• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/216

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

216 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

nisthā

practice, devotion

Kim tarhi

what then?

vibhakte

divided, separated

bhagavatā

by the Lord

esā

this

nirdiste

pointed out

dve buddī

two insights/convictions

abhitā sāmkhye buddhir yoge tv imām srnu iti

"this wisdom have been imparted to you from the standpoint of samkhya, but listen to this (wisdom) from the standpoint of (karma) yoga

tayoh

if these two (gen. dual)

vaksyati

will speak

vibhaktām

distinctly

samkhyānām

samkhyas (gen. plural)

nisthām

devotion

jnāna-yogena

to the yoga of knowledge (inst)

sāmkhya-buddhy-āsrayām

which has as its basis the samkhya view

loke asmin dvividhā nistā purā proktā mayā

the two paths taught since ancient times by me in this world?

yoginām

yogis (gen. plural)

karma-yogena

the yoga of action

nisthām

devotion

yoga-buddhy-āsrayām

which is based on the yoga view

evam

thus

sāmkhya-buddhi

the samkhya standpoint

yoga-buddhim

yoga standpoint

dve nisthe vibhakte

2 distinct devotions

ukta

stated

bhagavatā

by the lord

pasyatā

seeing

yugapad-eka-purusāsrayatvāsambhavam

the impossibility of (jñānam and karma) being conjoined in one and the same person simultaneously

jñāna-karmanoh

of knowledge and action

kartrtvākartrtvaikatvānekatva-buddhy-āsrayayoh

the one being based upon the idea of non agency and unity and the other on the idea of agency and multiplicity

etad-vibhāga-vacanam

this distinction made here

darsitam

shown/referred to

sātapathīye brāhmane

in the Satapatha Brahmana

etam eva pravrājino lokam icchanto brāhmanāh pravrajanti iti

desiring this world alone monks and Brahmanas renounce their homes"

sarva-karma-samnyāsam

renounced all actions

Kim prajayā karisyāmah

what shall we do with children

yesām nah ayam ātmāyam lokah

we who have attained this Self, this world(result).

vidhāya

having abandoned

tatra iva ca prāg

there itself

prāg

before

dāra-parigrahāt

accepting a wife

purusah ātmā prākrto

a man is in his natural state

dharma-jijñāsottara-kālam loka-traya-sādhanam

after his enquires into rites and duties he got the attainment of the three worlds

puttam

son

dvi-prakāram

twofold wealth

ca vittam mānusam

human and divine

mānusam

human

karma-rūpam

consists if rites and duties

pitr-loka-prāpti-sādhanam

lead to the world of fathers?

vidyām ca daivam

and the divine wealth

vittam

knowledge

deva-loka-prāpti-sādhanam

which lead to heaven

darsitāni

it is shown

sarvāni karmāni

all actions

srautādīni

enjoined by the Vedas, etc

eva

only

avidyā-kāmavata

of one who is unenlightened and is possessed of desire

so'kāmayata

"he desired"

tebhyo vyutthāya, pravrajanti

"after renouncing they take to mendicancy"

vyutthānam

the injunction to renounce

lokam icchanto akāmasya vithitam

for one who desires the world

ātmānam

self

abhipretah

intension

bhagavatah

of the Lord

syād

would be (operative)

samuccayah

combination, conjunction

karma-jñanayoh

of action and knowledge

srauta

vedic

tad etad vibhāga-vacanam

then this statement about yh distinction

anupapannam syād

would be illogical

na cārjunasya prasna

nor would arjuna's question

upapanna bhavati

be proper/appropriate

jyāyasī cet karmanas te

"if it ( be your opinion) (that knowledge) is superior to action", etc.

katham arjunah

how could arjuna

mrsa

falsely

adhyāropayen

missattribute

bhagavati

to the lord

bhagavātah

lord

anuktam

had not spoken

pūrvam

earlier

buddhi-karmanoh

of knowledge and action

eka-purusānustheyatvāsambhavam

impossibility of knowledge and action being employed in one and the same person

jyāyastvam

superiority

buddheh

of knowledge

karmanah

to action (gen)

jyāyasī cet karmanas te matā buddhih iti

"if it be your opinion that wisdom is superior to action"

Kim ca

moreover

yadi

if

samuccayah

combination

buddhi-karmanoh

of knowledge with action

sarvesām

of all (gen. plural)

uktāh syāt

would be spoken

arjunasyāpi sa uktāh eveti

then it would be said of Arjuna as well

upadesa

instruction

ubhayor

for (practicing) both /of both

katham

how

prasnah

question

anyatara-visaya

about 'either of the two"

yac chrāya etayor ekam tan me brūhi suniscitam iti

tell me for certain which one of these is better

vaisyena

by a physician

pitta-prasamanarthinah

when someone who is seeking a cause for his bile

bhoktavyam

should eat

madhuram

sweet

sītalam

cold/soothing

prasnah sambhavati

the question that aises

brūhi

tell me

tayor anyatarat-pitta-prasamana-kāranam

which one of these two is to be taken as a means to cure bile

kalpyeta

if it would be imagined

prasnah

the question

arjunasya

of Arjuna

bhagavad-ukta-vacanārtha-vivekānavadhārana-nimittah

because of his non-comprehension of the distinct meaning of what the Lord has said

tathāpi

even then

bhagavatāh

the lord

prativacanam deyam

should have answered

prasnānurūpam

in accordance with the question

buddhi-karmanoh samuccaya

the conjunction of knowledge with action

uktah

spoken

mayā

by me

Kim artham ittham tvam bhrānto'si

why are you confused this

tu punah

but again

na + yuktam

not proper

prativacanam

answer

dve nisthā mayā purā proktā iti

two kinds of devotions were spoken of by me a long time ago"

ananurūpam prstad anyad

in way that was inconsistent and at variance with the question

vaktum

to speak

sarvam

all

vibhāga-vacanādi

statements about distinction, etc

upapannam

become logical

abhipreta

if it were intended

karmanā buddhih samuccaye

that knowledge was to be combined with action

smārtenaiva

enjoined by the smrtis only

upālambhah

the accusation

tat kim karmani ghoro mām niyojayasi iti

why then do you urge me to horrible action

anupapannah

becomes illogical

jānatah

knew

yuddham

fighting

sva-dharma

natural duty/ own-duty

ksatriyasya

of a warrior /ksatriya

smārtam

enjoined by the smritis

na kenacid darsayitum sakyah

it is not possible for anybody to show

gītā-sāstre

in the gita scriptures

samuccayah

combination

īsan-mātrenāpi

even in the least

ātma-jñānasya

of knowledge of the self

karmanā

with action

srautena smārtena

enjoined by the srutih or the smritis

yasya tv

but in case of a man

pravrttasya

engaged himself

karmani

in action

ajnānāt

because of ignorance

rāgadi-dosatah

and defects like attachment, etc

visuddha-sattvasya

mind purified

yajñena

through sacrifice

dānena

through charity

tapasā

through austerities

jnānam utpannam

there arises the knowledge

paramārtha-tattva-visayam

about the supreme reality

ekam evedam sarvam

all this is but one

brahman akartr ca iti

and that Brahman is not an agent

tasya

of him

nivrtte 'pi

although there is cessation

karmani

action

karma-prayojane

the need for action

samgrahārtham

for the purpose of benefitting the world

yatna-pūrvam yathā pravrttih

what may appear as his diligent continuance in those actions

yathā pūrvam

just as before

tat na tat karma yena buddhih samuccayah syāt

there is no action which could be combined with knowledge

yathā bhagavatā vāsudevasya

just as (the actions) of Lord vasudeva

ksatra-dharma-cestitam

in performing the duty of a ksatriya

na jnānena samuccīyate

do not get combined with knowledge

purusārthasiddhaye

for the sake of achieving the human goal

tadvat

so

vidusah

in the case of the man of knowledge

tat-phalābhisamdhy-ahamkārābhāvasya

because of the absence of hankering for results and agentship

tulyatvād

similar

tattvavin

a man who has realized the truth

manyate

thinks

manyate

thinks

nāham karomīti manyate

does not think "I am doing this"

na ca tat-phalam abhisandatte

and nor does he hanker after it's results

yathā ca svargādi-kāmārthino

and just as a person seeking such desirable things as heaven etc.

āhitāgneh

may light up a fire

'gnihotrādi-karma-laksana-dharmānusthānāya

for performing such duties as agnihotra etc.

kāmya

which are the means to attain desirable things

agnihotrādau pravrttasya

while he is still engaged in the performance of agnihotra, etc

sāmi krte vinastā api kāme

the desire may get destroyed when the rite is half done

agnihotrādy anutisthato 'pi

he may nevertheless continue in the performance of agnihotra, etc

na tat-kāmyam agnihotrādi bhavati

but those agnihotra, etc is no longer for his personal gain (tat-kāmyam)

tathā ca darsayati bhagavān

accordingly the lord also shows (causative)

kurvann api na lipyate na karoti na lipyate iti

he does not act and he does not become tainted

tatra tatra

in various places

yac ca pūrvaih pūrvataram krtam karmanaiva

"as was performed earlier by the ancient ones"

karmanaiva hi samsiddhim āsthitā janakādayah

for perfection was attained by janakādayah, etc, by action alone

pravibhajya vijñeyam

they are to be understood analytically?

tat katham?

obj: how so?

yadi tāvat pūrve janakādayah tattva-vido 'pi pravrtta- karmānah syuh

as to that, if Janaka, etc. of old times remained engaged in activity even though they were knowers of reality

te loka-samgrārtham

they did so for the purpose of benefitting the world

jñānenaiva samsiddhim āsthitāh

while remaining established in realization through the knowledge

gunā gunesu vartante iti

the qualities/organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs

karma-samnyāse prāpte 'pi

although they had obtained (the stage of) renunciation of action

karmanā sahaiva samsiddhim āsthitāh

they attained perfection along with action

na karma-samnyāsam krtavanta ity arthah

the meaning is they did not renounce action/works

atha na te tattva-vidah

on the other hand, if they were not knowers of reality

vyākhyeyam

then the explanation should be this

īsvara-samarpitena karmanā

through the discipline of dedicating actions to the lord

janakādaya

Janaka and the others

dharma-sammūdha-cetasah

whose mind was confused with regard to his duty

apasyan

not seeing

uddharanam

rescuing, delivering

anyatrātma-jnānād

no other means than self-knowledge

arjunasya

of arjuna

mahati soka-sāgare nimagnasya

who was submerged in the great ocean of greif

bhagavān vasudeva

Lord Vasudeva

uddidhārayisuh

who wished to help him kn

krpayā

out of compassion

ātma-jñānāyāvatārayann āha

introduced him to the knowledge of the self (and) said