Card,
I am always so impressed with your scholarship. Not knowing hardly
anything at all, I would be easy to impress, but I do think you're
purdy good at Sanskrit.
That said, how's 'bout you also include a "purport" section after you
translate. I'd like to see how you sum up, "in American" the meaning
of the passages.
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The first book of YS is called 'samaadhi-paada'.
> The second suutra goes like:
>
> yogash citta-vRtti-nirodhaH
>
> In his 'yoga-suutra-bhaaSya', KRSNa-dvaipaayana (sp?; aka
> BaadaraayaNa,
> Veda-vyaasa) equates(?) yoga with samaadhi:
>
> yogaH samaadhiH (yoga [is] samaadhi)
>
> The word 'samaadhi' appears in the samaadhi-paada only
> in I 20, I 46 and I 51, that is only three times. Elsewhere,
> where one would expect it, it is implied (understood, whatever...).
>
> One of the suutras where the word 'samaadhi' apparently is implied,
> is
> I 17, which seems to define(?) 'saMprajñaata-samaadhi':
>
> vitarkavicaaraanandaasmitaaruupaanugamaat saMprajñaataH .. 17..
>
> (sandhi-vigraha: vitarka-vicaara + aananda + asmitaa + ruupa +
> anugamaat saMprajñaataH; not all editions have the word 'ruupa'(?`).
> In principle the word could also be 'aruupa', or even 'aaruupa'.
> The sandhi would be exactly the same, so one would just have
> to know what is the correct alternative...)
>
> Swamij's translation:
>
> 1.17 The deep absorption of attention on an object is of four kinds,
> 1) gross (vitarka), 2) subtle (vichara), 3) bliss accompanied
> (ananda), and 4) with I-ness (asmita), and is called samprajnata
> samadhi.
>
> According to dictionaries, the word 'saMprajñaata' means e.g:
>
> samprajJAta mfn. distinguished , discerned , known accurately
> Yogas. ;
> %{-yogin} m. a Yogin who is still in a state of consciousness KapS.
>
> The next suutra seems to define(?) 'asaMprajñaata-samaadhi':
>
> viraamapratyayaabhyaasapuurvaH saMskaarasheSo 'nyaH .. 18..
>
> (viraama-pratyaya + abhyaasa-puurvaH saMskaarasheSaH; anyaH)
>
> Here Patañjali seems to call 'asaMprajñaata-samaadhi' simply
> 'the other' (anyaH), as opposed to 'saMprajñaata-samaadhi'.
> Why he doing that is from my POV anybody's guess,
> but had he used the word 'asaMprajñaata', it would have
> with that word order become, by the rules of sandhi, 'saMprajñaataH'!
> (...saMskaarasheSo 'saMprajñaataH', exactly as 'anyaH' becomes
> "truncated" to 'nyaH'.)
>
> I have no idea whether the possible melodic accent would
> make '(a)samprajñaataH' with the "mute" negative prefix
> distinguishable from 'saMprajñaataH', but in classical
> Sanskrit, to which the suutras IMU belong, the melodic accents are
> not indicated as they are in Vedic Sanskrit.
>
