naishkarmyasiddhi

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sunder,

 

These prose passages are called 'sambandhokti' because they bring out the

connection between the previous verse and the next one.

 

Dr. Balasubramanian's translation is in essence the same as what you have

given. I am reproducing it below:

 

It has been stated that knowledge of the Self arises (from the sentence).

Now an objection is raised (with regard to this knowledge); " Does it arise

like the knowledge of pot and other objects without removing the

distinctions of the factors of action such as the agent? Or, does it arise

in the Self of the agent by destroying the entire set of the factors of

action? " We reply as follows.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

Sureshvaracharya has added these comments before the verse which

should have been included in the quotation:

 

" pratyagAtmani pramopajAyata ityuktaM tatra chodyate | kiM yathA

ghaTAdiprameyaviShayA pramA kartrAdikArakabhedAnapahnavena jAyate

tathaivotAsheShakArakagrAmopamardena kartuH pratyagAtmanIti |

uchyate | "

 

" That 'Knowledge arises about the inmost Self' has been said. Does

this arise like the knowledge about a jar etc., without cancelling the

diversity of factors involved in action? Or does it arise by

destroying all such plurality of causal factors in the agent, i.e. the

Self? The question is answered in the next verse. " (tr. Dr.

Raghavachar).

 

Could someone kindly provide Dr. Balasubramanian's or other

translation also, if it is substantially different than this? Thnaks.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder