Comments on Brahmasuutra IIID and Glossary

[Guest guest]

General suggestions for Glossary: -

 

It looks as though this is going to become very large! I suggest that you do

not separate out nouns, verbs, prepositions etc. I guess that many people

using this will not know the part of speech of a given word and having to

look in four or more places is not helpful! I assume that words for all of

the slokas quoted from other sources will not be covered as this would boost

the volume significantly.

 

Having said that, I can think of one extra section that might improve things

by reducing the size of the main glossary. This would be a list of all the

main pratyaya-s. (I was sure I had a list somewhere myself but I’ve had a

look and failed to find it.) Many words occur in various forms with the

basic word being preceded by prefixes such as a-, api- etc or having a

suffix such as –taa. Why don’t you have a section that lists all of the

prefixes and suffixes together with their essential meaning so that you can

then just list the ‘root’ word in the glossary and apply the change

indicated by the prefix or suffix?

 

New words (apparently), spelling not checked: -

 

sthuulashariira

vaakyam

kartaa

bhoktaa

sloka

vikaaraH (actually nirvikaaraH but see above)

pramaatutvam

j~naataa

antaH

baahya

upa

bhojana

anantam

jiivatvam

anekatvam

bahutvam

vaisheshhika

vatvam (? – as in vyavahaaravatvam)

pravR^itti

suukshma

 

Comments on text: -

 

I’m afraid I must reiterate my concerns about the volume of Sanskrit in

these commentaries. I feel sure that some potential readers must be being

put off by this. Has anyone attempted to canvas the groups to determine how

many members are actually attempting to read them? The scarcity of comments

in the Advaitin group suggests the numbers might be quite low! I feel that

this should not be so. (Where are people like Greg, for example? I would

have thought he should be commenting on the philosophical logic from a

Western viewpoint.)

 

Missing out all of the Sanskrit and just reading the ‘best’ translation

leaves these commentaries still excellent. I personally do not feel that

leaving out the Sanskrit almost completely would seriously detract from

their value. Conversely, again speaking for myself, I do not feel that I

gain significantly in understanding by having the Sanskrit there. My study

of Sanskrit is obviously helped but at the expense of clearly understanding

the philosophy. And I suspect that most members are not interested in

studying Sanskrit.

 

My problem is that I simply cannot remember what all of the words mean and

consequently have to keep looking them up. This seriously detracts from the

flow of understanding! Since there is not the slightest chance that I will

ever understand all of the nuances that can be conveyed by using the correct

Sanskrit word, I feel that the main argument for using them is lost.

Consequently, it seems that the commentaries are likely to be pursued to the

end only by the most serious academics who are familiar with the Sanskrit.

And this would be a great loss. (See the sentence beginning “Hence we can

express…” near the end for an extreme example. It says ‘familiar statement’

but the sentence contains words in the ratio of about 90:10 per cent

Sanskrit:English! No chance!)

 

Right, with that off my chest, on to my comments on the material.

 

It is understandable that to be a ‘knower’ is to undergo modification since

before there is ignorance and after there is knowledge. But what is the

modification for a ‘doer’ and an ‘enjoyer’? It is clearly an ‘experience’

but it is not obvious that this experience changes the subject.

 

It is also not obvious why there is a need for clever logic in this

instance. If the shruti makes a clear and obvious statement such as ‘aatman

is not a knower’ is it not self evident that a statement such as ‘I am a

knower’ contradicts shruti?

 

Again, to say that a ‘doer’ has to be associated with an ‘instrument’ of

doing seems ok but with what instrument is an ‘enjoyer’ or a ‘knower’

associated? Examples please!

 

Sorry to sound so critical, Sada-ji. It is so good and you have spent so

much effort on it, I want to get the most out of it.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

 

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

The size of the glossary will not bother me!(unless the

users on this site find it unhelpful). The work will be used

elsewhere also [eg Sanskrit Documents site].

 

[Other responses are inserted below in the text:]

 

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> General suggestions for Glossary: -

>

I suggest that you do not separate out nouns, verbs, prepositions

etc. I guess that many people using this will not know the part of

speech of a given word and having to look in four or more places is

not helpful!

 

*****OK. Will integrate them.

 

 

I assume that words for all of the slokas quoted from other sources

will not be covered as this would boost the volume significantly.

 

*****I shall leave it upto you & other readers to let me know the

list of words you would like included.

>

> Having said that, I can think of one extra section that might

improve things

> by reducing the size of the main glossary. This would be a list of

all the

> main pratyaya-s. (I was sure I had a list somewhere myself but

I've

had a

> look and failed to find it.) Many words occur in various forms with

the

> basic word being preceded by prefixes such as a-, api- etc or

having a

> suffix such as –taa. Why don't you have a section that

lists all of

the

> prefixes and suffixes together with their essential meaning so that

you can

> then just list the `root' word in the glossary and apply

the change

> indicated by the prefix or suffix?

 

*****Will implement this.

> New words (apparently), spelling not checked: -

>

> sthuulashariira

> vaakyam

> kartaa

> bhoktaa

> sloka

> vikaaraH (actually nirvikaaraH but see above)

> pramaatutvam

> j~naataa

> antaH

> baahya

> upa

> bhojana

> anantam

> jiivatvam

> anekatvam

> bahutvam

> vaisheshhika

> vatvam (? – as in vyavahaaravatvam)

> pravR^itti

> suukshma

 

*****Will include thse in the next update.

 

Regards,

 

s.

[Guest guest]

Dennis Wrote:

 

Comments on text: -

 

I’m afraid I must reiterate my concerns about the volume of Sanskrit in

these commentaries. I feel sure that some potential readers must be being

put off by this. Has anyone attempted to canvas the groups to determine how

many members are actually attempting to read them? The scarcity of comments

in the Advaitin group suggests the numbers might be quite low! I feel that

this should not be so. (Where are people like Greg, for example? I would

have thought he should be commenting on the philosophical logic from a

Western viewpoint.)

-------------------

Sadananda:

Thanks Dennis for your constructive comments. After your first comments I

was trying to make sure that the meaning of the Sanskrit text is given

(though not word by word) such that one can in fact skip the Sanskrit and

make out the logic. Hence the Sanskrit seems now redundant. While the logic

sounds without Sanskrit is O.K. I felt the translation words don’t give the

same in-depth meaning than the original Sanskrit words. Most of Indian

vernacular languages have the same Sanskrit words and it is easy to follow.

When I was reading commentaries in English by others on sutra, I ended up

closing the book in no time and the significance of the definition of the

English words was not striking and I wished should have given the Sanskrit

words in the parenthesis at least.

 

You are right – I am not sure who are the readers and what is there input.

I have few personal mails from Chinmaya list serve who are enjoying the

notes. I am not sure anyone with Western background are seriously reading

and of those that are reading are seriously turned off by the Sanskrit

words.

 

As always these studies need commitment and shraddha and people start with

enthusiasm and slowly stop, not because of the Sanskrit words but more

because of lack of commitment.

 

I admire your commitment and I will make sure at least one can skip Sanskrit

and pick up the analysis. I suggest you reed the English part only and see

if it makes sense. The second reading one can include the Sanskrit worlds

too.

 

Thanks to Sunder also for the up to date glossary. That is a great help as

it builds up and will be helpful for understanding other slokas too.

---------------

Dennis:

Missing out all of the Sanskrit and just reading the ‘best’ translation

leaves these commentaries still excellent. I personally do not feel that

leaving out the Sanskrit almost completely would seriously detract from

their value. Conversely, again speaking for myself, I do not feel that I

gain significantly in understanding by having the Sanskrit there. My study

of Sanskrit is obviously helped but at the expense of clearly understanding

the philosophy. And I suspect that most members are not interested in

studying Sanskrit.

--------------

Sadananda:

If one can understand by reading the English it is good. One should read

with the Sanskrit later then it would reinforce the understanding. I would

like to get feed back from all the readers. I am posting soon a readers

feed back form and see how many will answer the form.

------------

Dennis:

My problem is that I simply cannot remember what all of the words mean and

consequently have to keep looking them up. This seriously detracts from the

flow of understanding! Since there is not the slightest chance that I will

ever understand all of the nuances that can be conveyed by using the correct

Sanskrit word, I feel that the main argument for using them is lost.

Consequently, it seems that the commentaries are likely to be pursued to the

end only by the most serious academics who are familiar with the Sanskrit.

And this would be a great loss. (See the sentence beginning “Hence we can

express…” near the end for an extreme example. It says ‘familiar statement’

but the sentence contains words in the ratio of about 90:10 per cent

Sanskrit:English! No chance!)

 

Right, with that off my chest, on to my comments on the material.

-----------------

Sadananda:

Thanks for getting off your chest – now it is on my chest! Let us see how

the readers feed back is – if they care to respond!

--

Dennis:

 

It is understandable that to be a ‘knower’ is to undergo modification since

before there is ignorance and after there is knowledge. But what is the

modification for a ‘doer’ and an ‘enjoyer’? It is clearly an ‘experience’

but it is not obvious that this experience changes the subject.

----------------

Sadananda:

If you accept that it is an experience, now we have a state of jiiva having

an experience compared to previous state of jiiva having no experience.

Since it is a change of state it is a modification. Before the heavy

delicious food, I was a starving person no other interest other than how to

fill up my stomach – now after the bhojanam or enjoyment, I am now a

fulfilled (stomach) person ready to listen to any Vedanta including comments

on my notes! That change of state is pariNaama or modification. Obviously

the change of my stomach state is superimposed on ‘I am’ to say that ‘I am a

doer or eater or enjoyer’. That is the adhyaasa since ‘I am’ does not

undergo any change while the stomach undergoes the change. The pains that I

had when I was starving are of one type. The pains that I got after over

indulging are subsequent results of the previous change of state.

-----------------------------

 

Dennis:

 

It is also not obvious why there is a need for clever logic in this

instance. If the shruti makes a clear and obvious statement such as ‘aatman

is not a knower’ is it not self evident that a statement such as ‘I am a

knower’ contradicts shruti?

--------------------

Sadananda:

Yes – the logic is only shruti based – arthaapatti pramaaNa – not separate

loukika anumaana – It became self-evident only because of the shruti based

statement that ‘atmaan is not a knower’- If you read the adyaasa Shankhaa –

you will see that there is a confusion in some of puurvapakshi’s assertions

between ‘aatma as JNaanam’ versus ‘aatma as JNaataa or knower’. Some

darshanikaas (Dennis here is an example, I could use simply an English word

‘some philosophers’, but here the clear reference is not just to any some

philosophers but specifically with reference to the some of the six

aastika-s and six naastika-s’) agree that I am moral is adhyaasa but I am

kartaa, bhokataa etc are not. Shankara shows that all are adhyaasa. At

last he concludes that all vyavahaara is adhyaasa. The point is the

self-evident was not so self evident for some darshanikaas!

---------------------

Dennnis:

Again, to say that a ‘doer’ has to be associated with an ‘instrument’ of

doing seems ok but with what instrument is an ‘enjoyer’ or a ‘knower’

associated? Examples please!

----------------------

Sadananda:

If there is delicious cake on the table, how do you enjoy it! You need a

plate and knife and fork or if others are not watching your fingers – the

good old Indian method! - they are the instruments – The five

JNaanedriya-s, the senses and the five Karmedriyaa-s, the five organs of

action (hands, legs, speech, genital organs) and the mind are the

instruments of action, instruments of knowledge, as well as enjoyment. Some

times you need upakaraNam-s or instruments to enjoy – forks, binoculars,

telescope, sound-blasters, etc. The ten headed monster – RavaNa – is the

personification of these ten heads – All his life is centered on kartR^itvam

and bhoktR^itvam and gulping all these into his stomach – that is his main

food. Hence Rama, who is firmly established in swadharma comes as a

teacher, uses ‘brahmaastra’ – or teaching of “I am Brahman” and destroy

RavaNa’s essentially life, centered in his ‘stomach’- the gist of RamayaNa.

----------------

Dennis wrote:

 

Sorry to sound so critical, Sada-ji. It is so good and you have spent so

much effort on it, I want to get the most out of it.

 

Dennis

--------

 

Sadananda:

 

It is my pleasure Dennis – I am glad I found a saha adhyaayii (I am not

going to translate this word!) who is the bhoktaa of the notes through the

instruments of bhojanam! – another example! – could have used English words

but they do not give the same kick!

 

I am now in India and would try to respond whenever I could get on to the

internet.

 

I do not have access to my nrl e-mail account from India, but advaitin

e-mails come to my hotmail account but not adviataL mails. I can respond

only to the comments on advaitin. The others I will respond later.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Glad to know that the glossary is helpful. The best format I

have found is in the translation, The Bhagavad Gita by Winthrop

Sargeant,revised ed. 1994 by Christopher Chapple, State University of

New York Press, Albany, NY.

 

Each verse is on one page; the left hand column gives the verse

in 4 parts, each part in sanskrit script, underneath it is the roman

diacritic script,and under it the word-for-word translation without

syntax.

 

Below all this, is the translation of the full verse.

 

In the right hand column, each word is listed serially as it

occurs in the verse, followed by the grammatical root, declension,

&c., followed by the contextual meaning.

 

The author [1903-?] took 6 yrs. to complete this compilation,

and for the price of $25.oo, no better bargain can be had!

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin , "Kuntimaddi Sadananda"

<k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

>

glossary. That is a great help as

it builds up and will be helpful for understanding other slokas too.

[Guest guest]

Sadananda,

 

Many thanks for the very clear answers to the questions. Also, I concede I

am becoming used to some of the Sanskrit words that I had not met

previously. A few, repeated often, would be perfectly acceptable!

>It is my pleasure Dennis – I am glad I found a saha adhyaayii (I am not

>going to translate this word!) who is the bhoktaa of the notes through the

>instruments of bhojanam! – another example! – could have used English words

>but they do not give the same kick!

 

I wish it were true; you really are too kind! But I am sure all the list

would agree that you are a sahaachaarya! (Or do I need a third 'a' after the

'h'?)

 

Namaste,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Sadananda,

>

I am glad I found a saha adhyaayii (I am not

> >going to translate this word!) who is the bhoktaa of the notes

through the

> >instruments of bhojanam! – another example! – could have

used

English words

> >but they do not give the same kick!

>

> I wish it were true; you really are too kind! But I am sure all the

list

> would agree that you are a sahaachaarya! (Or do I need a third 'a'

after the

> 'h'?)

>

> Namaste,

>

> Dennis

 

 

Namaste,

 

That is the reason both adhyaayii and aachaarya traditionally

chant together the shaanti-paaTha:

 

saha naavavatu saha nau bhunaktu saha viirya.n karavaavahai .

 

tejasvinaavadhi tamastu maa vidvishhaavahai ..

 

OM shaantiH shaantiH shaantiH ..

 

May He protect us both, student & Teacher, together.

May He nourish us both, together.

May we both acquire strength together.

Let our study be brilliant.

May we not cavil at each other.

OM! Peace! Peace! Peace!

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sadananda and Shri Dennis,

 

This message is addressed essentially to both of you

so that you can know the reaction of a third person

like me who is an ardent and serious follower of the

excellent postings by Sadanandaji on Brahma Sutras and

Shankara's Bhashya on the same.

 

Just because you find no responses by way of comments

or questions on this series of postings, one should

not conclude that there are hardly a few people

interested in this thread.What is posted has to be

first read,then studied and then only do doubts and

questions arise!

 

We have a very responsive person in Sadanandaji who

is spending a good portion of his time in answering

our querries and to our satisfaction.I am sure, as we

go along we will have more participants on this

thread.

 

Now my comments::

 

> Dennis Wrote:

>

> Comments on text: -

>

> I’m afraid I must reiterate my concerns about the

> volume of Sanskrit in

> these commentaries.

> Sadananda:

> While the logic

> sounds without Sanskrit is O.K. I felt the

> translation words don’t give the

> same in-depth meaning than the original Sanskrit

> words.

> When I was reading commentaries in English by others

> on sutra, I ended up

> closing the book in no time and the significance of

> the definition of the

> English words was not striking and I wished should

> have given the Sanskrit

> words in the parenthesis at least.

 

Frankly,Sadanandaji, I have felt, and continue to feel

in the very same way( as you have felt above) about

your own postings of Sanskrit quotes in this thread.

For a person who has a basic grasp of the important

Upanishad Mantras in the ten Upanishads from which

Shankara quotes for his Shruti Pramanas and the

Bhagavadgita,your references to Sanskrit Slokas has a

very special effect and meaning.It is necessary that

the references are in their full original form.

 

I however fully agree that for a person who cannot

understand the Sanskrit language,a text in English

interspersed with copious Sanskrit words can be a

pain.

Surely Sadanandaji can find some acceptable via media

to make it easy and interesting to both types of

readers.

 

 

 

 

Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!

 

[Guest guest]

>Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan

..>Now my comments::

>Surely Sadanandaji can find some acceptable via media

>to make it easy and interesting to both types of

>readers.

 

Thanks Shree Swaminarayanji for your kind comments. I could not open my

mails for the past four days.

Will try to follow your suggestions.

Any other inputs please from silent readers?

Hari Om!

Sadananda

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

>Sadananda,

>

>Many thanks for the very clear answers to the questions. Also, I concede I

>am becoming used to some of the Sanskrit words that I had not met

>previously. A few, repeated often, would be perfectly acceptable!

 

Dennis - I have a confession to make - I donot know much Sanskrit either. I

am actually forcing myself to learn in the process. I am sure by the time we

finish B.S.B. We both will some knowledge of Sanskrit and some knowledge of

the Bhaashya.

 

Keep questioning -that is the only way we can learn.

 

>would agree that you are a sahaachaarya! (Or do I need a third 'a' after

>the

>'h'?)

 

No you donot need a third 'a' The sandhi is a + a = aa and a+aa= aa - this

is the savarNa dhiirga sandhi. Similarly for i + i or ii and u + u or uu.

It is getting difficult to get on internet here unless you wake up at some

add hours!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> >Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan

> .>Now my comments::

> >Surely Sadanandaji can find some acceptable via media

> >to make it easy and interesting to both types of

> >readers.

>

> Thanks Shree Swaminarayanji for your kind comments. I could not open my

> mails for the past four days.

> Will try to follow your suggestions.

> Any other inputs please from silent readers?

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

 

namaste shri Sadananda garu,

 

I trust you are having a good trip to india.

 

I read the comments, also by Dennis on this topic. Personally,

I would prefer a good intermingling of english and sanskrit.

I am quite happy with the balance you were using up till now

on the intermingling. I think the sanskrit words have a unique

meaning to convey which a single english word (or a combination

of many english words) cannot do. Sticking only to english language

to convey the essence of brahmasUtrAbhAShya is, in my view, a hard

job and to some extent a dis-service also. So, my vote is for a

reasonable intermingling, without making it too hard for our

english-only sahAdhyAyI-s.

 

Another comment, if I can make: brahmasUtrA is one of the

prasthAnatraya and bhAShyA on it by shri shankara is the foundation

on which we understand advaita. As I understand, shri shankara used

references to upanishads only and took support from upanishads only

when composing brahmasUtrAbhAShyA. His prakaraNa texts like Atmabodh,

VivekacUDAmaNi etc take support from the BSB and not the other way

round. I notice you are using the statements from prakaraNa texts

to support a point made in the BSB. I realize that you are using

the Atmabodh etc reference to make the point and to make it easy

for us, but I would like to see more reference (and seek of support

for the point made) from the upanishadic texts.

 

I look forward to continuation of this excellent series.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>Another comment, if I can make: brahmasUtrA is one of the

>prasthAnatraya and bhAShyA on it by shri shankara is the foundation

>on which we understand advaita. As I understand, shri shankara used

>references to upanishads only and took support from upanishads only

>when composing brahmasUtrAbhAShyA. His prakaraNa texts like Atmabodh,

>VivekacUDAmaNi etc take support from the BSB and not the other way

>round. I notice you are using the statements from prakaraNa texts

>to support a point made in the BSB. I realize that you are using

>the Atmabodh etc reference to make the point and to make it easy

>for us, but I would like to see more reference (and seek of support

>for the point made) from the upanishadic texts.

>

>I look forward to continuation of this excellent series.

>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

Thanks Murthy gaaru for your response.

 

As you will see when we discuss the suutra-s, first Shankara provides the

shruti pramaaNam and then smR^iti pramaaNam - on in the general discussion

involving explanation of Shankara Bhaashhya other references are also used

to make the point clear. In the adhyaasa bhaashhyam also in the section

dealing with support from PramaaNa -references are mostly to shruti and

smR^iti texts in that order.

 

I don’t have full references to some of the sloka-s and some scribbled down

when the lecture was going on. If I have not given any reference, it only

means I have no knowledge of its exact source. If readers can help me in

that it will be helpful for me too. As Vidya rightly pointed out the sloka

- naasannasanna ... may be mixture two halves of two different sloka-s. The

meaning and relevance of course is pertinent to the topic. I request the

readers to pardon me for interjecting these slokas in the text since I felt

they are relevant.

 

Simple looking yet profound slokas of Atma bodha are brought in the gerneral

discussion to show how Shankara makes these points in so simple looking

slokas that the readers can remember the essence of the discussion.

 

Thanks for the input again.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>---

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.