Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Dear Sunderji and other scholars of the List, I have problem with the following Sanskrit original and English translation appearing on our home page. It may be due to my ignorance and non-proficiency in Sanskrit. I would much appreciate receiving help: ___________________________ Shankara in Gita-Bhashya:(Ch.18-50) Brahman which is our own Self does not have to be sought after. We have only to dispel the superimposition of Ignorance on the Self. So no effort need be made to `obtain' the enlightenment of Brahman! Differentiations which are nothing but names and forms have misled our discretion and intellect so that what is most explicit in us looks implicit, what is well-known appears unknowable, what is nearest seems distant, what is our own self turns out to be something other than ourselves. "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM Atma-bhUtam-api aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt avidyA adhyAropeNa nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu brahma-jnAne yatnaH kartavyaH" _________________________________ 1. How would be translate Atma-bhUtam? 2. Why 'adhyAropeNa'? Won't the original convey the same meaning if read as follows? "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM *AtmA* aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt avidyA *adhyAropa* nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM*.* na tu brahma-jnAne yatnaH kartavyaH" The three minor alterations are in * *. Has our Acharya any particular reason to use 'Atma-bhUtam' instead of 'Atma' alone and 'adhyAropeNa' instead of 'adhyAropa' alone? These questions baffle me and the translation provided doesn't answer my doubts. Hence, this request. For God's sake, kindly don't consider me as questioning our Acharya. I don't understand him and therefore this request for help. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Dear Sunderji and other scholars of the List, > > I have problem with the following Sanskrit original and English > translation appearing on our home page. It may be due to my > ignorance and non-proficiency in Sanskrit. I would much appreciate > receiving help: > ___________________________ > > Shankara in Gita-Bhashya:(Ch.18-50) > > Brahman which is our own Self does not have to be sought after. We > have only to dispel the superimposition of Ignorance on the Self. So > no effort need be made to `obtain' the enlightenment of Brahman! > Differentiations which are nothing but names and forms have misled > our discretion and intellect so that what is most explicit in us > looks implicit, what is well-known appears unknowable, what is > nearest seems distant, what is our own self turns out to be something > other than ourselves. > > "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt > atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM Atma-bhUtam-api > aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM. > tasmAt avidyA adhyAropeNa nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu > brahma-jnAne yatnaH kartavyaH" > _________________________________ > > 1. How would be translate Atma-bhUtam? > 2. Why 'adhyAropeNa'? > > Won't the original convey the same meaning if read as follows? > > > "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt > atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM *AtmA* aprasiddhaM > durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt > avidyA *adhyAropa* nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM*.* na tu > brahma-jnAne yatnaH kartavyaH" > > The three minor alterations are in * *. Has our Acharya any > particular reason to use 'Atma-bhUtam' instead of 'Atma' alone > and 'adhyAropeNa' instead of 'adhyAropa' alone? These questions > baffle me and the translation provided doesn't answer my doubts. > Hence, this request. > > For God's sake, kindly don't consider me as questioning our Acharya. > I don't understand him and therefore this request for help. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > Namaste, Madathil Nair-ji Thanks for the observations. I went back to the original Shankara Bhashya. *adhyArupeNa* is wrong. The mistake is mine. The original says *adhyAropita*. The other observation about *Atma-bhUtena* is more difficult to sort out. May be the English translation should say "identical with our own self". That is what Swami Gambhirananda says. My translation which I have taken from my own book, goes back probably to Dr. Radhakrishnan in his notes on Gita 18-50. Anyway I await other scholars' opinions before I make a correction in our home page. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Thank you, Sir. But, even if we substitute adhyAropita for adhyAropeNa, some other word would seem missing as adhyAropita is an adjective. Any thoughts? PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote: > > advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" > <madathilnair> wrote: > > > > Dear Sunderji and other scholars of the List, > > > > I have problem with the following Sanskrit original and English > > translation appearing on our home page. It may be due to my > > ignorance and non-proficiency in Sanskrit. I would much > appreciate > > receiving help: > > ___________________________ > > > > Shankara in Gita-Bhashya:(Ch.18-50) > > > > Brahman which is our own Self does not have to be sought after. We > > have only to dispel the superimposition of Ignorance on the Self. > So > > no effort need be made to `obtain' the enlightenment of Brahman! > > Differentiations which are nothing but names and forms have misled > > our discretion and intellect so that what is most explicit in us > > looks implicit, what is well-known appears unknowable, what is > > nearest seems distant, what is our own self turns out to be > something > > other than ourselves. > > > > "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt > > atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM Atma-bhUtam-api > > aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti > avivekinAM. > > tasmAt avidyA adhyAropeNa nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na > tu > > brahma-jnAne yatnaH kartavyaH" > > _________________________________ > > > > 1. How would be translate Atma-bhUtam? > > 2. Why 'adhyAropeNa'? > > > > Won't the original convey the same meaning if read as follows? > > > > > > "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt > > atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM *AtmA* aprasiddhaM > > durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt > > avidyA *adhyAropa* nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM*.* na tu > > brahma-jnAne yatnaH kartavyaH" > > > > The three minor alterations are in * *. Has our Acharya any > > particular reason to use 'Atma-bhUtam' instead of 'Atma' alone > > and 'adhyAropeNa' instead of 'adhyAropa' alone? These questions > > baffle me and the translation provided doesn't answer my doubts. > > Hence, this request. > > > > For God's sake, kindly don't consider me as questioning our > Acharya. > > I don't understand him and therefore this request for help. > > > > PraNAms. > > > > Madathil Nair > > > > Namaste, Madathil Nair-ji > > Thanks for the observations. I went back to the original Shankara > Bhashya. *adhyArupeNa* is wrong. The mistake is mine. The original > says *adhyAropita*. > > The other observation about *Atma-bhUtena* is more difficult to > sort out. May be the English translation should say "identical with > our own self". That is what Swami Gambhirananda says. My translation > which I have taken from my own book, goes back probably to Dr. > Radhakrishnan in his notes on Gita 18-50. > > Anyway I await other scholars' opinions before I make a correction > in our home page. > > PraNAms to all advaitins. > profvk > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Thank you, Sir. But, even if we substitute adhyAropita for > adhyAropeNa, some other word would seem missing as adhyAropita is an > adjective. Any thoughts? > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > > ______________ Namaste! I referred to the translation by Dr. AG Krishna Warrier. I thought I would share that here. "Therefore, as regards Brahman, what is to be aimed at is only the repudiation of the objects superimposed through nescience; no effort is needed to secure knowledge of Brahman that is absolutely self- evident. To those, however, who lack discrimination, who are distracted by appearances associated with name and form, the self- evident Brahman seems remote; though effortlessly known, seems hard to know; though closest being, the very Self, seems alien." I think 'avidyA.adhyArOpa nirAkaraNa' would mean negation of the superimposition whereas 'avidyA.adhyArOpita nirAkaraNa' seems to mean the negation of the objects superimposed. As for 'Atmabhutam', I would read it paired with 'anyat', just as 'atyanta.prasiddhaM' goes with 'aprasiddhaM', 'suvjneyaM' with 'durvijneyaM' and 'AsannataraM' with 'atidUraM'. If you substitute 'Atma', I am not sure if the whole thing will be consistent. Hope this helps. I must add that my sanskrit knowledge is very rudimentary. Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Namaste Neelakantanji. advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote: > > I think 'avidyA.adhyArOpa nirAkaraNa' would mean negation of the > superimposition whereas seems to > mean the negation of the objects superimposed. [i am afraid, in 'avidyA.adhyArOpita nirAkaraNa', the collective adjective 'avidyA AdhyAropita' would only qualify the pocess of 'nirAkaraNa' (removal). That is not acceptable. In no way can we think that it suggests the removal of the 'objects'. We all know that what is meant is the removal of a superimposed misapprehension or misconception. So, there is some word required (say ajnAna) if we accept 'avidyA adhyAropita' (like 'avidyA adhyAropita ajnAna nirAkaraNa') whereas in 'avidyA adhyAropa nirAkarana', a collective noun, both removal (nirAkaraNa) and what is removed ('avidyA adhyAropa') are there, as you rightly observe.] > As for 'Atmabhutam', I would read it paired with 'anyat', just > as 'atyanta.prasiddhaM' goes with 'aprasiddhaM', 'suvjneyaM' > with 'durvijneyaM' and 'AsannataraM' with 'atidUraM'. If you > substitute 'Atma', I am not sure if the whole thing will be > consistent. [i have some second thoughts on this point. AtmabhUtam should be acceptable if understood as self-existence (from AtmabhU) - that which needs no external support for its validation or existence. That would resonate well when we see that the whole scenario of the statemnet speaks about the dependence of the experienced mithyA (non- real), misapprehended as other than the Self, taking birth and perishing in time and space, on the self-existent Self (Real)(Atma), which is the sat (Existence) of sat-chit-Ananda. What we need to remove is only our usual mental association of bhUtaM with the temporality of being and being born. Hope this is acceptable.] PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji and Neelakantanji. My third thoughts! Sankara was right about suvijneyaM becoming durvijneyaM! I am referring to my worries about Atma-bhutaM. It looks very simple now. There is a dash (-) between Atma and bhUtam. We need to remove it as follows: "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM Atma bhUtam-api aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM." Here bhUtam becomes 'born' meaning 'to those who don't discriminate, Atma looks like taking birth, not immediately available, difficult to know, distant and alien'. Thus, bhUtam is not connected to Atma but goes with the rest of the adjectives like aprasiddhaM, durvijneyaM etc. I must admit that the word 'pratibhAti' in the context in which it is used here has no English equivalent. So, I have meekly settled for 'looks like'. My doubt about adhyAropita remains. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ____________________________ advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > [i have some second thoughts on this point. AtmabhUtam should be > acceptable if understood as self-existence (from AtmabhU) - that > which needs no external support for its validation or existence. > That would resonate well when we see that the whole scenario of the > statemnet speaks about the dependence of the experienced mithyA (non- > real), misapprehended as other than the Self, taking birth and > perishing in time and space, on the self-existent Self (Real) (Atma), > which is the sat (Existence) of sat-chit-Ananda. What we need to > remove is only our usual mental association of bhUtaM with the > temporality of being and being born. Hope this is acceptable.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji and Neelakantanji. > > My third thoughts! > > Sankara was right about suvijneyaM becoming durvijneyaM! I am > referring to my worries about Atma-bhutaM. > > It looks very simple now. > > There is a dash (-) between Atma and bhUtam. We need to remove it as > follows: > > "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheshha-AkAra-apahRRita-buddhitvAt > atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM Asanna-taraM Atma bhUtam-api > aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva cha pratibhAti avivekinAM." > > Here bhUtam becomes 'born' meaning 'to those who don't discriminate, > Atma looks like taking birth, not immediately available, difficult to > know, distant and alien'. Thus, bhUtam is not connected to Atma but > goes with the rest of the adjectives like aprasiddhaM, durvijneyaM > etc. I must admit that the word 'pratibhAti' in the context in which > it is used here has no English equivalent. So, I have meekly settled > for 'looks like'. > > My doubt about adhyAropita remains. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > ____________________________ Namaste Nairji! Your point regarding adhyArOpita is well taken. I guess it does need an object. On AtmabhUtam, I am not sure if you can split it as Atma bhUtam. If that was the case, it would have been AtmA with a long A and instead of 'api', you would have 'iva'. I think the 'api' following 'bhUtaM' should apply to 'atyantaprasiddhaM', 'suvijneyaM' and 'AsannataraM' as well as to 'bhUtaM'. I hope I am making sense. Anyway, I think I have already breached the bounds of my sanskrit knowledge. I shall wait for others to explain this now. Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Neelakanta-ji ( i luv taking Lord shiva's name this Monday whenver an opportunity presents itself ! For the lord and his Name are one ! ) anyway, You seem to be well versed in Samskrita ! There is of course Our Sunder-ji who is really an 'EXPERT; in atters relating to anything to do with Saskritam and for some odd reason he is very 'silent' these days ... but he does speak up when it is necessary and we get 'pearls'.... However - on 'ATMABHUTAM' ! THIS RANG A BELL ! every wednesday , i listen to sri vishnu sahasaranama and there is a verse bhuta-bhavya-bhavat-prabhuh Lord of past, present and future; bhuta-krd bhuta-bhrd bhavo Creator of all beings; Sustainer of all beings; becoming the universe without losing His nature as pure existence; *bhutatma* bhuta-bhavanah Self of beings; evolving and nourishing creatures. so may be , atmabhutam is the same as bhutatma -self of beings ? i am very poor in 'grammar' specially sanskrit grammar! but i just thought let me try for all its worth! bTW, LORD sHIVA IS A GRAMMARIAN AND HIS CONSORT WEARS THE AKSHARAMALA ( FROM A TO KS - ALL THE LETTERS OF THE SANSKRIT ALPHABET) forgive me if i am way of the mark ! Salutations to lord shiva and shakti! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote: > > advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" > <madathilnair> wrote: > > > > Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji and Neelakantanji. > > > > My third thoughts! > > > > Sankara was right about suvijneyaM becoming durvijneyaM! I am > > referring to my worries about Atma-bhutaM. > > > > It looks very simple now. > > > > There is a dash (-) between Atma and bhUtam. We need to remove it > as > > follows: Namaste, The Complete Works (Samata Books, 1999) has this sequence of sentences and text: "....tasmAt avidyAdhyAropitanirAkaraNamAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu brahmavij~nAne yatnaH atyantaprasiddhatvAt.h | avidyAkalpitanAmarUpavisheShAkArapahRRitabuddhInAM atyantaprasiddhaM suvij~neyaM AsannataraM AtmabhUtamapi aprasiddhaM durvij~neyaM atidUraM anyadiva cha pratibhAti avivekinAm.h |...." Allady Mahadeva Sastry translation of this is: "....Therefore we have only to eliminate what is falsely ascribed to Brahman by avidya; we have to make no more effort to acquire a knowledge of Brahman as He is quite self-evident. Though thus quite self-evident, easily knowable, quite near, and forming the very Self, Brahman appears to the unenlightened, to those whose reason (Buddhi) is carried away by the differentiated phenomena of names and forms created by avidya, as unknown, difficult to know, very remote, as though He were a separate thing....." Hope this clarifies the doubts. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Namaste Sunderji. Immense thanks. That clarifies. By the way, the quote starts with 'tasmAt' implying the existence of a previous explanatory statement about the nature of the false ascription on Brahman due to avidya. Can that also please be quoted for our information, if it is convenient and not too lengthy? PraNAms. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: \> The Complete Works (Samata Books, 1999) has this sequence of > sentences and text: > > "....tasmAt avidyAdhyAropitanirAkaraNamAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na > tu brahmavij~nAne yatnaH atyantaprasiddhatvAt.h | > avidyAkalpitanAmarUpavisheShAkArapahRRitabuddhInAM atyantaprasiddhaM > suvij~neyaM AsannataraM AtmabhUtamapi aprasiddhaM durvij~neyaM > atidUraM anyadiva cha pratibhAti avivekinAm.h |...." > > Allady Mahadeva Sastry translation of this is: > > "....Therefore we have only to eliminate what is falsely ascribed to > Brahman by avidya; we have to make no more effort to acquire a > knowledge of Brahman as He is quite self-evident. > Though thus quite self-evident, easily knowable, quite near, and > forming the very Self, Brahman appears to the unenlightened, to > those whose reason (Buddhi) is carried away by the differentiated > phenomena of names and forms created by avidya, as unknown, > difficult to know, very remote, as though He were a separate > thing....." > > > Hope this clarifies the doubts. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2005 Report Share Posted November 29, 2005 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > By the way, the quote starts with 'tasmAt' implying the existence of > a previous explanatory statement about the nature of the false > ascription on Brahman due to avidya. Can that also please be quoted > for our information, if it is convenient and not too lengthy? Namaste Madathilji, It is somewhat long. It is online at: http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/ http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/handler.php3 (enter 18 and 50 in the boxes and click on GO, even if the page says 'Error...etc.!!) If you are not able to access it, I shall be glad to post the transliteration. (Copy/Paste does not work with the diacritic marks). Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 Namaste Sunderji. Thanks again for the links. I could access them. Although the text, as it appears on the links, is not easily readable, it comes out beautifully well when copied, pasted and printed in Word in large font size. No more any need, therefore, to quote the Sanskrit text. However, is it possble for you to provide Allady Mahadeva Shastrigal's translation for the previous few sentences starting from "dehacaitanyavAdinashca..." and ending with "tatwAbhyupagamena". That I believe has a lot to do with the previous discussions we had here about Brahman and the world and the proper understanding of AtmabhUtaM. I got a fair idea of what the Acharya means. Yet, I would like to be very sure. In the meanwhile, I will certainly make it a point to get a copy of the "Complete Works" from Samanta. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > > It is somewhat long. It is online at: > > http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/ > > http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/handler.php3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > However, is > it possble for you to provide Allady Mahadeva Shastrigal's > translation for the previous few sentences starting > from "dehacaitanyavAdinashca..." and ending > with "tatwAbhyupagamena". Namaste Madathilji, It is as follows: ".......And the Lokayatikas (materialists) who argue that consciousness is a property of the physical body declare that the Purusha or Soul is identical with the physical body endued with consciousness. Similarly, others again argue that consciousness is a property of the senses; others again argue that consciousness is a property of Buddhi. There are a few who hold that there is something within even beyond the Buddhi, viz., the Avyakta (the Unmanifested) also called the Avyakrita (the Undifferentiated), in the form of Avidya; and they say that the Avyakrita is the Self. Everywhere, from Buddhi down to the physical body, the cause of illusory identification of each with the Self is its wearing a semblance of the consciousness of the Self; and it is therefore unnecessary to impart directly a knowledge of the Self.----What then is necessary?-- ---What is necessary is the mere elimination of the not-Self associated with the Self,----names forms and the like; but it is unnecessary to try and teach what the consciousness of the Self is like, inasmuch as it is invariably comprehended in association with all objects of perception which are set up by avidya. Accordingly the Vijnanavadins, the Buddhistic Idealists, hold that there is nothing real except ideas, and that these ideas require no external evidence (to prove their existence), inasmuch as it is admitted that they are self-cognised. Therefore we have only to eliminate what is falsely ascribed to Brahman by avidya; we have to make no more effort to acquire a knowledge of Brahman as He is quite self- evident.........." [The Bhashya translation on this verse (XVIII:50) runs to five and one-half pages, so one may perhaps need the whole of it if any doubts still remain!] Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.