Connecting Devotees Worldwide - In Service Of Srila Prabhupada
|An Appeal About Us Donate Contact Us|
What Prabhupada Sanskrit Gita used? It is obvious and logical that if in BG 6.8 there are pebbles, then in BG 14.24 there must also be pebbles. If at 14.24 there is a lump of earth, then in 6.9 there should also be a lump of earth.
Why four commentator Sridhara, Madhusudana, Visvanatha and Baladeva Gita: in the comments to 6.8 write the word lost (loSTaM mRt-piNDaH "lost - lump of earth"), and Prabhupada to 6.8 loṣṭra — pebbles, although 14.24 translates also loṣṭa - lump of earth?
yukta ity ucyate yogī
loṣṭra — pebbles; aśma — stone; kāñcanaḥ — gold
A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogī [or mystic] when he is fully satisﬁed by virtue of acquired knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything – whether it be pebbles, stones or gold – as the same.
loṣṭa — a lump of earth; aśma — stone; kāñcanaḥ — gold...
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities – such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.
In 2016, Russia published "Bhagavad-Gita in the tradition of Bengali Vaishnavism" with comments Viswanatha Chakravarti Thakura and there in 6.8 and 14.24 is a "lump of earth" - loṣṭa. If in 14.24 - one, and 6.8 other, then there must be some explanation, shows esoteric meaning. In the ocean arises from the friction of pebbles sand, not earth.
Very strange if in the Holy text when comparing 2 items are the same, but 3 is not. And why 6.8 in the Bhagavad-Gita Prabhupada deviates from 6.8 Bhagavad Gita Visvanatha? Are there different manuscripts, manuscripts of Bhagavad-Gita where one version of "pebble "and the other -" lump of earth " in 6.8? Arjuna would not have noticed and asked Krishna, " Why did you say pebbles before and now a lump of earth?" Whether this discrepancy in the Sanskrit Gita is unprecedented?
In the Sanskrit of the Gita, which Prabhupada did his translation of the "Bhagavad-Gita as it is" what a word is - a pebble or a clod of earth - loṣṭa or loṣṭra?
I checked "Bhagavad-Gita as it is" in both editions - in 1971 and in 1983. To verse 14.24 there are no questions - there is a lump of earth. But in 6.8, both the Bhagavad-Gita says about pebbles. And on your site in 6.8, too, is worth "pebble." But the previous acharyas - Sridhara, Visvanatha, Baladeva have no pebbles.
jñāna-vijñāna-tṛptātmā kūṭastho vijitendriyaḥ |
yukta ity ucyate yogī sama-loṣṭāśma-kāñcanaḥ ||8||
Srīdharaḥ : yogārūḍhasya lakṣaṇaṃ śraiṣṭhyaṃ coktam upapādya upasaṃharati jñāneti | jñānam aupadeśikaṃ vijñānam aparokṣānubhavaḥ tābhyāṃ tṛpto nirākāṅkṣa ātmā cittaṃ yasya | ataḥ kūṭastho nirvikāraḥ | ataeva vijitānīndriyāṇi yena | ataeva samāni loṣṭādīni yasya | mṛt-piṇḍa-pāṣāṇa-suvarṇeṣu heyopādeya-buddhi-śūnyaḥ | sa yukto yogārūḍha ity ucyate ||8||
Madhusūdanaḥ : kiṃ ca jñāneti | jñānaṃ śāstroktānāṃ padārthānām aupadeśikaṃ jñānaṃ vijñānaṃ tad-aprāmāṇya-śaṅkā-nirākaraṇa-phalena vicāreṇa tathaiva teṣāṃ svānubhavenāparokṣīkaraṇaṃ tābhyāḥ tṛptaḥ saṃjātālaṃ-pratyaya ātmā cittaṃ yasya sa tathā | kūṭāstho viṣaya-saṃnidhāv api vikāra-śūnyaḥ | ataeva vijitāni rāga-dveṣa-pūrvakād viṣaya-grahaṇādvayāvartitānīndriyāṇi yena saḥ | ataeva heyopādeya-buddhi-śūnyatvena samāni mṛt-piṇḍa-pāṣāṇa-kāñcanāni yasya saḥ | yogī paramahaṃsa-parivrājakaḥ para-vairāgya-yukto yogārūḍha ity ucyate ||8||
Viśvanāthaḥ : jñānam aupadeśikaṃ vijñānam aparokṣānubhavas tābhyāṃ tṛpto nirākāṅkṣa ātmā cittaṃ yasya saḥ | kūṭastha ekenaiva svabhāvena sarva-kālaṃ vyāpya sthitaḥ sarva-vastuṣv anāsaktatvāt | samāni loṣṭādīni yasya saḥ | loṣṭaṃ mṛt-piṇḍaḥ ||8||
Baladevaḥ : jñāneti | jñānam śāstrajaṃ vijñānam viviktātmānubhavas tābhyāṃ tṛptātmā pūrṇa-manāḥ | kūṭastha eka-svabhāvatayā sarva-kālaṃ sthitaḥ | ato vijitendriyaḥ prakṛti-viviktātma-mātra-niṣṭhatvāt | prākṛteṣu loṣṭrādiṣu | loṣṭaṃ mṛt-piṇḍaḥ | īdṛśo yogī niṣkāma-karmī yukta ātma-darśana-rūpa-yogābhyāsa-yogya ucyate ||8||
The question is not about Western languages, but about Sanskrit. I want to know what Krishna said on the battlefield - loṣṭā (lump of earth) or lostra (pebble)?
In Sanskrit, each letter, accent, and pronunciation is revered. The more that Visvanatha Cakravarti says in the comments "lump of earth" and the verse is loṣṭā.
Bhagavad Gita As It Is
Chapter 6: Sankhya-yoga
yukta ity ucyate yogi
…lostra—pebbles; asma—stone; kancanah—gold.
A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogi [or mystic] when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything—whether it be pebbles, stones or gold—as the same.
Book knowledge without realization of the Supreme Truth is useless. This is stated as follows:
atah sri-krsna-namadi na bhaved grahyam indriyaih
sevonmukhe hi jihvadau svayam eva sphuraty adah.
"No one can understand the transcendental nature of the name, form, quality and pastimes of Sri Krsna through his materially contaminated senses. Only when one becomes spiritually saturated by transcendental service to the Lord are the transcendental name, form, quality and pastimes of the Lord revealed to him." (Padma Purana)
This Bhagavad-gita is the science of Krsna consciousness. No one can become Krsna conscious simply by mundane scholarship. One must be fortunate enough to associate with a person who is in pure consciousness. A Krsna conscious person has realized knowledge, by the grace of Krsna, because he is satisfied with pure devotional service.
By realized knowledge, one becomes perfect. By transcendental knowledge one can remain steady in his convictions, but by mere academic knowledge one can be easily deluded and confused by apparent contradictions. It is the realized soul who is actually self-controlled because he is surrendered to Krsna. He is transcendental because he has nothing to do with mundane scholarship. For him mundane scholarship and mental speculation, which may be as good as gold to others, are of no greater value than pebbles or stones.
Bhagavad-Gita in the tradition of Bengali Vaishnavism. Translation By Blinderman Radha
yukta ity ucyate yogi
…losta-asma-kancanah – to a lump of earth, stone and gold.
The one who obtains satisfaction in knowledge and wisdom, has established himself in the original nature of his "I", possesses feelings and does not see the difference between a lump of earth, stone and gold is considered to have reached the level of persistent meditation.
SARARTHA-DARSHINI-TIKA (Viswanath Chakravartin's Comment)
One who finds satisfaction in the jnana, the knowledge gained through instruction, and the vijnana, the direct experience, is free from desire. He never changes his nature (kuta-sthah), for he is not attached to material objects.
The word sama-lostasma-kancanah means "one for whom there is no difference between a lump of earth, stone and so forth." Loṣṭā means 'lump of earth'.
What Prabhupada Sanskrit Gita used?
The employee of the Russian BBT Vijitatma Prabhu answers: Yes, there are several versions of "Gita". As far as I remember, the canonical version is the one that was commented by Shankar, Ramanuja and Madhwa. There is a Kashmir version, which is a few shlokas more.
As for what" Gita "Prabhupada" used in his work, I don't know. It was probably the Gita with commentary of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, since many comments of Srila Prabhupada rely on the commentary of Baladeva. Such a "Gita", as far as I know, was published by Gaudiya math in Bengali, and before that-by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Srila Prabhupada gave lectures on "Gita", translated by S. Radhakrishnan.
In a commentary on Ramanuja 6.8 clod - loṣṭa, although in the verse - loṣṭra.
yukta ity ucyate yogī
The word jnana means knowledge relative to the atma or soul. The word vijnana is transcendental knowledge based on realisation of the atma. The word trptatma means one who is exclusively satisfied with these two forms of knowledge. The word kutastho refers to one who is perpetually consistent and unwavering amidst the variable and ever changing phenomena of material existence.
One who is absorbed in the eternal nature of the atma is kutastho and hence vijitendrah or one who has all the senses under complete subjugation. Such a person realising the atma and perceiving its distinct superiority to matter is never again infatuated with the delusion of material pleasures and sense gratification. Thus all material objects whether they are gold or a clod of earth are of equal value and material activities cease to give any pleasure seeking importance.
Such a person is known as yuktah meaning one in communion with the ultimate consciousness and is a fit candidate to commence perfection of meditation which leads to realisation of the Supreme Being. This is the purport of the Supreme Lord Krishna.
In BG 14:24 of Ramanuja all like Prabhupada - in verse and comments loṣṭa - a lump of earth.
Therefore one is naturally indifferent to anything external. One who is never agitated by attraction and aversion which arise from the three gunas and who lucid and tranquil reflects within that it is natural for the impulses of the three gunas to occasionally parade themselves in one's consciousness, is never deluded by them into being impelled to act as the qualities might provoke one to respond.
The word sama means equanimity or keeping oneself equipoise in both joy and distress. The word svasthah means solidly situated, established firmly within on the immortal atma, filled with raptureand bliss by its communion. Such a one is never even distracted by external things let alone influenced by them.
Even when exposed to great events of joy or catastrophic events of grief such a one is undisturbes and does not succumb to delusion or illlusion. To such a one a clod of earth or , a precious jewel or a nugget of gold all are looked upon alike as merely modifications of prakriti. So there is nothing in material existence which such a one has any special attraction or aversion towards.
The word means dhirah means sober and denotes the wisdom of one who is knowledgeable of the distinction between prakriti or the material substratum pervading physical existence and the eternal atma or immortal soul. Hence such a one remains equaniminous in both praise and censure.
It is the deisre for praise and adulation that shows the consequence of egotism which abides in the mind and is erroneously mistaken for the atma and deludes one into thinking that it is a great honor to be praised. Similarly aversion to being ridiculed and censured is also the consequence of same egotism which makes one think it is ignoble and shameful to receive such infamy.
But both conceptions are the results of delusion and one who is established in atma tattva or realisation of the immortal soul is never implicated in illusion as such a being is unlimited in consciousness knowing that all material designations are all transcended by communion with the atma.
In the same way that egotism is alienated from the atma what pertains to egotism such as honor and disgrace, friends and enemies, praise and censue does not affect the atma. One who is illuminated by atma tattva is unconcerned and indifferent to worldly matters. Similarly since such a one comprehends that all efforts of activity are the cause and perpetuation of physical embodiment such a one abandons all efforts not related to the atma. Such a person is known to be a conqueror of the theree gunas. Next the primary means to overcome them will be given.
Brijabasi Das: In many sacred texts, including Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, there are discrepancies in syllables, words and even verses. And that's perfectly normal. That is why there are different schools of the same Veda, which have slight differences in the texts. They are called reviews, Shakha. And they are all equally authoritative. Just someone who belongs to one of the Shakha, and someone to another.
But with regard to " loṣṭa and loṣṭra", there are two versions of the same word, so no reason for concern there. Viśvanātha cakravartī uses the "lost", but Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, use the option "loṣṭra", namely his review of Srila Prabhupada used in the translation of Bhagavad Gita.
There are several versions of the etymology of the word "loṣṭ", from dhatu, "lou", which means "to cut", that is "what to cut", which was to point to a piece of earth or clay. Other dhatu from which lost happened, "loṣṭ", which means "to gather together". So it began to point out small pieces of something that you can collect in a heap, so lost can be theoretically and pebbles and chunks of clay. They're all going well together. Sanskrit is very extensive.
More precisely, "lu" - this is what "khandayate", "broken down".
And then there are some grammatists (Durgasimha) it is removed from the dhatu "lush" which means "to deliver pain or to kill," so "loṣṭa" it's also something that beats or kills. And if you highlight the word "loṣṭra" dhatu loch, it will remain the suffix -tra which indicates the instrument of action. Therefore, the "loṣṭra" means "something beaten, or killed." So there is no contradiction.