SankarAcArya's bhagavad gItA bhAshya: 2. 19-20
WIKNER at NACDH4.NAC.AC.ZA
Mon Jun 7 04:57:56 CDT 1999
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
> na jAyate mriyate vA kadAcin na ayaM bhUtvA abhavitA vA na bhUyaH |
> ajo nityaS SASvato 'yaM purANo na hanyate hanyamAne SarIre || 2. 20 ||
> He is never born, never does he die; nor again does he cease to exist,
> having once come into being. Unborn, Eternal, Permanent, Ancient, he is not
> killed when the body is killed.
A few points on the second pAda:
(1) While Warrier has an avagraha negating bhavitA, four other
editions to hand, as well as Jacob's Concordance, show a
space (i.e. bhavitA without the negation). Which form is
generally accepted as correct?
(2) I usually consider dhAtu /bhU as punctual and dhAtu /as as
durative/stative (that's personal, and may be wrong!), so I
have difficulty associating /bhU with the Immutable. Since
/as does not have all lakAra and /bhU fills in the gaps, can
one treat bhUtvA and bhavitA as derived from /as rather than
/bhU, to replace "come into being" (which jars) with "been"?
(e.g....having [always] existed, It will not cease to exist.)
(3) My understanding of Sankara's comment on "vA na" is that the
converse also holds true, i.e. having [never] existed, it
will not come into existence. This seems to echo verse 16.
(Possibly translate "vA na" as "and vice versa".)
This verse (and a few others in the gItA) are in anuSTubh meter:
is there any significance or explanation for this?
I am thoroughly enjoying this series of posts - thanks for sharing them!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list