--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, here's I 18, again:
> >
> > I 18: viraamapratyayaabhyaasapuurvaH saMskaarasheSo
> > 'nyaH [samaadhiH -- card]
> >
> > ("sandhi-samâsa-vigraha":
> >
> > viraama-pratyaya-abhyaasa-puurvaH saMskaarasheSaH; anyaH).
> >
> > So, what seems to make this suutra especially tricky
> > for many translators/commentators, is the word 'puurva':
> >
> > pUrva a. being before (sp. & t.), fore, first, eastern, to the east
> > of (abl.); prior, preceding, ancient, previous to, earlier than (abl. or
> > ---, often --- or --- w. pp. in the sense of an adv., e.g. {pUrvokta} or
> > {uktapUrva} spoken before or already); accompanied by, following; with,
> > under, according to (---); w. {vayas} n. youth; w. {Ayus} n. old age. --m.
> > elder brother, pl. the ancestors or ancients. f. {pUrvA} (ñ{diz}) the east.
> > n. forepart, as adv. in front, before (as prep. w. abl.), first,
> > previously, already, long since; --- accompanied by etc. (cf. adj. ---).
> > {pUrva uttara} former-latter, n. adv. first-last; {adya pUrvam} until now,
> > hitherto.
> >
>
> At the moment (repeat: AT THE MOMENT) we feel like many translators
> can't perceive the compound word:
>
> viraama-pratyaya-abhyaasa-puurvaH
>
Now, some translations seem to suggest that the translator
might well read that suutra like this:
viraamapratyayaabhyaasapuurvaH, saMskaarasheSo 'nyaH
That is, instead of perceiving the first compound word
as a bahuvriihi, and thus an adjective attribute for
'anyaH' [samaadhiH], they take it as a separate clause
referring to the previous (puurva) [samaadhi: saMprajñaata]
in the previous suutra (I 17).
It's kinda "sad" that devanaagarii doesn't have a sign
for comma. It might make many suutras easier to be interpreted
so that it's likely in line with what Patañjali actually
meant. As another example, the "infamous" III 38:
te samaadhaav upasargaa(,) vyutthaane siddhayaH.
With a comma, the correct reading which nothing short of "forces" that
suutra to refer only to the previous suutra, not all
the saMyama-suutras, might be more widespread.
In I 18, the *lack* of a comma might help translators to
the correct translation! Now it seems especially Indian
translators, on the basis of Hindi or some other Sanskrit-related
language, might misinterpret that suutra as described above.
