Sanskrit Language Study - Theosophy.Net2024-03-28T18:56:10Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/sanskrit-language-study?id=3055387%3ATopic%3A36744&feed=yes&xn_auth=noDear Nancy,
Thank you for t…tag:theosophy.net,2012-02-12:3055387:Comment:1074032012-02-12T01:49:05.045Zharold walkerhttps://theosophy.net/profile/haroldwalker
<p>Dear Nancy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you for the work you do on the Samkhya project. We refer to it quite frequently in our U.L.T. Sanskrit class. Would you in the future include the root form of each word when possible? We are working on building our vocabulary. It is good to include the root form of a word as we memorize.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Every year I give a talk at the Long Beach Theosophical Society in the U.S. The last two years I spoke on the Sanskrit language. This year I spoke on “The…</p>
<p>Dear Nancy,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you for the work you do on the Samkhya project. We refer to it quite frequently in our U.L.T. Sanskrit class. Would you in the future include the root form of each word when possible? We are working on building our vocabulary. It is good to include the root form of a word as we memorize.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Every year I give a talk at the Long Beach Theosophical Society in the U.S. The last two years I spoke on the Sanskrit language. This year I spoke on “The Mind and the Mantra”. Preparing for the talk I read up on current theories of the brain. Most disturbing. Seems most scientists believe there is only a physical brain. No mind. There are statements like: “The word mind is obsolete.” “Mind is an illusion; there are only functions of the brain and body.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This led me to this question: Is there a corresponding action [in the brain] for every thought? A neuron fires, a synapse snaps, a molecule changes form or is there a mind independent of the brain that thinks?</p>
<p>Looking forward to your thoughts on all this.</p> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 10hetum…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-25:3055387:Comment:1064482012-01-25T21:55:02.835ZNancy Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/NancyReigle
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 10<br></br><br></br><br></br>hetumad anityam avyāpi sakriyam anekam āśritaṃ liṅgam |<br></br>sāvayavaṃ para-tantraṃ vyaktaṃ viparītam avyaktam || 10 ||<br></br><br></br>[without sandhi:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">hetumat anityam avyāpi sakriyam anekam āśritam liṅgam |<br></br>sāvayavam para-tantram vyaktam viparītam avyaktam || 10 || ]</font><br></br><br></br></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">10. The manifest is caused, impermanent, not…</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 10<br/><br/><br/>hetumad anityam avyāpi sakriyam anekam āśritaṃ liṅgam |<br/>sāvayavaṃ para-tantraṃ vyaktaṃ viparītam avyaktam || 10 ||<br/><br/>[without sandhi:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">hetumat anityam avyāpi sakriyam anekam āśritam liṅgam |<br/>sāvayavam para-tantram vyaktam viparītam avyaktam || 10 || ]</font><br/><br/></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">10. The manifest is caused, impermanent, not (all-)pervading, active (as opposed to passive), manifold, supported, subject to dissolution, composite, and dependent on another. The unmanifest is the reverse (of these).<br/><br/><br/>Grammatical Analysis</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">hetumat (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = [is] caused. Literally, possessing (-mat) a cause (hetu). </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">anityam (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = impermanent. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">avyāpi (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = not [all-]pervading. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">sakriyam (bahuvrīhi compound; adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = active [as opposed to passive]; literally, with (sa-, saha) activity (kriyā), or having action. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">anekam (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = manifold; literally, not (an-) one (eka).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">āśritam (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = supported. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">liṅgam (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = subject to dissolution. This meaning follows Gauḍapāda's gloss: laya-yuktam.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">sāvayavaṃ (bahuvrīhi compound; adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = composite; literally with (sa-, saha) parts (avayava), or having parts.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">para-tantram (tatpuruṣa compound; adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = [and] dependent (tantra) on another (para). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, a case ending must be supplied for para. Here, it has been translated as "on another."</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">vyaktam (noun; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = the manifest.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">viparītam (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = [is] the reverse [of these].<br/> </font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">avyaktam (noun; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = the unmanifest. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><br/> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 10, with commentary:<br/><br/> It was said (verse 8), (that the Great principle and the rest are) “unlike and like substance.” How that is (so) is (now) stated (verse 10):<br/><br/>10. The manifest is caused, impermanent, not (all-)pervading, active (as opposed to passive), manifold, supported, subject to dissolution, composite, and dependent on another. The unmanifest is the reverse (of these).</font></div>
<div><br/>“The manifest,” i.e., the Great (principle) and the rest, the effect, is “caused.” Caused means that which has a cause. Material (or constituent) cause (upādāna), cause (hetu), cause (kāraṇa), and efficient (or instrumental) cause (nimitta) are synonyms. Primary substance is the cause of the manifest. Therefore, the (entire) manifest extending all the way to the (five great) elements, is caused. The principle of intelligence is caused by primary substance. The (principle of) self-consciousness is caused by the (principle of) intelligence. The five subtle elements and the eleven faculties are caused by the (principle of) self-consciousness. Ether is caused by the subtle element of sound. Air is caused by the subtle element of touch. Fire is caused by the subtle element of form. Water is caused by the subtle element of taste. Earth is caused by the subtle element of smell. Thus, the (entire) manifest extending all the way to the (five great) elements is caused.</div>
<div><br/>Moreover, it is “impermanent,” because it originates from another. For example, a pot originates from a lump of clay, and it is impermanent.</div>
<div>Further, it is “not (all-)pervading”: not omnipresent; this is the meaning. For example, primary substance and spirit are omnipresent; not so the manifest.</div>
<div><br/>Moreover, it is “active”: It transmigrates at the time of transmigratory existence. Endowed with the thirteenfold instrument, supporting the subtle body, it transmigrates. Therefore, it is active.</div>
<div><br/>Moreover, it is “manifold,” (consisting of) the (principle of) intelligence, the (principle of) self-consciousness, the five subtle elements, the eleven faculties, and the five great elements.</div>
<div>Moreover, it is “supported”: It is supported by (or depends on) its cause. The (principle of) intelligence is supported by primary substance. The (principle of) self-consciousness is supported by the (principle of) intelligence. The eleven faculties and the five subtle elements are supported by the (principle of) self-consciousness. The five great elements are supported by the five subtle elements.</div>
<div><br/>Further, it is “subject to dissolution”: i.e., endowed with (the capacity of) dissolving (or dissolution). At the time of dissolution, the five great elements dissolve into the (five) subtle elements. These, together with the eleven faculties, (dissolve) into the (principle of) self-consciousness; this into the (principle of) intelligence; and this dissolves into primary substance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, it is “composite” (lit., having parts): Its parts are sound, touch, taste, form, and smell; having these.</div>
<div><br/>Further, it is “dependent on another”: It does not have power over itself (i.e., does not exist under its own power). As, the (principle of) intelligence is dependent on primary substance; the (principle of) self-consciousness is dependent on the (principle of) intelligence; the (five) subtle elements and the (eleven) faculties are dependent on the (principle of) self-consciousness; and the five great elements are dependent on the (five) subtle elements. Thus, it is dependent (tantra) on (or subordinate to) another, i.e., dependent (āyatta) on (or resting on) another. The manifest has been explained.</div>
<div><br/>Now we will explain the unmanifest. “The unmanifest is the reverse”: The unmanifest is the reverse of these same qualities just stated. The manifest was said to be caused. There is nothing higher than primary substance, because of the non-origination of primary substance. Therefore the unmanifest is uncaused.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, the manifest is impermanent; the unmanifest is permanent (or eternal), because of not originating. It does not originate from anything, like the (great) elements. Thus, primary substance is permanent.</div>
<div>Further, the manifest is not (all-)pervading; primary substance is (all-)pervading, because of being omnipresent.</div>
<div><br/>The manifest is active; the unmanifest is inactive (or passive), also because of being omnipresent.</div>
<div><br/>Also, the manifest is manifold; primary substance is one, because of being the cause. Primary substance is the single cause of the (entire) three worlds. Therefore, primary substance is one.</div>
<div>Also, the manifest is supported; the unmanifest is unsupported, because of not being an effect (or product). There is nothing higher than primary substance, of which primary substance could be an effect.</div>
<div><br/>Also, the manifest is subject to dissolution; the unmanifest is not subject to dissolution, because of being permanent (or eternal). The Great (principle) and the rest, which are subject to dissolution, dissolve one into the other at the time of dissolution. Not so primary substance. Therefore, primary substance is not subject to dissolution.</div>
<div>Also, the manifest is composite; the unmanifest is non-composite (lit., without parts). Sound, touch, taste, form (or color), and smell do not exist in primary substance.</div>
<div><br/>Also, the manifest is dependent on another; the unmanifest is dependent on itself, has power over itself (i.e., exists under its own power).<br/><br/></div> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 9asad-a…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-20:3055387:Comment:1061152012-01-20T04:53:43.647ZNancy Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/NancyReigle
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 9<br></br><br></br><br></br>asad-akaraṇād upādāna-grahaṇāt sarva-saṃbhavâbhāvāt |<br></br>śaktasya śakya-karaṇāt kāraṇa-bhāvāc ca sat kāryam || 9 ||<br></br><br></br>[without sandhi:<br></br><br></br>asat-akaraṇāt upādāna-grahaṇāt sarva-saṃbhava-abhāvāt |<br></br>śaktasya śakya-karaṇāt kāraṇa-bhāvāt ca sat kāryam || 9 || ]<br></br><br></br><br></br>9. The effect is existent (in its cause), because (there can be) no production of something non-existent, because of (the effect) taking a…</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 9<br/><br/><br/>asad-akaraṇād upādāna-grahaṇāt sarva-saṃbhavâbhāvāt |<br/>śaktasya śakya-karaṇāt kāraṇa-bhāvāc ca sat kāryam || 9 ||<br/><br/>[without sandhi:<br/><br/>asat-akaraṇāt upādāna-grahaṇāt sarva-saṃbhava-abhāvāt |<br/>śaktasya śakya-karaṇāt kāraṇa-bhāvāt ca sat kāryam || 9 || ]<br/><br/><br/>9. The effect is existent (in its cause), because (there can be) no production of something non-existent, because of (the effect) taking a material cause, because the arising of any (possible effect from any possible cause) does not occur, because for that which has the power (to produce something) (there can only be) the production of what is possible (and therefore existent), and because of (the effect having) the nature of the cause.<br/> <br/><br/>Grammatical Analysis<br/><br/>asat-akaraṇāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = because of no production (akaraṇa) of something non-existent (asat); because [there can be] no production (akaraṇa) of something non-existent (asat). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for asat (asataḥ, "of something non-existent").</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">upādāna-grahaṇāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = because of the taking (grahaṇa) of a material cause (upādāna); because of [the effect] taking (grahaṇa) a material cause (upādāna). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for upādāna (upādānasya, "of a material cause").</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">sarva-saṃbhava-abhāvāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; masculine ablative or 5th case singular) = because of the absence (abhāva) of the arising (saṃbhava) of all (sarva); because the arising (saṃbhava) of any (sarva) [possible effect from any possible cause] does not occur (abhāva). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for sarva (sarvasya, "of all") and for saṃbhava (saṃbhavasya, "of the arising"). <br/><br/>śaktasya (noun; masculine genitive or 6th case singular) = for that which has the power [to produce something]; literally, of a potent thing.<br/><br/>śakya-karaṇāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = because of the production (karaṇa) of what is possible (śakya); because [there can only be] the production (karaṇa) of what is possible (śakya) [and therefore existent]. In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for śakya (śakyasya, "of the possible"). <br/><br/>kāraṇa-bhāvāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; masculine ablative or 5th case singular) = because of the nature (bhāva) of the cause (kāraṇa); because of [the effect having] the nature (bhāva) of the cause (kāraṇa). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for kāraṇa (kāraṇasya, "of the cause"). <br/><br/>ca (indeclinable) = and. <br/><br/>sat (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = [is] existent [in its cause]. In form, this word is the present participle, "existing," from the root "as," meaning "is." </font><div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">kāryam (noun; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = the effect.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 9, with commentary:<br/><br/>Is this effect, the Great (principle) and the rest, existent or non-existent in primary substance (i.e., in its cause)? Due to disagreement among teachers, (there is) this doubt. For, here in the Sāṃkhya system, the effect is existent (in its cause); for Buddhists and others, the effect is non-existent (in its cause). If it is existent, it cannot be non-existent; but if it is non-existent, it cannot be existent. This is a contradiction. In regard to this, (the text) says (verse 9):<br/><br/>9. The effect is existent (in its cause), because (there can be) no production of something non-existent, because of (the effect) taking a material cause, because the arising of any (possible effect from any possible cause) does not occur, because for that which has the power (to produce something) (there can only be) the production of what is possible (and therefore existent), and because of (the effect having) the nature of the cause.<br/><br/>“Because (there can be) no production of something non-existent”: Not existing is (the meaning of) non-existent. (There can be) no production of something non-existent. Therefore, the effect (or product) is existent. Here in this world there is no production of something non-existent, as the arising of sesame oil from sand (wherein sesame oil is non-existent). So, because (there can only be) production of something existent, the manifest exists in primary substance prior to (its) arising. Therefore, the effect is existent (in its cause).<br/><br/>Moreover, “because of (the effect) taking a material cause”: Material cause (upādāna), i.e., cause (kāraṇa); because of taking that. Here in this world, one who desires a certain object takes the material cause of that (object). One who desires curds (takes) milk, but not water. Therefore, the effect is existent (in its cause).<br/><br/>Also due to this: “because the arising of any (possible effect from any possible cause) does not occur.” The arising of any (possible effect), anywhere, is not the case; for example, (the arising) of gold in silver, etc., in grass, dust, or sand. Therefore, because the arising of any (possible effect from any possible cause) does not occur (which it would if the effect did not really exist), the effect is existent.<br/><br/>Also due to this: “because for that which has the power (to produce something) (there can only be) the production of what is possible (and therefore existent).” Here, that which has the power (to produce something), e.g., a potter, or the instruments of production, such as clay, a (turning-)stick, a wheel, rags, rope, water, etc., generate from a lump of clay, only what is possible, (namely,) a pot. Therefore, the effect is existent.<br/><br/>Also due to this: “and because of (the effect having) the nature of the cause, the effect is existent (in its cause).” Whatever are the defining characteristics of the cause, those same are the defining characteristics of the effect, also. For example, from barley, barley (is produced), and from rice, rice. If the effect were non-existent, then from coarse grain, fine rice could be (produced). But it is not. Therefore, the effect is existent.<br/> <br/>Thus for five reasons, the Great (principle) and the rest, those which are subject to dissolution, exist in primary substance. Therefore, (there is only) the arising of the existent, not of the non-existent. <br/><br/><br/></font></div>
</div> Thank you, Hannes, for your r…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-17:3055387:Comment:1054662012-01-17T20:24:42.614ZNancy Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/NancyReigle
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Thank you, Hannes, for your reply and the links you posted. The South Asian ancient scripts chart is very helpful. It is interesting to compare the Brahmi with the Devanagari. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Re: the Wiki article in which the author says that Brahmi was written from right to left originally. Like you said, the source isn't clear. As for the 4th century B.C.E. coin on which Brahmi was written right to left, one wonders…</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Thank you, Hannes, for your reply and the links you posted. The South Asian ancient scripts chart is very helpful. It is interesting to compare the Brahmi with the Devanagari. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Re: the Wiki article in which the author says that Brahmi was written from right to left originally. Like you said, the source isn't clear. As for the 4th century B.C.E. coin on which Brahmi was written right to left, one wonders if there was only one coin found, or was there more evidence.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Yes, it would be nice to know how the Devanagari came to be written as "hanging on a line."</font></div> Hi Nancy,
thank you very muc…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-17:3055387:Comment:1055302012-01-17T01:11:14.878ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>Hi Nancy,</p>
<p></p>
<p>thank you very much for taking the time to answer. While googling I found a reference that Brâhmî could indeed have been written from right to left originally but the source of this information does not seem clear.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_script" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_script</a></p>
<p>Isn't wikipedia incredible sometimes?</p>
<p>Here is a very nice website I found which…</p>
<p>Hi Nancy,</p>
<p></p>
<p>thank you very much for taking the time to answer. While googling I found a reference that Brâhmî could indeed have been written from right to left originally but the source of this information does not seem clear.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_script" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_script</a></p>
<p>Isn't wikipedia incredible sometimes?</p>
<p>Here is a very nice website I found which shows the origin and development of Sanskrit and similar letters on on one glance:</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ancientscripts.com/sa_ws_cmp.html" target="_blank">http://www.ancientscripts.com/sa_ws_cmp.html</a></p>
<p>All that being said I assume that not everything in the historical development of languages is obvious and I would indeed love to meet the people that invited the 'hanging on a line' principle in the transition from Gupta to Nâgarî and Sâradâ ... which is a stroke of a genius certainly :-)</p> Hi Hannes,Thank you for your…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-16:3055387:Comment:1052642012-01-16T21:10:48.300ZNancy Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/NancyReigle
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Hi Hannes,<br></br><br></br>Thank you for your post with its very interesting thoughts. I don't think that anyone really knows about some of these things.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">As for writing the devanāgarī script, I have not seen or heard of any other method of writing it than the general principle cited. As far as I know, this is the way it is done throughout India. </font></div>
<div> …</div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Hi Hannes,<br/><br/>Thank you for your post with its very interesting thoughts. I don't think that anyone really knows about some of these things.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">As for writing the devanāgarī script, I have not seen or heard of any other method of writing it than the general principle cited. As far as I know, this is the way it is done throughout India. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Regarding your comment, "</font>It seems to be a characteristic attribute that devanagari letters are 'hanging from the sky' instead of 'standing on the earth' as latin letters": </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">The ancient Brāhmī script, from which the devanāgarī script evolved, did not have the horizontal line above. The earliest specimens of the Brāhmī script that we have are dated by scholars to the 3rd century B.C.E. Direct precursors to the nāgarī script appeared in the late 6th century C.E., with the horizontal line above. What scholars recognize as early devanāgarī script appeared in the 7th century C.E., and the script continued its development from there.</font></div>
<div> </div> Hi Nancy, thank you very much…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-16:3055387:Comment:1054102012-01-16T07:33:49.189ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>Hi Nancy, thank you very much for giving help here - much appreciated!</p>
<p></p>
<p>I have two questions that hopefully are not too distractive. You wrote: "The basic principle to follow in writing the devanagari script is to write the letters from left to right, and top to bottom."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Question 1: It seems to be a characteristic attribute that devanagari letters are 'hanging from the sky' instead of 'standing on the earth' as latin letters. I mean, this is very interesting in…</p>
<p>Hi Nancy, thank you very much for giving help here - much appreciated!</p>
<p></p>
<p>I have two questions that hopefully are not too distractive. You wrote: "The basic principle to follow in writing the devanagari script is to write the letters from left to right, and top to bottom."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Question 1: It seems to be a characteristic attribute that devanagari letters are 'hanging from the sky' instead of 'standing on the earth' as latin letters. I mean, this is very interesting in our theosophical context. Any comments or insights on this?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Question 2: If this is true, would it not eventually be appropriate, to draw the horizontal line first and then 'hang the letter on it'?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Question 3: Looking at the devanagari letters it seems as if they have traces of having been written from right to left in older times. Examples would be na, ta, ja. One could assume that perhaps the vertical line has been the base of the letter and therefore drawn first, and then the extension to the left. Are there any indications for that?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sorry for such seemingly nitpicking questions - it would be perfectly ok if you say 'in practise we do it so and so' or 'why bother'. However if there are insights on this maybe it would help to understand and go to the root of things?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you</p>
<p>Hannes</p> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 8
…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-15:3055387:Comment:1050822012-01-15T03:10:43.929ZNancy Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/NancyReigle
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 8</font></div>
<div><br></br> </div>
<div>saukṣmyāt tad-anupalabdhir nâbhāvāt kāryatas tad-upalabdhiḥ |<br></br>mahad-ādi tac ca kāryaṃ prakṛti-virūpaṃ sarūpaṃ ca || 8 ||<br></br><br></br>[without sandhi:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>saukṣmyāt tat-anupalabdhiḥ na abhāvāt kāryataḥ tat-upalabdhiḥ |<br></br>mahat-ādi tat ca kāryam prakṛti-virūpam sarūpam ca || 8 || ]</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br></br>8. The non-perception of that (i.e., of primary substance) is due to…</div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 8</font></div>
<div><br/> </div>
<div>saukṣmyāt tad-anupalabdhir nâbhāvāt kāryatas tad-upalabdhiḥ |<br/>mahad-ādi tac ca kāryaṃ prakṛti-virūpaṃ sarūpaṃ ca || 8 ||<br/><br/>[without sandhi:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>saukṣmyāt tat-anupalabdhiḥ na abhāvāt kāryataḥ tat-upalabdhiḥ |<br/>mahat-ādi tat ca kāryam prakṛti-virūpam sarūpam ca || 8 || ]</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br/>8. The non-perception of that (i.e., of primary substance) is due to (its) subtlety, not to (its) non-existence. Perception of it is through (its) effect (or product), and that effect is the Great (principle) and the rest, (which are) unlike substance and like (substance).</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Grammatical Analysis</div>
<div> </div>
<div>saukṣmyāt (noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = [is] due to [its] subtlety. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>tat-anupalabdhiḥ (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; feminine nominative or 1st case singular) = the non-perception of that [i.e., of primary substance]. In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for tat (tasya, "of that"). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>na (indeclinable) = not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>abhāvāt (noun; masculine ablative or 5th case singular) = due to [its] non-existence.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>kāryataḥ (indeclinable, "frozen ablative") = [is] through [its] effect [or product]. The indeclinable ending -taḥ, indicating the ablative or 5th case, "from" or "through," has been added to kārya. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>tat-upalabdhiḥ (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; feminine nominative or 1st case singular) = perception (upalabdhi) of it (tat). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," must be supplied for tat (tasya, "of that," or "of it"). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>mahat-ādi (bahuvrīhi compound; adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = [is] the Great (mahat) [principle] and the rest (ādi). This bahuvrīhi or possessive compound is analzed as, "that whose first (ādi) is mahat," or "beginning with mahat"; and more idiomatically as "mahat and the rest." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>tat (pronoun; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = that. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ca (indeclinable) = and. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>kāryam (noun; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = effect.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>prakṛti-virūpam (tatpuruṣa compound; adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = unlike (virūpa) substance (prakṛti), dissimilar (virūpa) to substance (prakṛti). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, the genitive or 6th case ending, "of," here "to," must be supplied for prakṛti (prakṛter, "of substance," "to substance"). This may be translated as, "dissimilar to substance," or simply "unlike substance."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>sarūpam (adjective; neuter nominative or 1st case singular) = like [substance]. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ca (indeclinable) = and. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 8, with commentary:<br/><br/>And so it is (that things, even though existing, may not be perceived). What is (to be) understood (by this)? (Answer:) For what reason there is no perception of these two, primary substance and/or spirit, and how there is perception (of them), is (now) stated (verse 8):</div>
<div> </div>
<div>8. The non-perception of that (i.e., of primary substance) is due to (its) subtlety, not to (its) non-existence. Perception of it is through (its) effect (or product), and that effect is the Great (principle) and the rest, (which are) unlike substance and like (substance).</div>
<div><br/>“The non-perception of that is due to (its) subtlety”: (The non-perception) of primary substance; this is the meaning. Primary substance is not perceived because of (its) subtlety; as atoms of smoke, heat, water, and frost in the atmosphere, even though existing, are not perceived. How, then, is there perception of it?</div>
<div><br/>“Perception of it is through (its) effect”: Having seen the effect, the cause is inferred. Primary substance exists, as the cause, of which this is the effect. The (principle of) intelligence, the (principle of) self-consciousness, the five subtle elements, the eleven faculties, and the five great elements are its effect (or product).</div>
<div><br/>“And that effect is . . . unlike substance”: Substance (prakṛti) is primary substance (pradhāna); unlike that, i.e., dissimilar to substance.</div>
<div><br/>“And like (substance)”: And similar to (substance); as, even in this world, a son is the same as (his) father and also not the same. For what reason it is the same and not the same, we will explain further on.<br/><br/><br/></div> Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 7, Gram…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-10:3055387:Comment:1039872012-01-10T16:03:10.360ZNancy Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/NancyReigle
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 7, Grammatical Analysis<br></br><br></br>without sandhi:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>atidūrāt sāmīpyāt indriya-ghātāt manaḥ-anavasthānāt |<br></br>saukṣmyāt vyavadhānāt abhibhavāt samāna-abhihārāt ca || 7 ||</div>
<div><div> </div>
<div><br></br>atidūrāt (noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = due to excessive (ati-) distance (dūra). The upasarga (prefix) "ati" has been added to the noun dūra.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>sāmīpyāt (noun; neuter…</div>
</div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, verse 7, Grammatical Analysis<br/><br/>without sandhi:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>atidūrāt sāmīpyāt indriya-ghātāt manaḥ-anavasthānāt |<br/>saukṣmyāt vyavadhānāt abhibhavāt samāna-abhihārāt ca || 7 ||</div>
<div><div> </div>
<div><br/>atidūrāt (noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = due to excessive (ati-) distance (dūra). The upasarga (prefix) "ati" has been added to the noun dūra.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>sāmīpyāt (noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = due to [excessive] proximity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>indriya-ghātāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; masculine ablative or 5th case singular) = due to injury (ghāta) to the senses (indriya). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, a case ending must be supplied for indriya. Here, this has been translated as "to the senses."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>manaḥ-anavasthānāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = due to inattention (anavasthāna) of the mind (manaḥ). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, a case ending must be supplied for manaḥ. Here, this has been translated as "of the mind."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>saukṣmyāt (noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = due to subtlety.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>vyavadhānāt (noun; neuter ablative or 5th case singular) = due to obstruction.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>abhibhavāt (noun; masculine ablative or 5th case singular) = due to suppression.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>samāna-abhihārāt (tatpuruṣa compound; noun; masculine ablative or 5th case singular) = due to intermixture (abhihāra) with like [things] (samāna). In this tatpuruṣa or case relation compound, a case ending must be supplied for samāna. Here, this has been translated as "with like [things]."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ca (indeclinable) = and.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>[things, even though existing, are not perceived] = this phrase is implied.</div>
</div> Jan. 7th, 2012.
Lafayette, Co…tag:theosophy.net,2012-01-07:3055387:Comment:1036592012-01-07T23:54:15.350ZJulian Don Alexander IIhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JulianDonAlexanderII
<p>Jan. 7th, 2012.</p>
<p>Lafayette, Colo.</p>
<p> I too have a copy of Coulson's book on sanskrit, and have enjoyed it very much. That and the vols. by: J. Tyberg are excellent! Am now in the process of reading: Secret Doctrine, (3 vols.), w/ index. Am now about one half way through Vol. 1. And off in the margin, I am writing out all the "various" words, in their original...in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Tibetan, Latin, etc...Have come across a number of words in Chinese, that I have yet to find.…</p>
<p>Jan. 7th, 2012.</p>
<p>Lafayette, Colo.</p>
<p> I too have a copy of Coulson's book on sanskrit, and have enjoyed it very much. That and the vols. by: J. Tyberg are excellent! Am now in the process of reading: Secret Doctrine, (3 vols.), w/ index. Am now about one half way through Vol. 1. And off in the margin, I am writing out all the "various" words, in their original...in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Tibetan, Latin, etc...Have come across a number of words in Chinese, that I have yet to find. The one word that I have still not found is: "Senzar". Have made "guesses" as to it being: Tibetan, and am using: Sarat Chandra Das' (1902) Tib. Engl. Dictionary, and other more recent. My writing these "out" off to the side in margin gives me a greater appreciation of all that HPB knew in her "brief' lifetime, of 60 yrs.</p>
<p> Have recently finished reading: Isis Unveiled, in November. Hope to finish S.D. before Dec. 2012. Am amazed of her knowledge of the Mayan's and Aztecs, that I run across every now and then. My question being...how can we get your mesteemed and brilliant Husband up to visit the Denver branch of: T.S. ? Have also just joined one group that now meets up in Longmont, near: Lafayette, Colorado. Blessings to you all. Tashi Delek, and Happy New Year to both of you. Sincerely yours: Julian Don Alexander II. (4:53 pm) </p>