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