|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 7, 2012 17:19:28 GMT -6
Here is an edition/translation I have been working on. At present it just contains the comm. of Sankara. Later I will add others, perhaps. This is part of my effort to educate myself with the genuine works of Sankara. I will present the other Upanisads with his comm, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 7, 2012 17:25:14 GMT -6
śrīgaṇeśāya namaḥ
īśitā sarvabhūtānāṃ sarvabhūtamayaśca yaḥ|\\
īśāvāsyena sambodhyamīśvaraṃ taṃ namāmyaham||
pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ\\
pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyate|\\
pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya\\
pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate||
|| oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ oṃ ||
A bow to Śrī Gaṇeśa!
Of all beings the controller,\\
Who, too, of all beings is made.\\
Addressed by the Īśāvāsya,\\
To that Lord do I bow.
Full is that, Full is this;\\
From the Full the Full arises;\\
Removing the Full from the Full,\\
The Full itself remains.
Oṃ Peace, peace, peace! Oṃ
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 7, 2012 17:29:40 GMT -6
And then this is Sankara's Preamble to the text.
īśāvāsyamityādayo mantrāḥ karmasvaviniyuktāḥ| teṣāmakarmaśeṣasyātmano
āyatimātraprakāśakatvāt|\footnote{Another version has {\it yāthātmya}
(\skt{yāthātmya}) instead of {\it āyatimātra} (\skt{āyatimātra}).}
āyatimātraṃ cātmanaḥ
śuddhatvāpāpaviddhatvaikatvanityatvāśarīratvasarvagatatvādi
vakṣyamāṇam| tacca karmaṇā virudhyeteti yukta evaiṣāṃ
karmasvaviniyogaḥ|
na hyevaṃ lakṣaṇamātmano āyatimātramutpādyaṃ vikāryamāpyaṃ
saṃskāryaṃ kartṛbhoktṛrūpaṃ vā yena karmaśeṣatā syāt|
sarvāsāmupaniṣadāmātmāyatimātranirūpaṇenaivopakṣayāt|
gītānāṃ mokṣadharmāṇāṃ caivaṃparatvāt| tasmādātmano
’nekatvakartṛtvabhoktṛtvādi cāśuddhatvapāpaviddhatvādi copādāya
lokabuddhisiddhaṃ karmāṇi vihitāni|
yo hi karmaphalenārthī dṛṣṭena brahmavarcasādinādṛṣṭena svargādinā ca
dvijātirahaṃ na kāṇakubjatvādyanadhikāraprayojakadharmavānityātmānaṃ
manyate, so’dhikriyate karmasviti hyadhikāravido vadanti|
tasmādete mantrā ātmano āyatimātraprakāśanenātmaviṣayaṃ
svābhāvikamajñānaṃ nivartayantaḥ
śokamohādisaṃsāradharmavicchittisādhanamātmaikatvādivijñānamutpādayanti|
ityevamuktādhikāryabhidheyasambandhaprayojanānmantrān saṃkṣepato
vyākhyāsyāmaḥ||
The {\it mantras}, beginning with {\it īśāvāsyam}, are not used in
rituals, because they reveal the dignity of the Self which is not
ancillary to action. And the dignity of the Self will be described as
purity, not being riddled with sin, oneness, eternity, bodilessness,
all-pervasiveness, and so forth. And that would be contradictory to
action. Thus, it is right that these hymns are not used in rites.
Nor is the dignity of the Self as defined above creatable, changeable,
obtainable, improvable or in possession of agency or enjoyership by
which it would become a party to action. And because that is
decreased by the investigation of the dignity of the Self by all the
Upaniṣads and because the {\it Gītā} and the {\it Mokṣa-dharma} are
also about that. And therefore, taking on ideas like the Self's
manyness, agency, enjoyership, impurity, being riddled with sin, and
so on, the worldly intellect is established and rites are prescribed.
One indeed who wants the results of rites, both seen, such as the
vital power of Brahman and unseen, like heaven and such, and who
thinks of himself: “I am twice-born and do not possess any of the
disqualifying traits like being blind in one eye, being humpbacked and
the rest,” such a person is qualified for rites. So say those who
know about qualifications.
Therefore, these {\it mantras}, while stopping inherent ignorance
about the Self by revealing the Self's raw dignity, create knowledge
of the oneness and so forth of the Self, which brings about the
severing of the traits of cycle of transmigration such as sorrow,
delusion, and the rest. After thus having described the qualified
participant, the meaning to be conveyed, the relationship between this
text and that meaning, and the purpose of this discourse, I will
briefly explain the {\it mantras}.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Feb 8, 2012 20:49:53 GMT -6
“…create knowledge of the oneness and so forth of the Self…”
What else is known apart from the oneness of the Self?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 8, 2012 22:21:46 GMT -6
“…create knowledge of the oneness and so forth of the Self…” What else is known apart from the oneness of the Self? śuddhatvāpāpaviddhatvaikatva-nityatvāśarīratva-sarvagatatvādi That it is pure, that it is not riddled or pierced by sin, that it is one, that it is eternal, that it is bodiless, that it is all pervasive, and so forth. I am not sure what else besides these. These will be taught in the following mantras according to Sankara. These are all part of the simple dignity (ayatimatra) of the Self. |
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Feb 8, 2012 22:44:57 GMT -6
Oh, that’s so simple! Sorry for my stupid question. Nitai dasji, you now, because of my poor English, how did I read the following line: And the dignity of the Self will be described as purity, not being riddled with sin, oneness, eternity, bodilessness, all-pervasiveness, and so forth. I did read it like: the Self is pure, i.e. not being riddled with sin, not being riddled with oneness, not being riddled with the rest. That’s, you know, like the ultimate neti-neti, beyond even slightest attempt to describe the Self positively.  I did not notice though that oneness in the list is the same oneness repeated again in the text. Sorry, my confusion, but I hope it is funny enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 9, 2012 0:03:30 GMT -6
Oh, that’s so simple! Sorry for my stupid question. Nitai dasji, you now, because of my poor English, how did I read the following line: And the dignity of the Self will be described as purity, not being riddled with sin, oneness, eternity, bodilessness, all-pervasiveness, and so forth. I did read it like: the Self is pure, i.e. not being riddled with sin, not being riddled with oneness, not being riddled with the rest. That’s, you know, like the ultimate neti-neti, beyond even slightest attempt to describe the Self positively. I did not notice though that oneness in the list is the same oneness repeated again in the text. Sorry, my confusion, but I hope it is funny enough. Not to worry. Your reading actually makes sense. It could be taken that way. I did not notice it. I should be more aware of possible other readings. So thanks for calling my attention to it. I can make it more clear so that there is no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 10, 2012 11:09:55 GMT -6
Here is another piece of this translation. This is the first mantra which we are all so familiar with. I am finding Sankara's commentary a bit challenging here. It seems kind of disorganized and repetitive. I wonder if it has suffered some in the transmission. Anyway, I am not all that please with the translation so far. But for better or for worse, here it is.
ॐ īśā vāsyamidaṃ sarvaṃ \\
yatkiṃca jagatyāṃ jagat|\\
tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā \\
mā gṛdhaḥ kasya sviddhanam|| 1||
īśā īṣṭa itīṭ teneśā| īśitā parameśvaraḥ paramātmā sarvasya| sa hi
sarvamīṣṭe sarvajantūnāmātmā sanpratyagātmatayā tena svena
rūpeṇātmaneśā vāsyamācchādanīyam|
kim? idaṃ sarvaṃ yatkiṃca yatkiñcijjagatyāṃ pṛthivyāṃ jagattatsarvaṃ
svenātmaneśena pratyagātmatayā'hamevedaṃ sarvamiti
paramārthasatyarūpeṇānṛtamidaṃ sarvaṃ carācaramācchādanīyaṃ svena
paramātmanā|
ॐ
Covered by the Lord is all this\\
Whatever moves in this fluid world.\\
With what he gives you may enjoy;\\
Do not grab someone else's wealth. (1)
By the lord ({\it īśā}), “he owns,” from the root $\sqrt{{\it īś}}$
(to own, to possess, to be master of), by him, by the lord. The owner,
the supreme lord, the supreme self of all. He indeed owns everything;
by him, being the self of all that are born, as their inner self, by
his own form which is the self, by the lord, is all this covered, that
is to say, is all this to be enveloped [like a garment].
What is? All this, whatever moves in this fluid world, that is, on
this the earth. All of that is by his own self, by the owner as the
inner self, indeed, in the form of the highest truth: “I indeed am
this all,” covered over; the untruth which is all this composed of the
moving and unmoving is to be covered over by one's own supreme self.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Feb 12, 2012 9:14:21 GMT -6
It is interesting, in this translation the raw meaning is, "untruth is covered by truth", isn't it? Normally they say, "truth is covered by untruth". Being encouraged by you again I want to put forward some brave ideas. What if there is no logical (or maybe not logical but analogical) difference between the two, that is what is covered by what? And another one: what if sanskrit could be translated not as "covering" but as "co-existence"?
P.S. What Sanskrit words say here, "fluid", "moving", "untruth", or how is it pointed? This is not for challenge, but I want to understand how exactly Sankara points all this out, regarding "jagat mithya".
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 13, 2012 10:58:38 GMT -6
It is interesting, in this translation the raw meaning is, "untruth is covered by truth", isn't it? Normally they say, "truth is covered by untruth". Being encouraged by you again I want to put forward some brave ideas. What if there is no logical (or maybe not logical but analogical) difference between the two, that is what is covered by what? And another one: what if sanskrit could be translated not as "covering" but as "co-existence"? P.S. What Sanskrit words say here, "fluid", "moving", "untruth", or how is it pointed? This is not for challenge, but I want to understand how exactly Sankara points all this out, regarding "jagat mithya". Jagan mithya is a phrase from a book that is not by Sankara (Viveka-cudamani, I believe). What Sankara says here is a little different. He calls "all this" (idam sarvam) anrta, untrue or more correctly "not right." It is a deeper, Vedic notion of untruth, than say mithyA. Rta is a kind of worldly order. It might even be thought of as dharma, a divine law. Anyway according to the grammar of the sentence, Sankara says "this all which is untrue, namely the world of the moving and the non-moving is to be covered by one's own supreme self." anṛtam idaṃ sarvaṃ carācaram ācchādanīyaṃ svena paramātmanā| Later he refers to calls this as isvaratmabhavana, that is, contemplating it as the self/isvara. So it is a matter of shifting the way one looks at the world. The world is to be covered by another vision, that is, seeing it as belonging to the lord or seeing it as the lord. The words for world are jagat (the moving) and jagatI (a feminine form of jagat, also meaning moving or as I have translated it "fluid") Both words come from the verbal root gam to go or to move. Both suggest the impermanence of existence. jagatyAM jagat = the moving in the moving world Yes it is interesting to see the untrue being covered by the true, That is a switch. The example is interesting too. Oh! I don't think I have given that yet. I will post the next section and then we can discuss it. The acutal word is vAsya which Sankara glosses with AcchAdanIya which clearly means " to be covered." VAsya though has some other senses that might be useful to keep in mind. VAsya could mean "to be inhabited," or "to be covered or enveloped," or "to be worn." Interesting thinking of the world as something to be worn by the lord. Some support perhaps for the Ramanujan interpretation of Vedanta. Anyway, I will post the next section so you can see the example Sankara gives. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 13, 2012 16:30:39 GMT -6
yathā candanāgarvāderudakādisambandhajakledādijamaupādhikaṃ
daurgandhyaṃ tatsvarūpanigharṣaṇenācchādyate svena pāramārthikena
gandhena| tadvadeva hi svātmanyadhyastaṃ svābhāvikaṃ
kartṛtvabhoktṛtvādilakṣaṇam jagaddvaitarūpaṃ jagatyāṃ pṛthivyām,
jagatyāmiti upalakṣaṇārthatvātsarvameva nāmarūpakarmākhyaṃ vikārajātaṃ
paramārthasatyātmabhāvanayā tyaktaṃ syāt|
evamīśvarātmabhāvanayā yuktasya putrādyeṣaṇātrayasaṃnyāsa evādhikāro
na karmasu| tena tyaktena tyāgenetyarthaḥ| na hi tyakto mṛtaḥ putro vā
bhṛtyo vā ātmasambandhitāyā abhāvādātmānaṃ
pālayatyatastyāgenetyayameva vedārthaḥ| bhuñjīthāḥ pālayethāḥ|
evaṃ tyaktaiṣanastvaṃ mā gṛdhaḥ, gṛdhimākāṅksāṃ mā kārṣīrdhanaviṣayām|
kasyasviddhanaṃ kasyacitparasya svasya vā dhanaṃ mā kāṅkṣīrityarthaḥ|
svidityanarthako nipātaḥ|
athavā mā gṛdhaḥ| kasmāt? kasyasviddhanamityākṣepārtho na
kasyaciddhanamasti yadgṛdhyeta| ātmaivedaṃ sarvamitīśvarabhāvanayā
sarvaṃ tyaktamata ātmana evedaṃ sarvamātmaiva ca sarvamato
mithyāviṣayāṃ gṛdhiṃ mā kārṣīrityarthaḥ|| 1||
For example, a deceptive [unreal, unnatural] foul smell born of
moisture from connection with water in sandalwood, agaru, and other
fragrant substances is covered over by their own true fragrances
through grinding with their true forms. Just like that the world
(jagat) in the form of duality, defined as natural agency,
enjoyership, etc., is imposed on one's own self in the moving world,
that is, on the earth. Out of the implied sense of “in the world,” one
gets everything known as name, form, and action which is born of
transformation and that may be given up by contemplation on the self which is the highest truth.
Thus, one endowed with this contemplation of the self of the lord is
qualified for the renunciation of the three impulses, the impulse for
sons, and so forth, but not in action. “By him rejected,” means by
renunciation. The rejected, dead son or servant do not protect the
self because there is no relationship between them and the self.
Therefore, “by renunciation” is the meaning of the Veda. You may
enjoy mean you may protect.
Thus, you who have rejected the three impulses do not covet, do not
have desires aimed at wealth. {\it Kasyasvid dhanam} means do not
desire anyone's, not someone else's nor your own, wealth. {\it Svit}
is a meaningless particle.
Or, do not covet. Why? An implied sense of {\it kasyasvid dhanam} is
no one has any wealth that you may covet. The self alone is all this.
Through this contemplation of the lord everything is renounced.
Therefore, all this belongs to the self; the self indeed is all.
Therefore, do not covet something that is false. This is the meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Feb 16, 2012 10:39:35 GMT -6
Though this contemplation of the lord everything is renounced.
Through?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 16, 2012 14:22:03 GMT -6
Though this contemplation of the lord everything is renounced. Through? Right. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 18, 2012 19:45:28 GMT -6
Here is the second mantra of the Upanisad:
evamātmavidaḥ putrādyeṣaṇātrayasaṃnyāsenātmajñānaniṣṭhatattvātmā
rakṣitavya ityeṣa vedārthaḥ| atha
itarasyānātmajñatayātmagrahaṇāyāśaktasyedamupadiśati mantraḥ
kurvanneveha karmāṇi\\
jijīviṣecchataṃ samāḥ|\\
evaṃ tvayi nānyatheto ’sti\\
na karma lipyate nare ||
kurvanneva iha nirvartayanneva karmāṇyagnihotrādīni
jijīviṣejjīvitumicchet| śataṃ śatasaṅkhyākāḥ samāḥ saṃvatsarān|
tāvaddhi puruṣasya paramāyurnirūpitam| tathā ca prāptānuvādena
yajjijīviṣecchataṃ varṣāṇi tatkurvanneva karmāṇītyetadvidhīyate|
And translation:
Thus, by the knower of the Self's renunciation of the three impulses,
i.e. for sons, etc., the Self, which is the principle established in
knowledge of the Self, is to be protected. This is the meaning, objective,
of the Vedas. Now, this {\it mantra} teaches the following for the
other one, the one who is unable to accept the Self because of
ignorance of the Self (i.e., because of not being a knower of the
Self).
Performing, indeed, actions here,\\
One may wish to live a hundred years.\\
So, for you there is no other way than this.\\
Nor does action to such a person stick. (2)
Performing, indeed, here means carrying out rites such as the
Agnihotra. One may wish to live a hundred, that is, numbering a
hundred, {\it samas} or years. That long is determined to be the
longest life span of a person. Moreover, having obtained confirmation
(anuvāda) the one hundred years that one may wish to live should be
passed performing rites. This is prescribed.
|
|
I did not notice though that oneness in the list is the same oneness repeated again in the text. Sorry, my confusion, but I hope it is funny enough.