Guest guest Posted August 18, 2000 Report Share Posted August 18, 2000 Here are a few comments and corrections on the first set of notes. I have only indicated some of the typographical errors; it would probably be easier to physically (or electronically) give the document to someone for general editorial corrections. I would like to offer but, apart from my meagre knowledge of Sanskrit, I cannot justify the time or guarantee to keep it up. I am by no means any sort of Sanskrit expert and am liable to make silly blunders in pointing out any errors but, in case some of them are valid, below are a few that seemed to be wrong (I assume that throughout you are using ITRANS transliteration). shruti, not sR^iti smR^iti, not smruti prasthaana, (meaning course, method or system?) not prastaana giitaa, not geeta daarshanika, not daarshhaNika darshanam, not darshhaNam upasana, not upaasana It occurs to me that you will really need a glossary of Sanskrit terms if you intend to use only these later. It will not really be reasonable to expect readers to have to look back to try to find out when a word was first used to find out what it means. And it will not be reasonable (at least in my case!) to expect people to remember all of them. Also, still on the subject of Sanskrit, is it really necessary to use this for everything? I can see the argument for terms for which there is no equivalent in English (e.g. buddhi) or where there are many meanings (e.g. dharma) but for words approximating to non-philosophical aspects such as chapter, section, topic and so on, could we not just stick with the nearest English equivalent? I am all for avoiding unnecessary obfuscation. In the famous shloka (not sloka), I suspect you mean progeny rather than prodigy. It would be worth mentioning that aastika means one who believes in the existence of God, from 'asti' - there is or exists. When talking about bR^ihaspati, you say he was the deva guru. Does this mean that he, a god, was a guru or that he was the guru of other gods? It seems most incongruous that a philosophy of materialism should originate from a god! I wonder whether Shankara would consider that Charvaaka darshanam was not worthy of discussion today, given the advances of science and the general attitudes of most of society! You explain what are the beliefs of Charvaaka darshanam but not any of the others. Will this be covered later? (e.g. I do not know anything about the beliefs of Jains, apart from the ahimsa bit.) When talking about the author of the Brahmasuutra, you say the Mahaabhaarata is considered prehistoric. It is nevertheless later than many of the upanishhads isn't it since the giitaa quotes from them? Thanks, Sadananda, for introducing this most difficult (for me) of subjects. I hope I have the stamina to keep up with you! Your article has also stimulated my interest in Sanskrit again, dormant for the last couple of years, and got me flicking through the Monier-Williams again! Can't wait to get on to Shankara's introduction! Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2000 Report Share Posted August 18, 2000 Dennis thanks for your excellent and much needed comments. I will try to be more careful and try to be less sloopy in my sanskrit and english. If you do volunteer I could send the lesson first to you to suggest corrections which can be implimented before I send them on mail. The use of sanskrit words would help slowly in getting used to the terminology - like adhikaraNa, addhyaasa etc. As you go along there will be more definitions that occur. Some times the traslation is not universal - like for example 'arthapaatti' which is sometimes traslated as 'postulate' but I am not sure it is appropriate. >Here are a few comments and corrections on the first set of notes. I have >only indicated some of the typographical errors; it would probably be easier >to physically (or electronically) give the document to someone for general >editorial corrections. I would like to offer but, apart from my meagre >knowledge of Sanskrit, I cannot justify the time or guarantee to keep it up. > >I am by no means any sort of Sanskrit expert and am liable to make silly >blunders in pointing out any errors but, in case some of them are valid, >below are a few that seemed to be wrong (I assume that throughout you are >using ITRANS transliteration). > >shruti, not sR^iti >smR^iti, not smruti >prasthaana, (meaning course, method or system?) not prastaana >giitaa, not geeta >daarshanika, not daarshhaNika >darshanam, not darshhaNam >upasana, not upaasana > >It occurs to me that you will really need a glossary of Sanskrit terms if >you intend to use only these later. It will not really be reasonable to >expect readers to have to look back to try to find out when a word was first >used to find out what it means. And it will not be reasonable (at least in >my case!) to expect people to remember all of them. Good idea - I will try to compile. > >Also, still on the subject of Sanskrit, is it really necessary to use this >for everything? I can see the argument for terms for which there is no >equivalent in English (e.g. buddhi) or where there are many meanings (e.g. >dharma) but for words approximating to non-philosophical aspects such as >chapter, section, topic and so on, could we not just stick with the nearest >English equivalent? I am all for avoiding unnecessary obfuscation. True. Athough adhikaraNa could imply a topic - the very definition provided in the sloka form gives the requirements when it pertains to suutra-s. I am not sure use of the word 'topic' instead would provide equivalent concept in mind when people read it. Keep watching any way and if you find use of english words would simplify without sacrificing the intended meaning then we can shift. >It would be worth mentioning that aastika means one who believes in the >existence of God, from 'asti' - there is or exists. No. here the intended meaning is not the belief in God - it is, as it is stated in the text - belief in the validity of Veda as pramaaNa or means of knowledge. In the philosophies classfied under naastika - there are those do belief in God but not in the Veda as PramaaNa - there is subclasifications like naastika-naastika and naastika-aastika etc - first with reference to Veda as pramaaNa and the next with reference to existence of God. - I didnot want to go into that detail here. >When talking about bR^ihaspati, you say he was the deva guru. Does this mean >that he, a god, was a guru or that he was the guru of other gods? It seems >most incongruous that a philosophy of materialism should originate from a >god! bR^ihaspati is the guru of Indra. As the story goes it is intended for raakshasa-s so that they can be mislead. Once they loose their spiritual power, they can be easily destroyed - and that was the idea. >I wonder whether Shankara would consider that Charvaaka darshanam was >not worthy of discussion today, given the advances of science and the >general attitudes of most of society! Actually we are taking about Vyaasa or BadaraayaNa - I donot know if he even would have bothered to write suutra-s given the attitude of the masses! > >You explain what are the beliefs of Charvaaka darshanam but not any of the >others. Will this be covered later? (e.g. I do not know anything about the >beliefs of Jains, apart from the ahimsa bit.) It is done extensively in the second Chapter where Vedavyaasa refutes the naastika darshhanam-s. For the time being I am concentrating on the first four suutras each one being an adhikaraNa also. That itself will take few months to cover. Let us see how it develops. >When talking about the author of the Brahmasuutra, you say the Mahaabhaarata >is considered prehistoric. It is nevertheless later than many of the >upanishhads isn't it since the giitaa quotes from them? True - but believed to be 3000 to 5000 BC. Upanishads are believed to be even earlier. Buddha was about 540BC. Brahmasuutra-s must be much later. > >Thanks, Sadananda, for introducing this most difficult (for me) of subjects. >I hope I have the stamina to keep up with you! Your article has also >stimulated my interest in Sanskrit again, dormant for the last couple of >years, and got me flicking through the Monier-Williams again! Can't wait to >get on to Shankara's introduction! > >Dennis Thanks again for your kind comments and your keen interest. Your last statement reinforces the use of sanksrit words! Before we go to Shankara's intro we need to examine 'anumaana' or logical inference which I will do next. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2000 Report Share Posted August 18, 2000 Brahma Sutras (Sri Ramanuja) Hardcover, Advaita Ashrama, March 1979 Some Notes on Brahma Sutra at Dvaita Homepage Website: http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/brahma_suutra.html Brahma Sutra by Swami Krishnananda ,General Secretary, The Divine Life Society Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India : Website: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma_00.html CONTENTS Chapter I - The Forest of the Brahma Sutra Chapter II - The Critique of Erroneous Doctrines Chapter III - Erroneous Notions Refuted Chapter IV - The Origin of Bondage Chapter V - Towards Liberation Chapter VI - The Controversy Over Action and Knowledge Chapter VII - Specimens of Vedantic Meditations Chapter VIII - Upasana -- Upanishadic Meditations Chapter IX - The Causal Law as a Limitation Chapter X - Vaishvanara Vidya Chapter XI - The Preliminaries to Sadhana Chapter XII - Brahman and Its Realisation Chapter XIII - Consideration on Some Issues Arising in the Brahma Sutra Also Nataraj Bookstore carries the following books published by Advaita Ashramam: (Website: http://users.erols.com/nataraj/) Brahma Sutras (Sri Ramanuja Bhasya) Hardcover, Advaita Ashrama, March 1979 ($8.00) Brahma Sutras (Sri Shankara Bhasya) Hardcover, Advaita Ashrama, March 1979 ($8.00) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2000 Report Share Posted August 18, 2000 Swami Sivananda's commentary on Brahma Sutra's is at : http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_00.html This online book contains a sutra-by-sutra explanation of the Brahma Sutras. > > Ram Chandran [sMTP:ramvchandran] > Friday, August 18, 2000 4:42 PM > advaitin > Cc: vacmrc > Re: Brahmasuutra-1 > > Brahma Sutras (Sri Ramanuja) > Hardcover, Advaita Ashrama, March 1979 > > Some Notes on Brahma Sutra at Dvaita Homepage > Website: > http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/brahma_suutra.html > > > Brahma Sutra by Swami Krishnananda ,General > Secretary, The Divine Life Society > Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India : > Website: > http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma_00.html > > CONTENTS > > Chapter I - The Forest of the Brahma Sutra > Chapter II - The Critique of Erroneous Doctrines > Chapter III - Erroneous Notions Refuted > Chapter IV - The Origin of Bondage > Chapter V - Towards Liberation > Chapter VI - The Controversy Over Action and Knowledge > Chapter VII - Specimens of Vedantic Meditations > Chapter VIII - Upasana -- Upanishadic Meditations > Chapter IX - The Causal Law as a Limitation > Chapter X - Vaishvanara Vidya > Chapter XI - The Preliminaries to Sadhana > Chapter XII - Brahman and Its Realisation > Chapter XIII - Consideration on Some Issues Arising in > the Brahma Sutra > > Also Nataraj Bookstore carries the following books > published by Advaita Ashramam: > (Website: http://users.erols.com/nataraj/) > Brahma Sutras (Sri Ramanuja Bhasya) > Hardcover, Advaita Ashrama, March 1979 ($8.00) > Brahma Sutras (Sri Shankara Bhasya) > Hardcover, Advaita Ashrama, March 1979 ($8.00) > > > > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives > are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To > from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other > contact, Email to <advaitins > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2000 Report Share Posted August 18, 2000 Dennis Waite wrote: > Here are a few comments and corrections on the first set of notes. I have > .... ... ... > It would be worth mentioning that aastika means one who believes in the > existence of God, from 'asti' - there is or exists. I thought the word astika as far as usage in Vedanta is concerned, means accepting Vedas as prama.na, i.e., means of definite knowledge. > > > When talking about bR^ihaspati, you say he was the deva guru. Does this mean > that he, a god, was a guru or that he was the guru of other gods? It seems > most incongruous that a philosophy of materialism should originate from a > god! I wonder whether Shankara would consider that Charvaaka darshanam was > not worthy of discussion today, given the advances of science and the > general attitudes of most of society! I think you have to know various systems of darshana in order to point out defects in them. > > > > > Dennis > Best wishes, -- HImanshu 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.