Bhavad Gita III:13

In this verse, the Gita lauds one of the principles of the Vedic sacrifice. In the Brāhmaṇas, the उच्छिष्ट (ucchiṣṭa) which is the left over (food) after the sacrifice, was the preserve only of the Brahmin priests who perform the yajña. In the Gita, it is portrayed as something 'the good' consume, showing a broader base, a more inclusive stance. Today of course it has metamorphosed into our beloved 'prasad' which each and every one of us can enjoy irrespective of caste, colour, creed or gender! Enjoy the verse.

यज्ञशिष्टाशिनः सन्तो

मुच्यन्ते सर्वकिल्बिषैः

भुञ्जते  ते त्वघं पापा

ये पचन्त्यात्मकारणात्

The good who eat the remainder of the sacrifice, are released from all evils;

But the wicked, who cook only for their own sake, verily eat impurity.

Out of sandhi, and out of compound* (so to speak)  the verse looks like this:

यज्ञ+शिष्ट+आशिनः सन्तः

मुच्यन्ते सर्व+किल्बिषैः
भुञ्जते तु अघम् पापाः 
ये पचन्ति आत्म+कारणात्

यज्ञशिष्टाशिनः  = यज्ञशिष्ट  + आशिनः 

यज्ञशिष्ट  - remainder of the sacrifice, (neuter) also knows as उच्छिष्ट
 आशिनः  - [they] eating (masc., nominative, plural from √aś) 

(यज्ञशिष्टाशिनः those who eat the remainder of the sacrifice (masc., nom., plural, tatpurusha compound)

सन्तः - good existing, true (masc., nominative, plural - noun not adjective)

मुच्यन्ते सर्वकिल्बिषैः

मुच्यन्ते - they are released, liberated (3rd person, plural, passive,* present √muc, agreeing with सन्तः)  

सर्वकिल्बिषैः sins, evils, wrong (neutral instrumental plural. Karmadharya* compound that translates in to English as 'from all evils'. In Hindi it would be किल्बिष से)

भुञ्जते - they eat, enjoy (3rd person, plural, present, ĀP* √bhuj)
ते - they
त्वघं = तु + अघम् (sandhi between u and a = va. We'll be covering this soon) 
तु - indeed, verily (avyaya) 
अघम् - impurity, pain, suffering (neut., accusative, singular)
पापा - the wicked, the evil [ones] (masc., nom., plural) It is actually पापाः  but the visarga is dropped by the rules of sandhi before the य of the next word

ये पचन्त्यात्मकारणात्

ये - [those] who (masc., nom., plural) Hindi - वह जो
पचन्त्यात्मकारणात् = पचन्ति + आत्म + कारणात्

पचन्ति - [they] cook/digest (3rd person, nom., plural, present √pac)

आत्म - (neut.) self, own [as it appears in a compound]

कारणात् - lit. from the cause; for the sake of [the self] Hindi: अपने कारण से

* For readers who are visiting for the first time, the underlined words/concepts are to be covered in the course that begins October 1.

   

Bhagvad Gita IV:24

To my mind this verse is an expression of the exceptional brilliance of the religious elite, the author(s) of the Gita. I have mentioned before that the Gita is a pivotal text, bridging 'old' Vedic ideas and 'new' Bhakti influences. How to reconcile the Vedic sacrifice (which was completely about external action and compelling Vedic gods to attend to the yajamāna)  with the 'new' thinking of the Upaniṣads, whose focus was internal, and monistic? How to bring on board the old school, and avoid a schism in the religious community? This verse shows how to achieve the impossible. How to amalgamate opposites. 

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्

ब्रह्माग्नौब्रह्मणा हुताम्

ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं 

ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना

Brahman is the offering, Brahman is the oblation Poured by Brahman into the fire of Brahman; Brahman is to be attained by him, who always contemplates (sees) Brahman in action.

ब्रह्म - Brahman (neut., nom., sing.) 

अर्पणम् - offering (neut., nom., sing.)

ब्रह्म - Brahman (neut., nom., sing.)

हविस्  - oblation [poured into havan] (neut., nom., sing.)

ब्रह्म - Brahman (neut., nom., sing.)

अग्नौ - in the fire (masc., locative, sing.) 

ब्रह्मणा - Brahman (neut., nom., sing.) - by Brahman (neut., instrumental, sing.)

हुतम् - poured into the sacrifice (masc. accusative, sing, past participle √hu)

ब्रह्म - Brahman (neut., nom., sing.)

एव- only (avyaya)

तेन - by him (masc., instrumental, sing.)

गन्तव्यं - [it is] to be attained, approached, reached, gone to (gerundive of  √gam)

ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना - by [him/one] who contemplates the action of Brahman. (masc., instrumental, singular, bahuvrihi compound)

"The entire act consists of Brahman because it is of Brahman's nature: the sacrifice is Brahman the utensils are Brahman, the fire in which the sacrifice is offered is Brahman, the sacrificer himself is Brahman. He who contemplates this insight, contemplates the act-as-Brahman.Such a one is capable of knowing the proper form of atman - which is Brahman - through his acts, because his acts are of Brahman's nature. ..." From Ramanuja, translated by van Buitenen

Bhagvad Gita VI:34

This is one of my favourite verses in the Gita. Arjuna speaks for most human beings in the struggle to control the mind. Swami Vivekananda once said the mind was like a monkey, a drunk monkey... that has been stung by a scorpion... Can't agree more!! Anyhow. This is about translation, so here it is:

चंचलं ही मनः कृष्ण

प्रमाथि बलवद् दृढम्

तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये

वायोरिव सुदुष्करम्

The mind indeed is unstable, Krishna, turbulent, powerful and obstinate;

Controlling it is as difficult as (controlling) the wind.

चंचलं - unsteady, unstable (neut., nominative, singular) Notice the म् becomes an anusvara before the ह् of ही

ही - indeed, verily (avyaya)

मनः - mind (neut., nom., sing) 

कृष्ण - O Krishna (vocative)

Notice that both the nouns are in the nominative. And the 'asti' [is] is assumed. This is an example of a nominative sentence.

प्रमाथि - troubling, harassing  (neut., nom., sing)

बलवद् - powerful (neut., nom., sing) the 't' of balavat has become a 'd' before दृढम्

दृढम् - fixed, unyielding (neut., nom., sing)

Like चंचलं in the previous sentence, these are three neuter nouns being used as adjectives to describe the mind. It is this .. and this.. and this... etc.

तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये

वायोरिव सुदुष्करम्

(अहं मन्ये तस्य निग्रहं वायोरिव  सुदुष्करम् [अस्ति])

(lit. I think its control is as difficult as [of] the wind)

One of the things you will have to get used to is that the word order is often not what you would find in prose - this is to fit not just the rhyme scheme, but also the meter. Therefore it is absolutely critical that you pay keen attention to the endings to unravel the meaning of each word and the sentence. This one is easy. But they get really complex. 

तस्याहं = तस्य + अहम् Where the 'a' in the य is in sandhi with the 'a' of अहम् to make an आ

 तस्य - its, of it, of this (neut., genitive singular) 

अहम् - I

निग्रहं - restraining, suppressing (masc., accusative., sing ni√grah)  

मन्ये - (I) think (1st person, sing., present, ĀP, √man)

वायोरिव = वायोः + इव

वायोः  - of the wind (masc., genitive, sing.)

इव - like (avyaya)

सुदुष्करम् - (neut., accusative, singular) 

This is an interesting word, juxtaposing  'su' and 'du' which are opposites. In such cases, the 'su' is used to stress the 'du' (negative aspect/difficulty) of the word.

Bhagvad Gita 1:1

धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे 

समवेता युयुत्सवः

मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव

किमकुर्वत संजय

Assembled on the field of dharma, at kurukṣetra, desirous of battle, What did my (sons) and the sons of Pāṇḍu do? 

धर्मक्षेत्रे - in the field, on the field (neut., locative, sing) of dharma
कुरुक्षेत्रे - in the field, on the field of the Kurus 
Two locatives together are called a sati saptami or a locative absolute. It gives an indication of 'when'. Hence this verse if often translated 'When in the field of ....'

समवेता - assembled, come together (masc, nom., plural past participle of sam+ava+√ i). The actual word is समवेता: but the visarga is lost by the rules of sandhi before the य of युयुत्सवः
युयुत्सवः - desiring to do battle (masc., nom., plural, adjective; desiderative of √yudh)

मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव = पाण्डवाः च एव
मामकाः my, mine (masc., nom., plural) 
पाण्डवाः (lit. Pandus - sons of Pandu)
च and (avyaya)
एव indeed, only (avyaya) here used as a rhythmic filler
Note that मामकाः does not lose it's visarga before the pa of पाण्डवाः

किमकुर्वत संजय = किम् अकुर्वत संजय
किम् - what (interrogative)
अकुर्वत - (they) did (3rd, plural, past ĀP √kṛ)

संजय - O Sanjaya (vocative, masc., singular)

Anything underlined - just means we will learn it at a later stage.

The significance of Bhagvad Gita 1:1 'Dharmakṣetre Kurukṣetre'

dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre samvetā yuyutsavaḥ

māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāścaiva kimakurvata sanjaya

Assembled on the field of dharma, Kurukshetra, what did my sons and the sons of Pandu, desirous of battle, do?

Most Hindus are familiar with the opening of the Bhagavad Gita, where the battlefield is called the field of ‘dharma’. But do any of us ever ask why? Modern interpretations of the Gita in India mostly follow the early theosophists' position of allegorizing ‘Kurukṣetra’ as a war between good and evil within every person in which finally the evil forces, senses, and urges are destroyed. Undoubtedly this is true.

But there are other interpretations. I believe it is called dharmakṣetra, because it was a war for the normative definition of ‘dharma’ itself. What is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’? To us today, the answer seems obvious. But 2,000 years ago, it wasn’t. Was killing animals in sacrifice right? Was killing justified in any circumstances? Was it right that an entire section of men and all of women were excluded from education, indeed from salvation itself? Was ahiṃsa the better way? 

The scene opens with the despondency of Arjuna and a series of complex, ethically knotty questions which are answered by his charioteer - later acknowledged as the Supreme Lord. In a previous post I have called BG IX:26 a watershed. I believe that the setting of this battle, in fact the Bhagvad Gita itself, is a turning point in the History of Hinduism. It represents the reaction of the Brāhmanical Vedic religion to the spiritual, ethical challenges it faced in the second half of the 1^st millennium B.C.E. The Bhagvad Gita show how these challenges were addressed and eventually assimilated.

The whole question hinges on what ‘dharma’ is. I don’t mean what is the definition of dharma, rather what is the ‘correct’ dharma? The Brāhmanical Vedic religion was a religion of blood sacrifice, of rigid institutional hierarchy. Of exclusion rather than inclusion. Universal values such as mercy, kindness to all, equality of mankind, ahimsa etc. had not yet become significant features. For at least five centuries the śramaṇa movements, of which Jainism and Buddhism are most well known, challenged Vedic Hinduism. The espousal of Jainism and Buddhism by powerful kings of the Mauryan Empire, especially Aśoka, forced the religious elite to go back to the drawing board and reassess what ‘dharma’ should be. One of the central threads of the Bhagvad Gita is this definition/redefinition, or as I see it, the synthesis of old and new ‘dharmas’.

In light of this background, the blind and helpless Dṛtarāṣṭra’s concern for the outcome takes on a new meaning. What will become of the old ways? What does the future hold? Which side will win? Arjuna’s ethical dilemma represents the struggle between the old way of thinking about fundamental issues like ‘killing’, especially his own kin. After deep consideration, everything eventually falls into place when the Supreme Lord manifests himself and speaks what will become gospel for generations of Hindus to follow.

In a couple of our earlier stories I have talked about the power struggle between the Kṛṣṇa and early Vedic gods. The Bhagvad Gita is the triumphant expression of Kṛṣṇa’s prevalence in that struggle. From this point in time, He is the Supreme Lord. And this event marks the de facto demise of the old Vedic way. What emerges is Hinduism as most of us practice it today. As Bhakti to a personal God.  

This post draws heavily on Israel Selvanayagam's article "Aśoka and Arjuna as Counterfigures Standing on the Field of Dharma published in  History of Religions, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Aug., 1992), pp. 59-75

Bhagvad Gita IX:27

This verse focuses on the conjugation of verbs in the second person. And it will help us when we move onto sandhi next week. It is in the same strain as BG 9:26. It is about surrendering everything to God, even your deeds. Every action should be an offering to God.

यत् करोषि यद् अश्नासि 

यज् जुहोषि ददासि यत्

यत् तपस्यसि कौन्तेय 

तत् कुरुष्व मदर्पणम्

Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer, whatever you give, Whatever austerities your perform, Arjuna, do that as an offering to Me.

यत् - that, which (neuter, accusative, singular)  
करोषि - [you] do (2nd person, sing., present √kṛ)
यद् - that, which (neuter, accusative, singular)
अश्नासि - [you] eat (2nd person, sing., present √aś)
Note that it is यत् before the क of करोषि and यद् before the अ of अश्नासि

यज् जुहोषि ददासि यत्
यज् - that, which (neuter, accusative, singular)
जुहोषि - [you] offer [in sacrifice] (2nd person, sing., present √hu)
ददासि - [you] give (2nd person, sing., present √da)
यत् - that, which (neuter, accusative, singular)
Here the तत् appears as तज् before the ज् of जुहोषि

यत् तपस्यसि कौन्तेय
यत् - that, which (neuter, accusative, singular)
तपस्यसि - [you] strive/peform in austerities (2nd person, sing., present √tapasya)
कौन्तेय - Arjuna - son of Kunti

तत् कुरुष्व मदर्पणम्
तत् that - that, (neuter, acc., sing.) 
कुरुष्व - do! make! (imperative, second person AP* √kṛ)
मदर्पणम् - as an offering to me. This is a compound of 'to me' and अर्पणम् (neuter noun) We will learn why मद appears the way it does when we do compounds (समासाः)

*There is a lot of grammar I have left out because it would not be relevant at this stage. I have only put in those things that make the verse understandable. For instance AP is the middle voice आत्मनेपद, which we will have not discussed yet.) 

Bhagvad Gita IX:26

The Bhagavad Gita and this verse  in particular marks the water shed between the post-vedic dharma-sutra age, and the age of Bhakti. A new relationship with a personal God that is predicated on devotion, simplicity and complete faith. 

He who offers to me with devotion and a pure heart; A leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water

that offering of devotion I accept from him.

पत्त्रं पुष्पं फलं तोयं

यो मे भक्त्या प्रयच्छति

तद् अहं भक्त्युपहृतम्

अश्नामि प्रयतात्मनः

(These verses presuppose a knowledge of sandhi. Since we haven't done it together, I will do the vigraha where necessary. There will also be a lot of grammar that we haven't learnt yet, but no harm in getting used to it this way. Everything will become clear as the course progresses.)

पत्त्रं पुष्पं फलं तोयं

पत्त्रम् (neuter, accusative, singular) leaf

पुष्पम् (neuter, accusative, singular) flower

फलम् (neuter, accusative, singular) fruit

तोयम् (neuter, accusative, singular) water

यो मे भक्त्या प्रयच्छति

यः (masculine, nominative, singular) He (वह/जो)

मे (masc., dative, sing.) to me. Alternate form of मह्यम्

भक्त्या (fem., instrument, sing.) with devotion, with love

प्रयच्छति (3rd person, singular, present pra+√yam) [he/she] offers, presents, goes towards

तद् अहं भक्त्युपहृतम्

तत् (neuter, accusative, singular) that

अहम् - I

भक्ति (fem., nom., sing) devotion, love

उपहृतम् (accusative, past participle upa+√hṛ) offered, presented

(भक्त्युपहृतम्=  acc.,singular, tatpurusha cpd, offered with love or offering of love)

अश्नामि प्रयतात्मनः

अश्नामि I eat (1st person, singular, present √aś)

प्रयतात्मनः = प्रयत + आत्मनः= from him whose self is pure (masc, ablative, sing., bahuvrihi compound)

Literal translation are often clumsy, but important if you want to know exactly what is being said in the original. Beyond that every translator is an interpreter, and that is why we have so many translations of the same verse. None are exactly right or wrong. They only approximate the original. That is why I study Sanskrit. So that I can receive the scriptures in the original. It filters out the interpretive opinion of others.

The literal translation of this verse (according to me) would be: From him whose self is pure, he who offers me a leaf, a flower, a fruit (and) water with devotion, I (lit.) eat that which is offered to me with devotion. 

Rāvaṇa threatens to eat Sītā for breakfast

Having killed Jaṭāyu, Rāvaṇa takes Sītā back to Laṅkā, but she refuses to become his wife. He threatens to torment her but she remains faithful to Rāma.

वृद्धम् खगम् हत्वा रावणः सीतया सह लङ्काम्  अगच्छत्

Having killed (the) old bird, Rāvaṇa went to Lanka with Sītā

वृद्धम् old, adj. agreeing with bird

खगम् bird. masc. accusative sing. Accusative because Rāvaṇa does something 'to' the bird. If it was just 'bird' in the nominative, it would have been खगः not खगम् . Please take special note of this. Not to distinguish between the two is a mistake very easily made by Hindi speakers. 

हत्वा having killed.This grammatical form is called the 'gerund'. It is an indeclinable (avyaya) particle. The ending could be  त्वा or य, and will not change with gender/number/case etc. It talks of an action that has already happened.

रावणः masc, nom, sing. 

सीतया सह instrumental case+ सह = 'with' Sītā

लङ्काम्  To Laṅkā. fem., acc., sing. 

अगच्छत् - went. 3rd person, nom., sing., agreeing with रावणः

लङ्कायाम् रावणः सीताम् पुनः अवदत् हे सीते मम भार्या भव इति

In Laṅkā Rāvaṇa said again to Sītā - become my wife.

लङ्कायाम् - in Laṅkā. locative, fem., sing.

रावणः - Rāvaṇa. masc., nom., sing.

सीताम्  - to Sītā. accusative, fem, singular

पुनः - again (avyaya)

अवदत् - said. Past tense of √वद् to speak

हे सीते - O Sītā. vocative, fem., sing. 

मम - my

भार्या  - wife nom., fem., sing.

भव - become. This is the imperative form of √भू to become

इति - direct speech marker, and an avyaya

सीता  तु न कदा अपि अवदत्

But Sītā said, never!

सीता fem., nom., sing.  

तु - but/lekin. avyaya - used for stress

न कदा अपि - never (once we do sandhi, you will normally see this as कदापि). कदापि means sometime, any time, but with the न it becomes NEVER

अवदत् - said

कुपितः रावणः सीताम् उद्याने अस्थापयत्

(The) angry Rāvaṇa placed Sītā in a garden.

कुपितः रावणः (The) angry Rāvaṇa - masc, nominative, singular. Note adj/noun agreement

सीताम् - सीता को fem, acc., sing. (again, please note it is not enough to say सीता as we do in Hindi. It has to be सीताम्) 

उद्याने in (a) garden. Locative, neuter, singular

अस्थापयत् - placed/established. past tense of √स्था 'to stand, stay

तस्मिन् उद्याने अशोकवृक्षाः आसन्

In that garden there were Aśoka trees

(I've always loved the irony of Aśoka w.r.t Sītā's state...)

तस्मिन् उद्याने - locative - in that garden 

अशोकवृक्षाः - Aśoka trees masc., nom., plural

आसन् - were. 3rd person, nom., plural past of √अस् - to be

रावणः अवदत् यदि  सीता अचिरेण मम भार्या न भविष्यति तर्हि अहम् ताम् प्रातराशे खादिष्यामि इति

Rāvaṇa said, if Sītā, does not become my wife soon, I will eat her for breakfast.

रावणः अवदत् - Rāvaṇa said

यदि  - if (avyaya)

सीता 

अचिरेण - soon (avyaya)

मम - my

भार्या - wife, fem., sing., nom.

न - not

भविष्यति - will become. 3rd person, sing., nom., future of √भू

तर्हि - then (we did yadi/tarhi on the 22nd of Sept)

अहम् - I

ताम्  - accusative, feminine, singular उस को

प्रातराशे - locative, masc., singular (lit. at breakfast)

खादिष्यामि - (I) will eat. 1st person sing., future of √खाद् to eat

इति - direct speech marker, and an avyaya

तत् श्रुत्वा सीता  अतीव दुःखिता अभवत् 

Having heard that, Sītā became very distressed/miserable.

तत् -that

श्रुत्वा - having heard - gerund, like हत्वा above

सीता  

अतीव दुःखिता extremely distressed - notice दुःखिता is an adjective and agrees with सीता, but अतीव does not, making it an ... avyaya

अभवत् - became, 3rd person, sing., past of √भू 

रावणः सीताम् राक्षसीनाम् मध्ये अस्थापयत् 

Rāvaṇa placed Sītā amongst demonesses

रावणः Rāvaṇa

सीताम् accusative fem., sing. सीता को

राक्षसीनाम् - genitive fem., plural - 'of' the demonesses 

मध्ये - in the middle. locative singular of मध्य (masc/neut)  

अस्थापयत् - placed/established 3rd person sing., past

राक्षसीभिः सीता पुनः पुनः पीडिता

Sītā was tormented again and again by the demonesses. (The 'asti' is assumed, which is very common in Sanksrit sentences. These are called nominative sentences) 

राक्षसीभिः instrumental, plural, fem., - 'by the' rākṣasīs 

सीता nom., fem., singular

पुनः पुनः again and again (double avyaya - 'baar baar')

पीडिता - tormented adjective agreeing with सीता 

राक्षस्यः पुनः पुनः आक्रोशन् रावणम् गच्छ तस्य भार्या भव च इति

The rākṣasīs shrieked again and again - Go to Rāvaṇa and become his wife.

राक्षस्यः - nom., fem., plural - rākṣasīs

पुनः पुनः - again and again

आक्रोशन् - (They) shrieked. 3rd person, fem., plural, past of √kruś 

रावणम् - masc., accusative., sing., to Rāvaṇa

गच्छ - go. imperative of √gam

तस्य - his

भार्या - wife

भव - become. imperative of √bhū

च - and (avyaya)

इति - direct speech marker (avyaya)

रामे एव स्निह्यामि इति सीता अचिन्तयत्

Sītā thought - I only love Rāma 

रामे locative case, (the act of loving takes the locative in Sanskrit)

एव - only (avyaya)

स्निह्यामि - I love  

इति - direct speech/thought marker (avyaya)

सीता - fem, nominative, singular

अचिन्तयत् - thought past of √चिन्त् - to think