United States or Laos ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !


Telang also has given a verbal rendering which differs from the above slightly. His foot-notes do not, I think, bring out the meaning at all. As regards the two vernacular versions, both are useless. The correct reading is cha after arthan and not twam after it. Hence, the Senses say that, 'without ourselves and without those which are our objects, thou canst not have thy enjoyments.

Davies, giving the sense correctly, does not follow the true order of the subject and the predicate. Following Lassen, he renders kusala and akusala as "prosperous" and "unprosperous;" for medhabi K. T. Telang has rendered "talented" which has not the sanction of good usage. That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.

There is both association and dissociation. The doubts appertain to duties, that is whether they should be done or not, and whether they have any effects here and hereafter. The thinking or enjoying agent is subject, and that which is thought or enjoyed is object. Subject and object an two well known words in Sir W. Hamilton's philosophy. I follow Telang in adopting them.

In this condition of things, it was still quite possible, that one not himself a Buddhist and Visakhadatta plainly was not one should refer to Buddhism in the complimentary terms we find in the passage under discussion. The late Mr. Justice Telang observes: "The policy of Chanakya is not remarkable for high morality.

It is an instance of the vahuvrihi compound. Light, activity, and delusion are the three qualities as indicated by their effects. Sreedhara explains it as Pratima. Telang following Sreedhara, renders it "embodiment;" Mr. Davies, as "seat." Amritasya and Avyayasya are taken separately by the commentators.

Full of affections, i.e., for children, etc., as Sreedhara. Prakrita which I have rendered "without discernment" following Sreedhara, may be, as Mr. Davies renders it, but "malicious." Mr. Atma-budhi-prasadajam. K. T. Telang, following an alternative explanation offered by Sankara, renders it "clear knowledge of the self." Mr. Davies renders the "serenity of one's own mind." I follow Sreedhara.

As explained by Nilakantha, the word Savitri is used here to imply all forms of worship observed by Brahmanas, etc, and the Mlecchas as well. This turning back to explain a word used before is said to be an instance of "looking back like the lion." Telang, I think, renders this verse wrongly. In the first line it is said that Brahman is superior to the Prajapatis.

The causal verb karayate may be taken as equivalent to karoti. I follow Nilakantha in rendering the second line. The sense is clear, viz., that one should not fall away from the practice of Yoga, tempted by the puissance that Yoga brings. Telang renders the line 'one practising concentration should never become despondent. I think, Nilakantha is right.

Upwards and downwards i.e., from the highest to the lowest of created things. Enlarged by the qualities, i.e., the qualities appearing as the body, the senses, etc. The sprouts are the objects of sense, being attached to the senses themselves as sprouts to branches. The roots extending downwards are the desires for diverse enjoyments. Thus Telang, following the commentators.

What can be the tiryagbhava or 'form of lower species' of immobile objects? Telang frequently forgets that Nilakantha represents a school of interpretation not founded by him but which existed from a time long anterior to him. 'Conjunctions' are evidently the periods joining the seasons, i.e., the close of one season and the beginning of another.