Guest guest Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 Dear Vidvan Gauranga Prabhu Thanks for your in depth post. I'll read it soon. Can you translate and comment on the following post on the Dvaita List? It is from Prakasika which i suppose is a commentary on Madhva's Bhagavata-tatparya. I see the word "mularupi Krishna" in it also. ys Gerald S Dvaita Archives Re: Explanation needed Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:03:41 -0500 (CDT) R^ishhayo manavo devA manuputro mahaujasaH | kalAH sarve harereva saprajApatayaH smR^itAH || 27 || The R^ishhi-s, the Manu-s, the devatA-s, the sons of Manu, the kings; are all endowed with a fragment of Hari's potency, only thus it is stated in Smrti. prakAshikA -- idAnIM pratibimbAMshAnAha -- `R^ishhaya' ityAdinA | manuputrAH priyavratAdayaH | prajApatibhirdaxAdibhiH sahitAH sa prajApatayaH | hareH kalA bhinnAMshAH pratibimbarUpAMshA iti yAvat.h | smR^itAH smR^itipUktAH || ete svAMshakalA puMsaH kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h | indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yuge yuge || 28 || The forms of Vishnu are [on the other hand] verily the Supreme Lord Himself; when the world is oppressed by Indra's enemies, they protect time and again. bhAgavata-tAtparya -- ete proktA avatArAH -- mUlarUpI kR^ishhNaH svayameva | `jIvAstatpratibimbAMshA varAhAdyAH svayaM hariH | dR^ishyate bahudhA vishhNuraishvaryAdika eva tu ||' -- iti brahmavaivarte | Thus are stated the avatAra-s: that they are `kR^ishhNa', i.e., the Original Form, Himself (i.e., that the incarnations are no other than the Original). "The jIva-s are called `pratibimbAMshA'-s, while [incarnations such as] Varaha are Hari Himself; they show many qualities of Vishnu alone such as Lordship [not found in the pratimbimbAMsha], thus alone it is certain," -- says the Brahma-vaivarta. prakAshikA -- tarhi pUrvoktA kumArAdayaH kalkyantA.api kimeva bhinnAMshA ? netyAha -- `eta' iti | atraita ityanena prakR^itAnAM R^ishhyAdInAM parAmarsha itpratItiM vArayan.h kR^ishhNo devakIputraH svayaM sAxAdeva bhagavAn.h AvirbhUtasarvatat.h shaktimatvAditare tu na tatheti cha pratItiM vArayan.h yojanAM Aha -- `eta' iti | proktAvatArAH kumArAdyAH kalkyantAH | kR^ishhNa ityan.hdyamUlarUpIti vyAkhyAnam.h | `eva' iti tushabdArthaH | anenoktAvatArANAM pratibimbAMshavad.h bhedo na | kintu ete pUrvoktAH svAMshakalAH svarUpAMsharUpAH kalA vibhAgA avatArAH kumArAdyAH kalkyantAH kR^ishhNo mUlarUpI bhagavAn.h svayameva tadabhinna eveti mUlavyAkhyAnaM sUchayati | atra pramANasaMvAdamAha -- `jIvA' iti | R^ishhaya ityAdeH tAtparyamidam.h | ete svAMshakalA ityAdestAtparyam.h, varAhAdyAH svayaM hariH, iti | tushabdo.avadhAraNe | hariH svayameveti sambandhaH | nanvekasya hareH kathaM bahubhiH avatArairabheda ityAshaN^kAyAmAha -- `bahudhA' iti | eka eva vishhNuraishvaryAdaghaTitaghaTakaishvaryabalAdbahudhA bahutvena yogibhirdR^ishyate | tathA cha pramANaprasiddhe aishvarya- rUpopapAdakavati kAkathaMteti bhAvaH | svarUpAMshAnAM prayojanamAha -- `indrAri' iti | indrAribhirdaityairvyAkulaM upadrutaM lokaM janaM sthAnaM vA yuge yuge.avatIrya mR^iDayanti sukhinaM kurvanti || 28 || Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2001 Report Share Posted May 12, 2001 >Can you translate and comment on the following post on the Dvaita List? > It is from Prakasika which i suppose is a commentary on Madhva's >Bhagavata-tatparya. I see the word "mularupi Krishna" in it also. > >ys >Gerald S PAMHO. AGTSP. I will try my best. Kindly, dear Vaishnavas, correct me where I went wrong. --- >Dvaita Archives >Re: Explanation needed >Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:03:41 -0500 (CDT) > > > R^ishhayo manavo devA manuputro mahaujasaH | > kalAH sarve harereva saprajApatayaH smR^itAH || 27 || > > The R^ishhi-s, the Manu-s, the devatA-s, the sons of Manu, the kings; > are all endowed with a fragment of Hari's potency, only thus it is > stated in Smrti. > >prakAshikA -- > > idAnIM pratibimbAMshAnAha -- `R^ishhaya' ityAdinA | Now, (Suta) spoke about the reflected portions [pratibimbaamsha-s] with (the words) beginning, ".Ri.shaya.h". > manuputrAH priyavratAdayaH | The sons of Manu (refers to) Priyavrata and others. > prajApatibhir daxAdibhiH sahitAH sa prajApatayaH | "Sa-prajaapataya.h" ["along with the Prajaapati-s", trans. here as "devataa-s"] (means) including Prajaapati-s such as Dak.sha. > hareH kalA bhinnAMshAH pratibimbarUpAMshA iti yAvat.h | "Fragments of Hari" [hare.h kalaa.h] (refers to) separated portions [bhinna-amshaa.h] or portions of the nature of reflections [pratibimba- ruupa-amshaa.h]. > smR^itAH smR^itipUktAH || [Comment: Can't understand what the second word is. Appears to be a mistype. The general sense seems to be, "Thus it is recorded".] > ete svAMshakalA puMsaH kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h | > indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yuge yuge || 28 || > > The forms of Vishnu are [on the other hand] verily the Supreme Lord > Himself; when the world is oppressed by Indra's enemies, they protect > time and again. [Comment: "Vi.sh.nu" doesn't appear in the original. "Ete" (these) isn't translated. "Kri.sh.na.h" isn't translated here. ] >bhAgavata-tAtparya -- > >ete proktA avatArAH -- mUlarUpI kR^ishhNaH svayameva | > > `jIvAstatpratibimbAMshA varAhAdyAH svayaM hariH | > dR^ishyate bahudhA vishhNuraishvaryAdika eva tu ||' > >-- iti brahmavaivarte | > >Thus are stated the avatAra-s: that they are `kR^ishhNa', i.e., the >Original Form, Himself (i.e., that the incarnations are no other than >the Original). [Comment: As stated in my earlier post, this translation is wrong for reasons enlisted therein.] > "The jIva-s are called `pratibimbAMshA'-s, while [incarnations > such as] Varaha are Hari Himself; they show many qualities of > Vishnu alone such as Lordship [not found in the pratimbimbAMsha], > thus alone it is certain," > >-- says the Brahma-vaivarta. > >prakAshikA -- > > tarhi pUrvoktA kumArAdayaH kalkyantA.api kimeva bhinnAMshA ? Then, are those who have been described previously from Kumaara-s to Kalki also separated portions? > netyAha -- `eta' iti | No. Therefore he said, "Ete..." > atraita ityanena prakR^itAnAM R^ishhyAdInAM parAmarsha > itpratItiM vArayan.h kR^ishhNo > devakIputraH svayaM sAxAdeva bhagavAn.h AvirbhUtasarvatat.h > shaktimatvAd itare tu na tatheti cha pratItiM vArayan.h yojanAM > Aha -- `eta' iti | Here, refuting the concept that "ete" ["these"] is a consideration of the .ri.shi-s and others who have been described in this section, and the concept that Kri.sh.na, the son of Devakii, is Himself directly Bhagavaan since He manifested all of His potencies possessed by Him, whereas the others are not like Him, (Shrii Madhva) says [1] "ete". > proktAvatArAH kumArAdyAH kalkyantAH | The "incarnations spoken of" (refers to those) beginning with the Kumaara-s, ending with Kalki. > kR^ishhNa ityan.hdyamUlarUpIti vyAkhyAnam.h | [Perhaps it should be k.ri.sh.na ity anya muula-ruupiiti vyaakhyaanam, in which case, perhaps means this:] The explanation is "Krishna" is another, the muula-ruupii. > `eva' iti tushabdArthaH | The meaning of "tu" [found in the original verse of SB generally meaning "but"] is "certainly" ["eva" which is used by Shrii Madhva in his comment]. > anenoktAvatArANAM pratibimbAMshavad.h bhedo na | By this [is to be understood that] there is no difference amongst the avataara-s such as the difference between the reflected portions. > kintu ete pUrvoktAH svAMshakalAH svarUpAMsharUpAH kalA > vibhAgA avatArAH kumArAdyAH kalkyantAH kR^ishhNo mUlarUpI > bhagavAn.h svayameva tadabhinna eveti mUlavyAkhyAnaM sUchayati | But "ete" (these), that is those who have been previously described, "svaamsha-kalaa.h", that is, those who are of the nature of personal portions (svaruupa-amsha-ruupaa.h), kalaa.h, that is, differentiated incarnations beginning with the Kumaara-s ending with Kalki; Krishna, the original form Bhagavaan is Himself certainly nondifferent from them. Thus he indicates the explanation of the original text. [Comment: Even P.rithu who is listed amongst the avataara-s is Bhagavaan svayam? Can't be. Shrii Madhva states in his comment on the SB that P.rithu is an aavesha. He also mentions a few others like that. ] > atra pramANasaMvAdamAha -- `jIvA' iti | In this regard, he provided informative [2] evidence with "jiiva..." > R^ishhaya ityAdeH tAtparyamidam.h | This is the purport of (the verse beginning) ".ri.shaya.h". > ete svAMshakalA ityAdestAtparyam.h, varAhAdyAH svayaM hariH, iti | "Varaaha and others are Hari Himself" [quoted in Shrii Madhva's comment] is the purport of (the words) beginning with "ete svaamsha- kalaa.h". > tushabdo.avadhAraNe | The word "tu" [generally meaning "but"] (is used) in (the sense of) emphasis. > hariH svayameveti sambandhaH | '(They are) certainly Hari Himself'. This is the correspondence (of meaning between the verse quoted by Shrii Madhva and the original verse of SB) [3]. > nanv ekasya hareH kathaM bahubhiH avatArair > abheda ity AshaN^kAyAm Aha -- `bahudhA' iti | Anticipating (the objection), "How is the one Hari nondifferent from the several incarnations?", he said "bahudhaa". > eka eva vishhNur aishvaryAd aghaTita-ghaTakaishvarya-balAd > bahudhA bahutvena yogibhir dR^ishyate | There is only one Vi.sh.nu by His opulence, that is, by the strength of (His) opulence that makes the impossible possible, is perceived in many ways, that is, differently by the yogii-s. > tathA cha pramANa-prasiddhe aishvarya- > rUpopapAdakavati kA kathaMteti bhAvaH | And then, what to speak of evidence [4] establishing His opulent-forms? This is the implication. > svarUpAMshAnAM prayojanam Aha -- `indrAri' iti | He speaks of the purpose (of the appearance of) the personal portions [svaruupa-amsha-s] with "indraari..." > indrAribhir daityair vyAkulaM upadrutaM lokaM janaM > sthAnaM vA yuge yuge.avatIrya mR^iDayanti sukhinaM kurvanti || 28 || Descending yuga after yuga, They please the distressed world. "The world" (refers to) the populace or the place. "Distressed" means disturbed. The enemies of Indra (refers to) the daityas. --- Kindly correct me whereever I have gone wrong. I have noted in endnotes some places where I don't know how to properly translate. Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada's dear servants, Vidvan-Gauranga Das Endnotes: [1] Can't translate "yojanaam aaha" properly in this context. [2] How to translate "pramaa.na-samvaada"? I have tentatively rendered it as "informative evidence". [3] Is this the right way to express it? [4] Can't follow what is "kaa kathameteti". Is this a mistype? 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.