[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Consider the Gita, 7.24
sns <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <ghenDyFCoB.200@netcom.com>...
> This translation is not correct. The correct one is
>
> from unmanifest into manifest
> the unintelligent consider me
> not knowing my higher state (bhava )
> that is unmanifest and unsurpassable
[snipped]
> The shloka infact is against putting the
> Bhagavan into any kind of manifestation.
> However in other portions of the Gita the Bhagawan
> does mention that people can reach Him even
> by considering Him to be a manifestation or otherwise
No, actually the one given by Michael was correct. Actually, I think both
translations are grammatically correct, but in order to decide between
them, one has to look at the context. The next verse says:
naaha`m prakaas'a.h sarvasya
yoga-maayaa-samaav.rta.h
muu.dho 'ya`m naabhijaanaati
loko maam ajam avyayam
na - nor; aham - I; prakaas'a.h - manifest; sarvasya - to everyone;
yoga-maayaa - by internal potency (or, if you wish, yoga-maayaa potency);
samaav.rita.h - covered; muu.dha.h - foolish; ayam - these; na - not;
abhijaanaati - can understand; loka.h - persons; maam - Me; ajam - unborn;
avyayam - inexahaustible
"I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am
unborn and infallible."
Note the use of the word prakaas'a.h, which means revealed or manifest. If
your translation of 7.24 is correct, and the Lord's higher state is
actually unmanifest or impersonal, then why does He say here that He is
never revealed to the foolish? If He is unmanifest, then what is there to
reveal? How can you reveal the unmanifest?
It is more sensible to understand Krishna as saying in 7.23 that the
unintelligent understand Him to be unmanifest being manifest, because His
higher nature is manifest with qualities, and not impersonal.
regards,
-- Krishna
