[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to David Orme-Johnson.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_re...@...> wrote:


> FWIW, I seem to recall that verse has been rather problematic
> for many commentators, because Krishna tells Arjuna:
> 
> nis-trai-guNyo bhavaarjuna (bhava+arjuna)
> 
> that is, "not-three-'guNaic' be, Arjuna!"
> 
> In the next phrase Krishna sez:
> 
> (Be instead:) nitya-sattva-stho... (without sandhi: -staH)
> 
> that is, "ever sattva-staying".
> 
> The "problem" is that 'sattva', "of course", is one
> of the tree guNas, from which Krishna tells Arjuna
> to free himself!
> 
> MMY's interpretation seems to indicate that he doesn't
> think 'sattva' in that phrase refers to one of the guNas?

I think in this case the sattva is meant to refer to the soul or 
Being-(Sanskrit sattva "purity", literally "existence, reality"; adjectival 
s&#257;ttvika "pure").