ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।
तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथाः मा गृधः कस्य स्विद् धनम् ॥१॥--
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.
असुर्या नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसाऽऽवृताः ।
ताँस्ते प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्ति ये के चात्महनो जनाः ॥ ३॥--
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 . . .
valerioThanks for your reply.Regards
So translate "atmahan" as "one who torments souls" can be corrected?
"atmahan", in this sense, exists in some other work?
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
--
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.
यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद् विजानतः ।
तत्र को मोहः कः शोकः एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥७॥
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]
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?
--
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It can not give the meanings that give comments,
but it can give a logical sequence and clarify the subject and the object.
--
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.
It can not give the meanings that give comments,
but it can give a logical sequence and clarify the subject and the object.
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:
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.)
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
Can you give me the name of the isawasya with the 7 commentaries, where can I buy it.
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.