chandu
The difficulty with taking pAtreNa as vessel/pot:
Somebody gave a translation
15. The face of the Truth is veiled by a bright vessel. Mayst thou unveil it.
Can a vessel/pot Veil(cover) something? since apihitam only means COVERED/VEILED .
It will be straight forward and simple if pAtreNa is taken as disc/cover and one can say (apavrnu )remove it/Unveil it.
Last edited by satay; 19 November 2009 at 11:19 AM.
etad vai tat
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namasté chandu_69
Verse 4 offers how this Reality is everywhere at once. Standing still it outstrips those who run - as It ( Reality )is there already - it has no place to go or move, because it is there already. That said, to go deeper and wider, let's wait on verse 4 as to not co-mingle the overall intent of the string, if that is okay.Originally Posted by chandu_69
Regarding satya + sya + apihitam and apihitaṁ. In my last post I left off 'ṁ' . This is called anusvāra. This tells you how to pronounce the word at its ending ; this 'ṁ' says there is a nasal sound ending this word. This is the efficiency of saṃskṛt. You will also see 'ḥ' on occasion . This too is another ending sound called visargha - sometimes this is represented with the symbol ':' . There are many many rules one must consider. It is a continual learning process for me.
Note the dictionary entry for apihita :
apihita अपिहित - covered, shut , concealed
The anusvāra is added for proper grammar structure and syntax. Again many rules ( that I too and still learning). With anusvāra it is written like this अपिहितं - note the dot at the end of the last saṃskṛt letter shown? That same dot/letter = apihitaṁ.
you mention
pātra पात्र - is a drinking vessel , goblet , bowl , cup , dish , pot , plate. This is the word at hand we're considering. I find no issue with a pot covering something. How so ? I take a pot and turn it over ( the opening at the bottom) and it can cover say a rock, fork, gem, object with no issue. Some may say take a pot and it has a lid on it. Then something can be covered by putting an item into the vessel/pot.Can a vessel/pot Veil(cover) something? since apihitam only means COVERED/VEILED
praṇām
Last edited by yajvan; 22 October 2009 at 01:57 PM. Reason: added : 'putting an item into' for clarity.
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
chandu
Namaste yajvan
अपिहितं - = apihitaṁ.
I havent installed hindi/sanskrit fonts and hence the difficulty in pointing it out.
Ofcourse i knew all possible different meanings of pātra.it is such a common word.pātra पात्र - is a drinking vessel , goblet , bowl , cup , dish , pot
I take a pot and turn it over ( the opening at the bottom) and it can cover say a rock,
Quite an inelegant way of explaining truth.Dont you think?..Make some assumptions and then have to make more assumptions.
The upanishads verses as it is are slightly complex and constructing a sentence in english from sanskrit is not for the people with ordinary sanskrit knowledge.
The reason i am writing this is to highlight the problems the ordinary, confused hindus face with vast scriptures.Adding more confusion is not going to serve any purpose.
Hope you dont take this as personal.
Regards
Chandu
Last edited by satay; 19 November 2009 at 11:19 AM.
Member
Namaste chandu,
Yes, a vessel can hide its contents. The body itself is a vessel that hides Soma.
Any whatever way Isha Upanishad is understood, it is understood as per one's own level and as per one's requirement. I believe that the Dvaita and the Advaita understandings of the Isha verses are both correct. Madhava could not have mis-guided His followers and neither could Shankara do it.
We cannot exist without a moment's karma; yet a yogi is said to be free of all karma. The teachings are for different levels. Inability to see the other perspective is one's own limitation and not of Madhava or of Shankara.
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 22 October 2009 at 11:18 AM. Reason: sp.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
etad vai tat
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namast
And also houses the Self... (ātman आत्मन्). Yet this vessel, the body (called puri for city) has 9 gates; still this ātman resides within us . Not captured mind you , but in favor of us.
praṇām
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
Self Seeker
Namaste Atanu and Yajvan ji,
For covering anything completely, covering must be from all sides .... i.e. a vessel is a must. A disc cannot hide it unless the disc is too big for the item being hidden. We cannot say that Maya is too big for the Truth.
So, I don't see anything wrong in Patra being interpreted as Vessel here.
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
No longer posting here
Namast Devotee
Thank you for your reply on Darkness of Knowledge verse 2.
I am pleased also to read Atanus post I quote below as it touches on the topic I have been composing.
After enlightenment action occurs spontaneously (gunas of prakriti) and is not seen to be done by the individual. Before enlightenment man believes himself to be acting, hence why Krishna makes the point in the BG that one should perform actions with the results of their actions should be dedicated to Him.
The Rishi is suggesting that actions (Karma) are a requirement to finding enlightenment but this logically must be targeted at the aspirant who currently believes they are the actor/doer IMHO. One could almost expect a verse later in the Upanishad to supersede this advise. To my eyes there is no verse later to say that it is not the individual who acts but the gunas alone. The lack of such a verse is I feel because once Brahman is known then the question who is acting does not need to be answered (the wisdom unveiled the answer) The Rishi does not need to tell us that, the Rishi is showing us how to come to know that.
I think you are correct and make an important observation to say that we should live 100%, we need to embrace life and take it seriously, by doing so the desire to live drives us to find an answer for life itself.
My impression is slightly different. I asked my self why the Rishi would be suggesting that the aspirant should make an effort and embrace life? I imagine the aspirant is sat at his feet and engaged in finding Truth.
I think the reason this verse exists is because the Rishi sees that the aspirant who understands this verse is already embarked on something more serious than the wish to enjoy ones life pursuing pleasures alone but still sees himself as the doer and actor.
The intriguing point Yajvan makes about the number 100 is significant. I understand from your post that the Sanskrit sentence is imperative tense, meaning that we are being ordered to want to live 100 years. That too makes sense as the aspirant wants guidance, he wants to know what to do to achieve enlightenment but it may not mean that it still stands as something which should be obeyed when Brahman is finally known. I would even go as far to say that once Brahman is know then the enlightened man becomes on par to a Rishi (in the sense of realisation) and there remains nothing more to do.
I hope I make myself clear, as I write this not to gain anything or indulge in emotive debate but to try to understand your point of view clearly and humbly hope to add to the discussion.
Peace!
Snip.
chandu
Namaste Atanu,
I am not sure i understand this with respect to the upanishad that was quoted.
I would not go the extent of challenging the doctrine of Shankaracharya.I didnt find Shankaracharya's treatise on the upanishad in question.The advaita link i quoted is from modern advaitans.I believe that the Dvaita and the Advaita understandings of the Isha verses are both correct. Madhava could not have mis-guided His followers and neither could Shankara do it.
Member
Namaste Chandu
The following is the translation of Shankara Bhasya of the 2nd verse of Isha Upanishad. (Tr. Mr. M. Hiriyanna).
2.
Always performing karma here,one should desire to live,for a hundred years. So long as thou (seekest to live) a mere man, no other ( path ) exists (where) activity does not taint thee.
Kurvanneva = Sblwa^ys performing. iha = {heve) karnidni = rites such as agnihotra. jijivishet = one should desire to live. satam=one hundred in number. sa7?ia/i= years. For thus much is known to be the maximum age of man- Since (this is) a (mere) iteration (of an empirically known fact) what should be taken as enjoined (here) is that, if one should desire to live a hundred years, he should live only performing karma, evam^m this manner. tva'yi=[iu regard to you), nare i.e. when you live content to be a mere man. itah i.e., from this present course of performing karma like agnihdtra. anyathd—& different course. 7ia asti=does not exist; in which course evil action does not stain; i.e., you do not get tainted by sin. Wherefore if one should desire for life one should live throughout performing karma such as agnihotra prescribed by the ^astra.
How is it to be understood that the former verse assigns to a sannydsin devotion to knowledge and the latter, only devotion to karma to one incapable of it (Self-realisation) ? We reply: Do you not remember the aforesaid antithesis between jnana and karma which remains unshakable as a mountain? Here also the same has been expressly stated in verses 1 and 2,:that he who seeks to live must perform karma and that he who does not,must give up all desire. The same conclusion may be arrived at) from the (following) directions to sannydsins "He should desire neither for life,nor for death ; he should enter a forest". This is the law." "He should not thence return". The difference in result between the two will also be pointed out ater on. (Another statement of the like import is) "These two paths only appeared in the beginning,the path of activity and (the path) of withdrawal." Of these two, renunciation is higher, cf. Taittirlya Aranyaka "Renunciation alone excelled". And Vyasa, the great Vedic teacher, after much reflection, taught his son definitely as follows, " The Vedas aim at inculcating these two paths,one termed the path of activity and the other, of renunciation." We shall indicate ( in the sequel ) the distinction between these two (paths).
And now the (next) verse is begun in dispraise of the ignorant.
--------------------------------
The understanding of Shankara that any wish other than the wish for Moksha is antithetical to Moksha is even today held high by all advaita followers. The logic of Shankara used to seem odd and jerky to me, till I understood that Brahman is That whose desires are all realised. Moreover, Shushupti also eludes in presence of desire.
So, Shankara held, either there is desire or there is knowledge of Self. In presence of any desire, Karma, as per dharmic prescription, is the only way to remain un-attached. This is what Shri Krishna also teaches when He says: Leave all Dharma and submit to me.
Note that karnidni is the doing as per nidhi.
Other understandings of the verse 2 now seem incomplete to me at least. This is the age old conflict between the believers of Karma Kanda and believers of Jnana Kanda.
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 12 November 2009 at 04:06 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Member
Namaste chandu,
I showed Shankara Bhasya not to argue but since you said that you could not find it. However, as always, I agree with you. There is no point. The actual content of the Upanishad is very simple:
6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
Nothing can be simpler. Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by satay; 19 November 2009 at 11:21 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks