United States or Libya ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
The particle 'he' in the second line is explained by both Sankara and Anandagiri as equivalent to Yasmat. The meaning becomes certainly clearer by taking the word in this sense. The 'he', however, may also be taken as implying the sense of "indeed." Buddhi in the first line is explained by Sreedhara as Aintavishayak buddhi.
This my delusion, i.e., about my being the slayer. Avyayam is that which has no decay. Ordinarily, it may be rendered "eternal." Telang renders it "inexhaustible". Elsewhere I have rendered it as "understanding." Ekastham, lit. "all in one". i.e., collected together. Devam is explained by Sreedhara as Dyotanatmakam i.e., endued with splendour. Mr.
The deities are those that preside over the eye and the other senses. The deities have no place in Kapila's system. Hence, if it is not the Vedanta, some system materially based upon Kapila's and recognising the interference of the deities, seems to be indicated. Atra is explained by Sreedhara as equivalent to "among" or "with these."
Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta. Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion. The substratum is the body. The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor. The organs are those of perception etc. The efforts are the actions of the vital winds Prana, etc.
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.
The meaning, as explained by Sreedhara, is that such persons are said to know all, and not those whose knowledge is bounded by the course of the sun and the moon. In this round of births and deaths, the creatures themselves are not free agents, being all the while subject to the influence of Karma, as explained by the commentators.
K. T. Telang, following Sreedhara, says, the word should be rendered "approver." What is heard, i.e., the Srutis or the sacred doctrines. Destroying self by self is to be deprived of true knowledge. Sarvatra in the second line is explained by Sreedhara as "in every body, superior and inferior." Grammatically it may mean also, "in every part of the body."
This is one of those idioms at which a foreigner is sure to stumble who has only the lexicons for his guide. Nidhanam is either refuge or support or abode or receptacle. Mr. Davies incorrectly renders it "treasure-house." Sankara accepts the reading Gururgariyan, Sreedhara takes it as Gururgariyan. In either case the difference in meaning is not material.
John Davies, 'all important'. The meaning is referring to the 'Supreme Soul'. Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain Sarvassas as "in every way". i.e., as creator, as guide, &c. Prajas offspring, including, as Sankara says, both mobile, and immobile, therefore, not mankind alone. Bhava-samanwitas is explained by Sreedhara as "full of love", which K. T. Telang accepts.
So 'Tyaga' I render "abandonment." Mr. Davies renders it "renunciation." What the two words, however, mean is explained fully in the verses that follow. Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood. I have used "when" for "whatever" to make the sentence grammatical.
Word Of The Day