Huseng wrote:Can anyone help explain what "yāvata keci" means in the following stanza? I get the rest of what is being said, but "yāvata keci" I do not. Amoghavajra translates it as "所有". Is this just part of the relative clause?
yāvata keci daśaddiśi loke sarvatriyadhvagatā narasiṁhāḥ |
tānahu vandami sarvi aśeṣān kāyatu vāca manena prasannaḥ ||
Huifeng wrote:Now, to work out a relative and corelative in Chinese is not that smooth or easy, so just saying "All of them" (所有) ... "...to them" (彼), is a nice efficient way of doing it.
Huseng wrote:Huifeng wrote:Now, to work out a relative and corelative in Chinese is not that smooth or easy, so just saying "All of them" (所有) ... "...to them" (彼), is a nice efficient way of doing it.
Thank you Venerable，
Do you think Amoghavajra thought 所有 to mean "all of them"? It seems more like "existent" here (like 有個).
Huifeng wrote:If one is not a slave to Sanskrit grammar, and not being a slave in this case would be a wise thing to do, then saying "All of them..." would be very appropriate English. Remember, in the end, the translation has to actually look something like the target language...
tantular wrote:There's all types of barbaric things going on to make it fit the meter (4 regular feet, each consisting of three dactyls and a spondee -uu -uu -uu --, I don't think it has a name in classical Sanskrit prosody) that you wouldn't even find in BHS prose.
Huseng wrote:Very good advice. Thank you.
I did notice that a lot of the vocabulary from these verses is not to be found in any dictionary. Comparing it to the Chinese has things make more sense, though quite often the grammar I'm seeing is simply not found in the standard Sanskrit manual. Some declensions are not on any table!
tantular wrote:As you can see my BHS is rusty, and I'm continually mislead by reading BHS from a classical perspective. Avoid this trap by getting into a Prakrit state of mind!
yāvata niṣṭha nabhasya bhaveyyā sattva aśeṣata niṣṭha tathaiva |
karmatu kleśatu yāvata niṣṭhā tāvata niṣṭha mama praṇidhānam || 46 ||
lābha sulabdha sajīvitu teṣāṁ svāgata te imu mānuṣajanma |
yādṛśu so hi samantatabhadraste'pi tathā nacireṇa bhavanti || 50 ||
Huseng wrote:I fold my hands to you, tantular. Your knowledge and skill with Indic languages is truly impressive.
I very much value your input here and will put it to good use.
tantular wrote:I'm glad to help anyone trying to read texts in their original language. As you can see, even a translation into other Buddhist languages like Chinese or Tibetan simply can't convey the deliberate use of Prakrit and Apabhramsha forms or grammatical deviations, which is a crucial component in the "feel" of Sanskrit sūtras and tantras. I jokingly called it "barbaric" earlier, but for Buddhists (& Jains, Shaivites, Shaktas) ārṣa language (language of the rishis, as opposed to the language of Pāṇini) expressed the sanctity of scripture—it just feels like a totally different kind of text. Read it any other language and you miss out on this layer.
I've studied Sanskrit for about 10 years, with a little Pali and Prakrit. Not an academic.
Users browsing this forum: Fruitzilla and 10 guests