SankarAcArya's bhagavad gItA bhAshya: 2. 19-20

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Charles Wikner <WIKNER at NACDH4.NAC.AC.ZA> wrote:

>However, in this particular case (taking abhavitA as correct), the
>two words should then NOT be written with a space separating them
>(as I have it in several editions).

Perhaps some manuscripts do have a space here. As Anand has pointed out,
Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati has given a commentary taking the reading to be
bhavitA. The case must have been even more complicated in the distant past
when the text was being handed down mainly as an oral tradition!

>thus read bhavitA as bhU+luT.  But na~n is not an upasarga, and
>therefore cannot be prefixed to the verb, thus bhavitA must be
>prathamA of bhavitR.  The dictionary entry for that (M-W 749c)
>mentions that the form bhavitA is "also used as a future tense
>with or without /as".

I did not consider the luT case at all, and assumed bhavitA to come from
bhavitR. The commentary helped - yo hi bhUtvA na bhavitA sa mriyate ity
ucyate loke - here bhavitA goes clearly with yaH and saH, ergo bhavitR. I
can't remember any other instance of this word from my admittedly limited
knowledge of Skt. literature.

.....
>
>> translation could only benefit by them. It is certainly a daunting task,
>
>Daunt: to tame, subdue  <--  L. domare, to tame  <--  Skt. damu upaSame.
>
>Daunting task  -->  tranquil mind.  That's a problem ?

True! I find that I cannot do justice to the work when the mind is not
tranquil. It is maintaining that tranquility that is difficult!

Vidyasankar