Goldman on kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear list

Robert Goldman translates dharmajñaśca kṛtajñaśca in VR 1.1.2 as 

“knows both what is right and how to act upon it”

I am at a loss as how can kṛtajña translate as “one who knows how to act upon it (what is right)”.

Both Ralph Griffith and Hari Prasad Shastri use the word grateful, which conveys the sense in which kṛtajña is primarily used in Sanskrit (and Hindi too): कृतं कृतोपकारं जानाति. As per the Vachaspatyam, कृतज्ञ is used in the senses कृतोपकारज्ञातरि, तत्प्रत्युपकारके, कुक्कुरे, and परमेश्वरे. The three famous commentaries Bhushana, Tilaka, and Shiromani all take the first sense (कृतोपकारज्ञातरि). So what could be the basis of Goldman's translation?

Thanks, Nityananda

--

Nityānanda Miśra

[Jsr Prasad]

Dear Nityananda ji,

He has put in considerable efforts in understanding and translating the epic.
But, there could be two reasons for that sort of translation:

1. incomprehensibility of Sanskrit word meanings and

2. deliberate misrepresentation

Monier Williams translates the word as follows:

- कृतज्ञ mf (आ)n. knowing what is right, correct in conduct MBh. xii, 104, 6

- कृतज्ञ/ कृत--ज्ञ mf (आ)n.acknowledging past services or benefits, mindful of former aid or favors, grateful Mn. Ya1jn5. etc.

Presumably, Robert Goldman has considered the former meaning only.

 I just glanced the translation and wonder, how he could have translated the word 'Hanuman.' In the link that you forwarded, many translations need our attention, for instance, 'yojana' = league etc.

There is a good amount of material available for debate. A mere glance of the translation reveals so much so that Goldman fairly confuses the reader a lot, while heavily referring to Ramopakhyana, Pali Jatakakatha, Jacobi, Van Buitenen, and others with regard to Ramayana's antiquity, furthermore comparing Valmiki with Homer.

The translator seemingly endorses that Hanuman is a fictitious character? Throughout his translation, the very word has been translated as 'monkey.' Is this a Darwinian influence, using the western lens?

Goldman's clearly sets his difference of opinion, on occasions like that of 'ऋक्षवानरगोपुच्छैः..,' (apes, monkeys and langurs) in Kishkindha kanda, with all Sanskrit commentators.

I think, you opened up a Pandora's box, kindly offered to us by Goldmans, with your nice observations for the attention of scholars.

Regards,

Prasad

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

--

J.S.R. Anjaneya Prasad,
Associate Professor, Dept. of Sanskrit Studies,
School of Humanities, University of Hyderabad,
Prof. C.R. Rao Road, Hyderabad - 500 046
Tel: +91-40-2313 3803

।। पुरुषोऽयं लोकसम्मितः ।।

[K S Kannan]

Vedanta Desika uses even the word kṛtavid 

in the sense of 'the grateful' only.

Apte gives the additional sense of 

'correct in conduct'.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 15 April 2017 10:41:52 UTC+5:30, Jsr Prasad wrote:

Dear Nityananda ji,

He has put in considerable efforts in understanding and translating the epic.
But, there could be two reasons for that sort of translation:

1. incomprehensibility of Sanskrit word meanings and

2. deliberate misrepresentation

Monier Williams translates the word as follows:

- कृतज्ञ mf (आ)n. knowing what is right, correct in conduct MBh. xii, 104, 6

- कृतज्ञ/ कृत--ज्ञ mf (आ)n.acknowledging past services or benefits, mindful of former aid or favors, grateful Mn. Ya1jn5. etc.

 

Presumably, Robert Goldman has considered the former meaning only.

Thank you Prof. Prasad. It is possible Goldman relied on Monier-Williams, but still, M-W says "knowing what is right" and not "knowing how to act on what is right". 

It is natural to assume that in Goldman's "knows both what is right and how to act upon it", the former ("knows what is right") is the translation of धर्मज्ञ/dharmajña and the latter ("knows how to act upon it") is the translation of कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña. If this is the case, then M-W entry of "knowing what is right" does not appear to be the reason for Goldman's strange (or shall I say problematic) translation of कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña. Or, Goldman reversed the order and translated कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña as "knows what is right" following M-W and translated धर्मज्ञ/dharmajña as "knows how to act upon it". Still odd. Alf Hiltebeitel quotes Goldman here (note 10) and gives his own translation as "one who knows dharma and who is grateful". Hiltebeitel clearly does not agree with Goldman's translation as seen by his phrase "rather than" before he quotes Goldman's translation "and how to act upon it". 

Coming back to M-W, the meaning of "knowing what is right" and citation from Mahabharata is shamelessly copied/plagiarized from Böhtlingk Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung (1879), which gives a meaning of  कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña word as das Rechte kennend  Mbh.12,104,6.  Another example of why I no longer trust M-W (I used to take it for granted some years back). The online version of 1872 edition of M-W does not list कृतज्ञ, but the 1899 edition has it. In between the two came Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung in 1879. As usual M-W (or whoever worked on the second edition) did not even bother to cross-check. Now Böhtlingk's 1879 entry (das Rechte kennend  Mbh.12,104,6) is also a strange case. The original 1855 edition of Böhtlingk and Roth Grosses Petersburger Wörterbuch does not have this entry under the word. The citation is difficult to trace, there are several occurrences of the word कृतज्ञ in Shanti Parva as can be seen in the Digital Corpus of Sanskrit and the searched in the Unicode text. None of them in any chapter close to 104. We do not know which verse Böhtlingk’s second edition had in mind. It seems to me Böhtlingk’s second edition had a careless error which was copied by Monier-Williams. I have never seen the word कृतज्ञ being used as or explained as "knowing what is right" or "knowing how to act on what is right". If कृत means what is right, how do we explain the popular words सुकृत and दुष्कृत?

Whatever be the reasons for Böhtlingk, M-W, or Goldman to explain the word in a certain way, this all shows that we cannot take their dictionary entries/translations for granted. 

[Jsr Prasad]

It is natural to assume that in Goldman's "knows both what is right and how to act upon it", the former ("knows what is right") is the translation of धर्मज्ञ/dharmajña and the latter ("knows how to act upon it") is the translation of कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña. If this is the case, then M-W entry of "knowing what is right" does not appear to be the reason for Goldman's strange (or shall I say problematic) translation of कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña. Or, Goldman reversed the order and translated कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña as "knows what is right" following M-W and translated धर्मज्ञ/dharmajña as "knows how to act upon it". Still odd. Alf Hiltebeitel quotes Goldman here (note 10) and gives his own translation as "one who knows dharma and who is grateful". Hiltebeitel clearly does not agree with Goldman's translation as seen by his phrase "rather than" before he quotes Goldman's translation "and how to act upon it".

Yes, your suspicion might be true in that case. Madhava Yogis interprets - 'श्रौतस्मार्तसकलधर्मरहस्यज्ञश्च' for धर्मज्ञ । Govindaraja clarifies the significance of 'च'kaara in the expression धर्मज्ञश्च - 'चकारोऽनुक्तसमुच्चयार्थः । परिहार्याधर्मज्ञश्चेत्यर्थः' । May I humbly remind the MBh verse with regard to this - धर्मे च अर्थे च कामे च मोक्षे च... (धर्मे-अधर्मे च, अर्थे-अनर्थे च, कामे-अकामे च, मोक्षे-अमोक्षे च etc.). Even then, Goldman's translation is hard to connect anywhere approximate to the word. If you relax the condition of word analysis by giving a loose end to it, then Goldman's "knows both what is right and how to act upon it" may be applicable to the Govindaraja's interpretation. But still, what happens to the next adjectival word - कृतज्ञ ? I am subject to correction here.

Alf Hiltebeitel seems to be a sensible author. I already had a hunch on its implications, as he rightly said over there.

[Jsr Prasad]

Coming back to M-W, the meaning of "knowing what is right" and citation from Mahabharata is shamelessly copied/plagiarized from Böhtlingk Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung (1879), which gives a meaning of  कृतज्ञ/kṛtajña word as das Rechte kennend  Mbh.12,104,6.  Another example of why I no longer trust M-W (I used to take it for granted some years back). The online version of 1872 edition of M-W does not list कृतज्ञ, but the 1899 edition has it. In between the two came Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung in 1879. As usual M-W (or whoever worked on the second edition) did not even bother to cross-check. Now Böhtlingk's 1879 entry (das Rechte kennend  Mbh.12,104,6) is also a strange case. The original 1855 edition of Böhtlingk and Roth Grosses Petersburger Wörterbuch does not have this entry under the word. The citation is difficult to trace, there are several occurrences of the word कृतज्ञ in Shanti Parva as can be seen in the Digital Corpus of Sanskrit and the searched in the Unicode text. None of them in any chapter close to 104. We do not know which verse Böhtlingk’s second edition had in mind. It seems to me Böhtlingk’s second edition had a careless error which was copied by Monier-Williams. I have never seen the word कृतज्ञ being used as or explained as "knowing what is right" or "knowing how to act on what is right". If कृत means what is right, how do we explain the popular words सुकृत and दुष्कृत?

Whatever be the reasons for Böhtlingk, M-W, or Goldman to explain the word in a certain way, this all shows that we cannot take their dictionary entries/translations for granted.

I really appreciate your further investigation on the MBh reference given by M-W from Böhtlingk, as both are proved to be erroneous. I've enclosed the popular Sanskrit translations on धर्मज्ञ and कृतज्ञ । In Srimad Bhagavatam, कृतज्ञ word appears twice –  at 10.48.26 & 11.29.38, purely in the sense of 'grateful.' Translating in Goldman's lines, the सुकृत and दुष्कृत words would end up in a greater laughter. I fully agree and other scholars might have a lot to say about your last comment.

[V Subrahmanian]

There is a verse of Vedanta Desika which contains the word 'kṛtavid':

सद्बुद्धिः साधुसेवी समुचितचरितः तत्त्वबोधाभिलाषी
शुश्रूषुः त्यक्तमानः प्रणिपतनपरः प्रश्नकालप्रतीक्षः ।
शान्तो दान्तोऽनसूयः शरणमुपगतः शास्त्रविश्वासशाली
शिष्यः प्राप्तः परीक्षां कृतविदभिमतं तत्त्वतः शिक्षणीयः ॥ न्यासविंशतिः ३ ॥

If there is any popular translation or commentary to this verse, one can perhaps know 

the meaning of the term as per this text.  

regards

subrahmanian.v

[K S Kannan]

It is to that reference that I pointed:

same sense as of  kṛtajña

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Nityanandji,

I had some discussion with the some of the members of the team when I first happened to read it.

I was turned off at the first line "Narada, bull among sages".  When i pointed out the absurdity of

such expression, i was told that it is done for "philology".  Then I learned that the philology that

they develop has little to do with etymology or the word origin.  The basis of tackling poetic metaphors

with phonetic dissection takes the translation away from the poet. 

The trouble is that the Indian language style is strongly metaphorical, much of which are through local

legends or through long period of transformation of words.  This would not be appreciated by some one

unless the person is a language speaker or has deep appreciation of poetry and the metaphors.  I do not

know the intent and the labor that might have gone to create the old dictionaries.  The translator,

ignorant of the use of a word, depends on the dictionary and picks up a phrase that he or she thinks

could be appropriate.  A unit of poetry is a stanza or a sentence.  They assume that the stanza is

a convenience, than a creative construction.  The translation gets stranger as the Valmiki sentences

would compound in creating stronger imagery.  There it would appear as pure destruction in conversion.

I can say pages, but I stop here.  To me, such work though possibly well-intended, have to be rejected

by language speakers.  Possibly they had a different audience in mind.  Such cultural and language

misrepresentation also continues in other works that our children read.  It is a massive problem of

imposition.  India has to discover herself and find a way forward in many ways. 

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[Jsr Prasad]

I had some discussion with the some of the members of the team when I first happened to read it.

I was turned off at the first line "Narada, bull among sages".  When i pointed out the absurdity of

such expression, i was told that it is done for "philology".  Then I learned that the philology that

they develop has little to do with etymology or the word origin.  The basis of tackling poetic metaphors

with phonetic dissection takes the translation away from the poet. 

It's great experience shared, Prof. Bijoy ji. Possibly, the word 'पुङ्गव' has been translated so, through out the English text. The kind of philology that they do is to enrich the so called PIE theory that would strengthen another fabricated theory - AIT. When they denounce poetic metaphors, what would be the plight of ध्वनि, श्लेष, काकु kind of aesthetic concepts in 'translation'? When Valmiki states - विमदानुत्थितान् सर्वान् मेहमानान् मधूदकम् ।। (5.64.4) should it read as '(in madhuvana) all the monkey warriors are inflicted with Diabetes Mellitus as evident from the passage of urine?'

[Jsr Prasad]

I do not know the intent and the labor that might have gone to create the old dictionaries.  The translator,

ignorant of the use of a word, depends on the dictionary and picks up a phrase that he or she thinks

could be appropriate.  A unit of poetry is a stanza or a sentence.  They assume that the stanza is

a convenience, than a creative construction.  The translation gets stranger as the Valmiki sentences

would compound in creating stronger imagery.  There it would appear as pure destruction in conversion.

I'd like to bring your attention to the following passage from Goldman's introduction:

//Synonimity is not, however, the only problem to confront the translator. Just as many different words may have the same meaning in Sanskrit, so, may a single word have a bewildering variety of meanings. Some of traditional India's most highly charged terms, words such as dharma, karma, tapas, and so on, have wide ranges of meaning, and it is, as the pandits say, possible to determine the terms do not exhibit this polysemic character, a one-to-one translation is both possible and desirable. Thus, we have rendered every occurrence of the term 'ṛṣi' with the English word "seer" and each appearance of the partially overlapping term 'muni' as "sage," in order to reflect the distribution of these two common terms. The important term 'dharma,' however, has a number of related but quite different meanings. When it is used generally, as in compounds and derivatives like 'dharmajña' and 'dhārmika,' "knowing dharma" and "dharmic," we have translated it, depending on the English context, as "righteousness," "what is right," and so on.

One of our fundamental decisions concerning this translation of the rāmāyaṇa was that it should contain a minimum of untranslated words. To avoid providing an appropriate English equivalent for terms such as dharma is to abdicate the translator's responsibility.//

(highlighting is mine)

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In the case of kṛtajña and all such cases where he takes a different meaning than the one taken by the traditional commentators, doesn't he have the responsibility to explain /justify that decision to take a different meaning, at least in a footnote or something like that? 

One such reason /justification, for example, should be that the meaning taken by traditional commentators or translators earlier to him does not suit the context, i.e., Rama is not the one who is  कृतं कृतोपकारं जानाति. But is this reason valid, if given ? Does not Rama show gratefulness?

One may, then argue that he could have shown gratefulness, but that is not such a central feature of his personality as to be enlisted in the very beginning of the book. But even this is not correct. He 'brothers' many 'others' out of gratefulness to them only. (brother -other here, is sābhiprāya and anyāpadēśa, hope at least some understand)

Another reason that could have justified the meaning 'one who knows how to act upon it (what is right)' is that the word dharmajña can not communicate this meaning. But the word dharmajña does not just mean 'the one who knows what is right' it also means 'the one who knows how to act upon it'. There is no need to use an additional word to communicate that meaning. 

 

--

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

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Jsr Prasad]

Good comments sir!
They probably may not explain the contextuality of the meaning since they are not 'dharmajñas...'
I think, one may surely stumble upon tens of such ministrations in this work.

[Bijoy Misra]

I do not know what the thought was.  I wrote what I was given to understand
by somebody who participated in the project.  He said that a "group" of
Assistants determined the translation and some such strange things.  I must

say many western scholars reject the translation also.

I wanted to buy the book to give as a gift to my granddaughter.  Then I confronted
the phrase "bull among the sages". A person who would not know, can easily
think of "snake among the sages", "insect among the sages," or any word
replacing "bull". For a young kid, the education would be that in old India,
humans were compared to animals or some object.  The youth in India
unfamiliar with Sanskrit or local language, might be reading these nonsense.
That मुनिपुङ्गव is a word suggesting a मुनि, as capable as a पुङ्गव

(this also reads crude), or more conceptually unitary nature, singular among
 the flock etc is the intent.  Apparently philology demands a "literary" translation,

The phrase "literary" is defined by "scholars" who may not live the language

or have any respect to the poetry or the culture.

I thought his "bull" was a caricature of Valmiki.  My father, who was a poet,

had hinted such use to me in the '50s.  But I encountered it only because

of a personal need. The "bull" is persistent in the book.  There are plenty
other "bull"-like features in every page. I left after three pages.

BM

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Bijoy Misra's example, 'bull among sages' is an apt one, to show how literarily/aesthetically insensitive the translation is. Prof. Misra concessively says, 'possibly they had a different audience in mind'. But to which audience this 'bull among sages' kind of translation communicates any meaning? It is just inefficiency of translation.  

--

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

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

कृतज्ञपर्यायत्वेनैव कृतविदिति प्रयोगोऽत्र ॥

आचार्यकृतोपकारज्ञानमविस्मरणं च विवक्षितम् ॥

यास्कोऽपि - य आतृणत्त्यवितथेन कर्णावदुःखं कुर्वन्नमृतं संप्रयच्छन् ।

तं मन्येत पितरं मातरं च तस्मै न द्रुह्येत् कतमच्चनाह ।

 

रामानुजः

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 15 April 2017 18:09:28 UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Prof. Bijoy Misra's example, 'bull among sages' is an apt one, to show how literarily/aesthetically insensitive the translation is. Prof. Misra concessively says, 'possibly they had a different audience in mind'. But to which audience this 'bull among sages' kind of translation communicates any meaning? It is just inefficiency of translation.  

Not just insensitive, it shows Goldman did not pay heed to the fact that अमरकोष clearly says that पुंगव in उत्तरपद means श्रेष्ठ. 

स्युरुत्तरपदे व्याघ्रपुंगवर्षभकुञ्जराः।

सिंहशार्दूलनागाद्याः पुंसि श्रेष्ठार्थगोचराः॥ ३.१.४९ ॥

 

So मुनिपुंगव = मुनिव्याघ्र = मुनिसिंह = मुनिकुञ्जर = मुनिनाग and all of them simply mean मुनिश्रेष्ठ (best among sages). 

[Jsr Prasad]

The youth in India unfamiliar with Sanskrit or local language, might be reading these nonsense.

That मुनिपुङ्गव is a word suggesting a मुनि, as capable as a पुङ्गव

(this also reads crude), or more conceptually unitary nature, singular among
 the flock etc is the intent.  Apparently philology demands a "literary" translation,

The phrase "literary" is defined by "scholars" who may not live the language

or have any respect to the poetry or the culture.

The paraphrasing of मुनिपुङ्गव could be:

<पुं-गव> = पुमान् गव इव
<मुनि-<पुं-गव>> = मुनिषु पुङ्गवः

The सादृश्य and श्रेष्ठता both are implied here. Similarly, compounds like नरपुङ्गवः, राजपुङ्गवः etc. are possible.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 15 April 2017 17:17:58 UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Another reason that could have justified the meaning 'one who knows how to act upon it (what is right)' is that the word dharmajña can not communicate this meaning. But the word dharmajña does not just mean 'the one who knows what is right' it also means 'the one who knows how to act upon it'. There is no need to use an additional word to communicate that meaning. 

Completely agree with Prof. Paturi Ji. dharmajña is one who not only knows what is right, but also how to act on it. 

सत्यं ब्रूयात्प्रियं ब्रूयान्न ब्रूयात्सत्यमप्रियम्। प्रियं च नानृतं ब्रूयादेष धर्मः सनातनः॥ मनुस्मृतौ ४.१३८ ॥

So dharma includes action (in this case speaking the truth, speaking what is pleasant, not speaking an unpleasant truth, and not speaking a pleasant lie). 

[K S Kannan]

Three commentaries on the Rāmāyāṇa 

on the word kṛtajña

1. Tilaka says -

bahvīm apy apakṛtim upekṣya, ekām apy upakṛtim bahvīm manyate - iti kṛtajñaḥ/

2. Śiromaṇi says -

kṛtajñaḥ - kṛtaṁ kathaṁcij-jātopakṛtim eva jānāti smarati

nānantarajātāpakṛtigaṇam jānātīti/

3. Bhūṣaṇa says -

kṛtam upakāramsvalpam prāsaṅgikam api bahutayā jānātīti kṛtajñaḥ/

apakārāsmara;;ṇamca-śabdārthaḥ/

Goldman has seen none, or ignored all of the three famous commentaries

- even though there is perfect concord and unanimity among the three.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Dr. P. Ramanujan <ra...@cdac.in> wrote:

कृतज्ञपर्यायत्वेनैव कृतविदिति प्रयोगोऽत्र ॥

आचार्यकृतोपकारज्ञानमविस्मरणं च विवक्षितम् ॥

यास्कोऽपि - य आतृणत्त्यवितथेन कर्णावदुःखं कुर्वन्नमृतं संप्रयच्छन् ।

तं मन्येत पितरं मातरं च तस्मै न द्रुह्येत् कतमच्चनाह ।

 

रामानुजः
On April 15, 2017 at 2:55 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a verse of Vedanta Desika which contains the word 'kṛtavid':

 

सद्बुद्धिः साधुसेवी समुचितचरितः तत्त्वबोधाभिलाषी
शुश्रूषुः त्यक्तमानः प्रणिपतनपरः प्रश्नकालप्रतीक्षः ।
शान्तो दान्तोऽनसूयः शरणमुपगतः शास्त्रविश्वासशाली
शिष्यः प्राप्तः परीक्षां कृतविदभिमतं तत्त्वतः शिक्षणीयः ॥ न्यासविंशतिः ३ ॥

If there is any popular translation or commentary to this verse, one can perhaps know 

the meaning of the term as per this text.  

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

Jñāna and kriyā supplement and complement each other.

Well has it been said:

hataṁ jñānaṁ kriyā-hīnaṁ, 

      hatā cājñāninaḥ kriyā /

apaśyann andhako naṣṭaḥ, 

      paśyann api ca paṅgukaḥ ! //

Further, jānāti (of a positive nature) is normally followed by icchati (yatate), and karoti.

These should elucidate the nature of a dharma-jña.

--

[an.nar...@yahoo.co.in]

namo vidvadbhya:

Not sure if this helps in any way..

for the Ishavasya mantra, krutam smara krato smara, Sri Rangaramanuja muni comments thus: matkrutam yatkinchidanukulam anusandhaaya krutajnyastvam maam raksha iti bhaava: or etaavadantam tvatkrutamaanukulyam pratisandhaaya tvameva sheshapooranam kuru' - 'you alone complete all the good done to me so far'

rgds-Narasimhan

[V Subrahmanian]

 धन्यवादा: ‌।

On 15 Apr 2017 18:43, "Dr. P. Ramanujan" <ra...@cdac.in> wrote:

कृतज्ञपर्यायत्वेनैव कृतविदिति प्रयोगोऽत्र ॥

आचार्यकृतोपकारज्ञानमविस्मरणं च विवक्षितम् ॥

यास्कोऽपि - य आतृणत्त्यवितथेन कर्णावदुःखं कुर्वन्नमृतं संप्रयच्छन् ।

तं मन्येत पितरं मातरं च तस्मै न द्रुह्येत् कतमच्चनाह ।

 

रामानुजः
On April 15, 2017 at 2:55 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a verse of Vedanta Desika which contains the word 'kṛtavid':

 

सद्बुद्धिः साधुसेवी समुचितचरितः तत्त्वबोधाभिलाषी
शुश्रूषुः त्यक्तमानः प्रणिपतनपरः प्रश्नकालप्रतीक्षः ।
शान्तो दान्तोऽनसूयः शरणमुपगतः शास्त्रविश्वासशाली
शिष्यः प्राप्तः परीक्षां कृतविदभिमतं तत्त्वतः शिक्षणीयः ॥ न्यासविंशतिः ३ ॥

If there is any popular translation or commentary to this verse, one can perhaps know 

the meaning of the term as per this text.  

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Narasimhan Ananth]

Sorry, it's not Rangaramanuja Muni as he did not write a commentary for ishavasya. It is Sri Vedanta Deshika. 

Rgds-Narasimhan 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/SCbhjYJaQJM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

To add to the discussion of kṛtajña and akṛtajña, these terms have been used in the Pali Buddhist literature in meanings not familiar in the Sanskrit literature.  The Pali words kataññu (Skt. kṛtajña) and akataññu (Skt. akṛtajña) are sometimes used in the sense of "grateful" and "ungrateful".  But occasionally they are also used in the sense of "one who knows the created" and "one who knows the uncreated", the "uncreated" referring to Nirvāṇa.  See the attached passage from the Dhammapada.  

I am not suggesting that kṛtajña in the Ramayana passage has this meaning, but just that sometimes words can have contextually very different unfamiliar meanings.  With this distinctly different meaning of akataññū "knower of the uncreated (nirvāṇa)", there is a Pali passage which says that the akataññū is the Uttamapurisa (Skt. Uttamapuruṣa).

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Madhav Deshpande]

Here is the Pali passage with the akataññū person being an Uttamapurisa/Uttamaporisa:

assaddho akataññū ca sandhicchedo ca yo naro /
Hatāvakāso vantāso sa ve uttamaporiso //

assaddho akataññū ca, Who is without blind faith, but knows the uncreated (nibbāna),
sandhicchedo ca yo naro, Who has cut out the bonds,  
hatāvakāso vantāso, Who destroyed all causes (for karma) and removed all desires,
sa ve uttamaporiso, One truly is the most greatest of men.

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Bijoy Misra]

I would say kataññū in this context could mean "one who knows the path (to the ultimate)"

"path" can mean that "one who has done the necessary austerities to know (the ultimate)"

There is a key difference.  I think the essence is in "knowing through doing".  In the

religious world, there is one thing to know (i would leave it as "ultimate")

What is the reference to the Pali text? 

[K S Kannan]

Anticipated in

nāsty akṛtaḥ kṛtena

of the Upaniṣad?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

To add to the discussion of kṛtajña and akṛtajña, these terms have been used in the Pali Buddhist literature in meanings not familiar in the Sanskrit literature.  The Pali words kataññu (Skt. kṛtajña) and akataññu (Skt. akṛtajña) are sometimes used in the sense of "grateful" and "ungrateful".  But occasionally they are also used in the sense of "one who knows the created" and "one who knows the uncreated", the "uncreated" referring to Nirvāṇa.  See the attached passage from the Dhammapada.  

I am not suggesting that kṛtajña in the Ramayana passage has this meaning, but just that sometimes words can have contextually very different unfamiliar meanings.  With this distinctly different meaning of akataññū "knower of the uncreated (nirvāṇa)", there is a Pali passage which says that the akataññū is the Uttamapurisa (Skt. Uttamapuruṣa).

The above resembles the BG 15th chapter verse:

यस्मात्क्षरमतीतोऽहमक्षरादपि चोत्तमः । 

अतोऽस्मि लोके वेदे च प्रथितः पुरुषोत्तमः ॥ १८ ॥

There kshara and akshara mean 'manifest world' and 'unmanifest, māyā'. The Supreme Brahman is beyond both. 

The subsequent verses state the phala of the above knowledge:

यो मामेवमसंमूढो जानाति पुरुषोत्तमम् । 

स सर्वविद्भजति मां सर्वभावेन भारत ॥ १९ ॥

regards  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In this thread on BVP, particularly from this post onwards, there was a discussion on Prof. Robert Goldman's understanding of Hanuman. 

[Girish Jha]

Dear colleagues,

Kritajna means kritopakaara-jnaataa.It is accepted traditionally in Classical Sanskrit'

Hence,I agree with Mr Nityanand Misra.

Regards,

Girish K  Jha

Univ. Professor

Post-Grad Dept of Sanskrit

Patna University

Patna-800 005

Ph: 09931490815