New interpretation of Yoga Suutra

[Madhav Deshpande]

I would like Shri Bhadraiah to explain the notion of apazruti in reading
the rule as draSTuHsvarUpe?  With sandhi in the sense of unbroken
utterance, the rule must, in any case, read: tadAdraSTuHsvarUpe~vasthAnaM.
Splitting it one way or the other, as far as I can see, is a question of
interpretation, not of pronunciation.  Consider the debates over the
Bhagavad-giitaa line:  naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sata.h.
There are commentaries, such as that one Madhva, which read this line as:
naasata.h vidyate abhaava.h, naabhava.h vidyate asata.h.  Whether one
accepts this interpretation or not, the zruti "sounding" of the sandhied
line remains the same.  Best,
                                        Madhav Deshpande

 On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Bhadraiah Mallampalli wrote:

> >From: Dmitri <dmitris at PIPELINE.COM>
>
> One quick question please.
>
> I.3 tadAdraSTuHsvarUpe~vasthAnaM which was split as
>
> tadA draSTuHsvarUpe avasthAnaM
>
> I like to split it as
>
> tadA adraSTuHsvarUpe avasthAnaM
>
> As everything perceived is a transformation (of what is already known such
> as agni or vAc), one has to transcend what is perceived; because what is not
> perceived alone is what stands apart.
>
> In many cases (such as above), even a chanting of the sUtra can locate a
> possible error. "draSTuHsvarUpe" seems to contain some apazruti, as it needs
> too much labor on a weaker ground. "adraSTuHsvarUpe" sounds perfect.
>
> Or did I misread the whole thing?
>
> Regards
> Bhadraiah
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>