[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for fairfielders: nanda, etc!
thank you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: sanskrit fever
Well, to be able to read, say, the Yoga suutras, one hardly needs to know any tenses. There are less than 5 finite verb forms in YS. Actually, I seem to recall there are only 2 or 3 of those, both / all of them in the present tense indicative 3rd person singular...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: sanskrit fever
Just wait until they start learning the 11 tenses. It's such a much more complicated language than probably any modern day language. And make sure you don't confuse Devanagari, the alphabet, with Sanskrit because Hindi also uses it and it there is are added characters for z and f which didn't exist in Sanskrit so they could spell foreign words with the characters. When I was in India you would see a store sign with Devanagari on the top line and English on the bottom but the Devanagari was spelling out what was written in English. :-D On 04/21/2015 04:38 AM, aryavazhi wrote: I saw this on FB too. What's written on page 14 then? http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/1/1 http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/14/1 MAIL TODAY http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 image http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 MAIL TODAY http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 MAIL TODAY is a compact morning daily. It marries the credibility and authenticity of the India Today Group with the international standards of Daily Mail of... View on epaper.mailtoday.in http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: sanskrit fever
I saw this on FB too. What's written on page 14 then? http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/1/1 http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/1/1 http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/14/1 http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/14/1 MAIL TODAY http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 MAIL TODAY http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 MAIL TODAY is a compact morning daily. It marries the credibility and authenticity of the India Today Group with the international standards of Daily Mail of... View on epaper.mailtoday.in http://epaper.mailtoday.in/480079/mt/Mail-Today-April-15-2015#page/15/1 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of the day: ananda
On 8/17/2014 3:51 PM, cardemais...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: IMU, the prefixes a- and A- (long a, often written also as 'aa') are in no way semantically related to each other.Neither have they (almost...) any relationship with the gender of those words. This might be a bit hard to understand, but 'nanda' is a masculine substantive, the same word withthe negative prefix 'a-' is an adjective (mfn: masculine, feminine or neuter depending onthe head word), and aa-nanda again is a substantive meaning 'bliss', and stuff. Sometimes Hindi speakers will add an a at the end of words which is supposed to relate to gender, for example yog instead of yoga. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of the day: ananda
IMU, the prefixes a- and A- (long a, often written also as 'aa') are in no way semantically related to each other.Neither have they (almost...) any relationship with the gender of those words. This might be a bit hard to understand, but 'nanda' is a masculine substantive, the same word withthe negative prefix 'a-' is an adjective (mfn: masculine, feminine or neuter depending onthe head word), and aa-nanda again is a substantive meaning 'bliss', and stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit Reverberation and EEG, and MUM
Observation, hypothesis, test. The primary Spirit of Maharishi as scientist using modern and cutting edge science over spirituality is very alive, able and well at Maharishi University of Management, studying and testing spirituality. It was extremely interesting and relevant to see the data pairs being tested and the results that are so evident even to the naked eye. The haters here would be alternately depressed and illumined if they actually considered the data and implications. -Buck The slide pictures from India and the pundits chanting there were good verification too. It is certainly a big research project in science and spirituality going on there. Fred with his EEG equipment stayed there and went in setting up test trials of various data pairs at one of the campus there with 1500 resident pundits chanting. It is really interesting science that even sophists, atheists, and agnostics here with open minds could be excited by. -Buck Dateline Fairfield, Iowa, Meditating Community: Fabulous lecture tonite. Yes there is quite a significant difference between non-meditators, meditators, and advanced Patanjali meditators in brain EEG global coherence; and then listening to Sanskrit chanted slowly as Maharishi prescribed, the recitation reverberations in the subtle system evidently improving each class of coherence seemingly better than even listening to just anything else [even listening to Baroque music]. Remarkable science of hypothesis paired testing to figure this all out. Fascinating really. Om, how our poor TM and Maharishi haters here shall eat crow**. -Buck at the Consciousness-based University **Eating crow is an American colloquial idiom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom,[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow#cite_note-oed3a-1 meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow#cite_note-www-2 Crow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proved wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow. -Wikip == Really important meeting tonite. EEG PATTERNS WHEN LISTENING TO VEDIC RECITATION DALBY HALL MAY 8th, 2014 Tonite 8pm Join Dr. Fred Travis in exploring what happens to the brain when listening to Vedic recitation compared to the practice of transcending meditation, and find out about the ongoing research program that is being developed to explore these effects. Reverberation in Spiritual Practice: ..within each individual through the practice of Transcendental Meditation and the Vedic sound reverberations, the Vedic texts recited. You can enliven the whole body, the whole physiology. ..In modern science, in order to materialize a theory, a scientist is needed. Listen to this carefully. In modern science, for a theory to be materialized, a scientist needs to put the theory to practice. In the Vedic world, in Vedic knowledge, in Vedic science, the scientist himself is the embodiment of the theory, is the embodiment of the principles, because it is self-referral in its own quality. From within itself it is Total Knowledge, it is total power, it is total activity. This is Vedic speech, Vedic reverberations, Vedic sound. Vedic sounds themselves operate. And this has given a completely new approach to perfect health. Perfect health means perfection in every field for everyone on earth. -Maharishi, inaugural address on January 12, 2000. The Fairfield Meditating Community: “We are a group of people who have come together and created a community for a transcendentally important common purpose, which of course is to practice the Transcendental Meditation program and the TM-Sidhi program together as a group, for the sake of bringing coherence to national and world consciousness based on balancing labor and leisure to meditate while working together for the benefit of the community. Our Super-Radiance meditating community includes families of all the TM-Meditators and TM-Sidhas in the Fairfield, Vedic City and Jefferson County area.”
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit Reverberation and EEG, and MUM
Om in science process; Observation, hypothesis, test. The primary Spirit of Maharishi as scientist using modern and cutting edge science over spirituality is very alive, able and well at Maharishi University of Management, studying and testing spirituality. It was extremely interesting and relevant to see the data pairs being tested and the results that are so evident even to the naked eye. The haters here would be alternately depressed and illumined if they actually considered the data and implications. -Buck The slide pictures from India and the pundits chanting there were good verification too. It is certainly a big research project in science and spirituality going on there. Fred with his EEG equipment stayed there and went in setting up test trials of various data pairs at one of the campus there with 1500 resident pundits chanting. It is really interesting science that even sophists, atheists, and agnostics here with open minds could be excited by. -Buck Dateline Fairfield, Iowa, Meditating Community: Fabulous lecture tonite. Yes there is quite a significant difference between non-meditators, meditators, and advanced Patanjali meditators in brain EEG global coherence; and then listening to Sanskrit chanted slowly as Maharishi prescribed, the recitation reverberations in the subtle system evidently improving each class of coherence seemingly better than even listening to just anything else [even listening to Baroque music]. Remarkable science of hypothesis paired testing to figure this all out. Fascinating really. Om, how our poor TM and Maharishi haters here shall eat crow**. -Buck at the Consciousness-based University **Eating crow is an American colloquial idiom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom,[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow#cite_note-oed3a-1 meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow#cite_note-www-2 Crow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proved wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow. -Wikip == Really important meeting tonite. EEG PATTERNS WHEN LISTENING TO VEDIC RECITATION DALBY HALL MAY 8th, 2014 Tonite 8pm Join Dr. Fred Travis in exploring what happens to the brain when listening to Vedic recitation compared to the practice of transcending meditation, and find out about the ongoing research program that is being developed to explore these effects. Reverberation in Spiritual Practice: ..within each individual through the practice of Transcendental Meditation and the Vedic sound reverberations, the Vedic texts recited. You can enliven the whole body, the whole physiology. ..In modern science, in order to materialize a theory, a scientist is needed. Listen to this carefully. In modern science, for a theory to be materialized, a scientist needs to put the theory to practice. In the Vedic world, in Vedic knowledge, in Vedic science, the scientist himself is the embodiment of the theory, is the embodiment of the principles, because it is self-referral in its own quality. From within itself it is Total Knowledge, it is total power, it is total activity. This is Vedic speech, Vedic reverberations, Vedic sound. Vedic sounds themselves operate. And this has given a completely new approach to perfect health. Perfect health means perfection in every field for everyone on earth. -Maharishi, inaugural address on January 12, 2000. The Fairfield Meditating Community: “We are a group of people who have come together and created a community for a transcendentally important common purpose, which of course is to practice the Transcendental Meditation program and the TM-Sidhi program together as a group, for the sake of bringing coherence to national and world consciousness based on balancing labor and leisure to meditate while working together for the benefit of the community. Our Super-Radiance meditating community includes families of all the TM-Meditators and TM-Sidhas in the Fairfield, Vedic City and Jefferson County area.” .
[FairfieldLife] RE: Sanskrit question
If the verb is 'sami' (sam-i: together-go), here are CDSL definitions:
sami P. %{-eti} , to go or come together , meet at (acc.) or with (instr. or
dat.) , encounter (as friends or enemies) RV. c. c. ; to come together in
sexual union , cohabit (acc. or %{sA7rdham} , %{saha}) MBh. R. ; to come to ,
arrive at , approach , visit , seek , enter upon , begin RV. c. c. ; to lead
to (acc.) RV. iii , 54 , 5 ; to consent , agree with (instr. , it is agreed
between ' , with gen. of pers. and loc. of thing) S3Br. MBh.: Pass. %{-Iyate}
, to be united or met or resorted to c.: Intens. %{-Iyate} , to visit ,
frequent RV. ; to appear , be manifested BhP.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Sanskrit question
thank-you
[FairfieldLife] RE: Sanskrit vs. Hebrew?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit vs. Hebrew?
Especially the Northern Indo-European (Sanskrit) parts of India are mostly likea huge gypsy camp?? Whereas the Dravidian Southern parts tendto be more, hmm... orderly?? I believe something like every 50th human bean in the US of A is Jewish, but about half of the success of America in many areas (science, medicine,music, entertainment, finance, etc.) can be attributed to Jews?? That's one of the reasons why this fella started to learn Hebrew and forgetSanskrit?? Not sure if I buy that as a reason of any people who follow a religion or a type of language to be better or smarter. It probably goes more like this, lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY0mSb26l_o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY0mSb26l_o
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit vs. Hebrew?
On 8/29/2013 10:44 AM, obbajeeba wrote: Especially the Northern Indo-European (Sanskrit) parts of India are mostly like a huge gypsy camp?? Whereas the Dravidian Southern parts tend to be more, hmm... orderly?? Maybe, but that's mostly modern history, but in the past the civilization in South Asia was very sophisticated. Long before the arrival of the Sanskrit speaking people from the north around 1500 BCE, the Dravidian Harappans by 2400 BCE had already invented planned and orderly cities and towns, when the Vedic Aryans were still nomadic shepherds and small cattle barons living in yurts and tents. So, there's been a lot of cultural downgrading in the Northern parts of India since the arrival of the Caucasians with their caste system, the Mongol hordes, Arabs invaders, and the later British occupation. http://answers.yahoo.com/harappan achievements http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080828145835AATN2JP I believe something like every 50th human bean in the US of A is Jewish, but about half of the success of America in many areas (science, medicine, music, entertainment, finance, etc.) can be attributed to Jews?? That's one of the reasons why this fella started to learn Hebrew and forget Sanskrit?? Not sure if I buy that as a reason of any people who follow a religion or a type of language to be better or smarter. It probably goes more like this, lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY0mSb26l_o
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit flashcards!
Flashcards with optional sound would be so much better. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: http://www.cram.com/tag/sanskrit
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit: speech and splendour!
http://sanskritdictionary.com/%C4%81bh%C4%81sa/29184/1 http://sanskritdictionary.com/%C4%81bh%C4%81sa/29184/1 nice ÄbhÄá¹£aá¹a à¤à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤£ http://sanskritdictionary.com/word.php?q=%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B9%\ 87at=1d=29175 http://sanskritdictionary.com/word.php?q=%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B9\ %87at=1d=29175 my dear card player dear shine upon-illuminate to throw light upon-exhibit the falsity of anything -Cardemaister (-: [;)] could it be just ïºïº`ﻬïºØ³à¤à¤à¤¾à¤¸ ÄbhÄs, fancy; thought; impression, idea; intention, purpose,semblance, likeness; semblance of a reason; (John T. Platts) just saying in typing [:D] BTW could be also just any living entities who have the appearance(o.m.mere appearance, fallacious appearance) see AabhAa(aa-bhaa) =2 f. splendour, light; a flash; colour, appearance, beauty a reflected image, outline; likeness, resemblance in other word (alpha -betically)Ann,Emily,Judy,Raunchydog, Share,Susan etc etc combined? [:x] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results 1 AbhASa m. speech , talking ; addressing R. ; a saying , proverb ; introduction , preface L. 2 AbhAsa m. splendour , light R. Veda1ntas. 195 ; colour , appearance R. Sus3r. Bhag. ; semblance , phantom , phantasm of the imagination ; mere appearance , fallacious appearance Veda1ntas. S3a1n3khS3r. ; reflection ; intention , purpose ; (in log.) fallacy , semblance of a reason , sophism , an erroneous though plausible argument (regarded by logicians as of various kind) ; ifc. looking like , having the mere appearance of a thing Gaut. Sa1h. c. (Can you spot the difference between those two words? LOL!)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit: speech and splendour!
How about some ABBA? How could I ever refuse, I feel like I win when I lose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsVeMz1F5c ABBA Waterloo Eurovision on youtube Just in case url acts wonky From: merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 7:50 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit: speech and splendour! http://sanskritdictionary.com/%C4%81bh%C4%81sa/29184/1 nice ─Бbh─Бс╣гaс╣Зa рдЖрднрд╛рд╖рдг http://sanskritdictionary.com/word.php?q=%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B9%87at=1d=29175 my dear card player dear shine upon-illuminate to throw light upon-exhibit the falsity of anything -Cardemaister (-: could it be just я║Бя║`я╗мя║О╪│рдЖрднрд╛рд╕ ─Бbh─Бs, fancy; thought; impression, idea; intention, purpose,semblance, likeness; semblance of a reason; (John T. Platts) just saying in typing BTW could be also just any living entities who have the appearance(o.m.mere appearance, fallacious appearance) see AabhAa(aa-bhaa) =2 f. splendour, light; a flash; colour, appearance, beauty a reflected image, outline; likeness, resemblance in other word (alpha -betically)Ann,Emily,Judy,Raunchydog, Share,Susan etc etc combined? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results 1 AbhASa m. speech , talking ; addressing R. ; a saying , proverb ; introduction , preface L. 2 AbhAsa m. splendour , light R. Veda1ntas. 195 ; colour , appearance R. Sus3r. Bhag. ; semblance , phantom , phantasm of the imagination ; mere appearance , fallacious appearance Veda1ntas. S3a1n3khS3r. ; reflection ; intention , purpose ; (in log.) fallacy , semblance of a reason , sophism , an erroneous though plausible argument (regarded by logicians as of various kind) ; ifc. looking like , having the mere appearance of a thing Gaut. Sa1h. c. (Can you spot the difference between those two words? LOL!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of the day: kali
To sum up what we know about the origin of 'TM' practice and MMY's spiritual philosophy, which as everyone now knows, is akin to the Tantric Yoga and the worship of Goddess Saraswati in India. Apparently 'Tantrism' (TM) has it's origin in the Vajrayana sect of Mahayana Buddhism. According to what I've read, Vajrayana originated in Uddiyana, located in the modern day Swat Valley in what is now Afghanistan, the original home of the Vedic Rishis who composed the Vedas and invented Mantra Yoga. The question is, how did the Tantrism of Kashmere get to Karnataka to become the Sri Vidya sect, with the meditation and the bija mantras, and the purported authorship of the Soundaryalahari to the Adi Shankara? It is a fact that all the Saraswati sannyasins adhere to the Sri Vidya. It is also a fact that the only requirement, written in stone, for a Saraswati Sannyasin is to recite the Gayatri and meditate on the Saraswati bija mantra at least twice a day, morning and night, without fail. According to Swami Rama of the Himalayas, SBS used to meditate on a Sri Yantra with the bija of Saraswati inscribed thereon, in Sanskrit. Read more: Srividya and Guru Dev http://tinyurl.com/dxpf9 In 747 the Indian master Padmasambhava traveled from Afghanistan to bring Vajrayana Buddhism to Tibet and Bhutan, at the request of the king of Tibet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana Tantrism originated in the early centuries CE and developed into a fully articulated tradition by the end of the Gupta period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra It is philosophically important to distinguish Kashmir Shaivism from the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara as both are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman). In Kashmir Shavisim, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism Vijnana Bhairava Tantra: The central tenet of this system is everything is 'Spanda', both the objective exterior reality and the subjective world... Spanda: The Spanda system, introduced by Vasugupta (c. 800 AD), is usually described as 'vibration/movement of consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism Sanskrit word of the day: kali... The word 'kali' in Hinduism appears in Indian literature following the Gupta Age, the so-called 'Golden age in Indian history. Kali is depicted as the 'Shakti' of Shiva. According to MMY, meditation is reality at rest or absolute pure concsciousness - Shiva. The dynamic and creative aspect of meditation or the thoughts in the mind, is the active relative aspect of creation - Shakti. For TMers, the absolute Being and the relative becoming are completley separate, Purusha and prakriti. - activity and rest. More TMer thoughts on Kali Tantra: It would seem that the Marshy got confused - instead of extolling the Vedas, he should have been promoting the Tantras. Apparently there are no 'bija' mantras memtioned in the Rig Veda. In order to establish the TM practice, the Marshy should have been explaining how TM came to use the bija mantras. From what I've read, TM practice and the use of bijas comes from the Sri Vidya, and not from the Rig Veda. Sri Vidya is a tantric sect, purportedly founded by the Adi Shankaracharya. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was a member of the Sri Vidya - all the Saraswati dasnamis are headquarted at Sringeri. SBS's guru, Swami Krishanand Saraswati, was from Sringeri. The primary symbol of the Sri Vidya is the Shri Yantra with the TM bijas inscribed thereon. So, it's obvious that TM adherents should be looking to the tantras, such as the 'Saundaryalahari' for the origins of TM, not the to the Vedas. The Rig Veda has little to say about yoga practices such as 'TM'. The Rig Veda is based on sacrificial rituals, dedicated to appeasing the celestial beings that control the forces of nature, such as earth, wind and fire, etc. The Demi-gods, such as Krishna, Balarama, and Ramchandra are deified heros of Indian mythology. There are no 'istadevatas' and their 'bija mantras' mentioned in the Rig Veda. The use of bijas came a long time after the composition of the Rig Veda, during the Gupta Age in India. Bija mantras are products of the Indian alchemists, not the Vedic rishis. The Rig Veda was probably compiled before the Aryan speakers even arrived in present Pakistan. 'TM' practice is almost pure tantric practice, with a little fertilizer thrown in for good measure. LoL! So, there are two ways of perceiving the same absolute reality; there is the transcendental plane, the plane of pure CC, and there is the active plane, the plane of relative mass, action, and time. According Feuerstein, Shiva symbolizes the pure, absolute consciousness, and Shakti symbolizes the entire content of that consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of the day: kali
card: Sanskrit word of the day: kali... The word 'kali' in Hinduism appears in Indian literature following the Gupta Age, the so-called 'Golden age in Indian history. Kali is depicted as the 'Shakti' of Shiva. According to MMY, meditation is reality at rest or absolute pure concsciousness - Shiva. The dynamic and creative aspect of meditation or the thoughts in the mind, is the active relative aspect of creation - Shakti. For TMers, the absolute Being and the relative becoming are completley separate, Purusha and prakriti. - activity and rest. More TMer thoughts on Kali Tantra: It would seem that the Marshy got confused - instead of extolling the Vedas, he should have been promoting the Tantras. Apparently there are no 'bija' mantras memtioned in the Rig Veda. In order to establish the TM practice, the Marshy should have been explaining how TM came to use the bija mantras. From what I've read, TM practice and the use of bijas comes from the Sri Vidya, and not from the Rig Veda. Sri Vidya is a tantric sect, purportedly founded by the Adi Shankaracharya. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was a member of the Sri Vidya - all the Saraswati dasnamis are headquarted at Sringeri. SBS's guru, Swami Krishanand Saraswati, was from Sringeri. The primary symbol of the Sri Vidya is the Shri Yantra with the TM bijas inscribed thereon. So, it's obvious that TM adherents should be looking to the tantras, such as the 'Saundaryalahari' for the origins of TM, not the to the Vedas. The Rig Veda has little to say about yoga practices such as 'TM'. The Rig Veda is based on sacrificial rituals, dedicated to appeasing the celestial beings that control the forces of nature, such as earth, wind and fire, etc. The Demi-gods, such as Krishna, Balarama, and Ramchandra are deified heros of Indian mythology. There are no 'istadevatas' and their 'bija mantras' mentioned in the Rig Veda. The use of bijas came a long time after the composition of the Rig Veda, during the Gupta Age in India. Bija mantras are products of the Indian alchemists, not the Vedic rishis. The Rig Veda was probably compiled before the Aryan speakers even arrived in present Pakistan. 'TM' practice is almost pure tantric practice, with a little fertilizer thrown in for good measure. LoL! So, there are two ways of perceiving the same absolute reality; there is the transcendental plane, the plane of pure CC, and there is the active plane, the plane of relative mass, action, and time. According Feuerstein, Shiva symbolizes the pure, absolute consciousness, and Shakti symbolizes the entire content of that consciousness. While Shiva and Shakti appear as two due to Maya, they are ultimately one. In fact, Shiva and Shakti are totally interdependent - one cannot exist without the other, just like a man and his wife are two, yet one and depend on each another. Work cited: 'Tantra: The Path of Ecstasy' By Georg Feuerstein Shambhala, 1998
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of the day: kali
card: Sanskrit word of the day: kali... The word 'kali' in Hinduism appears in Indian literature following the Gupta Age, the so-called 'Golden age in Indian history. Kali is depicted as the 'Shakti' of Shiva. According to MMY, meditation is reality at rest or absolute pure concsciousness - Shiva. The dynamic and creative aspect of meditation or the thoughts in the mind, is the active relative aspect of creation - Shakti. For TMers, the absolute Being and the relative becoming are completley separate, Purusha and prakriti. - activity and rest. So, there are two ways of perceiving the same absolute reality; there is the transcendental plane, the plane of pure CC, and there is the active plane, the plane of relative mass, action, and time. According Feuerstein, Shiva symbolizes the pure, absolute consciousness, and Shakti symbolizes the entire content of that consciousness. While Shiva and Shakti appear as two due to Maya, they are ultimately one. In fact, Shiva and Shakti are totally interdependent - one cannot exist without the other, just like a man and his wife are two, yet one and depend on each another. Work cited: 'Tantra: The Path of Ecstasy' By Georg Feuerstein Shambhala, 1998
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit in London!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: http://u.bb/315657/sanskrit-in-london 1:45 (Rgveda I 1 6): yad an.ga daashuSe tuam, agne, bhadraM kariSyasi, tavet tat satyam, an.giraH. Note, that that girl pronounces the final visarga (H) without the so called echo vowel (which would be an.giraha[a])!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of April: ghRNaa, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
YS II 40 and Bhojadeva's comment:
(http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_yoga/bhojavritti.itx
Transliteration scheme: ITRANS 5.2)
shauchAtsvAN^gajugupsA parairasaMsargaH .. sAdhana 40..
vR^ittiH \-\-\- yaH shaucaM bhAvayati...
He, who (yah) practises (bhaavayati) [1] purity (shaucam)...
tasya svAN^geShvapi kAraNasvarUpaparyAlochanadvAreNa jugupsA ghR^iNA
samupajAyate
for(?) him (tasya; genitive [engl. possesive] singular from saH, saa,
tat) arises(?; samupajaayate) [we wont even try to translate that
megacompound (kaaranaa-svaruupa...) obviously elaborating the reason for
that] disgust (jugupsaa) [and?] aversion-contempt (ghRNaa)
towards their own body (sva-an.geSu).
1. [just for fun, to show the abundance of different forms - card] bhU
1 cl. 1. P. (Dha1tup. i , 1) %{bha4vati} (rarely A1. %{-te} ; pf. %{babhU4va} ,
2. pers. %{-U4tha} or %{-Uvitha} cf. Pa1n2. 7-2 , 64 ; %{babhUyAs} , %{-yA4r} ,
%{babhUtu} RV. ; A1. %{babhUve} or %{bubhUve} Vop. ; cf. below ; aor. %{a4bhUt}
, %{-Uvan} ; Impv. %{bodhi4} [cf. %{budh}] , %{bhUtu} RV. ; aor. or impf.
%{a4bhuvat} , %{bhu4vat} , %{bhuvAni} ib. ; Prec. %{bhUyAsam} , 2. 3. sg.
%{-yAs} ib. [760,2] ; %{bhUyAt} AV. ; %{bhUyiSThAs} BhP. ; %{bhaviSAt} [?]
AitBr. ; %{abhaviSta} , %{bhaviSISta}. Gr. ; fut. %{bhaviSya4ti} , ep. also
%{-te} and 2. pl. %{-Syadhvam} ; %{bhavitA} Br. c. ; inf. %{bhuve4} ,
%{-bhve4} , %{bhUSa4Ni} RV. ; %{bhavitum} , %{-tos} Br. ; ind. p. %{bhUtvA4} ;
%{bhUtvI4} RV. ; %{-bhU4ya} RV. c. ; %{-bhU4yam} , %{-bha4vam} Br.) , to
become , be (with nom , or adv. or indecl. words ending in %{I} or %{U} cf.
%{kRSNI-bhU} c.) , arise , come into being , exist , be found , live , stay ,
abide , happen , occur RV. c. c.
[] big snip
will be Ra1jat.: * Caus. %{bhAvayati} (rarely %{-te} ; aor. %{abIbhavat}
Gr. ; inf. %{bhAvitum} R. ; Pass. %{bhAvyate} c. MBh.) , to cause to be or
become , call into existence or life , originate , produce , cause , create
Pur. Sa1h. ; to cherish , foster , animate , enliven , refresh , encourage ,
promote , further AitUp. MBh. c. ; to addict or devote one's self to ,
practise (acc.) MBh. HYog. ; to subdue , control R. ; (also A1.
Dha1tup. xxxiv , 37) to obtain Jaim. Sch. ; to manifest , exhibit , show ,
betray MBh. Ka1m. Das3. ; to purify BhP. ; to present to the mind , think about
, consider , know , recognize as or take for (two acc.) MBh. Ka1v. c. ; to
mingle , mix , saturate , soak , perfume Kaus3. Sus3r. (cf. %{bhAvita} ,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of April: ghRNaa, part 3
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: YS II 40 and Bhojadeva's comment: (http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_yoga/bhojavritti.itx Transliteration scheme: ITRANS 5.2) shauchAtsvAN^gajugupsA parairasaMsargaH .. sAdhana 40.. vR^ittiH \-\-\- yaH shauchaM bhAvayati tasya svAN^geShvapi kAraNasvarUpaparyAlochanadvAreNa jugupsA ghR^iNA samupajAyate ashuchirayaM kAyo | nAtrAgrahaH kArya iti . This (ayam) body (kaayaH) [is] impure (a-shuciH). (The general meaning of the next clause might be something like: one shoudn't be attached to it, or stuff).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of April: ghRNaa, part 4
. amunaa; eva
hetunaa paraiH; anyaiH; ca
kaayavadbhiH; asaMsargaH samparka-abhaavaH saMsargaparivarjanam iti; arthaH .
The meaning (arthaH) of saMsarga-parivarjana (abstaining from contact
[with other people]) [is] like this (iti): for this (amunaa) very
(eva) reason (hetunaa)[1] non-contact (a-saMsargaH) and non-existence
(abhaava) of ?sexual intercourse? (saMparka)[2].
1. loathing of ones own body?
2. samparka m. (ifc. f. %{A}) mixing together , mixture , commingling ,
conjunction , union , association , touch , contact between (comp.) or with
(instr. with or without %{saha} gen. , or comp.) MaitrUp. MBh. Ka1v. c. ;
bodily contact , sexual intercourse with (comp.) Kull. ; addition , sum A1ryabh.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
I really wish you knew Sanskrit better than you seem to... Vaj: My Patanjali guru was a pundit of Sanskrit and knew over a dozen other languages... But probably not Tibetan! Vaj seems not to be aware that Dream Yoga has been practiced by Tibetan Buddhists for years. I would assume that Vaj has not had any Tibetan Buddhist training. In a recent excange Vaj didn't seem to be aware of Trungpa's Shamballa project! In Tibetan Dream Yoga, maintaining full consciousness while in the dream state is part of Dzogchen training. This training is described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche as 'Rigpa Awareness'. Lucid dreaming is secondary to the experience of 'Diamond Light'. Rigpa Awareness is very similar to 'witnessing sleep' in TM, which helps the individual understand the unreality of waking consciousness as phenomena. Apparently the EEG patterns are the same in Rigpa Awareness as in TM. Read more: 'Tibetan Yoga Of Dream And Sleep' by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche Snow Lion, 1998 Other titles of interest: 'Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines' By Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup and W. Y. Evans-Wentz Oxford University Press, 1967 'The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects' Alexandra David-Neel City Lights, 2001
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On May 8, 2010, at 4:50 PM, cardemaister wrote:
OK! Please, just don't claim anymore, that Patanjali *himself* was
against practising the siddhis, unless you can prove that the
pronoun 'te' in 'te samaadhaav upasargaa...' refers to all the
siddhis, not just those mentioned in the previous suutra!
(Vyaasa: 'te *praatibhaadayaH*...')
I can only tell you what I was instructed, mouth to ear, in the Patanjali
trad. If you want to make up something else, go for it.
So, you appreciate those guys more than commentators like e.g.
Vyaasa (te praatibhaadayaH...*) and Bhojadeva (te praakpratipaaditaaH...**)?
* Can only refer to some list where 'praatibha' is first.
** Can only refer to the suutras *before* III 36 (or whatever it's
in various editions), not for instance the YF suutra. Most probably
refers only to the suutra previously mentioned, even though
'praak-pratipaaditaaH' is in in plural (praatibha: intuition;
shraavana: hearing; vedana: touch; aadarsha: sight; aasvaada: taste;
vaartaa: smell)
prAJc , f. {prA3cI} turned forwards, being in front, facing; turned
eastwards, easterly; previous, former; m. pl. the eastern (people or
grammarians). Acc. w. {kR} bring, offer, promote, further; w. {kalpay} turn
one's front towards. n. ***{prA3k} ({prAG}) in front, before (w. abl. of pl.
t.); eastward, in the east of (abl.); formerly, previously, first, at first,
from now***. Instr. {prAcA3} forwards; abl. {prAca3s} from the front. f.
{prA3cI} ({ñdiz}) the east.
[Vaj, I really wish you knew Sanskrit better than you seem
to. Same might apply to your Patanjali gurus... ;)]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: 5. atha paJcamaM vidvasaMnyaasaprakaraNam 5.1 yoginaaM parahaMsaanaaM margaH 5.1.4 kevalayoginaM kevalaM paramahaMsaM ca vaarayituM padadvayam uktam kevalayogii tattvajnaanaabhavena trikaalajnaanaakazagamanadiSu yogaizvaryacamatkaaravyavahaareSv aasaktaH saMyamaviZeSais tatra tatrodyuktas, tataH paramapuruSaarthaad bhraSTo bhavati. Well, gots to admit that's way better transliteration than most Roman ones by bharata-people on, say, the PaaNini-group! :D Right away, I could only catch two (2) mistakes: trikaalajnaanaakazagamanadiSu should rather be trikaalajnaanaakaazagamanaadiSu (tri-kaala-jnaana[jñaana]- aakaasha-gamana-aadiSu).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: trikaalajnaanaakazagamanadiSu should rather be trikaalajnaanaakaazagamanaadiSu (tri-kaala-jnaana[jñaana]- aakaasha-gamana-aadiSu). BTW, that's teh way to refer to all the siddhis in vibhuuti- paada: take as an example the *first one* (III 16: atiitaanaagata- jñaanam aka tri-kaala-jñaanam) and a rather dramatic one, YF!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
On May 9, 2010, at 3:35 AM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On May 8, 2010, at 4:50 PM, cardemaister wrote:
OK! Please, just don't claim anymore, that Patanjali *himself* was
against practising the siddhis, unless you can prove that the
pronoun 'te' in 'te samaadhaav upasargaa...' refers to all the
siddhis, not just those mentioned in the previous suutra!
(Vyaasa: 'te *praatibhaadayaH*...')
I can only tell you what I was instructed, mouth to ear, in the Patanjali
trad. If you want to make up something else, go for it.
So, you appreciate those guys more than commentators like e.g.
Vyaasa (te praatibhaadayaH...*) and Bhojadeva (te praakpratipaaditaaH...**)?
My teacher taught based on oral tradition and the 24 most reputable
commentaries on the YS. So no, it wasn't just limited to Vyasa. Patanjali is an
oral and experiential tradition. Without a teacher you'll never understand it,
as it cannot be learned from books or from linear reading.
* Can only refer to some list where 'praatibha' is first.
** Can only refer to the suutras *before* III 36 (or whatever it's
in various editions), not for instance the YF suutra. Most probably
refers only to the suutra previously mentioned, even though
'praak-pratipaaditaaH' is in in plural (praatibha: intuition;
shraavana: hearing; vedana: touch; aadarsha: sight; aasvaada: taste;
vaartaa: smell)
prAJc , f. {prA3cI} turned forwards, being in front, facing; turned
eastwards, easterly; previous, former; m. pl. the eastern (people or
grammarians). Acc. w. {kR} bring, offer, promote, further; w. {kalpay} turn
one's front towards. n. ***{prA3k} ({prAG}) in front, before (w. abl. of pl.
t.); eastward, in the east of (abl.); formerly, previously, first, at
first, from now***. Instr. {prAcA3} forwards; abl. {prAca3s} from the front.
f. {prA3cI} ({ñdiz}) the east.
[Vaj, I really wish you knew Sanskrit better than you seem
to. Same might apply to your Patanjali gurus... ;)]
My Patanjali guru was a pundit of Sanskrit and knew over a dozen other
languages.
Your confusion on this verse is because you don't know which verses it's
pointing to in the first and second pada and the principles of delusion implied
from Samkhya, the kleshas, etc. Te, these, refers to the 8 kinds of
darkness, the 8 kinds of stupidity, the 8 kinds of Big stupidity, etc. Really
these forms of delusion and stupidity aren't limited to such lists, but are
actually infinite, like the ways of awakening. But since yogic siddhis lock one
into fascination and obsession at the level of the waking state, it locks you
out of the interiority required for mastery of samadhi and the atman. That why
it's said siddhis increase the samskaras of outwardness, the mind scars of the
outward-stroke. One merely has to look at TM sidhas and their obsession with
yogic hopping to see these dynamics of delusion at play, locking the believers
into it's trap. But they stick around and buy product, take recertification
courses, etc. so it has the effect that Mahesh desired: cash flow.
Have you seen David Wants to Fly yet?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip One merely has to look at TM sidhas and their obsession with yogic hopping to see these dynamics of delusion at play, locking the believers into it's trap. Well, some of them. Others are focused on the development of consciousness resulting from the practice of the TM-Sidhis program as a whole, as well as the benefits of that development in daily life. The fact that flying isn't happening has ensured that most TM-Sidhis practitioners *aren't* (or aren't any longer) obsessed with the possibility of flying and have settled in for the long haul without being locked into any traps.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip One merely has to look at TM sidhas and their obsession with yogic hopping to see these dynamics of delusion at play, locking the believers into it's trap. Well, some of them. Others are focused on the development of consciousness resulting from the practice of the TM-Sidhis program as a whole, as well as the benefits of that development in daily life. The fact that flying isn't happening has ensured that most TM-Sidhis practitioners *aren't* (or aren't any longer) obsessed with the possibility of flying and have settled in for the long haul without being locked into any traps. Not trying to start a fight or anything, merely making a funny, but what part of people settling in for the long haul after finding out that flying was a lie strikes you as *not* a trap? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip One merely has to look at TM sidhas and their obsession with yogic hopping to see these dynamics of delusion at play, locking the believers into it's trap. Well, some of them. Others are focused on the development of consciousness resulting from the practice of the TM-Sidhis program as a whole, as well as the benefits of that development in daily life. The fact that flying isn't happening has ensured that most TM-Sidhis practitioners *aren't* (or aren't any longer) obsessed with the possibility of flying and have settled in for the long haul without being locked into any traps. Not trying to start a fight or anything, Of course not! How could anybody suspect you of such a thing? merely making a funny, but what part of people settling in for the long haul after finding out that flying was a lie Well, we didn't find out it was a lie, of course. strikes you as *not* a trap? :-) I guess if you consider enjoying development of consciousness and its benefits in daily life (see my first paragraph--you apparently didn't read it in your haste to make a funny) to be a trap, then it *would* be a trap. As I believe someone here has said, Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours. :-) :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
OK! Please, just don't claim anymore, that Patanjali *himself* was against practising the siddhis... Vaj: I can only tell you what I was instructed, mouth to ear, in the Patanjali trad. If you want to make up something else, go for it. It has not been established that you even had a Patanjali guru. You don't even seem to understand the rudiments of Siddha Yoga, as I pointed out above. Swami Rama was able to understand Patanjali's Yoga. Apparently, Swami Rama never had a Patanjali Guru either. From what I've read, Swami Rama wanted to be able to practice the siddhis, but he was unable to do so. Read more: 'Swami' Doug Boyd Random House, 1974 Living With the Himalyan Masters' Swami Rama Himalayan Institute Press, 1978 'Walking With a Himalayan Master' Justin O'Brian Yes international, 2006
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
We have discussed this on Usenet and FFL, but you have failed to defend your own 'anthill' delusion that TM requires effort. Vaj: It's not my assertion, it's a basic foundational tenet of Indian philosophy... You are incorrect. You are unable to rise above your 'anthill' perspective. You are biased in your opinion, therefore I cannot accept any of your speculations - you are just not credible, Vaj. According to the first historical yogin in India, 'striving' is counter-productive on the path to release from suffering, as attested by the Buddha, Shakyamuni himself. It was only AFTER the Buddha ceased his own striving, that he was able to attain Nirvana. This is common knowledge for anyone who has practiced Soto Zen meditation or Tibetan Dzogchen. Your citation of the Vidyaranya, a Hindu Swami, who apparently was unfamiliar with the life of the Buddha, does not seem to prove your point. Accoding to Sogyal Rinpoche: So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it. When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is, and your breath as you find it. Work cited: The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying By Sogyal Rinpoche HarperSanFrancisco, 2002 Buddha Shakymuni: I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place. But how, dear sir, did you cross over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place? When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place. SN 1.1 PTS: S i 1 CDB i 89 Ogha-tarana Sutta: Crossing over the Flood
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
Well, vajranaatha-s seem to have realized they have extremely little chances to find a good comment on YS that supports their view of practising the siddhis. Actually, there seems to be at least one suutra that emphasizes the importance of not becoming attached to the occult powers, namely IV 29: prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater dharma-meghaH samaadhiH. So, one has to remain 'akusiida' even in 'prasaMkhyaana', which means that one has 'viveka-khyaati' in every way (sarvathaa). It doesn't seem possible to know whether one is 'akusiida' e.g. towards the occult powers unless on can master them, now does it?! So, siddhi techniques are somewhat paradoxical: to attain samaadhi (III 3) one needs to practice them (saMyama) but for the highest state of samaadhi (dharma-megha), one has to treat them as any other everyday skill: *yogastaH* kuru karmaaNi!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: Well, vajranaatha-s seem to have realized they have extremely little chances to find a good comment on YS that supports their view of practising the siddhis. Actually, there seems to be at least one suutra that emphasizes the importance of not becoming attached to the occult powers, namely IV 29: prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater dharma-meghaH samaadhiH. So, one has to remain 'akusiida' even in 'prasaMkhyaana', which means that one has 'viveka-khyaati' in every way (sarvathaa). It doesn't seem possible to know whether one is 'akusiida' e.g. towards the occult powers unless on can master them, now does it?! As a rather simple analogy, one can't know whether one is potential alcoholic before one drinks some, or stuff? So, siddhi techniques are somewhat paradoxical: to attain samaadhi (III 3) one needs to practice them (saMyama) but for the highest state of samaadhi (dharma-megha), one has to treat them as any other everyday skill: *yogastaH* kuru karmaaNi!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
On May 8, 2010, at 2:36 AM, cardemaister wrote: Well, vajranaatha-s seem to have realized they have extremely little chances to find a good comment on YS that supports their view of practising the siddhis. Actually, there seems to be at least one suutra that emphasizes the importance of not becoming attached to the occult powers, namely IV 29: prasaMkhyaane 'py akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater dharma-meghaH samaadhiH. So, one has to remain 'akusiida' even in 'prasaMkhyaana', which means that one has 'viveka-khyaati' in every way (sarvathaa). It doesn't seem possible to know whether one is 'akusiida' e.g. towards the occult powers unless on can master them, now does it?! So, siddhi techniques are somewhat paradoxical: to attain samaadhi (III 3) one needs to practice them (saMyama) but for the highest state of samaadhi (dharma-megha), one has to treat them as any other everyday skill: *yogastaH* kuru karmaaNi! I like the way the greatest yogin in the line of Shankara, after Shankara, Vidyaranya, puts it: Knowledge of Unity Consciousness 5. The Renunciation of the Knower 5.1 The Path of the Paramahamsa Yogins 5.1.4. The two terms [paramahamsa and yogin] are used together in order to exclude someone who is only a yogin and someone who is a paramahamsa. Someone who is only a yogin is a person who, because of his lack of the knowledge of truth, is attached to amazing feats of yogic power, such as knowing the past, present, and future, yogic flying, etc., and has made efforts toward this or that (siddhi) with the various samyama formulae. Consequently he becomes separated from the highest aim of human existence, Unity Consciousness. -- jiivanmuktiviveka 5. atha paJcamaM vidvasaMnyaasaprakaraNam 5.1 yoginaaM parahaMsaanaaM margaH 5.1.4 kevalayoginaM kevalaM paramahaMsaM ca vaarayituM padadvayam uktam kevalayogii tattvajnaanaabhavena trikaalajnaanaakazagamanadiSu yogaizvaryacamatkaaravyavahaareSv aasaktaH saMyamaviZeSais tatra tatrodyuktas, tataH paramapuruSaarthaad bhraSTo bhavati. The oral tradition of Patanjali is rather explicit in that it doesn't cultivate mundane siddhis consciously at all, but instead is interested in mastering the fourth pranayama whereby one masters samadhi beyond restraints of time. Unfortunately for people relying on books, the YS aren't taught in the written sequence, some parts are actually completely skipped over. Many yogic texts rely on oral instruction and are deliberately filled with such traps. Vidyaranya's classic Knowledge of Unity Consciousness has numerous quotes from other sages which backs up this assertion. It's only in disreputable fallen yogis like Mahesh Varma that we see financial leverage of people's fascination with yogic powers. Of course it also has the advantage of causing delusion to arise in the students who fall for it. At that point, it doesn't matter what one says, once delusion sets in, they'll defend their anthill of delusion with everything from linguistic gymnastics to faked quantum physics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
So, siddhi techniques are somewhat paradoxical.. Vaj: ...is attached to amazing feats of yogic power, such as knowing the past, present, and future One of the most famous 'siddhis' is clairvoyance, (Trikalajriatvam) 'the knowledge of the past, present and future', mentioned in Samyutta Nikaya. Apparently the Swami Vidyaranya got really mixed up on this one. Go figure. Everyone knows that the historical Buddha defined his own realization as the ability to see into the past, the present, and the future, that is, Pubbenivasnussati. This happened to the historical Buddha in the 'first watch of the night' (about 6:00 - 10:00 PM). He realized complete awakening and insight into the nature and cause of human suffering. Pubbenivasnussati: ...is the power to remember the past lives of oneself and others. Basic Buddhism: http://tinyurl.com/3aayfnz He spontaneously remembered all of his past existences or former lives, and the suffering he experienced in each, and he saw into the future and saw all the suffering he was going to experience. He also saw the sufferings of all beings of the past and in the future. He thus concluded that because of the law of karma, it would not be in anyone's best interest to be reborn again. After experiencing this siddhi, the Buddha attained unsurpassed Nirvana, that is, total Unity Conciousness (Bodhi), from which there is no return and no future birth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
Vaj: ...they'll defend their anthill of delusion with everything from linguistic gymnastics to faked quantum physics. Maybe so, but you still have not addressed the central proposition made by MMY: the 'effortless transcending', first mentioned at Madras in 1957. We have discussed this on Usenet and FFL, but you have failed to defend your own 'anthill' delusion that TM requires effort. Buddha Shakymuni: I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place. But how, dear sir, did you cross over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place? When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place. SN 1.1 PTS: S i 1 CDB i 89 Ogha-tarana Sutta: Crossing over the Flood
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
On May 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, WillyTex wrote: Vaj: ...they'll defend their anthill of delusion with everything from linguistic gymnastics to faked quantum physics. Maybe so, but you still have not addressed the central proposition made by MMY: the 'effortless transcending', first mentioned at Madras in 1957. We have discussed this on Usenet and FFL, but you have failed to defend your own 'anthill' delusion that TM requires effort. It's not my assertion, it's a basic foundational tenet of Indian philosophy, including the yoga of Patanjali. That's why the word for effort in Sanskrit is also the word for technique. If there's a technique involved, there's always some form of effort involved, as Mahesh even admitted in old TTC's. His students, relentlessly parroting their own misguided ideas with little independent investigation, never seem to have gotten a clue...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On May 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, WillyTex wrote: snip Maybe so, but you still have not addressed the central proposition made by MMY: the 'effortless transcending', first mentioned at Madras in 1957. We have discussed this on Usenet and FFL, but you have failed to defend your own 'anthill' delusion that TM requires effort. It's not my assertion, it's a basic foundational tenet of Indian philosophy, including the yoga of Patanjali. That's why the word for effort in Sanskrit is also the word for technique. If there's a technique involved, there's always some form of effort involved, as Mahesh even admitted in old TTC's. MMY said, TM isn't a technique. We call it a technique because it works.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: I like the way the greatest yogin in the line of Shankara, after Shankara, Vidyaranya, puts it: Knowledge of Unity Consciousness 5. The Renunciation of the Knower 5.1 The Path of the Paramahamsa Yogins 5.1.4. The two terms [paramahamsa and yogin] are used together in order to exclude someone who is only a yogin and someone who is a paramahamsa. Someone who is only a yogin is a person who, because of his lack of the knowledge of truth, is attached to amazing feats of yogic power, such as knowing the past, present, and future, yogic flying, etc., and has made efforts toward this or that (siddhi) with the various samyama formulae. Consequently he becomes separated from the highest aim of human existence, Unity Consciousness. -- jiivanmuktiviveka 5. atha paJcamaM vidvasaMnyaasaprakaraNam 5.1 yoginaaM parahaMsaanaaM margaH 5.1.4 kevalayoginaM kevalaM paramahaMsaM ca vaarayituM padadvayam uktam kevalayogii tattvajnaanaabhavena trikaalajnaanaakazagamanadiSu yogaizvaryacamatkaaravyavahaareSv aasaktaH saMyamaviZeSais tatra tatrodyuktas, tataH paramapuruSaarthaad bhraSTo bhavati. The oral tradition of Patanjali is rather explicit in that it doesn't cultivate mundane siddhis consciously at all, but instead is interested in mastering the fourth pranayama whereby one masters samadhi beyond restraints of time. Unfortunately for people relying on books, the YS aren't taught in the written sequence, some parts are actually completely skipped over. Many yogic texts rely on oral instruction and are deliberately filled with such traps. Vidyaranya's classic Knowledge of Unity Consciousness has numerous quotes from other sages which backs up this assertion. It's only in disreputable fallen yogis like Mahesh Varma that we see financial leverage of people's fascination with yogic powers. Of course it also has the advantage of causing delusion to arise in the students who fall for it. At that point, it doesn't matter what one says, once delusion sets in, they'll defend their anthill of delusion with everything from linguistic gymnastics to faked quantum physics. --- OK! Please, just don't claim anymore, that Patanjali *himself* was against practising the siddhis, unless you can prove that the pronoun 'te' in 'te samaadhaav upasargaa...' refers to all the siddhis, not just those mentioned in the previous suutra! (Vyaasa: 'te *praatibhaadayaH*...')
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
On May 8, 2010, at 4:50 PM, cardemaister wrote: OK! Please, just don't claim anymore, that Patanjali *himself* was against practising the siddhis, unless you can prove that the pronoun 'te' in 'te samaadhaav upasargaa...' refers to all the siddhis, not just those mentioned in the previous suutra! (Vyaasa: 'te *praatibhaadayaH*...') I can only tell you what I was instructed, mouth to ear, in the Patanjali trad. If you want to make up something else, go for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 1
Perhaps it should be kept in mind that MaharSi Kapila: smR^ityanavakAshadoShaprasaN^ga iti chennAnyasmR^ityanavakAshadoShaprasaN^gAt.h OM || 2\.1\.1|| ...and MaharSi Patañjali: etena yogaH pratyuktaH OM || 2\.1\.3|| ...were arch-enemies of MaharSi BaadaraayaNa, the author of Brahma-suutras! ;D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit for vajranaathas: 'aadi' in the meaning 'etc', part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: The basic meaning of the noun 'aadi' in Sanskrit seems to be 'beginning': Adi m. beginning , commencement ; a firstling , first-fruits ;... At the end of a compound (ifc: in fine compositi?) it often corresponds to the expression 'etc': In that meaning, 'aadi' seems to appear at least in the following suutras of YS: maitryaadiSu balaani (III 23) (maitrii + aadi_Su balaani -- locative plural) baleSu hastibalaadiini .. 24.. (baleSu hasti-bala + aadi_ini -- nominative plural) udaanajayaajjalapaN^kakaNTakaadiSvasaN^ga utkraantishcha .. 39.. (udaana-jayaat; jala-paN^ka-kaNTaka + aadi_Su + asaN^gaH; utkraantiH; cha -- locative plural) tato.aNimaadipraadurbhaavaH kaayasampat taddharmaanabhighaatashcha .. 45. (tataH; aNima + aadi-praadurbhaavaH [...] -- nominative singular) In its original meaning 'aadi' appears at least in IV 10, as a part of an abstract noun with a negative prefix: taasaam anaaditvaM chaashiSho nityatvaat .. 10.. (taasaam an_aadi_tvam [...])
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit mantra for dreaming pleasant dreams which will come true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Me, I'm gonna go for hard work and seeing it pay off over time. Approaching 70 years of age and all you have are a few lucid dreams ! Let's hope your hard work against TM and the TMO will pay off over time
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit mantra for dreaming pleasant dreams which will come true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: Let's hope your hard work against TM and the TMO will pay off over time Just as a question, Nabby, why do you perceive someone watching the TM movement destroy itself as being against the TM movement? If I were standing on a cliff watching thousands of lemmings hurl themselves off, would that make me against lemmings? :-) OK, I know that lemmings don't actually hurl themselves off of cliffs, but it makes for a good metaphor. If they did, and you stood at the edge of the cliff and waved your hands and shouted Cliff ahead! You really don't want to go there! would it help in any way? Or would they just keep running, because that's what lemmings *do*? Let's put it to the test. HEY, NABBY! CULT-RELATED CLIFF AHEAD! YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO THERE! So did that change your mind about anything TM? Or about anything Maitreya-flavored and covered with whipped Creme? If not, you might want to reconsider me being against the TMO. I'm just watching as it runs towards something that looks to me a lot like a cliff. I'm not the one encouraging the TMO *to* run headlong towards that cliff. The TMO's own leaders are the ones doing that. If the TMO is still going strong and has changed the world the way you believe it will in ten years, then you have the last laugh. But if ten years hence there is little left of the TMO but the lingering smell of dead lemmings, you might want to rethink who was really against it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit mantra for dreaming pleasant dreams which will come true
TurquoiseB: Me, I'm gonna go for hard work and seeing it pay off over time... It would seem that you've still got quite a few samskaras to burn off Turq, in this life! Have you ever considered performing tapas? But in fact, dreams are just about all you have to work with. You've given no indication that you're 'awakened' to another Reality, to any great extent. Maybe you're living a dream right now, and you don't know it. Is there anything that you can experience in the waking state that cannot be experienced in the dream state? I don't think so. In dreams, we can run and jump, and consult with our friends; door are doors, and tables are tables, just like they are when you are awake. A Chinese sage fell asleep one day and dreamed that he was a butterfly. When he awoke he wondered if he was a man, dreaming that he was a butterfly, or was he a butterfly, dreaming that he was a man? So, in Reality, you might be just the 'thought' of another 'Soul' that exists in another type of universe, in another parallel consciousness state, which you are unaware of. That makes about as much sense as your current thesis that human activity is purposeful, that 'work', you perform today will result in good 'karma' tomorrow. Is there any kind of indication that there is a 'moral reciprocity' principle at play in the universe that depends on 'work'? Or, by work did you mean The Work? If the latter, what kind of spiritual work are you performing? We already know that you are very fond of Feng Shui! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit mantra for dreaming pleasant dreams which will come true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dOyVZR8s6wfeature=related Inadvertently (since no one replied to my question about references to lucid dreaming or waking up in the dream) from Vedic sources, this post from shukra probably answers the question. There probably are none. And the reasons are 1) dreams are viewed as something that are given to us by imaginary gods, and 2) praying to these imag- inary gods and asking them for favors is viewed as the only way to achieve what one wants. In particular, the invocation of 'shrim' or 'shreem' seems to indicate that the believers in the efficacy of this mantra are praying to imaginary Lakshmi or, if hoping that they will be granted pleasant dreams of *money* that will come true, imaginary Kubera. Call me crazy, but practicing techniques that allow me some measure of control over my own dreams -- and under my direction, not some imaginary god or goddess' direction -- are preferable to repeating the same prayer to imaginary beings 1008 times, and then 108 times each night before you go to sleep, then just hoping for the best. The bottom line that keeps coming up for me in TM beliefs as they express themselves here is that most of them are *passive*. They involve paying your money to something or praying to something and then hoping for the best. Almost none involve actual work on the part of the seeker, or taking credit for that work when it actually accomplishes something. Just look at the speeches by Hagelin in the recent video -- everything good that he praises is by the grace of someone or something. I guess this is OK if your spiritual path leads you to believe that your interface with the universe or with Nature is passive, and the only influence you can have on what happens to you is to praise imaginary aspects of Nature and hope that they'll be pleased enough with your chanting or your gifts or how much you paid for your yagya to deliver. Me, I'm gonna go for hard work and seeing it pay off over time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
On Jan 1, 2010, at 4:13 AM, cardemaister wrote:
I think it's better to avoid the curious Harvard-Kyoto -transliteration of
palatal (Spanish ñ) and velar (ng, as
in 'king', although e.g. some British people seem to
pronounce that *almost* like 'kink') nasals, namely J (e.g.
'jJa' for 'jña') and G ('aGga' for 'an.ga' [ang-ga]) respectively.
The basic principle of H-K -tranliteration of
Sanskrit seems to be to be able to present all Sanskrit
sounds without diacritics. I guess nowadays that would be unnecessary
with the advent of UTF encoding, but H-K was created
several years ago.
It's a convention helpful for typing on a computer. In actual print
publication, diacritical transliteration is still the standard.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:55 PM, cardemaister wrote:
Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The
begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) =
genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness.
Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness
of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being =
your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative
intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan.
OffWorld
Oh yeah, and for instance 'sinking' is a 'male sovereign ruler,
who breaks the divine or moral law, and stuff'... ;)
Actually he missed the key point IMO:
Gyan- / Gna- (jJa),
I think it's better to avoid the curious Harvard-Kyoto -transliteration of
palatal (Spanish ñ) and velar (ng, as
in 'king', although e.g. some British people seem to
pronounce that *almost* like 'kink') nasals, namely J (e.g.
'jJa' for 'jña') and G ('aGga' for 'an.ga' [ang-ga]) respectively.
The basic principle of H-K -tranliteration of
Sanskrit seems to be to be able to present all Sanskrit
sounds without diacritics. I guess nowadays that would be unnecessary
with the advent of UTF encoding, but H-K was created
several years ago.
Gno- and Kno- (as in to know) are all connected across a huge array of
culture and peoples.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
Gyan- / Gna- (jJa), Gno- and Kno- (as in to know) are all connected across a huge array of culture and peoples. It's kinda interesting that -- because in English 'k' has become mute before 'n' at the beginning of a word -- 'know' nowadays is a homophone with 'no'... :0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
Vaj wrote: Actually he missed the key point IMO: Gyan- / Gna- (jJa), Gno- and Kno- (as in to know) are all connected across a huge array of culture and peoples. Apparently the 'gnostic' philosophy came much later than the knowledge philosophies of India. According to what I've read, the Knowledge, 'Sophia', is an Eastern religious concept. According to Mircea Eliada, the yogic enlightenment tradition is unique to South Asia. 'Yoga' isn't found in any other cultures. It seems to be an indigenous practice, beginning with the first historical yogin, Shakya the Muni, in the fifth century BC. The enlightenment tradition as a yogic endeavor, isn't found in shamanism, according to Eliade. Apparently there are no parallels to Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (circa 200 BC) outside India. The 'conciousness only' school of the Vajrayana is termed the 'Yogacara' - those who employ yoga (meditation) as the practical means to experience the Transcendental Consciousness. The object of yoga is to transcend the physical senses and to *isolate* the Pure Consciousness by yogic means, that is, by following the Eightfold Path, etc.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
On Dec 31, 2009, at 2:07 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Yikes. Thanks, card. No, it's not much help, but I appreciate your going to the trouble. aalaya meaning receptable would make sense in connection with the subconscious, in the sense of a sort of storehouse, a place where you put stuff that you don't want to have out in the open. That sure makes sense! For that meaning, I would expect the order 'vijñaanaalaya' (vijñaana + aalaya). But taking 'aalaya' as a bahuvriihi compound or at least being an adjectival noun might solve that problem. So I think you hit the bull's eye. Alaya can mean, but not necessarily imply the all ground, like the TIbetan kungzhi. http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/All-ground All-ground All-ground (kun gzhi) alaya - all-ground. Literally, the 'foundation of all things.' The basis of mind and both pure and impure phenomena. This word has different meanings in different contexts and should be understood accordingly. Sometimes it is synonymous with buddha nature or dharmakaya, the recognition of which is the basis for all pure phenomena; other times, as in the case of the 'ignorant all-ground,' it refers to a neutral state of dualistic mind that has not been embraced by innate wakefulness and thus is the basis for samsaric experience [RY] As the All-ground consciousness (vijanana) It is only the ignorant all-ground, co-emergent ignorance (Tib. kun gzhi ma rig pa'i cha) that would be covered under the clumsy western term the subconsious, not necessarily the alaya-vijnana. Unfortunately Theosophy reeked havoc with a lot of yogic technical terms and this is one of them. http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/all-ground_consciousness All-ground consciousness (Redirected from all-ground consciousness) alayavijnana, all-ground consciousness [IW] See also: All-ground all-ground consciousness. Def. thun mong spyi'i mtshan nyid ni / ma bsgribs la lung du ma bstan pa'i gtso bo'i rnam shes gang zhig bag chags kyi bgo bzhir gyur pa rnam smin dang sa bon thams cad ji ltar rigs pa bsten zhing don gyi ngo bo rig pa; alaya-vijnana. (RY) Vajra body endowed with the six elements. The six outer elements are the five elements and the element of mental objects (chos khams). The six inner elements are flesh, blood, warmth, breath, vacuities and the all-ground consciousness. The six secret elements are the nadis as the stable earth element, the syllable HANG at the crown of the head as the liquid water element, the A-stroke at the navel center as the warm fire element, the life-prana (srog gi rlung) as the moving wind element, the avadhuti as the void space element, and the all- ground wisdom as the cognizant wisdom element. This last category is the uncommon explanation. (RY)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 2:07 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Yikes. Thanks, card. No, it's not much help, but I appreciate your going to the trouble. aalaya meaning receptable would make sense in connection with the subconscious, in the sense of a sort of storehouse, a place where you put stuff that you don't want to have out in the open. That sure makes sense! For that meaning, I would expect the order 'vijñaanaalaya' (vijñaana + aalaya). But taking 'aalaya' as a bahuvriihi compound or at least being an adjectival noun might solve that problem. So I think you hit the bull's eye. Alaya can mean, but not necessarily imply the all ground, like the TIbetan kungzhi. After I wrote the above, I realized that in *Buddhism* 'vijñaana' refers to consciousness, rather than mere knowledge, and stuff. That basically obliterates(?) most what I wrote in this thread... :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
You can always double-check with the THL, which includes Tibetan, Sanskrit and Sanskrit yogic terms: http://www.thlib.org/reference/translation-tool/ On Dec 31, 2009, at 9:18 AM, cardemaister wrote: After I wrote the above, I realized that in *Buddhism* 'vijñaana' refers to consciousness, rather than mere knowledge, and stuff. That basically obliterates(?) most what I wrote in this thread... :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
Judy wrote: What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? The 'Alaya Vijnana' means the 'store-house consciousness', proposed by the 'consciousness-only' school of Vajrayana Buddhism, founded by Asanga and Vasubandhu. This school had a profound effect on the thinking of Gaudapadacharya, the founder of the Advaita Vedanta school. Maharishi has based his TM technique on the principle that 'Pure Consciousness' is the Absolute Being, the Ultimate Reality. This doctrine is closely associated with the 'Trika' system of Kashmere - it is a fact that the Maharishi was very close to the late Swami Laksmanjoo, the last guru of the Kashmere tantrism. The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called 'seeds' (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. Read more: /FairfieldLife/message/213975
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
aalaya meaning receptable would make sense in connection with the subconscious, in the sense of a sort of storehouse, a place where you put stuff that you don't want to have out in the open. Erik wrote: That sure makes sense! Not a 'receptable' - a receptacle, a 'store-house' of consciousness, from the Sanskrit 'alaya' and 'vijnana', consciousness. The Lankavatara Sutra describes the tier of consciousness in the individual, culminating in a 'store house' consciousness (alaya-vijnana), which is the base of the individual's deepest awareness and his tie to the cosmic... Lankavatara Sutra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankavatara_Sutra
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web. And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper noun? (This is for an editing gig I'm working on.) TIA... My guess is: the abode (which abides) of the interweaving (web - sutras) of knoweldge Or: the Sacred Throne from which knowledge takes flight like a bird or a herd of horses (arises) Capitilization depends how you want to look at it. If permanent (abiding) in this case means 'immortal', then capitalization seems appropriate for those who wish it (capitalization in the West is given to those things that are considered immortal or beyond mere mortals.) If knowledge is sacred, then it could be capitailzed. I don't think Sanskrit capitalizes, or has a significantly similar concept such as capitalization (maybe only a vaguely similar concept - but not really.) Gyan (as in Vi Gya above) is just ANY knowledge that is useful, or it can mean Pure Knowledge which is cognized (from the Immortal Abode of Pure Consciousness), but which also includes and assimilates all useful knowledge (if it is actual knowledge that is, and not fantasy or ignorance - for example, one-lifers who believe in the irrational concept of one life and heaven or hell at death - are the embodiment of ignorance, and that is not called knowledge), so capitalizing the words Alaya ViGyan - The Abiding Abode from whence Pure Knowledge arises, or not doing so, becomes irrelevant, or it is up to you. But that's just my take on it. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
On Dec 31, 2009, at 12:58 PM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web. And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper noun? (This is for an editing gig I'm working on.) TIA... My guess is: the abode (which abides) of the interweaving (web - sutras) of knoweldge Or: the Sacred Throne from which knowledge takes flight like a bird or a herd of horses (arises) Capitilization depends how you want to look at it. If permanent (abiding) in this case means 'immortal', then capitalization seems appropriate for those who wish it (capitalization in the West is given to those things that are considered immortal or beyond mere mortals.) If knowledge is sacred, then it could be capitailzed. I don't think Sanskrit capitalizes, or has a significantly similar concept such as capitalization (maybe only a vaguely similar concept - but not really.) Gyan (as in Vi Gya above) is just ANY knowledge that is useful, or it can mean Pure Knowledge which is cognized (from the Immortal Abode of Pure Consciousness), but which also includes and assimilates all useful knowledge (if it is actual knowledge that is, and not fantasy or ignorance - for example, one-lifers who believe in the irrational concept of one life and heaven or hell at death - are the embodiment of ignorance, and that is not called knowledge), so capitalizing the words Alaya ViGyan - The Abiding Abode from whence Pure Knowledge arises, or not doing so, becomes irrelevant, or it is up to you. But that's just my take on it. Dewd. Lay off the weed!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 12:58 PM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend jstein@ wrote: What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web. And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper noun? (This is for an editing gig I'm working on.) TIA... My guess is: the abode (which abides) of the interweaving (web - sutras) of knoweldge Or: the Sacred Throne from which knowledge takes flight like a bird or a herd of horses (arises) Capitilization depends how you want to look at it. If permanent (abiding) in this case means 'immortal', then capitalization seems appropriate for those who wish it (capitalization in the West is given to those things that are considered immortal or beyond mere mortals.) If knowledge is sacred, then it could be capitailzed. I don't think Sanskrit capitalizes, or has a significantly similar concept such as capitalization (maybe only a vaguely similar concept - but not really.) Gyan (as in Vi Gya above) is just ANY knowledge that is useful, or it can mean Pure Knowledge which is cognized (from the Immortal Abode of Pure Consciousness), but which also includes and assimilates all useful knowledge (if it is actual knowledge that is, and not fantasy or ignorance - for example, one-lifers who believe in the irrational concept of one life and heaven or hell at death - are the embodiment of ignorance, and that is not called knowledge), so capitalizing the words Alaya ViGyan - The Abiding Abode from whence Pure Knowledge arises, or not doing so, becomes irrelevant, or it is up to you. But that's just my take on it. Dewd. Lay off the weed! Read it again, go step by step. For the first part Alaya in an earlier post, you said the exact same thing as me, only you are too dumb to see that it is the same thing (just like you can't see that Buddhism, Vedic culture, and Tantra are all the same thing.) The rest of the term you are lost. Your understanding of the term Vigyan is non-existant. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 2:07 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend jstein@ wrote: Yikes. Thanks, card. No, it's not much help, but I appreciate your going to the trouble. aalaya meaning receptable would make sense in connection with the subconscious, in the sense of a sort of storehouse, a place where you put stuff that you don't want to have out in the open. That sure makes sense! For that meaning, I would expect the order 'vijñaanaalaya' (vijñaana + aalaya). But taking 'aalaya' as a bahuvriihi compound or at least being an adjectival noun might solve that problem. So I think you hit the bull's eye. Alaya can mean, but not necessarily imply the all ground, like the TIbetan kungzhi. After I wrote the above, I realized that in *Buddhism* 'vijñaana' refers to consciousness, rather than mere knowledge, and stuff. That basically obliterates(?) most what I wrote in this thread... :) It regers to consciousness in both cases Cardemaister: Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
off_world_beings wrote: Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. All the members of the Advaita Vedanta tradition in India follow the Sri Vidya - and they all worship Sri Saraswati, the 'Goddess of Knowledge'. The term 'vidya' means 'knowledge' in Sanskrit, 'transcendental' knowledge, and 'Sri' means 'auspicious' = Auspicious Knowledge = Sri Vidya. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan. OffWorld Oh yeah, and for instance 'sinking' is a 'male sovereign ruler, who breaks the divine or moral law, and stuff'... ;)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:55 PM, cardemaister wrote: Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan. OffWorld Oh yeah, and for instance 'sinking' is a 'male sovereign ruler, who breaks the divine or moral law, and stuff'... ;) Actually he missed the key point IMO: Gyan- / Gna- (jJa), Gno- and Kno- (as in to know) are all connected across a huge array of culture and peoples.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan. OffWorld Oh yeah, and for instance 'sinking' is a 'male sovereign ruler, who breaks the divine or moral law, and stuff'... ;) One day you will explain something in a post. Until then, keep up your mis-information that feeds Vaj's ignorance, OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:55 PM, cardemaister wrote: Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan. OffWorld Oh yeah, and for instance 'sinking' is a 'male sovereign ruler, who breaks the divine or moral law, and stuff'... ;) Actually he missed the key point IMO: Gyan- / Gna- (jJa), Gno- and Kno- (as in to know) are all connected across a huge array of culture and peoples. Correct. But any child knows that Vaj. I said in the list that Gyan = Knowledge. can't you read. Your cursory understanding whilst playing the pretense of knowing all things Eastern is not fooling anyone. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:03 PM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:55 PM, cardemaister wrote: Jaana = Gyan = Knowledge = Ganapati = Ganesh = Genesis = Janus = The begginning of creation (or from where things spring forth in life) = genes = genetic information = Gyanna = Consciousness. Vi = to arise = to take flight = manifest - the universe = the wholeness of existence that is more than the sum of its parts = your own being = your self = your consciousness = the play and display of creative intelligence on the ground of existence = Vigyan. OffWorld Oh yeah, and for instance 'sinking' is a 'male sovereign ruler, who breaks the divine or moral law, and stuff'... ;) Actually he missed the key point IMO: Gyan- / Gna- (jJa), Gno- and Kno- (as in to know) are all connected across a huge array of culture and peoples. Correct. But any child knows that Vaj. I said in the list that Gyan = Knowledge. can't you read. Your cursory understanding whilst playing the pretense of knowing all things Eastern is not fooling anyone. Let's face it: you've had your ojas drained by one-to-many space-liliths. A space stoner.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently
Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for
a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web.
And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper
noun?
(This is for an editing gig I'm working on.)
TIA...
It seems to be a compound noun, most probably not proper.
The problem is, as I've told several times, that the length
of the vowels is usually not indicated in that kind of stuff.
My guess is the capitalization in that case doesn't indicate
the length of the vowel 'a', because 'Vigyan' also is capitalized.
So, it's impossible to say, wether 'aalaya' or 'alaya' (much
rarer word, because Cappeller doesn't have it at all) is meant.
Monier Williams gives these meanings to those words:
alaya m. ( %{lI}) , non-dissolution , permanence R. iii , 71 , 10
(v.l. %{an-aya}) ; (mfn.) restless S3is3. iv , 57.
2 Alaya see %{A-lI}.
3 Alaya (= aalaya)m. and n. a house , dwelling ; a receptacle ,
asylum R. Ya1jn5. Katha1s. c. ; (often ifc. e.g. %{himA7laya} , ` the abode
of snow. ')
Although 'alaya' which seems to be the opposite of 'laya',
seems to be a rare word, it might be the correct one
in that context, though. If that's the case, perhaps
it might be 'restless knowledge', because for some reason
'alaya' feels to me more like an adjective (mfn.) in
that phrase...???
I'm quite sure that by 'Vigyan' is meant 'vijñaana', which
in Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme is written 'vijJAna' [sic!]
(I believe 'gya' is the most popular pronunciation, at
least in northern parts of India, of the
compound consonant 'jña' which has its own character in
devanaagarii script.)
vijJAna n. (ifc. f. %{A}) the act of distinguishing or discerning ,
understanding , comprehending , recognizing , intelligence , knowledge AV. c.
c. ; skill , proficiency , art Uttamac. ; science , doctrine Sus3r. ; worldly
or profane knowledge (opp. to %{jJAna} , ` knñknowledge of the true nature of
God ') Mn. MBh. c. ; the faculty of discernment or of right judgment MBh. R.
c. ; the organ of knñknowledge (= %{manas}) BhP. ; (ifc.) the understanding
of (a particular meaning) , regarding as Ka1s3. on Pa1n2. 2-3 , 17 ; 66 c. ;
(with Buddhists) consciousness or thought-faculty (one of the 5 constituent
elements or Skandhas , also considered as one of the 6 elements or Dha1tus ,
and as one of the 12 links of the chain of causation) Dharmas. 22 ; 42 ; 58
(cf. MWB. 102 ; 109) ; %{-kanda} m. N. of a man Cat. ; %{-kAya} m. N. of a
Buddhist wk. ; %{-kRtsna} n. one of the 10 mystical exercises called Kr2itsnas
Buddh. ; %{-kevala} mfn. (with S3aivas) an individual soul to which only
%{mala} adheres Sarvad. ; %{-kaumudI} f. N. of a female Buddhist Cat. ;
%{-ghana4} m. pure knowledge , nothing but intelligence S3Br. Sarvad. ;
%{-taraMgiNI} f. N. of wk. ; %{-tA} f. knowledge of (loc.) Ca1n2. ;
%{-tArA7valI} f. N. of wk. ; %{-tailagarbha} m. Alangium Decapetalum L. ;
%{-dezana} m. a Buddha L. ; %{-naukA} f. N. of sev. wks. ; %{-pati} m. a lord
of intelligence TUp. ; N. of one who has attained to a partic. degree of
emancipation Ba1dar. Sch. ; %{-pAda} m. N. of Vya1sa L. ; %{-bhaTTAraka} m.
%{-bhArata} m. %{-bhikSu} m. N. of scholars Cat. ; %{-bhairava} ,
%{-vo7ddyota-saMgraha} m. N. of wks. ; %{-ma4ya} mf(%{I})n. consisting of
knowledge or intelligence , all knñknowledge , full of intellñintelligence
S3Br. Up. c. ; %{-ya-koSa} m. the sheath consñconsisting of
intellñintelligence , the intelligent sheath (of the soul accord. to the
Veda7nta) or the sheath caused by the understanding being associated with the
organs of perception MW. ; %{-mAtRka} m. ` whose mother is knowledge ' , a
Buddha L. ; %{-yati} m. = %{-bhikSu} Cat. ; %{-yogin} m. = %{vijJAne7zvara}
Col. ; %{-latikA} f. %{-lalita} or %{-ta-tantra} n. N. of wks. ; %{-vat} mfn.
endowed with intelligence Up. ChUp. Sch. Katha1s. ; %{-vAda} m. the doctrine
(of the Yoga7ca1ras) that only intelligence has reality (not the objects
exterior to us) Ba1dar. Sch. ; %{-vAdin} mfn. one who affirms that only
intelligence has reality ; m. a Yoga7ca1ra Sarvad. Buddh. ; %{-vinodinI-TIkA}
f. %{-vilAsa} m. %{-zAstra} n. %{-zikSA} f. %{saMjJA-prakaraNa} n. N. of wks. ;
%{-nA7kala} mfn. = %{-na-kevala} above Sarvad. ; %{-nA7cArya} m. N. of a
teacher Cat. ; %{-nA7tman} m. N. of an author ib. ; %{-nA7ntyA7yatana} n. (with
Buddhists) N. of a world Buddh. ; %{-nA7mRta} n. N. of Comm. ; %{-nA7zrama} m.
= %{-nA7tman} Cat. ; %{-nA7stitva-mAtra-vAdin} mfn. = %{-na-vAdin} Ba1dar. Sch.
; %{-nA7hAra} m. spiritual food as nourishment L. ; %{-ne7zvara} m. N. of an
author Cat. (%{-tantra} n. %{-vArttika} , n. N. of wks.) ; %{-ne7zvarIya} n. a
wk. of Vijn5a1ne7s3vara Cat. ; %{-nai9ka-skandha-vAda} m. = %{-na-vAda} above
Ba1dar. Sch.
-
Sorry, that probably
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
Yikes. Thanks, card. No, it's not much help, but I
appreciate your going to the trouble.
aalaya meaning receptable would make sense in
connection with the subconscious, in the sense of
a sort of storehouse, a place where you put stuff
that you don't want to have out in the open.
But none of the meanings you list of vigyan seems
to fit. If I'm right about storehouse as a metaphor
for the subconscious, vigyan would probably be a
term that describes the contents of the storehouse
somehow. Seems to have to do with knowledge or
intelligence from your list, but there are so many
different shades of meaning; I have no idea which one
would be appropriate.
Apparently the phrase isn't in common use; the only
Web references to it I can find are its use by Osho.
Did he cobble it together himself?
The author of the book I'm working on (not an Osho
disciple) uses it in the sense of the place in our
psyches where we keep the aspirations and intentions
that we've more or less given up on, but that we can
still access and actualize if we take the proper
approach. I just don't think the Sanskrit does much
for the reader without a translation.
Anyway, if you have any brainstorms, let me know. But
thanks again!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently
Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for
a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web.
And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper
noun?
(This is for an editing gig I'm working on.)
TIA...
It seems to be a compound noun, most probably not proper.
The problem is, as I've told several times, that the length
of the vowels is usually not indicated in that kind of stuff.
My guess is the capitalization in that case doesn't indicate
the length of the vowel 'a', because 'Vigyan' also is capitalized.
So, it's impossible to say, wether 'aalaya' or 'alaya' (much
rarer word, because Cappeller doesn't have it at all) is meant.
Monier Williams gives these meanings to those words:
alaya m. ( %{lI}) , non-dissolution , permanence R. iii , 71 , 10
(v.l. %{an-aya}) ; (mfn.) restless S3is3. iv , 57.
2 Alaya see %{A-lI}.
3 Alaya (= aalaya)m. and n. a house , dwelling ; a receptacle ,
asylum R. Ya1jn5. Katha1s. c. ; (often ifc. e.g. %{himA7laya} , ` the abode
of snow. ')
Although 'alaya' which seems to be the opposite of 'laya',
seems to be a rare word, it might be the correct one
in that context, though. If that's the case, perhaps
it might be 'restless knowledge', because for some reason
'alaya' feels to me more like an adjective (mfn.) in
that phrase...???
I'm quite sure that by 'Vigyan' is meant 'vijñaana', which
in Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme is written 'vijJAna' [sic!]
(I believe 'gya' is the most popular pronunciation, at
least in northern parts of India, of the
compound consonant 'jña' which has its own character in
devanaagarii script.)
vijJAna n. (ifc. f. %{A}) the act of distinguishing or discerning ,
understanding , comprehending , recognizing , intelligence , knowledge AV.
c. c. ; skill , proficiency , art Uttamac. ; science , doctrine Sus3r. ;
worldly or profane knowledge (opp. to %{jJAna} , ` knñknowledge of the true
nature of God ') Mn. MBh. c. ; the faculty of discernment or of right
judgment MBh. R. c. ; the organ of knñknowledge (= %{manas}) BhP. ; (ifc.)
the understanding of (a particular meaning) , regarding as Ka1s3. on Pa1n2.
2-3 , 17 ; 66 c. ; (with Buddhists) consciousness or thought-faculty (one of
the 5 constituent elements or Skandhas , also considered as one of the 6
elements or Dha1tus , and as one of the 12 links of the chain of causation)
Dharmas. 22 ; 42 ; 58 (cf. MWB. 102 ; 109) ; %{-kanda} m. N. of a man Cat. ;
%{-kAya} m. N. of a Buddhist wk. ; %{-kRtsna} n. one of the 10 mystical
exercises called Kr2itsnas Buddh. ; %{-kevala} mfn. (with S3aivas) an
individual soul to which only %{mala} adheres Sarvad. ; %{-kaumudI} f. N. of
a female Buddhist Cat. ; %{-ghana4} m. pure knowledge , nothing but
intelligence S3Br. Sarvad. ; %{-taraMgiNI} f. N. of wk. ; %{-tA} f. knowledge
of (loc.) Ca1n2. ; %{-tArA7valI} f. N. of wk. ; %{-tailagarbha} m. Alangium
Decapetalum L. ; %{-dezana} m. a Buddha L. ; %{-naukA} f. N. of sev. wks. ;
%{-pati} m. a lord of intelligence TUp. ; N. of one who has attained to a
partic. degree of emancipation Ba1dar. Sch. ; %{-pAda} m. N. of Vya1sa L. ;
%{-bhaTTAraka} m. %{-bhArata} m. %{-bhikSu} m. N. of scholars Cat. ;
%{-bhairava} , %{-vo7ddyota-saMgraha} m. N. of wks. ; %{-ma4ya} mf(%{I})n.
consisting of knowledge or intelligence , all knñknowledge , full of
intellñintelligence S3Br. Up. c. ; %{-ya-koSa} m. the sheath
consñconsisting of intellñintelligence , the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently
Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for
a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web.
And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper
noun?
(This is for an editing gig I'm working on.)
TIA...
It seems to be a compound noun, most probably not proper.
The problem is, as I've told several times, that the length
of the vowels is usually not indicated in that kind of stuff.
My guess is the capitalization in that case doesn't indicate
the length of the vowel 'a', because 'Vigyan' also is capitalized.
So, it's impossible to say, wether 'aalaya' or 'alaya' (much
rarer word, because Cappeller doesn't have it at all) is meant.
Monier Williams gives these meanings to those words:
alaya m. ( %{lI}) , non-dissolution , permanence R. iii , 71 , 10
(v.l. %{an-aya}) ; (mfn.) restless S3is3. iv , 57.
2 Alaya see %{A-lI}.
3 Alaya (= aalaya) m. and n. a house , dwelling ; a receptacle ,
asylum R. Ya1jn5. Katha1s. c. ; (often ifc. e.g. %{himA7laya} , ` the
abode of snow. ')
Although 'alaya' which seems to be the opposite of 'laya',
seems to be a rare word, it might be the correct one
in that context, though. If that's the case, perhaps
it might be 'restless knowledge', because for some reason
'alaya' feels to me more like an adjective (mfn.) in
that phrase...???
I'm quite sure that by 'Vigyan' is meant 'vijñaana', which
in Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme is written 'vijJAna' [sic!]
(I believe 'gya' is the most popular pronunciation, at
least in northern parts of India, of the
compound consonant 'jña' which has its own character in
devanaagarii script.)
vijJAna n. (ifc. f. %{A}) the act of distinguishing or discerning ,
understanding , comprehending , recognizing , intelligence , knowledge
AV. c. c. ; skill , proficiency , art Uttamac. ; science , doctrine
Sus3r. ; worldly or profane knowledge (opp. to %{jJAna} , `
knñknowledge of the true nature of God ') Mn. MBh. c. ; the
faculty of discernment or of right judgment MBh. R. c. ; the organ of
knñknowledge (= %{manas}) BhP. ; (ifc.) the understanding of (a
particular meaning) , regarding as Ka1s3. on Pa1n2. 2-3 , 17 ; 66 c. ;
(with Buddhists) consciousness or thought-faculty (one of the 5
constituent elements or Skandhas , also considered as one of the 6
elements or Dha1tus , and as one of the 12 links of the chain of
causation) Dharmas. 22 ; 42 ; 58 (cf. MWB. 102 ; 109) ; %{-kanda} m. N.
of a man Cat. ; %{-kAya} m. N. of a Buddhist wk. ; %{-kRtsna} n. one of
the 10 mystical exercises called Kr2itsnas Buddh. ; %{-kevala} mfn.
(with S3aivas) an individual soul to which only %{mala} adheres Sarvad.
; %{-kaumudI} f. N. of a female Buddhist Cat. ; %{-ghana4} m. pure
knowledge , nothing but intelligence S3Br. Sarvad. ; %{-taraMgiNI} f. N.
of wk. ; %{-tA} f. knowledge of (loc.) Ca1n2. ; %{-tArA7valI} f. N. of
wk. ; %{-tailagarbha} m. Alangium Decapetalum L. ; %{-dezana} m. a
Buddha L. ; %{-naukA} f. N. of sev. wks. ; %{-pati} m. a lord of
intelligence TUp. ; N. of one who has attained to a partic. degree of
emancipation Ba1dar. Sch. ; %{-pAda} m. N. of Vya1sa L. ; %{-bhaTTAraka}
m. %{-bhArata} m. %{-bhikSu} m. N. of scholars Cat. ; %{-bhairava} ,
%{-vo7ddyota-saMgraha} m. N. of wks. ; %{-ma4ya} mf(%{I})n. consisting
of knowledge or intelligence , all knñknowledge , full of
intellñintelligence S3Br. Up. c. ; %{-ya-koSa} m. the sheath
consñconsisting of intellñintelligence , the intelligent sheath
(of the soul accord. to the Veda7nta) or the sheath caused by the
understanding being associated with the organs of perception MW. ;
%{-mAtRka} m. ` whose mother is knowledge ' , a Buddha L. ; %{-yati}
m. = %{-bhikSu} Cat. ; %{-yogin} m. = %{vijJAne7zvara} Col. ; %{-latikA}
f. %{-lalita} or %{-ta-tantra} n. N. of wks. ; %{-vat} mfn. endowed with
intelligence Up. ChUp. Sch. Katha1s. ; %{-vAda} m. the doctrine (of the
Yoga7ca1ras) that only intelligence has reality (not the objects
exterior to us) Ba1dar. Sch. ; %{-vAdin} mfn. one who affirms that only
intelligence has reality ; m. a Yoga7ca1ra Sarvad. Buddh. ;
%{-vinodinI-TIkA} f. %{-vilAsa} m. %{-zAstra} n. %{-zikSA} f.
%{saMjJA-prakaraNa} n. N. of wks. ; %{-nA7kala} mfn. = %{-na-kevala}
above Sarvad. ; %{-nA7cArya} m. N. of a teacher Cat. ; %{-nA7tman} m. N.
of an author ib. ; %{-nA7ntyA7yatana} n. (with Buddhists) N. of a world
Buddh. ; %{-nA7mRta} n. N. of Comm. ; %{-nA7zrama} m. = %{-nA7tman} Cat.
; %{-nA7stitva-mAtra-vAdin} mfn. = %{-na-vAdin} Ba1dar. Sch. ;
%{-nA7hAra} m. spiritual food as nourishment L. ; %{-ne7zvara} m. N. of
an author Cat. (%{-tantra} n. %{-vArttika} , n. N. of wks.) ;
%{-ne7zvarIya} n. a wk. of Vijn5a1ne7s3vara Cat. ;
%{-nai9ka-skandha-vAda} m. = %{-na-vAda} above Ba1dar. Sch.
-
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web. And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper noun? (This is for an editing gig I'm working on.) TIA...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
Thank you, John and emptybill! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: What does the Sanskrit phrase Alaya Vigyan mean? Apparently Osho used it to refer to the subconscious, but I'm looking for a more literal translation; can't find anything on the Web. And should both terms be capitalized? Is the phrase a proper noun? (This is for an editing gig I'm working on.) TIA...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit help, please
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Yikes. Thanks, card. No, it's not much help, but I appreciate your going to the trouble. aalaya meaning receptable would make sense in connection with the subconscious, in the sense of a sort of storehouse, a place where you put stuff that you don't want to have out in the open. That sure makes sense! For that meaning, I would expect the order 'vijñaanaalaya' (vijñaana + aalaya). But taking 'aalaya' as a bahuvriihi compound or at least being an adjectival noun might solve that problem. So I think you hit the bull's eye.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Sanskrit has many more tenses than languages like English or even Hindi. It was about at the level where I was studying the 9th level tense that I sort of lost interest and someone with expertise in the language suggested I didn't need to worry to much about that as the sutras and stotras were actually simple poetry and didn't use much of the higher level elements of the language. I think that's very true. At least the Vedic suutra style seems to have extremely few finite verb forms. Thus one can forget about the tenses of verbs (present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, aorist, future, periphrastic future...) when reading the suutras. For instance amongst the first 100 or so suutras of BS there seems to be only one finite verb form: saMpatteriti jaiministathA hi *darshayati* where BaadaraayaNa appears to say that Jaimini sees (darshayati) that particular matter a bit differently than he himself. As to YS, I think there are less than five finite verb forms, all of them prolly in the present tense indicative, like in III 37 tataH praatibhashraavaNavedanaadarshaasvaadavaartaa *jaayante*. The same seems to be true in the case of aSTaadhyaayii. Quickly browsed through about 100 suutras from the beginning. Found only one word that *might* be a finite verb form (vaktur).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. I love Sanskrit, but not because I'd think it's unambiguous. Just as a simple example, the inflectional form 'yoginaH' could be either ablative/genitive singular (e.g. from/of) or nominative/accusative plural ([many] yogis, either as a subject or an object of the sentence), depending on the context.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. I love Sanskrit, but not because I'd think it's unambiguous. Just as a simple example, the inflectional form 'yoginaH' could be either ablative/genitive singular (e.g. from/of) or nominative/accusative plural ([many] yogis, either as a subject or an object of the sentence), depending on the context. Thanks for weighing in, Card. As I said, I'm not questioning the idea of Sanskrit being a cool language, just the idea of it being a cool intermediate language for translation because of its unambiguous nature. Literally everything I have ever read about it mentioned that it was one of the *most* ambiguous lang- uages on the planet. Ambiguity *is* the issue when it comes to trans- lation, whether by humans or by software. It's captured in the classic example from English: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. This sentence only makes sense, even in English, once you have parsed it and realized that the words flies and like have very different meanings in one phrase than they do in the other. *As I understand it*, that is the problem with Sanskrit, and in spades. Each word has *many* meanings; as Vaj puts it, not just double entendre but multiple entendre. Thus it is hard for me to conceive of it as a suitable language with which to address the many problems of machine language translation. As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that you have to do to see its True Believer nature is to do a mental search and replace on the text in it and replace every mention of Sanskrit with Hebrew. Then you'll see what the site is really about. It's attempting to present a case for learning Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, and its supposed status as the mother of all languages. Sanskrit may *be* both. For all I know, God, all the gods and goddesses and angels sit around discussing Monday Night Football in Sanskrit, because it's the most suitable lang- uage for doing so. Maybe it even has magical abilities to heal the sick and raise the dead and fix the game during Monday Night Football. I don't know, and I don't care. The only relevant piece of information in this context is whether it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and only one way? Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to that question is a definitive No. And that unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the basis of an experiment in machine translation that is based on the notion of that base lang- uage being unambiguous.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. I love Sanskrit, but not because I'd think it's unambiguous. Just as a simple example, the inflectional form 'yoginaH' could be either ablative/genitive singular (e.g. from/of) or nominative/accusative plural ([many] yogis, either as a subject or an object of the sentence), depending on the context. Thanks for weighing in, Card. As I said, I'm not questioning the idea of Sanskrit being a cool language, just the idea of it being a cool intermediate language for translation because of its unambiguous nature. Literally everything I have ever read about it mentioned that it was one of the *most* ambiguous lang- uages on the planet. Ambiguity *is* the issue when it comes to trans- lation, whether by humans or by software. It's captured in the classic example from English: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. This sentence only makes sense, even in English, once you have parsed it and realized that the words flies and like have very different meanings in one phrase than they do in the other. *As I understand it*, that is the problem with Sanskrit, and in spades. Each word has *many* meanings; as Vaj puts it, not just double entendre but multiple entendre. Thus it is hard for me to conceive of it as a suitable language with which to address the many problems of machine language translation. As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that you have to do to see its True Believer nature is to do a mental search and replace on the text in it and replace every mention of Sanskrit with Hebrew. Then you'll see what the site is really about. It's attempting to present a case for learning Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, and its supposed status as the mother of all languages. Sanskrit may *be* both. For all I know, God, all the gods and goddesses and angels sit around discussing Monday Night Football in Sanskrit, because it's the most suitable lang- uage for doing so. Maybe it even has magical abilities to heal the sick and raise the dead and fix the game during Monday Night Football. I don't know, and I don't care. The only relevant piece of information in this context is whether it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and only one way? Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to that question is a definitive No. And that unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the basis of an experiment in machine translation that is based on the notion of that base lang- uage being unambiguous. What else would Sanskrit scholars be looking at if it wasn't spiritual texts, Turq? That seems to be the only stuff that survived. Maybe if you learn Sanskrit and maybe Pali while you're at it you can go do some digs in India and see if you can find any texts from the sports section of some ancient daily scrolls or palm leaves. :-D So to label an organization that studies Sanskrit spiritual texts as TB'ers is a bit off the mark I think. As I believe Vaj already pointed out Sanskrit
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that you have to do to see its True Believer nature is to do a mental search and replace on the text in it and replace every mention of Sanskrit with Hebrew. Then you'll see what the site is really about. It's attempting to present a case for learning Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, and its supposed status as the mother of all languages. But if you read the Briggs article at the URL I posted in response to Bhairitu, you won't see any of that; it's purely technical. Although the site itself is pro-Sanskrit, they've reproduced the original piece without commentary: http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html The only relevant piece of information in this context is whether it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and only one way? Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to that question is a definitive No. And that unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the basis of an experiment in machine translation that is based on the notion of that base lang- uage being unambiguous. I've now looked at the article a little more closely, and while I don't have the chops to understand it, it does seem clear that the issue of ambiguity has several different elements, depending on what aspect of a language you're looking at. What I can't tell is whether the kind of ambiguity Barry believes characterizes Sanskrit is the same kind of ambiguity Briggs claims is avoided in Sanskrit. It does seem clear that to rule out Sanskrit on the basis of ambiguity, such that it cannot serve as an artificial language in the manner Briggs proposes, one would have to *read the article* and understand the nature of the case he's making, and then refute it on the same level. I strongly suspect that what Barry's saying has nothing to do with the case Briggs makes. A big part of the reason for apparent ambiguity of a Sanskrit sentence may have to do with insufficient expertise in Sanskrit grammar. A non-native speaker of English without much knowledge of English grammar might be completely flummoxed as to how to interpret Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana, the sentence Barry cited. And Sanskrit is *vastly* more complex grammatically than English. There may be clues, in other words, encoded in a Sanskrit sentence that someone not steeped in the grammatical details would miss, and thus think the sentence could be parsed more than one way, when in fact the clues point to one and only one way. It's also possible, it seems to me, that the content of Sanskrit sentences makes a difference--that a sentence describing the nature of Purusha, for example, may have ambiguities and/or multiple levels of meaning that a sentence describing an everyday situation may not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: snip What else would Sanskrit scholars be looking at if it wasn't spiritual texts, Turq? That seems to be the only stuff that survived. Not according to Briggs: Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. And: The author [of a grammatical analysis quoted by Briggs], Nagesha, is one of a group of three or four prominent theoreticians who stand at the end of a long tradition of investigation. Its beginnings date to the middle of the first millennium B.C. when the morphology and phonological structure of the language, as well as the framework for its syntactic description were codified by Panini. His successors elucidated the brief, algebraic formulations that he had used as grammatical rules and where possible tried to improve upon them. A great deal of fervent grammatical research took place between the fourth century B.C and the fourth century A.D. and culminated in the seminal work, the Vaiakyapadiya by Bhartrhari. Little was done subsequently to advance the study of syntax, until the so-called 'New Grammarian' school appeared in the early part of the sixteenth century with the publication of Bhattoji Dikshita's Vaiyakarana-bhusanasara and its commentary by his relative Kaundabhatta, who worked from Benares. Nagesha (1730-1810) was responsible for a major work, the Vaiyakaranasiddhantamanjusa, or Treasury of definitive statements of grammarians, which was condensed later into the earlier described work. These books have not yet been translated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that you have to do to see its True Believer nature is to do a mental search and replace on the text in it and replace every mention of Sanskrit with Hebrew. Then you'll see what the site is really about. It's attempting to present a case for learning Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, and its supposed status as the mother of all languages. But if you read the Briggs article at the URL I posted in response to Bhairitu, you won't see any of that; it's purely technical. Although the site itself is pro-Sanskrit, they've reproduced the original piece without commentary: http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html The only relevant piece of information in this context is whether it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and only one way? Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to that question is a definitive No. And that unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the basis of an experiment in machine translation that is based on the notion of that base lang- uage being unambiguous. I've now looked at the article a little more closely, and while I don't have the chops to understand it, it does seem clear that the issue of ambiguity has several different elements, depending on what aspect of a language you're looking at. What I can't tell is whether the kind of ambiguity Barry believes characterizes Sanskrit is the same kind of ambiguity Briggs claims is avoided in Sanskrit. It does seem clear that to rule out Sanskrit on the basis of ambiguity, such that it cannot serve as an artificial language in the manner Briggs proposes, one would have to *read the article* and understand the nature of the case he's making, and then refute it on the same level. I strongly suspect that what Barry's saying has nothing to do with the case Briggs makes. A big part of the reason for apparent ambiguity of a Sanskrit sentence may have to do with insufficient expertise in Sanskrit grammar. A non-native speaker of English without much knowledge of English grammar might be completely flummoxed as to how to interpret Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana, the sentence Barry cited. And Sanskrit is *vastly* more complex grammatically than English. There may be clues, in other words, encoded in a Sanskrit sentence that someone not steeped in the grammatical details would miss, and thus think the sentence could be parsed more than one way, when in fact the clues point to one and only one way. It's also possible, it seems to me, that the content of Sanskrit sentences makes a difference--that a sentence describing the nature of Purusha, for example, may have ambiguities and/or multiple levels of meaning that a sentence describing an everyday situation may not. Sanskrit has many more tenses than languages like English or even Hindi. It was about at the level where I was studying the 9th level tense that I sort of lost interest and someone with expertise in the language suggested I didn't need to worry to much about that as the sutras and stotras were actually simple poetry and didn't use much of the higher level elements of the language. A few years back I also got into a chat about this card and another guy, who had a lot of Sanskrit expertise on alt.meditation.transcendental about the levels of tenses in Sanskrit. Obviously implementing a translation engine is quite complex and the articles point out only one approach that might be used not the approach. In fact the first word I used in my first post on the subject was supposedly which qualifies everything that followed as not necessarily an implemented approach but one that has been mentioned. Companies could be very sworn to secrecy and may indeed have a lexicon system based on Sanskrit for all we know (and maybe never know).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that you have to do to see its True Believer nature is to do a mental search and replace on the text in it and replace every mention of Sanskrit with Hebrew. Then you'll see what the site is really about. It's attempting to present a case for learning Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, and its supposed status as the mother of all languages. But if you read the Briggs article at the URL I posted in response to Bhairitu, you won't see any of that; it's purely technical. Although the site itself is pro-Sanskrit, they've reproduced the original piece without commentary: http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html The only relevant piece of information in this context is whether it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and only one way? Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to that question is a definitive No. And that unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the basis of an experiment in machine translation that is based on the notion of that base lang- uage being unambiguous. I've now looked at the article a little more closely, and while I don't have the chops to understand it, it does seem clear that the issue of ambiguity has several different elements, depending on what aspect of a language you're looking at. What I can't tell is whether the kind of ambiguity Barry believes characterizes Sanskrit is the same kind of ambiguity Briggs claims is avoided in Sanskrit. It does seem clear that to rule out Sanskrit on the basis of ambiguity, such that it cannot serve as an artificial language in the manner Briggs proposes, one would have to *read the article* and understand the nature of the case he's making, and then refute it on the same level. I strongly suspect that what Barry's saying has nothing to do with the case Briggs makes. A big part of the reason for apparent ambiguity of a Sanskrit sentence may have to do with insufficient expertise in Sanskrit grammar. A non-native speaker of English without much knowledge of English grammar might be completely flummoxed as to how to interpret Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana, the sentence Barry cited. And Sanskrit is *vastly* more complex grammatically than English. There may be clues, in other words, encoded in a Sanskrit sentence that someone not steeped in the grammatical details would miss, and thus think the sentence could be parsed more than one way, when in fact the clues point to one and only one way. It's also possible, it seems to me, that the content of Sanskrit sentences makes a difference--that a sentence describing the nature of Purusha, for example, may have ambiguities and/or multiple levels of meaning that a sentence describing an everyday situation may not. Sanskrit has many more tenses than languages like English or even Hindi. It was about at the level where I was studying the 9th level tense that I sort of lost interest and someone with expertise in the language suggested I didn't need to worry to much about that as the sutras and stotras were actually simple poetry and didn't use much of the higher level elements of the language. A few years back I also got into a chat about this card and another guy, who had a lot of Sanskrit expertise on alt.meditation.transcendental about the levels of tenses in Sanskrit. Obviously implementing a translation engine is quite complex and the articles point out only one approach that might be used not the approach. In fact the first word I used in my first post on the subject was supposedly which qualifies everything that followed as not necessarily an implemented approach but one that has been mentioned. Companies could be very sworn to secrecy and may indeed have a lexicon system based on Sanskrit for all we know (and maybe never know). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although he refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and Ganapatha [2]. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, generative linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, ***generative linguistics***,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: If you qualify, please contact me directly (my email account is real). I seek someone who can translate into Sanskrit and record President Obama's inauguration speech. If possible, the invocations translated into Sanskrit would help as well. Because of the enthusiasm of my betters here on FFL about Obama's speech, I've decided to alter the going home program I have from IA and replace the current Sanskrit chanting with the inauguration. There is obviously much more truth in the inauguration than in just some old chanting from the Vedas. Please quote hourly rate, estimated number of hours required to translate, the type of media the translation will be delivered on and cite references I can check on your previous translating gigs. Can we charge more for the translation if we can get Aretha Franklin to do the chanting in the recording? She's got a history with this sort of thing. Remember Maharishi spending hours breaking down the word Agni into its component letters and sounds as A-G-N-I? R-E-S-P-E-C-T, right? 'Nuff said. If you are willing to pay enough for name and form, I might be able to get the Supremes to sing backup.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: If you are willing to pay enough for name and form, I might be able to get the Supremes to sing backup. I'm in such a good mood today after hearing the Inaugural Speech of your new President that I even r-e-a-d what The Turq wrote. I rarely do, and it was a mistake. This Turq, this miserable self-proclaimed Buddhist (though an amateur in the fields of Knowledge and experience), forever stuck in the sadness of his lost attempt for freedom due to his inherent laziness and lack of focus, encountering in his early youth a real Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, forever drowned as it seems in the sea of self- dispear and self-disgust, feeling sorry for himself in any bar, rejected by yet another beautiful lady; will forever shower FFL and many other forums with the bitterness of his soul, his lost opportunities for Enlightenment. Perhaps today gave a new shape of things: away from the old, bitter and cold fools of old into a New Beginning. Bush left in a helicopter into the sky and Cheney was sent away in an ambulance. The Turq feels isolated, his bitterness and frowning upon Knowledge outdated. Hillbillies of lesser caliber than Curties will continue to court him, but Hillbillies are also of a dying race. The Age of Enlightenment is now. Some on FFL have suggested that in the Age of Enlightenment hardcore anti-knowledge, bitter, hateful fellows like the Turq or Cheney of the outgoing generation could have a problem in incarnating again soon. What do you think ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: If you qualify, please contact me directly (my email account is real). I seek someone who can translate into Sanskrit and record President Obama's inauguration speech. If possible, the invocations translated into Sanskrit would help as well. Because of the enthusiasm of my betters here on FFL about Obama's speech, I've decided to alter the going home program I have from IA and replace the current Sanskrit chanting with the inauguration. There is obviously much more truth in the inauguration than in just some old chanting from the Vedas. Please quote hourly rate, estimated number of hours required to translate, the type of media the translation will be delivered on and cite references I can check on your previous translating gigs. Can we charge more for the translation if we can get Aretha Franklin to do the chanting in the recording? She's got a history with this sort of thing. Remember Maharishi spending hours breaking down the word Agni into its component letters and sounds as A-G-N-I? R-E-S-P-E-C-T, right? 'Nuff said. If you are willing to pay enough for name and form, I might be able to get the Supremes to sing backup. Nobody remembers the big talk right here on FFL in 2004 when Tina Turner (now that was one babe) signed to play Shakti in The Goddess. It appears the movie never got filmed. Yes, I suspect Ms. Franklin chanting would be good. We'd have to also add in the Gay Abomonations Against Nature Choir and the Gay Bishop to appease the fag hags on FFL. That's one of the nice things about being considered a TB on FFL. You can get away with slams like that and not get called on them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: If you are willing to pay enough for name and form, I might be able to get the Supremes to sing backup. I'm in such a good mood today after hearing the Inaugural Speech of your new President that I even r-e-a-d what The Turq wrote. I rarely do, and it was a mistake. This Turq, this miserable self-proclaimed Buddhist (though an amateur in the fields of Knowledge and experience), forever stuck in the sadness of his lost attempt for freedom due to his inherent laziness and lack of focus, encountering in his early youth a real Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, forever drowned as it seems in the sea of self- dispear and self-disgust, feeling sorry for himself in any bar, rejected by yet another beautiful lady; will forever shower FFL and many other forums with the bitterness of his soul, his lost opportunities for Enlightenment. Perhaps today gave a new shape of things: away from the old, bitter and cold fools of old into a New Beginning. Bush left in a helicopter into the sky and Cheney was sent away in an ambulance. The Turq feels isolated, his bitterness and frowning upon Knowledge outdated. Hillbillies of lesser caliber than Curties will continue to court him, but Hillbillies are also of a dying race. The Age of Enlightenment is now. Some on FFL have suggested that in the Age of Enlightenment hardcore anti-knowledge, bitter, hateful fellows like the Turq or Cheney of the outgoing generation could have a problem in incarnating again soon. What do you think ? Since this is in the thread I started, I'll answer it. First off, Nabby, enjoy. Relax. Kick back. Laugh. Life's a blast. Life is bubbling bliss. Bubble some, eh? I'm not quite sure what the timing of the Age of Enlightenment is. I know that the official TMO website showed people flying in 2099. If there were slots for the birth of Cheney and Bush this first go around, I'm sure that there will be slots to go around again. Remember, one must be highly evolved to be powerful and there is powerful of good and powerful of evil. I found Turq's reply to me to be very humorous. Life and people and ourselves are so much easier to take when we appreciate the humor in all things.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Jan 20, 2009, at 5:55 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. If you get a chance, check out the current PBS series the story of India. A nice little section on the Sanskrit language in the first episode. The amazing part is the word roots and how they give rise to later European (Greek, Latin and Eastern European) words. They also explain, in terms of the initial migrations of peoples out of Africa, how and why this is the case. In a very real way, they make an argument for an actual mother India and mother of western culture and language. They also document the first westerners who encountered Sanskrit--and of course back then a classical education include ones native tongue along with both Greek and Latin language--whom this connection dawned on. A lot of this early civilization occurred in what is now Pakistan. It's also the same area associated with the Buddhist Shambhala and Oddiyana.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Jan 20, 2009, at 5:55 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. Well a lot of these are his presumptive meanings. I'm not sure that he is always certain how they really are meant to be translated. No offense intended to Card, but a lot of them are just his sharing his brainstorming process (which is interesting in and of itself) but not all of them hit their target. Keep in mind all Sanskrit words are based on monosyllabic roots. Since each syllable can potentially have different meanings, essentially it's the perfectly crafted language for not just double entendre, as in English or European poetry, but for multiple entendre. Interesting to me is Enochian the angelic language discovered by Queen Elizabeth I's personal astrologer, John Dee: it is remarkably similar to Sanskrit. It seems to me that Sanskrit is an anterior language to pure Dakini language. It very likely evolved out of a samadhic language and that's why it's been primarily preserved by the priest (Brahmin) caste of India.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. Here: http://americansanskrit.com/read/a_techage.php Guess maybe you forgot that article you must have read in AI Magazine back in 1985. :-D Those NASA folks must be real TB'ers. Unlike you, I have studied Sanskrit so I have seen the veracity in the concept. And Sanskrit is thought to be an engineered language. There are other languages like Korean which were also engineered. English is a mongrel language having many different roots and is ambiguous as hell plus so many words that use way outdated non-phonetic spellings. I suspect that in the next 50 years, due to the internet, a world language will evolve and English itself may become more phonetic in it's spellings.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. Here: http://americansanskrit.com/read/a_techage.php Guess maybe you forgot that article you must have read in AI Magazine back in 1985. :-D Those NASA folks must be real TB'ers. I stand by my guns. You are making True Believer arguments that have nothing to do with the actual nature of the language, as is the TB site you reference. Do you really not realize that you pointed me to a True Believer site. Go back and read the language they use when talking about Sanskrit. It would be one thing if Sanskrit actually *was* an ¨unambiguous language¨ as you claim, but every- thing I ever heard in any of my linguistics classes back in college was that it is the opposite. The fact that some TBs can convince NASA of the opposite enough to do experiments with it doesn´t change that. Please supply the names of these ¨translation engines¨ that convert languages to Sanskrit before translating it to something else. The whole *idea* of doing this is True Believer stuff. Hint: Citing Sanskrit´s supposed spiritual qualities or supposed status as the ¨mother of all languages¨ ain´t gonna cut the mustard. That´s just more True Believer shit. Dig up an article or two that talks specifically about the ¨unambiguous nature¨ of Sanskrit and post them and then I´ll believe that you´re not clinging to True Believer ideas. Until you can, I do. Again, I have no grudge against Sanskrit in any way. If it were the type of language you claim it is, I would have no problem with this theory. It´s just that everything I have ever heard about the language says that it *isn´t* that kind of language, and in fact is the opposite, almost infinitely ambiguous. That is why, in my opinion, TB types gravitate to it with their theories of it as the ¨mother language.¨ They can project whatever they want onto it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and then from Sanskrit to the target language. I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything I ever heard talked specifically *about* its ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in which every word in the verse could have several meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form was being able to put a whole series of these words -- *each* of them having four or five meanings -- together in such a way that no matter which meaning of any of the words you pick, the whole verse still makes sense. Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts here, words often have *more* than four or five completely different meanings, right there in the definitions he posts. So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- lation engines is just someone´s True Believer bullshit. If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. Here: http://americansanskrit.com/read/a_techage.php Guess maybe you forgot that article you must have read in AI Magazine back in 1985. :-D Those NASA folks must be real TB'ers. I stand by my guns. You are making True Believer arguments that have nothing to do with the actual nature of the language, as is the TB site you reference. Do you really not realize that you pointed me to a True Believer site. Go back and read the language they use when talking about Sanskrit. It would be one thing if Sanskrit actually *was* an ¨unambiguous language¨ as you claim, but every- thing I ever heard in any of my linguistics classes back in college was that it is the opposite. The fact that some TBs can convince NASA of the opposite enough to do experiments with it doesn´t change that. Please supply the names of these ¨translation engines¨ that convert languages to Sanskrit before translating it to something else. The whole *idea* of doing this is True Believer stuff. Hint: Citing Sanskrit´s supposed spiritual qualities or supposed status as the ¨mother of all languages¨ ain´t gonna cut the mustard. That´s just more True Believer shit. Dig up an article or two that talks specifically about the ¨unambiguous nature¨ of Sanskrit and post them and then I´ll believe that you´re not clinging to True Believer ideas. Until you can, I do. Again, I have no grudge against Sanskrit in any way. If it were the type of language you claim it is, I would have no problem with this theory. It´s just that everything I have ever heard about the language says that it *isn´t* that kind of language, and in fact is the opposite, almost infinitely ambiguous. That is why, in my opinion, TB types gravitate to it with their theories of it as the ¨mother language.¨ They can project whatever they want onto it. Again, I've studied the language, you haven't. It is like you are reviewing a movie you haven't actually seen. Look it was over ten years ago when I read all this stuff including a newsletter article from the Institute which if I recall right mentioned some research or translation engines that used Sanskrit. I don't have those articles at my fingertips nor have the time to research them but from my study of Sanskrit I stand by my claim that or the veracity of the idea. And only that. So that isn't to say it was researched and not found satisfactory or that some other methods for intermediate engines were found to be more successful. And I don't think the TB'ers convinced NASA of anything. The people that run the Institute are interested in making Sanskrit easy to learn. What spiritual organization do they represent? I don't recall them being connected to any specific organization so how could they be TB'ers? I also never recall from what I've seen on comparative linguistics that Sanskrit was ambiguous. You were probably seeing an ambiguity that was caused by English not the Sanskrit. And why do I have the idea you didn't read the entire article. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: snip If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. That is why all international treaties use it as the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is a copy in the language of each country, but the master is in French, because it is so precise. Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents it as just the opposite. Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about the nature of Sanskrit as a language. Here: http://americansanskrit.com/read/a_techage.php Guess maybe you forgot that article you must have read in AI Magazine back in 1985. :-D Those NASA folks must be real TB'ers. Here's the complete Briggs NASA article: http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html This is also a pro-Sanskrit site, but it reproduces the original article rather than paraphrasing it, and there appears to be much less in the way of TB-stuff in it (I haven't read it, just cast an eye over it). Here's the abstract: In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor. But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old. snip Dig up an article or two that talks specifically about the ¨unambiguous nature¨ of Sanskrit and post them and then I´ll believe that you´re not clinging to True Believer ideas. The Briggs article seems to be the seminal one of this kind. snip Again, I've studied the language, you haven't. It is like you are reviewing a movie you haven't actually seen. snicker
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit word of July: bhoga, part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The noun 'bhoga' is derived from the verbal root 'bhuj'.
CDSL:
bhuj 3 cl. P. A1. (Dha1tup. xxix , 17) %{bhuna4kti} , %{bhuGkte4}
(rarely cl. 6. P. A1. %{bhuJati} , %{-te} Up. MBh. ; 3. pl. A1.
%{bhuJjate4} RV. ; Pot. P. %{bhuJjIyAt} Gobh. ; pf. A1. %{bubhuje4} ,
%{-jma4he} , %{-jrire4} RV. ; 3 pl. P. %{-juH} MBh. ; aor.
%{abhaukSIt} , %{abhnkta} Gr. ; %{bho4jam} , %{bho4jate} , %{bhujema}
RV. ; %{bhukSiSIya} Br. ; fut. %{bhokSyati} , %{-te} MBh. c. ;
%{bhoktA} R. ; inf. %{bho4jase} , %{bhu4jam} , %{bhuje} RV.:
%{bhoktum} MBh. c. ; ind. p. %{bhuktvA} or %{bhuGktvA} ib.). to enjoy
, use , possess , (esp.) enjoy a meal , eat , eat and drink , consume
(mostly A1. ; in Ved. generally with instr. , later with acc.) RV. c.
c. [759,3] ; to enjoy (carnally) Gr2ihya1s. MBh. Ka1v. ; to make use
of. utilize , exploit Mn. MBh. c. ; (with %{pRthivIm} , %{mahIm} c.)
to take possession of , rule , govern MBh. Ka1v. c. ; to suffer ,
experience , undergo , be requited or rewarded for (acc.) or at the
hands of (gen.) RV. c. c. ; (P.) to be of use or service to (acc.)
RV. TS. Br. Up. ; to pass , live through , last (a time) Ra1jat. BhP.
; (in astron.) to pass through , fulfil Su1ryas.: Pass. %{bhujyate}
(aor. %{abhoji}) , to be enjoyed or eaten or possessed or made use of
Br. MBh. c.: Caus. %{bhojayati} (%{te-} , m.c. ; cf. Pa1n2. 1-3 , 87
; once %{bhuJjApayati} Pan5cat. ii , 49 v.l. ; aor. %{abUbhujat} ,
%{-jata} Gr.) , to cause to enjoy or eat , feed with (two acc. or acc.
of pers. and instr. of thing ; cf. Pa1n2. 1-4 , 52) AV. c. ; c. ; to
use as food Car.: Desid. %{bubhukSati} (once) , %{-te} , to wish to
eat , be hungry MBh. BhP. ; to wish to enjoy or partake of Naish. (cf.
%{bubhukSA} , %{-kSita} , %{-kSu}): Intens. %{bobhujyate} , to be
eaten frequently VarBr2S. ; %{bobhokti} and %{bobhujIti} , to eat or
enjoy frequently Gr. [Cf. Lat. {fungor}.]
That noun appears in the following suutras of YS:
II 13, II 18 and III 35 (or 36).
With Swamij's commentaryish translations:
(kleshamuulaH karmaashayo dRiSTaadRSTajanmavedaniiyaH .. 12..)
sati muule tadvipaako *jaatyaayurbhogaaH* .. 13..
As long as those colorings (kleshas) remains at the root, three
consequences are produced: 1) birth, 2) span of life, and 3)
experiences in that life.
prakaashakriyaasthitishiilaM bhuutendriyaatmakaM
*bhogaapavargaarthaM* dRshyam .. 18..
The objects (or knowables) are by their nature of: 1) illumination or
sentience, 2) activity or mutability, or 3) inertia or stasis; they
consist of the elements and the powers of the senses, and exist for
the purpose of experiencing the world and for liberation or enlightenment.
sattvapuruSayoratyantaasaMkiirNayoH pratyayaavisheSo *bhogaH*
paraarthatvaat svaarthasaMyamaat.h puruSajñaanam.h .. 35..
The having of experiences comes from a presented idea only when there
is a commingling of the subtlest aspect of mind (sattva) and pure
consciousness (purusha), which are really quite different. Samyama on
the pure consciousness, which is distinct from the subtlest aspect of
mind, reveals knowledge of that pure consciousness.
Can't argue with that!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit compound of the month: prayatna-shaithilya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The compound of this month (prayatna-shaithilya) comes
from YS II 47:
prayatnashaithilyaanantasamaapattibhyaam
That suutra as a whole is a dvandva of two components,
which both seem to be tatpuruSa-samaasa's (that [= his]-man
-compounds):
prayatna-shaithilya and ananta-samaapatti
Well, tat-puruSa's are dependent compounds
in which the prior member is a substantive word [...]
standing to the other member in the relation of
a case dependent on it. (Whitney).
The relation is usually *possessive*:
'tat-puruSa' itself is an example of, well, tatpuruSa-samaasa's,
and actually means '*his* man' ('puruSa' here translated to 'man'),
*not* 'that man', although there is nothing in 'tat' to suggest
it should be treated, in this case, as a possessive.
What tells us the whole suutra is a dvandva, is the
instrumental/dative/ablative [sic!] *dual* (that
is, *not* singular or plural) ending -bhyaam.
So, in this suutra, the compound 'prayatna-shaithilya'
[shite (rhymes with 'white')-hill-yah] is probably
to be treated as an instrumental case form, corresponding
the instrumental singular 'shaithilyena', perhaps best
translated to English using the preposition 'by':
'(by) relaxation (shaithilya) of effort (prayatna)'.
That suutra in fact tells us what is perhaps the
most important thing in doing TM, don't it?
Yeah, sure looks that way, a description of Dharana?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit (Vedic) 101: sat and asat
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that different languages constrain our thinking in different ways is the central tenet of the Sapir Whorff Hypothesis, and true so far as it goes. But it certainly is not an absolute truth. For one thing, languages change especially as a result of folks inventing new ways to think and do things. And then, if Chomsky's and the Vedic views of language are correct (and I think they are), then the deeper you go, the less constraint there is from all things, including language. a cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I hope you guys don't mind my interjecting a couple of thoughts here. Sapir Whorf doesn't address the emotional reaction we often have on hearing the sound of another language. We find French charming, Dutch funny, and German harsh, for example. Instead, the claim is that different languages constrain our thinking in various ways. Yeah, I know that. That's why my emotional level was emphasized. Should have been more explicit about that. Just curious, how does this song in Finnish sound to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eID6o-qbK4feature=related I was quite surprised that the people commenting on it mostly seem to like the way it sounds, although they don't understand a word. I guess most of them are big fans of the band HIM (His Infernal Majesty) and Mr. Ville Valo (William Light, i.e. not Darkness). The last line goes like this: Kohdusta hautaan ui uuttera lautta, tuhannen kapakan kautta. (From the womb to the tomb swims the Diligent Raft, through thousands of beer joints.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit (Vedic) 101: sat and asat
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you guys don't mind my interjecting a couple of thoughts here. Sapir Whorf doesn't address the emotional reaction we often have on hearing the sound of another language. We find French charming, Dutch funny, and German harsh, for example. Instead, the claim is that different languages constrain our thinking in various ways. Yeah, I know that. That's why my emotional level was emphasized. Should have been more explicit about that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit (Vedic) 101: sat and asat
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tones as phonemes business is overrated in my opinion. The difference between shit and sheet is huge to a speaker of English. -- In the film Spanglish, when Flor Moreno (Paz Vega) introduced herself to John Clasky (Adam Sandler), she had to repeat her name several times, because he kept hearing it like floor. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371246/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit (Vedic) 101: sat and asat
The notion that different languages constrain our thinking in different ways is the central tenet of the Sapir Whorff Hypothesis, and true so far as it goes. But it certainly is not an absolute truth. For one thing, languages change especially as a result of folks inventing new ways to think and do things. And then, if Chomsky's and the Vedic views of language are correct (and I think they are), then the deeper you go, the less constraint there is from all things, including language. a cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you guys don't mind my interjecting a couple of thoughts here. Sapir Whorf doesn't address the emotional reaction we often have on hearing the sound of another language. We find French charming, Dutch funny, and German harsh, for example. Instead, the claim is that different languages constrain our thinking in various ways. Yeah, I know that. That's why my emotional level was emphasized. Should have been more explicit about that. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit (Vedic) 101: sat and asat
John wrote:Edg, you made an interesting point about sounds of a language. It sounds like you have developed a siddhi for determining the status of an individual based on what he or she speaks. Edg: I doubt I have any ability that others don't have too. I really glommed onto Maharishi's statement that one could know everything about a person when they simply utter one word. It seems to me that everyone in the world believes it too -- first impressions who doesn't know this? If everyone here posted a video of themselves speaking one word, wow, what a revelation that would be to ALL OF US, eh? Point value is macro-value. Four decades ago, I was substitute teaching for a class in a school in which I'd never taught before, and a kid showed me the school yearbook. I looked at the faces and then would attempt to characterize each person, and I just kept getting yep, yep, yep from the kid. I think we're all able to make these judgments, and I would encourage anyone to attempt it and find substantial success at it and also maintain, as I do, that I'm no psychic. Same deal for regional accents. When I listened to the three Danish accents, one sounded like a drunk talking, another sounded like a snooty English butler's hoitytoityness, and another seemed businesslike. The drunk accent thus flavored my first impression of those speakers. Same deal with a southern drawl. Like that I can come up with the adjectives for my emotional takes cuz I practice doing this hours every day, but my emotional takes may not be any deeper a delving than anyone else is capable of -- I merely have practiced the skill of picking good words to convey such things -- metaphors, GAWD I love metaphors. Same deal for anything. Religions have first impressions, right? One's may be fierce, another loving, another oblivious. Doesn't matter what's actual, just that each of us will have a take that's entirely intuited. Here's a metaphor: the sound of language has the same impact that the the sound of music has one one. If a whole culture always is playing a Wagner tune for it's sound track, well, don't be surprised to find Gothic structures in the morality menus of the people. If a whole culture is speaking and sounding like polka music, don't be surprised if they have more fun there. I think we're all psychic to a godlike degree, but some of us deny it less and are able to go with it in daily life, while others cannot take the risk of the possibility of intuition-errors and must rely on other facts to make decisions. I go with feeling more often than not, cuz I can, but when I was working in big companies, I couldn't afford to tell the truth or act upon the notion that someone was an asshole, because corporate structures tamped down such honesty. This is the evil of corporate fascism. When I play with my grandkids, it's always about feel, energy, and tone -- everything is seen in a glance -- not a single word is necessary to know that love is afoot. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 4, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Duveyoung wrote: I met this woman from Denmark at some ATR course, and we were talking about accents and how they type cast a segment of the culture. Americans raised in Alabama can be interpreted as slow, stupid for instance because of the drawl. She told me that written Danish was understood by the whole country, but that there were accents that were so different as to constitute being almost separate languages. (Chinese works the same written/spoken way.) So I told her about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and said that from just the sounds one could derive a snapshot of a culture that has some practical heft. So I asked her to speak Danish, the same words, to me in the three accents, and then I would try characterize those subsets of Danish culture. I don't understand a word of Danish, but I completely nailed the type of people who used those accents. She was amazed, and so was I. It was so obvious to me, and I'm betting anyone in the world could listen to those samples and come to the same conclusions. This is a known sociological phenomenon. One of the common examples is how the British classify people into approximately 8 segments of society just based on the words someone first speaks, accent, etc. Your example of Alabaman's just goes to show, it's very likely a universal thing, and I do believe it does not depend on knowing the language, merely the inflections. Of course if you were using the (common) TM bija, aieeng, on long courses you would've just been even more sensitized to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit (Vedic) 101: sat and asat
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Card, Have you any opinion about the Sapir Whorf hypothesis? I've been pondering on it for a while now. At least on *emotional level* various languages seem to have very distinct effects on me. I don't like the standard Finnish very much. Some regional dialects OTOH are quite amusing to listen to. And for instance when an Estonian speaks Finnish well, that seems much easier to my ear than, say, the working class accent of my own home town. Sometimes when I occasionally watch Finlands Svenska Television (Swedish TV of Finland), and after that change to a Finnish speaking channel, the negative emotional effect might be quite strong. But I guess it's quite natural that one's mother tongue has such emotional load, both pleasant and unpleasant, that is lacking in a foreign language. This might be a trivial thing, but as an example of how languges might affect one's thinking is the difference of the (what's here called) rection (rektio: the case governed by a verb, I think) of many verbs in Finnish compared to English (and many other IE languages, too, I guess). In Finnish one reads *from* a book, buys *from* a store, finds something *from* some place, that is, one uses the elative [sic!] case in stead of the inessive, which corresponds for instance 'in' or 'at' in English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis Or, Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar? I've blissfully forgotten most of that little I once knew about TGG. But I seem to recall I kinda liked it, though. A more useful tool in interpreting e.g. suutras (especially the tricky compound words like viraama-pratyayaabhyaasa-puurvaH) is the IC analysis of structural syntax: http://facweb.furman.edu/~wrogers/syntax/ic.htm
