Translation Series - Gita Bhashya - Introduction 1/3

[Vidyasankar]

Raghavendra Hebbalalu <hs_raghavendra at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>To explain my thought - take the fragment 'sItApateH
>rAmasya pUjArthaM '. Here sItApati and rAma are the
>same, but sItApati just another name for rAma or can
>be seen as a qualifier. In a similar vein, I thought
>bhauma-brahman is the same as brAhmaNatva, and not
>something that 'possesses' it. That was the reason I
>saw it that way. Could you clarify my doubt here ?

This would be grammatically correct too. In this case,
bhauma-brahman and braahmaNatva stand in apposition to
each other, instead of one qualifying the other in an
adjectival sense. I'll have to research this a little
more in depth. Perhaps there are other references in
the literature that will clarify this issue.

Vidyasankar