iishaa vaasyaM ...

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Ravisankar Mayavaram wrote:

> --- Charles Wikner <WIKNER at NAC.AC.ZA> wrote:
>
> > those who would say "A rose is a rose is a rose", whereas a
> > rose is in fact an upAdhi of the Lord; and this injunction is
> > a means to remember that, so that one does not take the upAdhi
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > to be real, covet it, and forget the Lord.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
>
> Thank you. What you have mentioned in the above line is a very powerful
> thought which has to be remembered always. In a theistic sense, it is
> more important to seek God than HER gifts. The translation you wrote
> can be considered as a injunction even if written with "is" instead of
> "is to be".
>
> God pervades all, the moving and unmoving. [Remember this always and]
> through renunciation protect yourself . Do not covet [hanker/desire for
> things, be content with what God has provided you] [There is no point
> in coveting as one cannot in the truest sense possess it] For whose is
> wealth [benefits etc].
>
> a) Remeber that God is pervades or indweller of everything.
> b) Renounce the meaningless desires and be content with what God has
> provided you.
>

The actual injunction is mA gRdha -- "Do not thirst" which is very
significant I think.  When you are thirsty, you do not stop to think about
flavor, purity, etc. of what you are drinking, your overriding goal is to
be rid of the painful sensation of thirst.  We come across so many people
like this who amass wealth just for the sake of it.  They often do not
even enjoy their gains and may even become quite miserable because of
their material pursuits but they just don't know how to stop.  The Rshi
addresses them.  Even if you amass great quantities of things, what good
will it do you?  They are the Lords not yours.

> I very much like the idea you wrote (which I have underlined). I still
> do not like the "is to be", I prefer "is" instead. Since you are a
> Sanskrit scholar and I am not. I will take your word.

Charles is right.  Although it looks funny in English, in Sanskrit it is a
common grammatical formulation and doesn't imply any hesitation on the
subject.

As the translation of Swami Gambhirananda was mentioned I would like to
point out one misleading point of his commentary (though he got it right
in the translation of the verse itself.)  At least it confused me until I
got a chance to see the actual Sanskrit text of the bhashya.  Svit is
called a "meaningless particle"  Actually this is what is called a nipAta
in Sanskrit Vyakarana.  It is like in English you mighr say "nice weather
today, eh?"  eh has no meaning in itself but adds an interrogative tone to
the sentance.  In the same way svit adds emphasis.  "Whose indeed is
wealth?"

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.