to jagat

[dasanudasa 0]

I want to ask you a favor.

Will you analyze the following verse?

 

pratiSThA rajjUbhir baddhaM

kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH |

chittvA tAH saMharantas tA-

naghAreH pAntu mAM bhaTAH ||1||

 

thanks

dasanudasa

[Jagat 1]

kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM

chittvA tAH saMharantas tAn aghAreH pAntu mAM bhaTAH ||1||

 

The kernel of the sentence is: aghAreH bhaTAH mAM pAntu: "May the soldiers (bhaTAH) of Krishna, the enemy of the Agha demon, or the enemy of sin (aghAreH) save me."

 

Now modifying mAm is the first half of the verse: kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM

 

baddhaM "bound" pratiSThA-rajjUbhiH by the ropes of [desire for] prestige, [tied there] by kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH the highwaymen led by Kama.

 

How should the soldiers of Krishna save me? chittvA tAH>/i> by cutting the ropes and saMharantas tAn killing them.

 

Need more details?

[Jagat 1]

kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM

chittvA tAH saMharantas tAn aghAreH pAntu mAM bhaTAH ||1||

 

The kernel of the sentence is: aghAreH bhaTAH mAM pAntu: "May the soldiers (bhaTAH) of Krishna, the enemy of the Agha demon, or the enemy of sin (aghAreH) save me."

 

Now modifying mAm is the first half of the verse: kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM

 

baddhaM "bound"

pratiSThA-rajjUbhiH "by the ropes of [desire for] prestige",

[tied there] by kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH "the highwaymen led by Kama."

 

How should the soldiers of Krishna save me?

 

chittvA tAH "by cutting the ropes" and

saMharantas tAn "killing them."

 

Need more details?

[Avinash 0]

Could you please give me a single word in Sanskrit that means "house of love"?

 

I also need for "house of joy". I think the word "harShAlaya" can be used for "house of joy". But, can you think of some more words?

 

[dasanudasa 0]

Dear Jagat,

Thanks for your reply

Some questions are

 

1)I took the text from Grantha Mandira but I have seen a iskcon book where in the same verse the word rajjUbhir is spell rajjubhir, I looked in the dictionary (Monier's) and found rajju (in earlier language also rajjU) as rope, could you kindly explain how rajju becomes rajjUbhir?

 

2)The same for aghAreH, there is agha (Agha, or sin) that is clear, but what about the enemy and how the internal saMdhi works?

 

3)vartma-pAtibhiH, there is vartman, the road, and pAti, the lord or master of the road, but highwaymen? How pAti becomes pAtibhiH?

 

4)If you can give the full details of case, gender, person, number, tense, mode, etc. that will be great

 

 

In the other tread you wrote

 

Since we started on the Gita, I thought I would go through the Bhagavad Gita for Sanskrit beginners. Please give some feedback.

 

I think that if you go through any text in that way and you publish it as a pdf it will be very beneficial to persons that are as me beginning Sanskrit studies.

 

I do not have all the time I wish to dedicate but really want to read in sanskrit because the sound and meaning of the poetry of the acaryas increase the bhava in a way no philosophical or poetical translation can.

 

gaura hari bol

 

dasanudasa

[Jagat 1]

1)I took the text from Grantha Mandira but I have seen a iskcon book where in the same verse the word rajjUbhir is spell rajjubhir, I looked in the dictionary (Monier's) and found rajju (in earlier language also rajjU) as rope, could you kindly explain how rajju becomes rajjUbhir?

 

--> Some Sanskrit words have unstable or multiple forms, which are usually taken advantage of by poets for metrical reasons. It is sometimes useful to check the metre to see whether a short or long syllable was needed at a particular place. I did not look when I went through the verse. It should indeed be rajjubhiH as a short syllable is needed. Please tell me which file you found this in and I will have it corrected.

 

2)The same for aghAreH, there is agha (Agha, or sin) that is clear, but what about the enemy and how the internal saMdhi works?

 

--> What's the problem here? The sandhi is agha + ari --> aghAri.

 

3)vartma-pAtibhiH, there is vartman, the road, and pAti, the lord or master of the road, but highwaymen? How pAti becomes pAtibhiH?

 

--> No. It's "pAtin" not "pati" vartma-pAta "coming in the way, waylaying."

 

4)If you can give the full details of case, gender, person, number, tense, mode, etc. that will be great

 

Whoops. Too much right now. As for the other. I have started up a web page on the granthamandira site (and hope to post the Gita on there). As a matter of fact, I am giving a seminar this weekend and I will be trying to use this system as a way of introducing novices to Sanskrit.

 

When translating a word like "house of love" you have to be careful. You don't want it to sound like a "house of prostitution."

 

The normal words for love are "prema, prIti, sneha, rAga, anurAga," etc. each with different shades of meaning.

 

For home, abode, refuge, etc., you can use "gRha, Alaya, geha, sthAnam, vezman, nilayaH, bhavanaM, etc." with similar shades of meaning.

 

"premAlayaH" seems good.

[Avinash 0]

Jagat ji,

Sorry for troubling you. But, what to do? I am interested in a verse and need your help.

Could you analyse Bhagavad Gita verse 7.26 for me? I have BG As It Is. The English translation and word-by-word meaning are given there. But I want to know how to arrive at the English translation of that verse from original Sanskrit in a step-by-step manner.

Thank you.

[Jagat 1]

ahaM samatItAni vartamAnAni bhaviSyANi ca bhUtAni veda | kazcana tu mAM na veda |

 

The problem here is probably "veda", which is an irregular unreduplicated perfect tense with a present meaning! It is the same in both the first and third persons (ahaM veda = "I know"; sa veda = "he knows"). The second person is vettha, which is also found in the Gita (4.5, 10.15).

 

The object in the first half is bhUtAni ("beings, things"), the other three words (past, present, future) are adjectives modifying bhUtAni. This is confirmed in Sankara, Ramanuja and Sridhar. Madhusudana Saraswati, however, interprets the three adjectives as nouns, and bhUtAni as a separate, fourth object of the Lord's knowledge. This is the interpretation that Prabhupada has followed, but I don't know where he got it as neither Vishwanath nor Baladeva discuss this part of the verse.

 

I don't have either of Bhaktivinoda's translations, which Srila Prabhupada probably used, but Narayan Maharaj (who uses Vishwanath and Bhaktivinoda's Vishwanath translation) follows the traditional version, as does Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar. Tripurari Maharaj, however, has followed Prabhupada/Madhusudan.

 

Zaehner's comment on this verse:<font color=#660099>Zaehner 256: At this stage we can but note the discrepancies in this chapter on whether or not it is possible to know God. The opening and closing verses of the chapter are optimistic, but verse 3 says that perhaps one in a million can know God as He really is, while verse 26 says flatly that no one can know Him at all. Perhaps the meaning is that God can be known as eternal Being because every liberated self participates in this, but He cannot he known as He operates through mäyä because it is the very function of mäyä, of matter, to bewilder and confuse (7.14-15, 25). As Shankara would say, mäyä is something you cannot pin down or adequately describe (anirvacanIya); it neither is nor is not; yet in the Gita it is inextricably intertwined with the being of God.

 

"Brahman in its wholeness", as we shall see in the next chapter, comprises (i) the "Imperishable" (see 8.3 n.), (ii) the law of karma which gives rise to individuality, (iii) material Nature, and (iv) eternal individual selves. In addition there is God who is especially connected with the sacrifice (see 8.4 n.). Each of these categories can be learnt in theory by those who "strive to win release from old age and death". The totality of them all in God can only be "known" once a man's mind and thoughts are fully integrated. This, however, is not to know in the ordinary sense of the word, but an intuitive apprehension beyond all discursive thought. The Kena Upanishad 2.2-3 has the last word to say on this "knowledge" or "wisdom":

 

I do not think, "I know It well",

I do not know, "I do not know";

He of us who knows It, knows It,

He does not know, "I know It not".

Who thinks not on It, by him It's thought:

Who thinks upon It, does not know—

Ununderstood by those who understand,

By those who understand not understood.</font>

 

nAhaM manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca |

yo nas tad veda tad veda no na vedeti veda ca ||2||

yasyAmataM tasya mataM mataM yasya na veda saH |

avijJAtaM vijAnatAM vijJAtam avijAnatAm ||3||