Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Hi guys. Sisupalavadha 14:60 goes like this: dhyeyamekamapathe sthitaM dhiyaH stutyamuttamamatiitavaakpatham| aamananti yamupaasyamaadaraadduuravartinamatiiva yoginaH|| But Mallinatha rearranges the words thus: ekam... uttamam... yamenam... dhyeyam... tathaapi dhiyo'pathe... stutyam... tathaapi atiito vaakpatho yena tam... aadaraad...upaasyam... tathaapyatiita duuravartinam... So that the verse seems to me to be translatable, acording to him, somewhat thus: 'he whom yogins describe as unique, ultimate, to be meditated on, yet standing off of the path of thought, praiseworthy, yet beyond the path of language, as to be served with care, yet as abiding extremely far away.' What I wonder is, if, when a commentator seems to 'bring out' antitheses as Mallinatha does here, they are to be understood as having been really meant thus by the original poet. Would it be just as 'legitimate' to understand and translate the verse according to the word order of the verse, without the sense of tathaapi between dhyeyam and apathe sthitaM dhiyaH, and so on. Or is such an understanding actually strongly implied in the verse, and I just can't feel it. Phillip 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.