", " any one " ; similarly with yad e.g. yad svid dīyate, "

Anyhow everybody is free to translate as one can understand. Thanks for the explanation.

It is sometimes used dis- 

junctively in the sense of ‘either,’ 

‘or’, with नु, उत, वा &c.; see Ki. 

8. 35, 12. 15, 13. 8, 14. 60; आहो 

also.

[Taff Rivers]

hnbhat,

 

  Yes, it is it sometimes 'makes a preceding interrogative indefinite'.

The MW entry for svid, has it as down as an 'indeclinable', therefore of adverbial usage.

Those individual words, in isolation are of course -pronouns- albeit of an indefinite kind, but when combined with the interrogative, as here, adverbs of manner are intended.

Taking the spiritual context of the work into account, It also makes for better linguistic cohesion and cohesion to interpret so.

The idea seems to be to cultivate the attitude of undesirability towards the material, as expressed elsewhere by 'the love of money is the root of all evil'.

Whereby 'tis not money that is evil, but the 'love' i.e. desire of it which is so.

Thus, the manner (adverbially speaking!) by which I so justify my interpretation.

If I may say so, material things are, as always, essential, for without them is no bodily container wherein the soul to dwell!

Anyway, what's not to love about chocolate, cheese ...?

Are words material? 

 

   Taff Rivers

[Taff Rivers]

Valerio,

   I think you have answered your own question!

There are two vastly different cultures, vastly apart not only in time, but space,

being viewed together on the one page at the one time, as if they are one.

This particular question of interpretation is an ancient one, and the authors are not around to ask for clarification. Given the circumstances, the answer is not likely to appear anytime soon, though there are those today, that by some mysterious means would presume to answer! 

Let common sense, aka that teacher, even of the ancients, prevail.

Those that acknowledge nought but the material, may be said to 'deny' the immaterial soul and it is said of such, that they will rot in hell, where be demons.

Suffice to say, that 'tis wise to ask of oneself, and of others, by what fruits are they known, they that say such.

   Taff Rivers

[valerio virgini]

Thanks for your reply.

So translate "atmahan" as "one who torments souls" can be corrected?
"atmahan", in this sense, exists in some other work?

Regards

valerio

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM, valerio virgini <valerio...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for your reply.

So translate "atmahan" as "one who torments souls" can be corrected?
"atmahan", in this sense, exists in some other work?

Regards

valerio

The same reason as per Bhagavadgita applies here also.

नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः। 

न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥२- २३॥ 

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च। 

नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥२- २४॥ अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते।

The sould could not also be tormented. Hence only figurative meaning has to be taken, for the translation as the commentators have done.

By ignorance of the above fact, those who ignore the nature of the self as if absent. like Carvaka-s. say there is no soul at all, other than one's body.

But simple translation "those commit suicide (say there is no soul at all), go to hell where there is no light (of Sun - knowledge), and only darkness (of ignorance) after this life. Or literally, those who commit suicide, go to hell, Literarily, they never get the light of knowledge.

[mukesh patel]

In next verse its नैनदेवा इति कश्चन शब्दोडस्ति। what's that ? I'm not able to do संधि-विच्छेद of it.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 9/20/14, mukesh patel <thehal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In next verse its नैनदेवा इति कश्चन शब्दोडस्ति। what's that ? I'm not able
> to do संधि-विच्छेद of it.
>

Please type correct word for सन्धिविच्छेद. I could not find such
word, but like this:

पत्नीको नाम:नैनदेवी राय etc.

But the 4th verse of Isha:

अनेजद् एकं मनसो जवीयो नैनद्देवा आप्नुवन्पूर्वमर्षत् ।
तद्धावतो ऽन्यानत्येति तिष्ठत् तस्मिन्न् अपो मातरिश्वा दधाति ॥



anejad ekaṃ manaso javīyo nainad devā āpnuvanpūrvamarṣat |
taddhāvato 'nyānatyeti tiṣṭhat tasminn apo mātariśvā dadhāti ||

The सन्धिच्छेद is as follows: for नैनद्देवा आप्नुवन्

na enad devāḥ āpnuvan pūrvam arṣat |
न एनद् देवाः आप्नुवन् पूर्वम् अर्षत् ।

[mukesh patel]

Sorry for wrong typing but I'm using android mobile in which there is Google Hindi input which lacks some words like अवग्रह, द्+द। so sorry for that.

Can I know sir what's this एनद् रूपम्? Its different from एनम्?
by the way , any link for good discussion on तत्/ एतत्/इदम्/अदस् सर्वनाम् रूपाणि?

[Hnbhat B.R.]

If you want the rule, here it is:

द्वितीयाटौस्स्वेनः    2-4-34 

द्वितीयायां टौसोश्च परत इदमेतदोरेनादेशः स्यादन्वादेशे । किञ्ञ्चित्कार्यं विधातुमुपात्तस्य कार्यान्तरं विधातु पुनरुपादानमन्वादेशः । यथाऽनेन व्याकरणमधीतमेनं छन्दोऽध्यापयेति । अनयोः पवित्रं कुलमेनयोः प्रभूतं धनम्।

इति। 

[valerio virgini]

Dear dr. Bhat
certainly these verses of the gītā they want to teach that the soul is immortal.
But they can not be inferred that the soul does not experience suffering.

In addition, in the Bhagavata Purana, I met some verses in which who is the cause of suffering in the next life will go on worlds tamasic. (I can not remember the verses ...)

it is said that the soul is सच्चिदानंद,
and when she undergoes the conditioning of māyā, she suffers... even though such suffering is a lack of ānanda.

For this reason I think that translating ātmahan with "those who cause suffering to the soul," may make sense.

My only doubt is that this translation can not be supported by the grammatical point of view.

Thanks

valerio

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:50 PM, valerio virgini <valerio...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear dr. Bhat
certainly these verses of the gītā they want to teach that the soul is immortal.
But they can not be inferred that the soul does not experience suffering.

In addition, in the Bhagavata Purana, I met some verses in which who is the cause of suffering in the next life will go on worlds tamasic. (I can not remember the verses ...)

it is said that the soul is सच्चिदानंद,
and when she undergoes the conditioning of māyā, she suffers... even though such suffering is a lack of ānanda.

For this reason I think that translating ātmahan with "those who cause suffering to the soul," may make sense.

My only doubt is that this translation can not be supported by the grammatical point of view.

I have given the interpretation of Shankaracharya, who admit there is something illusionary called Maya, or Ignorance, and due to this one, who has not realized itself nature, it is not existent. That is meant by figurative meaning, which is not got by literal translation. i.e. It is not called ignorance, of the self, when covered by Maya. 

Suffering is to the mind and not the soul, as you interpret. Saccidananda is the nature and there could not be any suffering at all. Including mind, is created by the Maya, creating the layer of ignorance around the soul. Figurative translations could not be supported, by grammar, but they should be supported by the principles of philosophy. Only explanation could do justification and not free translations.

 

[valerio virgini]

I began to study Sanskrit because I was confused by reason of the numerous translations (not just interpretations).
That surprises me. it is possible that all these different translations are all grammatically correct?

I'm seeing translations of famous people, quite discordant that does not seem to be grammatically correct.

यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद् विजानतः ।

तत्र को मोहः कः शोकः एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥७॥

Max Muller

When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things,

what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?

Ernest Hume

In whom all beings
Have become just (eva) the Self of the discerner--
Then what delusion (moha), what sorrow (śoka) is there,
Of him who perceives the unity]

Senderson Beck
In whom all beings have become one with the knowing soul
what delusion or sorrow is there for the one who sees unity?
It has filled all.

Aurobindo
He in whom it is the Self-Being that has become all existences
that are Becomings, for he has the perfect knowledge,
how shall he be deluded, whence shall he have grief who sees
everywhere oneness?

Bhaktivedanta Svami
One who always sees all living entities as spiritual sparks,
in quality one with the Lord, becomes a true knower of
things. What, then, can be illusion or anxiety for him?

Jayaram

He who has known that all beings have become one with his own self,

and he who has seen the oneness of existence,

what sorrow and what delusion can overwhelm him?

Paramananda
He who perceives all beings as the Self’ for him how can there be delusion or grief,
when he sees this oneness (everywhere) ?

I think that literal translations should not deviate too much from each other.
The differences should be alone in the various comments.
is that right?


This is my translation (anvaya):

For one who has discernment (vijānataḥ)

it is only the [supreme] soul (ātmā eva)

which has become (abhūt)

that in which (yasmin)

are all creatures (sarvāṇi bhūtāni)


[the second half is quite similar for all]

thanks

valerio

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:29 PM, valerio virgini <valerio...@gmail.com> wrote:

I began to study Sanskrit because I was confused by reason of the numerous translations (not just interpretations).
That surprises me. it is possible that all these different translations are all grammatically correct?

I'm seeing translations of famous people, quite discordant that does not seem to be grammatically correct.

Here is my English translation strictly following the order of the verse with any deviation, would be correct:

यस्मिन् = In whom,

सर्वाणि भूतानि = all the creations

आत्मैवाभूद् 

became the soul (आत्मा+एव+अभूद्) only 

विजानतः = one knows (the real nature of him),

(Note: यस्मिन् - तत्र are correlatives. all others are complementary parts for the complete sentence.)

तत्र को मोहः

how can there be any delusion in him,

कः शोकः 

= how can there be  any sorrow (Moha and Shoka could be interpreted differently in English with different words) 

(Note the rhetoric question in which gives the negative meaning, than interrogative.  

एकत्वमनुपश्यतः when he sees unity everywhere.

This is direct translation. My translation may be not contain correct English words translation. The same idea is expressed by different translators and no difference in the purport, only the English order of their choice, which can express the same idea. That is always possible for Sanskrit Sentences and English sentences.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:29 PM, valerio virgini <valerio...@gmail.com> wrote:

I began to study Sanskrit because I was confused by reason of the numerous translations (not just interpretations).
That surprises me. it is possible that all these different translations are all grammatically correct?

I'm seeing translations of famous people, quite discordant that does not seem to be grammatically correct.

I think every translation could be grammatically correct. What you miss is the different ways of expressions of the same idea of a Sanskrit word, of which you know some meaning.  For example, the complication of pronouns in an sentence far removed noun or nouns. 

यस्मिन् - तत्र both are relative pronouns. It is continued from the previous sentence. The same idea of the two verses, is condensed in भगवद्गीता also in two verses:

सर्वभूतस्थमात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि 

ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्रसमदर्शनः ||6.29|| 

यो माम्पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वञ्च मयि पश्यति 

तस्याहन्न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति ||6.30||

And in ईशावास्य,  यस्मिन् the locative of pronoun यत् does not have any relative noun in the sentence, than another pronominal locative indeclinable, तत्र. 

Max Muller has followed the interpretation of Shankaracharya, यस्मिन् - When, supplying यस्मिन् काले, the same adverb of time, explained in the above, Gita verse and the preceding verse of ईशावास्य.  तत्र - at the time when one knows the reality and holds unity (with the creation and himself) every where.(this is indicated by अनु+पश्यतः) by context.

Now, यस्मिन् can refer to the Self itself Supreme,) in whom, (the individual self) everything created become one.And तत्र - in the Individual soul, which is indifferent from the Supreme soul,) there cannot be any sorrow. 

तत्र may also refer to the creation also, one cannot have any मोह towards the creation or about the real nature of the creation, absolute Brahma (existing everywhere). This is the cause for the difference of translations embeded in the structure itself. without the interpretation, mere pronouns do not convey any complete meaning for themselves. तत्र can be interpreted as there, then, in that place, or anything referred to by the pronoun tat. (in it, in him, or in them, not any gender distinction). 

Now, विजानतः and  एकत्वमनुपश्यतः are only adjectives, and adjectival phrases, without any noun in the sentence to qualify. But only two pronominal words, यस्मिन् and तत्र, if detached from the previous verse.

If it is so simple and plain with Anvaya, there is no need for so many translations, or so many commentaries in Sanskrit.

I have a publication of ईशावास्य with 7 commentaries, inluding Shankara Bhashya. There is another commentary by ब्रह्मानन्दयोगिन् also.

Sorry for scribing my earlier reply in a hurry.

[valerio virgini]

Dear dr,Bhat

Thank you so much for the exhaustive explanation.

These explanations are extremely helpful for me.


In my opinion, the translation of Max Muller is closer to the structure of Sanskrit.
While the translation of Bhaktivedanta Svami (which is more like an explanation) is the one that "shines" the most.

I think the commentaries are not used to understand the meaning of the verse. They are often conflicting and create doubts.

The commentaries "twist" the original meaning of thought by the author.
In this way the meaning given by the author becomes doubtful.

The commentaries are useful from the literary point of view, since they show different meanings of the same structure.

For example, the term ātman means: Supersoul, the self, Lord.
You do not think that the author had only one of these meanings in mind?

Regarding the anvaya:
It can not give the meanings that give comments,
but it can give a logical sequence and clarify the subject and the object.

For example: abhūt is 3rd singular and can not refer to sarvāṇi bhūtāni, as some translator has done.

Honestly, I did not realize yasmin-tatra as correlative ... so everything is clear.


One more question:

You said: "विजानतः and एकत्वमनुपश्यतः are only adjectives"
Surely they are adjectives, but could not be used as nouns?
For one who is wise; for one who sees the uniqueness "?

Tanks

valerio

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:40 PM, valerio virgini <valerio...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear dr,Bhat

Thank you so much for the exhaustive explanation.

These explanations are extremely helpful for me.

 

1. In my opinion, the translation of Max Muller is closer to the structure of Sanskrit.
While the translation of Bhaktivedanta Svami (which is more like an explanation) is the one that "shines" the most.

 

I think the commentaries are not used to understand the meaning of the verse. They are often conflicting and create doubts.

So it is what you think the commentators wanted to create doubts to the readers. But Indian Thinkers, up to Vivekananda, considered the explanation as logical and grammatical, who understood the philosophical and grammatical structure of Upanishads.

 

The commentaries "twist" the original meaning of thought by the author.
In this way the meaning given by the author becomes doubtful.

And you think the author should have only one meaning and they are twisting which you consider the original meaning of the thought. The Buddhist thinkers, who logically had established the philosophy in Vedanta system of Indian philosophy was no more logic.  

 

The commentaries are useful from the literary point of view, since they show different meanings of the same structure. 

For example, the term ātman means: Supersoul, the self, Lord.
You do not think that the author had only one of these meanings in mind?

You hold that the author should have only one meaning, and you know it. I do not think so, and hold any one of the meanings of आत्मन् should be meant by the author. So get confused by the commentaries. 

Commentaries have read different Upanishad literatures, and wanted to see a common bridge between the religious practices like परमात्मा, आत्मा, परं ब्रह्म. एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म, सोऽमात्मा, तत् त्वम् असि etc. So different thinkers built up their own logical theories to bridge these statements, though not by a single author. If you do not accept the unity of the Upanishadic philosophy, then you can stick to one meaning, and try to get synchronize the different statements through out.

Regarding the anvaya: 

It can not give the meanings that give comments, 
but it can give a logical sequence and clarify the subject and the object.

It is the context that gives the meanings a difinte sense and logic. Logic should follow the context.

Indian Philosophers learnt grammar and logics first, and then endevour on the study of Indian philosophy with the help of them. The reverse you are seeking to learn Sanskrit for you are not satisfied with the translations and not to understand the philosophy you already know with English Terminology for Indian Philosophical words.

Sorry. All the words themselves are themselves expressive with their inflected form and no need for an "anvaya" to paraphrase to accord the wordings to the syntax of your language, which may distort the meaning.

You started with grammatical meaning, and then philosophical meaning and now again rest in "anvaya" in a logical sequence.  And get confused about the meaning and interpretations the commentators and translators give.

[Usha Sanka]

Bhat Sir, Namaste

Thankyou for the explanation.

Very True, I agree with every word you said- totally. 

In the same lines, I have also heard from elders that there are three different levels of meanings for Vaidika mantras. - अधिदैविक, अधिभौतिक and आध्यात्मिक. Some Vaidika commentators had only one, some two and some all three meaning-levels in mind when they made commentaries. That is why they appear as "disparities"- may be?

"Indian Philosophers learnt grammar and logics first, and then endevour on the study of Indian philosophy with the help of them."

This indeed is missing now. And knowing Samskrt as language alone will not help to reach these depths.

Thankyou again.

-vinItA

उषा

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[valerio virgini]

This is true.
Without the knowledge of the culture, even a modern language can not be translated correctly. What about the Sanskrit!

I try to do everything possible, but I am aware of my limitations.
For this reason, this group of Sanskrit is very precious to me.

Regarding the 3 levels of interpretation, it is possible that an author may have thought a work with 3 levels of understanding. This is definitely true. But the differences between a comment Sankara and Madhava are not due to these 3 levels. They are absolutely different philosophies ... and add mutually incompatible.

[valerio virgini]

So it is what you think the commentators wanted to create doubts to the readers. But Indian Thinkers, up to Vivekananda, considered the explanation as logical and grammatical, who understood the philosophical and grammatical structure of Upanishads.

Absolutely not. They do not want to create doubts, but in fact derive doctrines incompatible with each other ... see Sankara and Madhava.

 

And you think the author should have only one meaning and they are twisting which you consider the original meaning of the thought. The Buddhist thinkers, who logically had established the philosophy in Vedanta system of Indian philosophy was no more logic.  

Yes, I think that an author wants to give only one instruction, even if interpreted on several levels ... but all coherent with each other ... never incompatible.

 

You hold that the author should have only one meaning, and you know it.

I would like to know ... I hope to be able to know what the author thought. At this moment I do not know anything.

 I do not think so, and hold any one of the meanings of आत्मन् should be meant by the author. So get confused by the commentaries. 

Commentaries have read different Upanishad literatures, and wanted to see a common bridge between the religious practices like परमात्मा, आत्मा, परं ब्रह्म. एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म, सोऽमात्मा, तत् त्वम् असि etc. So different thinkers built up their own logical theories to bridge these statements, though not by a single author. If you do not accept the unity of the Upanishadic philosophy, then you can stick to one meaning, and try to get synchronize the different statements through out.

Based on what you say, it would seem that in India there is only one philosophy. Until now I always thought that there are many philosophies and some of them incompatible with each other. Is not it?

Regarding the anvaya: 

It can not give the meanings that give comments, 
but it can give a logical sequence and clarify the subject and the object.

It is the context that gives the meanings a difinte sense and logic. Logic should follow the context.

Indian Philosophers learnt grammar and logics first, and then endevour on the study of Indian philosophy with the help of them. The reverse you are seeking to learn Sanskrit for you are not satisfied with the translations and not to understand the philosophy you already know with English Terminology for Indian Philosophical words.

it is.
Maybe it only happens in the West, we receive Indian philosophies (Comments) conflicting and incompatible. The study of Sanskrit is a tool to try to understand what is the right philosophy. We are God? We are not God? We are God and we are not God at the same time?

Sorry. All the words themselves are themselves expressive with their inflected form and no need for an "anvaya" to paraphrase to accord the wordings to the syntax of your language, which may distort the meaning.

this is true.
But the syntax of English is different and anvaya helps me a lot to understand.

As you can see my English is not good. I hope that at least my approach does not seem disrespectful.

thanks

valerio

[Taff Rivers]

Valerio,

  If I may provide a perspective on this subject.

 

  As detailed in the Darśana*, there are always three aspects to verbal material, whether written or spoken.

The material in question may or may not firstly require Translating - (word for word) conversion of text from one script/language into another.

Regardless of translation, the three are:

  1.  The word itself - as mere sound or visual marks.

  2.  Meaning - as an abstract concept/thought, occurring in the mind.

  3.  Reference - the particular thing being referred to.

Which brings us to Interpretation - (commentary)  or the Meaning -  aspect number two.

 ... and the difficulty. Aspect number three, Reference is of necessity, absent.

Both 'self' and 'Self' are also 'things' in the head.

I can communicate the idea 'cow', simply by showing you one, or at least explain how you can see one for yourself.

But nobody can show the inside of their heads, wherein these two reside,

there is but the arduous route of explaining how you can 'see' i.e. experience them for yourself.

To use the dual senses of the verb to see, as seeing (looking) with the external organs of sight, and seeing (understanding) with the inner organ of sight.

   

Such an explanation on this very topic as may be of interest to you can be found at http://vedabase.com/en/iso/7

   Hope this helps,

Regards,

 Taff Rivers

I reproduce the Translation part here: 

Iso mantra 7

yasmin sarvāṇi bhūtāny
ātmaivābhūd vijānataḥ
tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka
ekatvam anupaśyataḥ

Word for word:

yasmin — in the situation; sarvāṇi — all; bhūtāni — living entities; ātmā — the cit-kaṇa, or spiritual spark; eva — only; abhūt — exist as; vijānataḥ — of one who knows; tatra — therein; kaḥ — what; mohaḥ — illusion; kaḥ — what; śokaḥ — anxiety; ekatvam — oneness in quality; anupaśyataḥ — of one who sees through authority, or one who sees constantly like that.

　

Translation:

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

I would like to share a video at this point which says something about translating Samskrt words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbhlrMcQA2U

He says- certain Sanskrit words as non-translatable. I back exactly same view. AtmA is the first in the list.

Thought, it would be relevant for everyone. 

Most of the confusion arises because of that translating effort at places.. I had tried for same some time ago, but realized its futility.. (atleast without the original in brackets.) 

-vinItA

उषा

[Hnbhat B.R.]

He says- certain Sanskrit words as non-translatable. I back exactly same view. AtmA is the first in the list.

And in addition, as shown in the above snapshot, it has got many meanings and the translator can choose his own according to his idea of Philosophy. It can be used in the sense of Body also, than Self and ब्रह्म.and परमात्मन् also. Sanskrit English dictionaries may give more from Vedic usages. Only the choice from multiple meaning makes it difficult.

 

Thought, it would be relevant for everyone. 

Most of the confusion arises because of that translating effort at places.. I had tried for same some time ago, but realized its futility.. (atleast without the original in brackets.) 

Just like the absorbed terms like yoga, etc. it can be used as the term and leave the reader to choose from the multiple meanings which are available in the dictionaries. Or otherwise, one can chose as one deems to be logical to his thinking. For example 

आत्मैव ह्यात्मनो बन्धुरात्मैव रिपुरात्मनः।

could be interpreted with different meanings. But the difficulty is in finding the meaning intendended by the author of the verse. This what Mm. Valarie is facing.

The mind itself is the friend of oneself, and the mind itself could be enemy of himself.

This just running and simple translation, and is very true. When one's mind is controllled by Yoga, = cittavrittinorodha as explained by Patanjali, the mind मनस् itself becomes under controll as a slave and we are not slaves of the passions of the mind. This seems to be the logical interpretation. Here without the explanation, the sentence itself seems to be self-contradictory and repetition of word आत्मन्. The concordance of it with Upanishads, makes some more sense into the words:

मन एव मनुष्याणां कारणं बन्धमोक्षयोः। बन्धाय विषयासंगो मुक्त्यै निर्विषयं मनः ॥ ~ अमृतबिन्दूपनिषद्।

This gives alsong with other sentences of Upanishad-s give a philosophical touch to these words and meanings. But it does not change the word meaning. 

There is a Concordance of Upanishad-s and also Bhagavadgita, one can utilize before endeavouring to translate. And the policy in deciding the purport of a topic is an important factor in deciding the context and contextual meaning:

 षड्विधतात्पर्यलिङ्गानि श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः पूर्वमीमांसाशास्त्रोक्तषद्विधतात्पर्यलिङ्गानि वेदान्तशास्त्रे एवम् सङ्गृहीतानि सन्ति - 

उपक्रमोपसंहारावभ्यासोऽपूर्वता फलम् । 

अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिङ्गं तात्पर्यनिर्णये ॥

The above is just a guideline, besides the general linguistic factors in the cases of polysemy:

संयोगो विप्रयोगश्च साहचर्यं विरोधिता। 

अर्थः प्रकरणं लिङ्गं शब्दस्यान्यस्य सन्निधिः।। 

सामर्थ्यमौचिती देशः कालो व्यक्तिः स्वरादयः। 

शब्दार्थस्यानवच्छेदे विशेषस्मृतिहेतवः।। 

. 

The above factors are deciding factors in a general sentence in the case of नानार्थ words.

This is just a flash of though followed by Indian Commentarors for understanding the meaning.

[Suresh Hegde]

Valerio,

>> 

Based on what you say, it would seem that in India there is only one philosophy. Until now I always thought that there are many philosophies and some of them incompatible with each other. Is not it?

Maybe it only happens in the West, we receive Indian philosophies (Comments) conflicting and incompatible. The study of Sanskrit is a tool to try to understand what is the right philosophy. We are God? We are not God? We are God and we are not God at the same time? <<

I am not a Sanskrit scholar and not the right person to answer grammar related questions in depth. However since this question is more general in nature related to Indian philosophies, I would like to share my limited thoughts. My sincere apologies if this is off-topic for this forum. I feel this is a genuine question faced by many and warrants limited explanation.

You are correct in understanding that there are many philosophies in India. Let us not talk about the non-Vaidic philosophies - who do not believe in VEda PramANya - which do exist in India. 

VEdA’s are apaurushEya, ever present, not composed by anyone, however in the beginning of creation taught by god to others and created guru parampara. “VEda apurushEya” topic has deeper implications which may be off topic for further discussion in this forum. Different schools of Vaidic philosophy, based on VEda prAmANya, arrive at different conclusions, pramEyA’s. Since they have to justify their conclusions using VEda pramANA’s, they come up with different interpretations, explanations of VEdA pramANA’s and present their findings and conclusions. This is where you see the same text being interpreted and presented based on the knowledge, wisdom of the matAchArya. 

Somewhere I heard that “science is the process of evaluation, VEdAnta is the conclusion of experience”. If everyone agreed to one single conclusion you didn’t need multiple philosophies that exists in India even today. The differences are not in the TEXT which is VEDA for every school of Vaidic philosophy. The difference is in their approach to interpreting the VEdA’s and present their conclusions (Tattva’s, end results). They ARE DIFFERENT, some minor, some major. To answer the question - HOW did you arrive at that conclusion - they reference VEda PramANa vAkhyA’s in their BhAshyA’s or TIkA’s or VyAkhyAnA’s. 

They use either the PANinIyam grammar or Vaidic grammar to base their interpretation. VEdA’s existed since anAdi. Please note that PANini DIDn’t invent the grammar. PANini codified the grammar, formulated the rules, solidified the Sanskrit grammar (similarly other following him in time like Patanjali, KatyAyana, Bhattoji Dikshita, many many more contributors….). Why is it important to know this timeline? Sanskrit as a spoken language and Sanskrit spoken grammar precedes way way before PANini. NOT everything in Vaidic text is codified or formulated by grammarians starting from PANini. There are exceptions which grammarians didn’t codify. There are supposedly texts like Maha VyAkaraNa (composed by VyAsa himself) which documents the Vaidic usage much better. Some of the Vaidic usages does not necessarily fit within the framework of PaNini / other rules of current Sanskrit grammar. It doesn’t mean that they are Wrong. 

The challenges the current generation facing is the loss of guru parampare and loosing the Vaidic context which came through the lineage. Learning the Sanskrit purely as an academic interest is great, however sometimes backfire when one try to interpret the Vaidic literature. This is where the different schools of philosophies pass on the knowledge from generation to generation. This is not necessarily taught at the academic level. There are many many reasons why the philosophy is not in the mainstream education in India, let’s us NOT discuss that here. 

Some of the current day scholars end up questioning certain Vaidic texts and argue that those usages are not following the grammar. If they keep the history in mind, this question is a childish question. Why should Vaidic texts follow the PANinian grammar? They should ask why did PANini or the other grammarians didn’t codify or formulate those usages. Then they are doing justice to the Vaidic tradition. Those who argue that  ALL Vaidic texts should follow ONLY PaNinian grammar should be educated.

However majority of the modern Sanskrit literature do conform to PANinIyam grammar rules and this discussion becomes mute in the non-Vaidic context. People who want to understand Indian philosophies, which deal with Vaidic texts this is a very very important point to keep in mind. Most of the AchAryA’s who established Vaidic philosophy (I know Madhva for sure) did go beyond PANiniyam grammar to arrive at some of their interpretations which are valid.

>> The study of Sanskrit is a tool to try to understand what is the right philosophy. <<

This is a tough question to answer. It may take a long long time to figure out what is right for an individual. This is where the belief system plays an important role. I think one has to start with an end-in-mind. What is the end goal of the philosophy you want to look at, what are the conclusions, PramEyA’s? Does that end result resonate with one’s belief system? Would someone like to probe further? Would someone like to invest quality time to get explanations from QUALIFIED resources? and so on…

Best wishes,

Suresh

[Prabha Pillai]

Can you give me the name of the isawasya  with the 7 commentaries, where can I buy it.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Suresh Hegde <ddsu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Valerio,

>> 

Based on what you say, it would seem that in India there is only one philosophy. Until now I always thought that there are many philosophies and some of them incompatible with each other. Is not it?

Maybe it only happens in the West, we receive Indian philosophies (Comments) conflicting and incompatible. The study of Sanskrit is a tool to try to understand what is the right philosophy. We are God? We are not God? We are God and we are not God at the same time? <<

I am not a Sanskrit scholar and not the right person to answer grammar related questions in depth. However since this question is more general in nature related to Indian philosophies, I would like to share my limited thoughts. My sincere apologies if this is off-topic for this forum. I feel this is a genuine question faced by many and warrants limited explanation.

I think these aspects are discussed everywhere off and online and are too general. If you are presenting a new aspect, of the question basic relevant to the topic here, the literal translation, which could be possible or could not be possible, without any goal than getting a literal meaning, apart from the Philosophy/Philosophies it represent or a general way of wise statement. 

In this case also it is possible and there is no grammatical question involved. And the Verses from Bhagavadgita, and other Upanishad-s come to thelp than grammar, for deciding the philosophical content, The two are different and one setting aside the other, can try his best. 

Any new points or aspects if you want to add, to the discussion as a general discussion on Vedic Literature (including Mantra, Brahmana, Aranyaka, Upanishad-s) etc. could be started as a new topic than bundling them in a single thread. This is my sincere opinion. 

Regarding Vedic Vyakarana, Panini has laid down many possibilities and has recognized many forms as आर्ष or छन्दसि and it would be premature to decide all the Vedic usage is not covered by Panini. Commentators are there on Vedic texts who come to help in such cases, who identify correct form according to Panini, giving allowance to archaic usage. Many of the verses of ईशावास्य are very simple like the verses of भगवद्गीता if one knows Paninian Grammar and will be able to identify the deviation from the relevant rules if any easily, after he has gone through the rules related to छन्दसि बहुलम्, छन्दस्युभयथा etc. The point is to identify the correct form to get the correct meaning, literally. Additional factors are listed in earlier posts.

[valerio virgini]

I thank all of you for your clarification.

From your considerations, I realized that, only with the knowledge of grammar, it is not possible to know all the objectives of a sacred text. But I think the knowledge of grammar can be useful to understand "what is not said." That's right?
In this way one can "thin out o prune" the meanings to be explored.

Follow the teachings of a guru is definitely the best way to acquire transcendental knowledge, but the choice of a guru implies a previous choice of philosophy; is not it?


I think that the study of the sacred texts may show the various Darśana and one should choose the one that feels most right.

Thank you again for your contributions.

valerio