Śītoṣṇādīn sahataḥ kiṃ syāt iti?  śṛṇu –  “What would there be for the one who bears with cold and heat?” [What’s in it for him?] Hear:

yaṃ hi na vyathayantyete puruṣaṃ puruṣarṣabhaḥ |
samaduḥkhasukhaṃ dhīraṃ so’mṛtatvāya kalpate ||

“O bull of men, that man whom, pain and pleasure being equal for him, being steadfast/mindful, these things do not shake, is fit for immortality.”

yaṃ hi iti|| yaṃ hi puruṣaṃ – that man whom

samaduḥkhasukhaṃ same duḥkhasukhe yasya taṃ samaduḥkhasukhaṃ –
being samaduḥkhasukhaṃ (which means one for whom pain and pleasure are equal)

samaduḥkhasukhaprāptau harṣaviṣādarahitaṃ – who upon obtaining equally pain and pleasure is devoid of joy and sorrow

dhīraṃ dhīmantaṃ – who is mindful [dhīraṃ can be “steadfast” or “mindful,” our commentator chooses the latter]

na vyathayanti na cālayanti nityātmadarśanāt – do not shake (= cause to totter from the vision of the eternal self)

ete yathoktāḥ śītoṣṇādayaḥ,– these things = the abovementioned cold and heat and so forth,

saḥ nityātmasvarūpadarśananiṣthaḥ dvandvasahiṣṇuḥ – he, grounded in the vision of the eternal essence of the self, bearing up with [dualities? conflicts? both of the things mentioned?  pairs of opposites in general?  conjunctive compounds???],

amṛtatvāya amṛtabhāvāya kalpate samarthaḥ bhavati – is fit for (= capable of) immortality (= the state of being immortal).  ||


2 Responses to “Gītā 2:15”

  1. Susan Says:

    śītoṣṇādīn sahataḥ kiṃ syāt iti ? śṛṇu –-
    So what would there be for someone who bears cold, heat, and such?

    yaṃ hi na vyathayanty ete puruṣaṃ puruṣarṣabha |
    samaduḥkhasukhaṃ dhīraṃ so ‘mṛtatvāya kalpate || 15 ||

    yaṃ hi iti ||
    Beginning with “yaṃ hi”:

    yaṃ hi puruṣaṃ samasukhaduḥkham same duḥkhasukhe yasya
    For that man for whom happiness and pain is the same, namely for him who both happiness and pain are the same.

    taṃ samaduḥkhasukhaṃ sukhaduḥkhaprāptau harṣaviṣādarahitaṃ
    that (man) for whom pain and happiness is the same, namely, for him who is without excitement or sorrow upon obtaining either happiness or pain,

    dhīraṃ dhīmantaṃ
    that wise (man), namely, possessed of wisdom

    na vyathayanti na cālayanti nityātmadarśanāt ete yathoktāḥ śītoṣṇādayāḥ,
    Cold, heat and such, as previously stated, do not shake him, namely they do not move him, because he has forever the vision of the Self.

    saḥ nityātmasvarūpadarśananiṣṭhaḥ dvandvasahiṣṇuḥ
    he, forever grounded in the vision of the true nature of the Self, enduring duality,

    amṛtatvāya amṛtabhāvāya mokṣāya kalpate samarthaḥ bhavati || 15 ||
    is suitable for immortality, namely the state of being immortal, he is fit for liberation.

    So here’s my translation (above) and then a couple of thoughts (below):
    1) I translated the nitya in the 2 compounds as adverbial rather than adjectival
    “forever…” vs “the eternal Self.” Is this an acceptable translation of nitya as first element in the compound, or not?
    2) I translated the ablative “nityātmadarśanāt” as causal rather than a locus, “because of …” vs “shaken from…”. Any thoughts to sway (shake) it one way or another?
    3) Peter, thank you for the slang clarification of the first sentence. “so what’s in it for him” I was trying to figure out the sense of that interrogative. I thought it might be “how would it be for someone….” but that would be better expressed with “katham”. I think you nailed it.
    Please, any comments or corrections.

  2. allogenes Says:

    Susan, this is great! I’ll want to go through both our versions side by side closely, but for now let me just address your three points at the end:
    1) I’ll have to look at nitya- compounds over a broader range of material to be able to say what’s “acceptable,” but my guess is that grammatically both versions are. Given the immediate context though, my impression is that Ś. is more concerned with our seeing the eternity of the ātmā than with the eternity of our seeing the ātmā. I’ll think about it though.
    2) Your treatment of the ablative makes good sense, and may well be correct. I think I did it my way because of the causative nature of the verb – “to cause to move.” If you look at it that way, my reading is at least possible.
    Hmmmn. Combining this question with the preceding one, we get 4 possibilities. I really do have to think about this.
    3) Thanks! I used to think of it more along the lines of your “how would it be for him,” but then “what’s in it for him” just came to me…
    Recently I had to translate some bits from an 18th century Italian opera libretto for the program notes of a concert by my friends in “La Donna Musicale.” There’s a scene where the heroine’s lover is hemming and hawing about a matter of vital importance and I just felt like her line “spiegati alfine” ought to show her exasperation, so I wrote “Explain yourself already!” – I thought I had gone too far but no one complained.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: