Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 3
mūla-prakṛtir avikṛtir mahad-ādyāḥ prakṛti-vikṛtayaḥ sapta |
ṣoḍaśakas tu vikāro na prakṛtir na vikṛtiḥ puruṣaḥ || 3 ||
mūla-prakṛtiḥ avikṛtiḥ mahat-ādyāḥ prakṛti-vikṛtayaḥ sapta |
ṣoḍaśakaḥ tu vikāraḥ na prakṛtiḥ na vikṛtiḥ puruṣaḥ || 3 || ]
3. Root substance is not something produced; the Great (principle) and the rest, the seven, are producers and produced. The group of sixteen are products (only); spirit is neither producer nor produced.
mūla-prakṛtiḥ (root substance) avikṛtiḥ [is] (not [something] produced); mahat-ādyāḥ (the Great [principle] and the rest) [are] prakṛti-vikṛtayaḥ (producers and produced) sapta (the seven);
ṣoḍaśakaḥ (the group of sixteen) [are] tu [verse filler] vikāraḥ (products [only]); na (neither) prakṛtiḥ (producer) na (nor) vikṛtiḥ (produced) puruṣaḥ (spirit) [is].
I would like to ask you some questions on this site. My first question is on the "Texts and Translation Projects"
How do I get it in the proper place?
Nancy Reigle said:
Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 3, commentary
Now, what are the particulars of the manifest [vyakta], the unmanifest [avyakta], and the knower [jña]? It is said (verse 3):
“Root substance” [mūla-prakṛti] is primary substance [pradhāna] (superphysical). (It is so called) because of being the root of the seven producers [prakṛti] and produced [vikṛti]. Root substance [mūla-prakṛti] is that substance (or producer) [prakṛti] which is the root. Not something produced [avikṛti], it does not originate from something else. Therefore, substance [prakṛti] is not a product (or modification) [vikāra] of anything.
“The Great (principle) [mahat] and the rest, the seven, are producers and produced.” The Great (principle) [mahat] is the (principle of) intelligence [buddhi]. The (principle of) intelligence [buddhi] and the rest are seven, i.e., the (principle of) intelligence [buddhi], the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra], and the five subtle elements [tanmātra]. These seven are producers and produced. This is as follows: From primary substance [pradhāna], the (principle of) intelligence [buddhi] originates; therefore it is something produced, a product of primary substance [pradhāna]. That same (principle of intelligence) [buddhi] generates the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra]; therefore it is a producer. Again, the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra] originates from the (principle of) intelligence [buddhi], so it is something produced; and it generates the five subtle elements [tanmātra], so it is a producer. The subtle element of sound [śabda] originates from the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra], so it is something produced; from it, ether [ākāśa] originates, so it is a producer. Similarly, the subtle element of touch [sparśa] originates from the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra], so it is something produced; likewise it generates air [vāyu], so it is a producer. The subtle element of smell [gandha] originates from the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra], so it is something produced; likewise it generates earth [pṛthivī], so it is a producer. The subtle element of form [rūpa] originates from the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra], so it is something produced; likewise it generates fire [tejas], so it is a producer. The subtle element of taste [rasa] originates from the (principle of) self-consciousness [ahaṃkāra], so it is something produced; likewise it generates water [ap], so it is a producer. Thus, the Great (principle) [mahat] and the rest, the seven, are producers [prakṛti] and produced [vikṛti].
“The group of sixteen are products [vikāra] (only).” The five sense-faculties [buddhīndriya], the five action-faculties [karmendriya], the eleventh, mind [manas], and the five great elements [mahābhūta]—this sixteenfold group—are produced [vikṛti] only. A product [vikāra] is something produced [vikṛti].
“Spirit [puruṣa] is neither producer [prakṛti] nor produced [vikṛti].”
Please tell me how nau =naav. I know when a word ends in au and the next word starts with a, they combine and form u. Also the semi-vowel v corresponds to the vowel u. In the case of the root bhu the u takes guna and changes to av. I do not know where the a that precedes the v came from. Please help.
Regarding the Shanti mantra, Monier Williams lists many definitions for bhunaktu. I cannot see how any of them could be construed as protect. This is very bothersome , as it is hard to believe Sankara would have made a mistake in translation.
I noticed that there is a mantra at the beginning of the Taittiriyaka Upanashad that says “May it protect [avatu]me. May it protect [avatu] the teacher. Later at the third Valli is the Saha nau bhunaktu mantra . Perhaps through the ages the two mantras got mixed up and Sankara’s version applies to the first mantra and not he later one. What do you think?
Harold, I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I located the Texts and Translation Projects by doing a search using the search bar at the top of the page, and then scrolled down to your discussion on Sanskrit Grammar.
Thank you for the info on Goggle transliteration. You most likly also know Google has a mission statement "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". I recently downloaded and printed Monier Williams "A Practical Grammar of the Sanskrit Language". 407 Pages. http://books.google.com/
Joe Fulton said:
Google has a tool that may be of interest. It will take an english (or other language) transliteration of a word/phrase and make into the text of another language. Sanskrit is one of the options.
Regarding the sandhi changes of pramANAd dhi from pramANAnt hi, I see the final hard t changes to soft d then the initial h changes to dh. Generally the final letter changes rather than the initial. Is there a reason the initial h changed to dh? d and h are both soft letters. Why the change?
In our U.L.T. Sanskrit class we are working at translating and parsing the Katha Upanishad 1.3.13.
Yacched vAG manasI prAjJas tadh yacchej jJAna Atmani /
jJAnam Atmani mahati niyacchet tadh yacchec chAnta Atmani //
From Sankara’s commentary translated by Swami Gambhirananda we have:
“The discriminating man should merge the [organ of] speech into the mind; he should merge that [mind] into the intelligent self; he should merge the intelligent self into the Great Soul; he should merge the Great Soul into the peaceful Self.”
Please help me with yacched. I think it is, without sandhi, yacchet from root yam, 3rd person optative or potential.
Whitney has root yam as “to reach”; Muller has it as 1. “to stop”, 2. “to feed”; Kale has 1. “to cohabit”, 2. “to check, to offer, to lift up, to go to show,” 3. “to surround”; Monier Williams has “to sustain, to hold up, to support, to be founded on, to raise, to wield,”
Swami Ganbhirananda defines yacchet as “merge”. Swami Krishnanda as “sink” and Muller as “keep down”.
I cannot make any sense out of this, I must have something wrong. Please help!
Using the Bhaktivedanta Veda Base site [vedabase.com/en/synonyms] you can enter a Sanskrit word and if the word is in the Gita or the Srimad Bhagavatam it will give a translation and the verse where the word can be found.
Yacchet- get under control SB 2.1.1
Yacchet- get it rectified SB 2.1.20
Yacchet- subdues SB 4.1.4.
I believe this is really a great research tool. You can see a word in the context that it was originally used. Do you know of any similar sites with other scriptures?