Itaśca śokamohau akṛtvā śītoṣṇādisahanaṃ yuktaṃ yasmāt – And so, not indulging in grief and delusion, bearing up with cold and heat etc is reasonable because:

           nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ |
           ubhayor api dṛṣṭo’ntas tvanayos tattvadarśibhiḥ ||

“Of the unreal there is found no being/becoming, and of the real there is found no nonbeing/nonbecoming;
The end of both of these is seen by those who see as things are.”

nāsataḥ iti || na asataḥ avidyamānasya śītoṣṇādeḥ sakāraṇasya na vidyate nāsti bhāvo bhavanaṃ astitā || – Of what does not exist (= what is not found), cold heat etc with their causes, there is not found (= there is not) being/becoming (= coming into being; existence, reality)

na hi śītoṣṇādi sakāraṇaṃ pramāṇaiḥ nirūpyamāṇaṃ vastu sat bhavati | – for cold heat etc with its causes, a thing depicted by the means of knowledge, is not real [or, “depicted by the means of knowledge as being with cause”?]

vikāro hi saḥ, vikāraśca vyabhicarati | – for it is a modification, and modification is something that changes

yathā ghaṭādisaṃsthānaṃ cakṣuṣā nirūpyamāṇaṃ mṛdvyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asat, tathā sarvo vikāraḥ kāraṇavyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asan |- as the shape of a pot etc, being depicted by the eye, is not real because of the absence of any ascertainment of it above and beyond the clay, thus every modification is unreal because of the absence of any ascertainment of it above and beyond its causes

janmapradhvaṃsābhyāṃ prāk ūrdhvaṃ ca anupalabdheḥ kāryasya ghaṭādeḥ mṛdādikāraṇasya ca tatkāraṇavyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asattvam || – before birth and after  and destruction there is no ascertainment of the effect, as of the pot etc having clay etc as its cause, it is unreal because there is no ascertainment of it above and beyond its cause.

tad asattve sarvābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ iti cet – na, sarvatra buddhidvayopalabdheḥ, sadbuddhiḥ asadbuddhiḥ iti |- if it is argued that the consequence of this non-existence is the non-existence of everything, I answer No, because in all cases there is ascertainment (of? by?) two awarenesses, the awareness of the real and the awareness of the unreal.

yadviṣayā buddhiḥ na vyabhicarati, tat sat, yadviṣayā vyabhicarati, tat asat – iti – “That awareness whose object does not change  is real, that whose object changes is not real”

sadasadvibhāge buddhitantre sthite, sarvatra dve buddhī sarvaiḥ upalabhyete samānādhikaraṇe – na nīlotpalavat, – san ghaṭaḥ, san paṭaḥ, san hastī, iti | – as the classification of awareness thus depends on the division between the real and the unreal, [or vice versa according to Gambhirananda,] everywhere there are ascertained two awarenesses having the same topic/subject. Not like “blue lotus;” [rather] “a pot exists/is real, a cloth exists/is real,  hands exist/are real.” [Gambhirananda if I understand him correctly explains that the Dualists hold up “blue lotus” or “the lotus is blue” as a model for awareness; in it, we take the awarenesses of two equally real things, blueness and lotus, and superimpose one on the other. But in “a pot exists/is real” we are superimposing the awareness of the pot on the awareness of  existence/reality itself, as we do with everything else we say exists, so the things in question are different from existence/reality and so are not real.]

evaṃ sarvatra | tayoḥ buddhyoḥ ghaṭādibuddhiḥ vyabhicarati | tathā ca darśitaṃ | na tu sadbuddhiḥ | tasmād ghaṭādibuddhiviṣayaḥ asan, vyabhicārāt, na tu sadbuddhiviṣayaḥ, avyabhicārāt || – So it is everywhere. Of these two buddhis the pot-buddhi etc changes, and has been shown thus; but not the exists/real-buddhi. Therefore the object of the pot-awareness etc is not real, because of change; but not the object of the existence-awareness, because of non-change.

ghaṭe vinaṣṭe ghaṭabuddhau vyabhicarantyāṃ sadbuddhiḥ api vyabhicarate iti cet – na; paṭādau api sadbuddhidarśanāt | viśeṣaṇaviṣayā eva sā sadbuddhiḥ || – If it be objected that when the pot is destroyed and the awareness of the pot changes the existence-awareness also changes, I answer No, because there is also existence-awareness in the case of the cloth etc. Even with different objects, it is existence-awareness.

sadbuddhivat ghaṭabuddhiḥ api ghaṭāntare dṛśyate iti cet – na; paṭādau adarśanāt || – And if it is objected that the pot-awareness, just like the reality-awareness, is seen also in the case of another pot, I answer No, because it is not seen in the case of a cloth.

sadbuddhiḥ api naṣṭe ghaṭe na dṛśyate iti cet – na; viśeṣyābhāvāt | sadbuddhiḥ viśeṣaṇaviṣayā satī viśeṣyābhāve viśeṣaṇānupattau kiṃviṣayā syāt? na tu punaḥ sadbuddheḥ viṣayābhāvāt || – If it be objected that even existence-awareness is not seen in the case of a destroyed pot, I answer No, because of the absence of the thing qualified. If existence-awareness has a quality as its object , what object would it have when, in the absence of the qualified, there is no arising of the quality? But this is not the case, again, because of the absence-of-object of existence-awareness.

ekādhikaraṇatvaṃ ghaṭādiviśeṣyābhāve na yuktam iti cet – na; “idaṃ udakaṃ” iti marīcyādau anyatarābhāve’pi sāmānādhikaraṇyadarśanāt || If it be objected that in the case of the absence of qualified things like pots etc, it is not reasonable to say that there is a single topic/subject, I answer No,  because when we say “this is water” in the case of a mirage, there is a single topic/subject even though one of the two is absent.

tasmāt dehādeḥ dvandvasya ca sakāraṇasya asataḥ na vidyate bhāvaḥ iti | – Therefore “of the unreal,” = the body etc, duality, and their causes, “there is not found to be reality.”

tathā sataḥ ca ātmanaḥ abhāvaḥ avidyamānatā na vidyate, sarvatra avyabhicārāt iti avocāma | – Likewise we have said that of the real, the soul, unreality – non-existence – is not found, because of its lack of change everywhere.

evaṃ ātmānātmanoḥ sadasatoḥ ubhayoḥ api drṣṭaḥ upalabdhaḥ antaḥ nirṇayaḥ, sat sadeva asat asadeva iti tu anayoḥ yathoktayoḥ tattvadarśibhiḥ |Thus of both (self and nonself, reality and unreality) has been seen (apprehended) the end (determination), by those who see as things are (= “the real is real, the unreal is unreal” of each as has been said).

tat iti sarvanāma; sarvaṃ ca brahma; tasya nāma tat iti tadbhāvaḥ tattvaṃ, brahmaṇaḥ yāthātmyam | tat draṣṭuṃ śīlaṃ yeṣāṃ te tattvadarśinaḥ, taiḥ tattvadarśibhiḥ | – by those who see as things are” – tat is a sarvanāma [= pronoun, literally “all-name”]; “all” is Brahman; His name is “tat,” and the nature of “tat” is tattva [ulitimate reality, as things are], according to the real nature of Brahman. Those who are able to see tat are tattvadarśinaḥ.

tvam api tattvadarśināṃ dṛṣṭiṃ āśritya śokaṃ mohaṃ ca hitvā śītoṣṇādīni niyatāniyatarūpāṇi dvandvāni, vikāro’yam asan eva marīcijalavat mithyā avabhāsate – iti manasi niścitya titikṣasva iti abhiprāyaḥ || – You too, relying on the view of those who see as things are, abandoning grief and delusion, bear up with dualities – cold and heat, etc, whether eternal or noneternal in form – determining in your mind “this is a modification; being in fact unreal, it appears falsely like the water of a mirage.” This is the purport.

4 Responses to “Gītā 2:16”

  1. Susan Says:

    ——————————————————-
    itaś ca śokamohau akṛtvā śītoṣṇādisahanaṃ yuktaṃ, yasmāt –
    And therefore not having created sorrow or delusion, the ability to endure (the pairs of opposite like) cold and heat, etc., is appropriate because…

    nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ |
    ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ‘ntas tv anayos tattvadarśibhiḥ || 16 ||
    The existence of the unreal is not found, neither is there found the non-existence of the real. But even the end of both of these is seen by those who have the vision of reality.

    nāsataḥ iti || na asataḥ avidyamānasya śītoṣṇādeḥ sakāraṇasya na vidyate nāsti bhāvo bhavanaṃ astitā ||

    Beginning with “nāsataḥ”. The existence, (namely) the state, (or) the state of being, is not found, (namely) does not exist, of the unreal, (namely) of what is not found, (like) cold and heat together with their causes.

    na hi śītoṣṇādi sakāraṇaṃ pramāṇaiḥ nirūpyamāṇaṃ vastu sat bhavati |
    For a thing that is being examined by a means of knowledge, (something like) cold and heat and such, together with its causes, is not real.

    vikāro hi saḥ, vikāraśca vyabhicarati |
    Because this is a modification, and a modification changes.

    yathā ghaṭādisaṃsthānaṃ cakṣuṣā nirūpyamāṇaṃ mṛdvyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asat, tathā sarvo vikāraḥ kāraṇavyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asan |

    Just as the form of a pot and such things, when being examined by the eye, because it cannot be perceived without clay, it is asat, unreal. In this same way, all modifications because they cannot be perceived without their causes, they too are unreal.

    janmapradhvaṃsābhyāṃ prāk ūrdhvaṃ ca anupalabdheḥ kāryasya ghaṭādeḥ mṛdādikāraṇasya ca tatkāraṇavyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asattvam ||

    Before their birth and after their destruction, because effects such as pots, etc., and which are made of clay, etc. are not perceived and since they are not perceived without their causes, they are considered “asattvam” non-existent.

    tad asattve sarvābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ iti cet – na, sarvatra buddhidvayopalabdheḥ, sadbuddhiḥ asadbuddhiḥ iti |

    Now if you were to say that the possibility arises for all things to be non-existent, that’s not the case. Because everywhere there is perceived two kinds of awarenesses: the awareness of Being, and the awareness of the non-Being.

    yadviṣayā buddhiḥ na vyabhicarati, tat sat, yadviṣayā vyabhicarati, tat asat – iti

    (They are defined) thus: the awareness that, having whatever as it’s object of perception, does not change, (is) sat, Being. And the awareness that, having whatever as it’s object of perception, does change, (is) asat, non-Being.

    sadasadvibhāge buddhitantre sthite, sarvatra dve buddhī sarvaiḥ upalabhyete samānādhikaraṇe – na nīlotpalavat, – san ghaṭaḥ, san paṭaḥ, san hastī, iti |

    Where the essential characteristic of awareness is established in this division of either Being or non-Being, everywhere everyone will perceive two awarenesses at the level of a common substratum, not like a blue lotus, (but rather) thinking there being a pot, there being a cloth, there being an elephant (where both Being and object are present).

    evaṃ sarvatra | tayoḥ buddhyoḥ ghaṭādibuddhiḥ vyabhicarati | tathā ca darśitaṃ | na tu sadbuddhiḥ | tasmād ghaṭādibuddhiviṣayaḥ asan, vyabhicārāt, na tu sadbuddhiviṣayaḥ, avyabhicārāt ||

    And so it is everywhere. Of these two awarenesses, the awareness (experiencing) a pot, etc. changes, and it has been shown this way. But not an awareness (experiencing) Being. Therefore the object of perception of the awareness (experiencing) a pot, etc., is not real because of change. But the object of perception of the awareness (experiencing) Being (is real) because of non-change.

    ghaṭe vinaṣṭe ghaṭabuddhau vyabhicarantyāṃ sadbuddhiḥ api vyabhicarate iti cet – na; paṭādau api sadbuddhidarśanāt | viśeṣaṇaviṣayā eva sā sadbuddhiḥ ||

    Now if you think that when the awareness (experiencing) a pot, etc. is changing, the awareness (experiencing) Being must also change when the pot is destroyed, that is wrong because the vision of the awareness (experiencing) Being also (exists) in the case of cloth, etc. This awareness (experiencing) Being only has the object of perception as a qualifier.

    sadbuddhivat ghaṭabuddhiḥ api ghaṭāntare dṛśyate iti cet – na; paṭādau adarśanāt ||

    Now if you think that the awareness (experiencing) the pot also appears to be like the awareness (experiencing) Being when there is another pot (in that the other pot is the same), no, that’s wrong because (the awareness of experiencing the pot) does not have the (same) perception in things like cloth, etc.

    sadbuddhiḥ api naṣṭe ghaṭe na dṛśyate iti cet – na; viśeṣyābhāvāt | sadbuddhiḥ viśeṣaṇaviṣayā satī viśeṣyābhāve viśeṣaṇānupapattau kiṃviṣayā syāt? na tu punaḥ sadbuddheḥ viṣayābhāvāt ||

    Now if you think that the awareness (experiencing) Being is not seen (to exist) when the pot is destroyed, this is wrong because there is no object then. The awareness (experiencing) Being, having the object of perception as a qualifier, when there is no object and thus no chance of there being a qualifier, what kind of object of perception would there be? But rather there is no object of perception for the awareness (experiencing) Being.

    ekādhikaraṇatvaṃ ghaṭādiviśeṣyābhāve na yuktam iti cet – na; “idaṃ udakaṃ” iti marīcyādau anyatarābhāve’pi sāmānādhikaraṇyadarśanāt ||

    Now if you think the fact of having only one substratum is untenable, that is wrong, because in the case of mirages and such, thinking “this is water” even when it does not exist, there is the perception of an underlying correlation/relationship.

    tasmāt dehādeḥ dvandvasya ca sakāraṇasya asataḥ na vidyate bhāvaḥ iti |

    Therefore, there is no existence to non-Being with its instrumentality and duality of the body and such.

    tathā sataḥ ca ātmanaḥ abhāvaḥ avidyamānatā na vidyate, sarvatra avyabhicārāt iti avocāma |

    And likewise, as we have stated, the non-existence of Being, which is the ātman (Self), never occurs, because nowhere does it ever change.

    evaṃ ātmānātmanoḥ sadasatoḥ ubhayoḥ api drṣṭaḥ upalabdhaḥ antaḥ nirṇayaḥ, sat sadeva asat asadeva iti tu anayoḥ yathoktayoḥ tattvadarśibhiḥ |

    And thus the final inference is seen by those who see reality as both ātman (Self) and anātman (non-Self), Being and non-Being, and understood as previously stated “Being is truly existent, non-Being is truly non-existent”

    tat iti sarvanāma; sarvaṃ ca brahma; tasya nāma tat iti tadbhāvaḥ tattvaṃ, brahmaṇaḥ yāthātmyam | tat draṣṭuṃ śīlaṃ yeṣāṃ te tattvadarśinaḥ, taiḥ tattvadarśibhiḥ |

    tat (that) is a pronoun; brahman is all; it’s name is tat (that); and thus it’s existence is tattvam, the state of reality (literally: that-ness, the state of that); this is the essential nature of brahman. For those whose practice it is to see tat (that), they are those who have the vision of tattvam (the state of tat, reality) — (this defines) “by those who have the vision of reality ( tattvadarśibhiḥ).”

    tvam api tattvadarśināṃ dṛṣṭiṃ āśritya śokaṃ mohaṃ ca hitvā śītoṣṇādīni niyatāniyatarūpāṇi dvandvāni, vikāro’yam asan eva marīcijalavat mithyā avabhāsate – iti manasi niścitya titikṣasva iti abhiprāyaḥ ||

    Having relied upon the insight of those who have the vision of reality, and having let go of sorrow and delusion, the pairs of opposites like cold and heat, etc. whose form is both definite and indefinite, and having decided in your mind that this change, which does not exist at all, appears falsely like the water of a mirage, you too must endure this. That is the meaning (of this passage).

    • allogenes Says:

      OK, thinking “it’s high time I looked at this again and tried to respond to Susan’s questions and comments” iti, I have returned to this topic, only to find that I am very unhappy with what I wrote for

      yadviṣayā buddhiḥ na vyabhicarati, tat sat, yadviṣayā vyabhicarati, tat asat – iti

      and without thinking this through more thoroughly I can’t be at all confident that I have any idea what the whole thing is about.

      Here’s the issue as I see it. (I thought I saw this when I first did the translation, but the translation doesn’t reflect it. Maybe I got tired or lost my nerve.) The yad inside the compound yadviṣayā is what apparently correlates with the tat which is said to be either sat or asat. But the buddhi which the compound agrees with is what is the subject of vyabhicarati and na vyabhicarati.
      In other words, if I’ve got it right, the buddhi either changes or doesn’t, and according to whether it changes or doesn’t, it’s object is said to be sat or asat.
      If I understand it correctly, there just many be no direct grammatical way to say it in English. “That is unreal, the awareness having which as an object changes”? “Something is unreal, if the awareness which has it as an object changes”? Maybe that’s close enough.

      The next question is, if that’s what the sentence means, what does it say about how we are to understand buddhi? And then, what does it say about the argument as a whole?
      Looks like I’ll be working on this for a while…

  2. Susan Says:

    Peter,

    I’ll keep my comments and questions to a minimum, although this was such a fascinating passage, I almost wish we were doing this in a group setting.

    I had a hard time translating these basic words:
    sat / asat
    being / non-being or existence / non-existence or real / unreal
    For some reason, using the same translation everywhere that these occurred didn’t seem right. I ended up translating somewhat contextually, which I don’t like to do. If it is one word, I like to use the same English word across the board, at least in a give envirenment of a given text. Of course translations of the same word change from text to text and Sanskrit genre to genre

    Then the word buddhi. I’ve only understood that to be the discerning aspect of the mind, the decision making faculty, but intellect didn’t sound right here. Then I saw your translation “awareness” and that hit the mark much better. But do you think we are taking liberties using “awareness”? Do you think this is how Shankara understood buddhi?

    Then the word tantra. How do you understand that in this context? I originally translated it as “framework” but didn’t feel comfortable with that. I guess the principle element of something, is that right?

    And finally, the gist of why the sadbuddhi doesn’t change. Did I get this correct that this buddhi simply sees the object (which is always changing) as a qualifier associated with sad/being, but that the principle awareness is of the underlying sad. This came up first in the sentence:
    viśeṣaṇaviṣayā eva sā sadbuddhiḥ ||

    Really, thanks so much for going through this. It’s immensely helpful and interesting to bounce my translation off of yours. There is always something that slips by and that I miss.

  3. Susan Says:

    One last thing. I like how you translated the sadbuddhi and ghaṭyādibuddhi. Great choice making it an English compound. It’s hard to show the relationship of the two elements. You can see I took liberties by inserting (experiencing): sadbuddhi “awareness (experiencing) Being”. I didn’t like the simple genitive: awareness of Being. It made Being sound too much like an object also. “experiencing Being” didn’t exactly eliminate that, but somehow it made it less object-oriented, more abstract.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: