musicmarkup.info Design BHAGAVAD GITA SHANKARA BHASHYA PDF

BHAGAVAD GITA SHANKARA BHASHYA PDF

Wednesday, October 9, 2019 admin Comments(0)

3 Bhagavad Gita Sankara Bhashya with Hindi Translation के नीचे की pdf शृंखला में से केवल तृतीय भाग ही उपयोगी है।. Gita+Press+-+Katha+Upanishad+with+Shankara+Bhashya+[Sanskrit-Hindi].pdf Ishavasya Upanishad with Hindi Translation - Gita Press musicmarkup.info Srimad. Bhagavad Gita. English 1 Sri Sankaracharya begins his commentary of the Gita only from the Sankara; and yaksaraksasam, among the Yaksas.


Author:SHERISE GROSSE
Language:English, Spanish, Arabic
Country:Kyrgyzstan
Genre:Politics & Laws
Pages:459
Published (Last):13.12.2015
ISBN:714-8-27401-758-2
ePub File Size:28.74 MB
PDF File Size:19.63 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Downloads:22374
Uploaded by: BROOK

Bhashya, the text of the Bhagavad-Gita being also literally translated in the light of the Bhashya. The Bhashya has been translated in full except where a literal. Jx:ing the only English translation of Sankara 's Gita Bhashya available for 80 years. The late Pandit Mahadeva Sastri was Director, Oriental Section Adyar. Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam of Adi Sankara - Sanskrit Text Only (2 PDFs)Compiled in the 11th and 1 Bhagavad Gita Bhashya Adi Sankara 1.

Thus indeed, Ajuna's own sorrow and delusion, cuased by the ideas of affection, parting, etc. It is verily because his discriminating insight was overwhelmed by sorrow and delusion that, even though he had become engaged in battle out of his own accord as a duty of the Ksatriyas, he desisted from that war and chose to undertake other's duties like living on alms etc. It is thus that in the case of all creatures whose minds come under the sway of the defects of sorrow, delusion, etc. Even when they engage in their own duties their actions with speech, mind, body, etc. From unvirtuous, sinful deeds follow births as beasts and other lowly beings, and sorrow. From the performance of both virtuous and sinful deeds follows birth as a human being, 3 with a mixture of happiness and sorrow.

And similarly, na eva, it is surely not that; vayam, we; sarve, all; na bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist; atah param, after this, even after the destruction of this body. On the contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is that even in all the three times past, present and future we are eternal in our nature as the Self. The plural number in we is used following the diversity of the bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self. This being so, an intelligent person does not get deluded.

Yatha, as are, the manner in which; kaumaram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth, middle age; and jara, decrepitude, advance of age; dehinah, to an embodied being, to one who possesses a body deha , to the Self possessing a body; asmin, in this, present; dehe, body These three states are mutually distinct.

Shankara bhagavad pdf gita bhashya

On these, when the first state gets destroyed the Self does not get destroyed; when the second state comes into being It is not born. It is seen that the Self, which verily remains unchanged, acquires the second and third states. Tatha, similar, indeed; is Its, the unchanging Self's dehantarapraptih, acquisition of another body, a body different from the present one.

This is the meaning. Tatra, this being so; dhirah, an intelligent person; na, does not; muhyati, get deluded. They have a beginning and an end, and are transient. Bear them, O descendant of Bharata.

Delusion arises from being deprived of happiness, and sorrow arises from contact with pain etc.

Bhashya shankara bhagavad pdf gita

Matra-sparsah, the contacts of the organs with objects; are sita-usna-sukha-duhkha- dah, producers of cold, heat, happiness and sorrow. Matrah means those by which are marked off measured up sounds etc.

Gita Press Srimad Bhagavad Gita With Shankara Bhasya Sanskrit Hindi

The sparsah, contacts, of the organs with sound etc. Or, sparsah means those which are contacted, i. Matra-sparsah, the organs and objects, are the producers of cold, heat, happiness and 19 sorrow. Cold sometimes produces pleasure, and sometimes pain. Similarly the nature of heat, too, is unpredictable.

On the other hand, happiness and sorrow have definite natures since they do not change. Hence they are mentioned separately from cold and heat. Since they, the organs, the contacts, etc. Hence, titiksasva, bear; tan, them -- cold, heart, etc. Listen: Verily, the person O Arjuna hi, verily; yam purusam, the person whom; ete, these, cold and heat mentioned above; na, do not; vyathayanti, torment, do not perturb; dhiram, the wise man; sama-duhkha-sukham, to whom sorrow and happiness are the same, who is free from 20 happiness and sorrow when subjected to pleasure and pain, because of his realization of the enternal Self; sah, he, who is established in the realization of the enternal Self, who forbears the opposites; kalpate, becomes fit; amrtattvaya, for Immortality, for the state of Immortality, i.

But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth. Asatah, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. For they are changeful, and whatever is changeful is inconstant. As configurations like pot etc. Objection: If it be that [Here Ast. Were it to be asserted as being unreal, then the cause also should be unreal, because there is no entity which is not subject to the law of cuase and effect. Vedantin: No, for in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality.

Since the variable is imagined on the invariable, therefore it is proved that there is something which is the substratum of all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor an effect. Thus, since the distinction between the real and the 22 unreal is dependent on awareness, therefore in all cases of empirical experiences everyone has two kinds of awarenesses with regard to the same substratum: As for instance, the experiences 'The pot is real', 'The cloth is real', 'The elephant is real' - - which experiences are not like that of 'A blue lotus'.

In the case of the experience, 'The pot is real', etc. But the awareness of reality is not inconstant. Therefore the object of the awareness of pot etc. Objection: If it be argued that, since the awareness of pot also changes when the pot is destroyed, 23 therefore the awareness of the pot's reality is also changeful?

Vedantin: No, because in cloth etc. That awareness relates to the odjective and not to the noun 'pot'. For this reason also it is not destroyed. Vedantin: No, because that awareness of pot is not present in the awareness of a cloth etc. Objection: May it not be that even the awareness of reality is not present in relation to a pot that has been destroyed?

Vedantin: No, because the noun is absent there. Since the awareness of reality corresponds to the adjective i.

So, to what should it relate? But, again, the awareness of reality does not cease with the absence of an object.. Some read nanu in place of na tu 'But, again'. In that case, the first portion No, Therefore, if the relationship between 'pot' and 'reality' be the same as between a noun and an adjective, then both of them will be real entities.

Bhagavad-Gita Translations

So, the coexistence of reality with a non-pot does not stand to reason. Therefore, asatah, of the unreal, viz body etc. And similarly, satah, of the real, of the Self; na vidyate, there is no; abhavah, nonexistence, because It is constant everywhere. This is what we have said. Tu, but; antah, the nature, the conclusion regarding the nature of the 25 real and the unreal that the Real is verily real, and the unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh api, of both these indeed, of the Self and the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained above; drstah, has been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih, by the seers of Truth.

Tat is a pronoun Sarvanama, lit. And all is Brahman. And Its name is tat. The abstraction of tat is tattva, the true nature of Brahman. Those who are apt to realize this are tattva-darsinah, seers of Truth. Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. This is the idea. What, again, is that reality which remains verily as the Real and surely for ever? This is being answered in, 'But know That', etc.

None can bring about the destruction of this Immutable. Na kascit, none; arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vinasam, the destruction, disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of this avyayasya, of the Immutable, that which does not undergo growth and depletion. By Its very nature this Brahman called Reality does not suffer mutation, because, unlike bodies etc. Brahman surely does not suffer loss like Devadatta suffering from loss of wealth. Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this immutable Brahman.

Besides, action with regard to one's Self is self-contradictory. Which, again, is that 'unreal' that is said to change its own nature? This is being answered: 2. Therefore, O descendant of Bharata, join the battle. The two words 'everlasting' and 'indestructible' are not repetitive, because in common usage everlastingness and destructibility are of two kinds.

As for instance, a body which is reduced to ashes and has disappeared is said to have been destoryed. And even while existing, when it becomes transfigured by being afflicted with diseases etc. Otherwise, the everlastingness of the Self would be like that of the earth etc.

Therefore, in order that this contingency may not arise, it is said, 'Of the everlasting, indestructible'.

Aprameyasya, of the indeterminable, means 'of that which cannot be determined by such means of knowledge as direct perception etc. Vedantin: No, because the Self is self-evident. For, only when the Self stands predetermined as the knower, there is a search for a means of knolwedge by the knower. Indeed, it is not that without first determining oneself as, 'I am such', one takes up the task of determining an object of knowledge.

For what is called the 'self' does not remain unknown to anyone. But the scripture is the final authority [when the Vedic text establishes Brahman as the innermost Self, all the distinctions such as knower, known and the means of knowledge become sublated.

Thus it is reasonable that the Vedic text should be the final authority. Besides, its authority 29 is derived from its being faultless in as much as it has not originated from any human being. There is an Upanisadic text in support of this: ' Since the Self is thus eternal and unchanging, tasmat, therefore; yudhyasva, you join the battle, i.

Gita Press Srimad Bhagavad Gita With Shankara Bhasya Sanskrit Hindi

Here there is no injunction to take up war as a duty, because be Arjuna , though he was determined for war, remains silent as a result of being overpowered by sorrow and delusion. Therefore, all that is being done by the Lord is the removal of the obstruction to his duty. The scripture Gita is intended for eradicating sorrow, delusion, etc. As evidences of this idea the Lord cites two Vedic verses: [Ka.

There are slight verbal differences. This One does not kill, nor is It killed. Yah, he who; vetti, thinks; of enam, this One, the embodied One under consideration; as hantaram, the killer, the agent of the act of killing; ca, and; yah, he who, the other who; manyate, thinks; of enam, this One; as hatam, the killed -- who thinks 'When the body is killed, I am myself killed; I become the object of the act of killing'; ubhau tau, both of them; owing to non-discrimination, na, do not; vijanitah, know the Self which is the subject of the consciousness of 'I'.

The meaning is: On the killing of the body, he who thinks of the Self -- the content of the consciousness of 'I' -- [The Ast. The A. For, ayam, this Self; owing to Its changelessness, na hanti, does not kill, does not become the agent of the act of killing; na hanyate, nor is It killed, i.

Gita pdf bhagavad shankara bhashya

It does not become the object of the act of killing. The second verse is to show how the Self is changeless: 2. This One is birthless, eternal, undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body is killed. By this is denied the final change in the form of destruction. The word na kadacit , never, is connected with the denial of all kinds of changes thus -- never, is It born never does It die, and so on.

Since ayam, this Self; bhutva, having come to exist, 32 having experienced the process of origination; na, will not; bhuyah, again; abhavita, cease to be thereafter, therefore It does not die. For, in common parlance, that which ceases to exist after coming into being is said to die. From the use of the word va, nor, and na, it is understood that, unlike the body, this Self does not again come into existence after having been non-existent.

Therefore It is not born. For, the words, 'It is born', are used with regard to something which comes into existence after having been non-existent. The Self is not like this. Therfore It is not born.

Since this is so, therefore It is ajah, birthless; and since It does not die, therefore It is nityah, eternal. Although all changes become negated by the denial of the first and the last kinds of changes, still changes occuring in the middle [For the six kinds of changes see note under verse 2.

Therefore the text says sasvatah, undecaying,. The change in the form of decay is denied by the word sasvata, that which lasts for ever. In Its own nature It does not decay because It is free from parts.

And again, since it is without qualities, there is no degeneration owing to the decay of any 33 quality. Change in the form of growth, which is opposed to decay, is also denied by the word puranah, ancient. A thing that grows by the addition of some parts is said to increase and is also said to be new. But this Self was fresh even in the past due to Its partlessness.

Thus It is puranah, i. It does not grow. So also, na hanyate, It is puranah, i. So also, na hanyate, It is not killed, It does not get transformed; even when sarire, the body; hanyamane, is killed, transformed.

The verb 'to kill' has to be understood here in the sense of transformation, so that a tautology [This verse has already mentioned 'death' in the first line. If the verb han, to kill, is also taken in the sense of killing, then a tautology is unavoidable. In this mantra the six kinds of transformations, the material changes seen in the world, are denied in the Self. The meaning of the sentence is that the Self is devoid of all kinds of changes.

Since this is so, therefore 'both of them do not know' -- this is how the present mantra is connected to the earlier mantra. Yah, he who; veda, knows -- yah is to be thus connected with Veda --; enam, this One, possessing the characteristics stated in the earlier mantra; as avinasinam, indestructible, devoid of the final change of state; nityam, eternal, devoid of transformation; ajam, birthless; and avyayam, undecaying; katham, how, in what way; and kam, whom; does sah, that man of realization; purusah, the person who is himself an authority [i.

See The intention is to deny both the acts by saying, 'In no way does he kill any one, nor does he cause anyone to be killed', because an interrogative sense is absurd here. Since the implication of the reason [The reason for the denial of killing etc. But the denial of the act of killing has been cited by way of an example.

Objection: By noticing what special reason for the impossibility of actions in the case of the man of realization does the Lord deny all actions in his case by saying, 'How can that person,' etc.?

Vedantin: Has not the immutability of the Self been already stated as the reason [Some readings omit this word. Objection: It is true that it has been stated; but that is not a specific ground, for the man of realization is different from the immutable Self. Indeed, may it not be argued that action does not become impossible for one who has known as unchanging 36 stump of a tree?!

Vedantin: No, because of man of Knowledge is one with the Self. Enlightenment does not belong to the aggregate of body and senses. Therefore, as the last laternative, the knower is the Immutable and is the Self which is not a part of the aggregate. Thus, action being impossible for that man of Knowledge, the denial in, 'How can that person As on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable, is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound etc.

Consciousness reflected on this transformation and remaining indistinguishable from that transformation revealing the object, is called objective knowledge. Thereby, due to 37 ignorance, the Self is imagined to be the perceiver because of Its connection with the vrtti, modification.

The process is elsewhere described as follows: The vrtti goes out through the sense-organ concerned, like the flash of a torchlight, and along with it goes the reflection of Consciousness. Both of them envelop the object, a pot for instance. The vrtti destroys the ignorance about the pot; and the reflection of Consciousness, becoming unified with only that portion of it which has been delimited by the pot, reveals the pot. In the case of knowledge of Brahman, it is admitted that the vrtti in the form, 'I am Brahman', does reach Brahman and destroys ignorance about Brahman, but it is not admitted that Brahman is revealed like a 'pot', for Brahman is self-effulgent.

From the statement that action is impossible for man of realization it is understood that the conclusion of the Lord is that, actions enjoined by the scriptures are prescribed for the unenlightened.

Objection: Is not elightenment too enjoined for the ignorant? For, the injunction about enlightenment to one who has already achieved realization is useless, like grinding something that has already been ground! This being so, the distinction that rites and duties are enjoined for the unenlightened, and not for the 38 enlightened one, does not stand to reason.

Vedantin: No. There can reasonable be a distinction between the existence or nonexistence of a thing to be performed. As after the knowledge of the meaning of the injunction for rites like Agnihotra etc. It is the most beautiful perhaps the only true philosophical song of its kind existing in any known tongue. Conveys sublime teaching on religion, philosophy, ethics and the art and science of correct and efficient living and attitude towards life and its problems.

They contain the essence of Vedic teachings. They are the foundations on which most of the later philosophies and religions of India rest. There is no important form of the Hindu thought which is not rooted in Upanishads.

The father gives birth to one, but the Supreme Guru as Adi Shankaracharya alone can save the person from the necessity of being born again. One can repay the debt to his father by procreating offspring in his turn and by offering obsequious oblations for the pacification of his soul after death. Perhaps we can repay an Portion of the debt by passing on the knowledge in turn to other deserving disciples.

The Upanishads contain two sets of teaching regarding reality or Bramhan, addressed to two different levels of the mind. To the highest grade of the aspirants, belongs the disciple who has attained the mental equipment necessary entering upon the course of study, either in this birth or possesses an introvert mind as a result of discipline undergone in his last lives, qualifying him to grasp the teaching imparted in the Sruti.

This class of seekers comprises 2 grades. The first needs only reminding of the true nature of oneself by the Shruti through an experienced Adept Guru Who has Himself experienced the Truths of Vedanta, while the second requires guidance for the contemplation of the spiritual steps through which one has ultimately to reach the same self.

The other set of Upanishads teachings according to Sri Shankara, consists of injunctions for the meditation on apara lower Bramhan.