[Advaita-l] Re: gUDArthadIpikA 4.35 question on a figure of speech
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Mon May 22 22:35:03 CDT 2006
>It is indeed "odanapAkam pacatItivat tasyaiva" and *not*
>"pacatItivaktasyaiva" as I had originally posted.
>Sorry about that.
>I look forward to your interpretation.
Thanks, this makes perfect sense then. In the following, BG = Bhagavad Gita,
MS = Madhusudana Sarasvati.
MS's style follows traditional commenting practice, so let us split the
text, keeping in mind the context of the corresponding BG verse.
yat - pUrvoktaM jnAnam AcAryair upadishTaM
jnAtvA - prApya
odanapAkaM pacatItivat tasyaiva dhAto: sAmAnyavivakshayA prayogaH
na punaH -
mohamevaM - bandhuvadhAdi nimittaM bhramaM
Here, yat, jnAtvA, na punaH, mohamevaM and yAsyasi are words from the BG
verse. The rest is MS's explanation.
yat = which = pUrvoktaM jnAnam AcAryair upadishTaM - the knowledge mentioned
earlier, taught by the AcArya
jnAtvA = having known = prApya = having attained
na punaH = not again
moham evaM = this delusion = bandhuvadhAdi nimittaM bhramaM = this error,
which arises from a consideration that you will be killing your relatives
yAsyasi = you will reach.
Put together, this says, "having attained/known the knowledge (as mentioned
earlier) taught by the AcArya, you will not again reach this delusion/error,
which arises from a (false) consideration that you will be killing your
So much for the straightforward translation. In MS's interpretation, the
second part of the BG sentence "na punar mohamevaM yAsyasi" is a bit
redundant in its import. This is because the jnAna has already been
explained before, in the verses preceding this one, the content of the said
jnAna being that the Self is neither a killer nor is it killed. If one has
already obtained this knowledge, the question of a further delusion does not
even arise, yet the BG verse makes it a point to say this explicitly.
"jnAna" is equivalent to "na moha" and the past participle "jnAtvA" is
correspondingly equivalent to "na mohaM yAsyasi." Hence, MS says, tasyaiva
dhAtoH sAmAnya vivakshayA = with a view to point out the equivalence of the
How so? The simile given here is
odanapAkam pacati itivat = just as we say, "he/she cooks odana (cooked
This simile rests crucially on the fact that odana means cooked rice. If we
were to translate literally, we would have to write, "he/she cooks cooked
rice" - this is the intended redundancy that MS is pointing to here. The
point would perhaps be better appreciated if we take the English sentence
"he cooks food." Ideally, food refers to that which is fit to be eaten, and
so, should not need any further cooking. Yet, we apply the word food, by
extension, to the raw material that needs to be cooked and we use and
understand the expression "cooks food," involving both the process (cooking)
and the result (food).
Similarly, with the jnAna referred to in this case - in MS's interpretation,
the BG encompasses both the process of acquiring the jnAna and the result of
being established in the jnAna (a state which is equivalent to that of not
falling into delusion any more).
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list