Sanskrit Discussion: How Would You Translate These Two Expressions:

How Would You Translate These Two Expressions:
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Vees
2007-05-10 08:50:56 EST
Dear friends,

I often here these two expressions in various Indian chants:

* Tasmai sri guruve namah
* Hare Om

I believe that these two expressions mean:

* I bow to my teacher
* I call (take) Om

Are these translations correct?

Am I correct in assuming that "Hare Om" could be translated as "I call
unto the One God" and that "Tasmai sri guruve namah" could be
translated as "I bow to the One God", that both of these expressions
are doxologies, praises to the One God?

Could somebody please translate "Tasmai sri guruve namah" word by word
for me?

Many thanks & kind regards,

VS


Romanise
2007-05-10 09:00:09 EST
On 10 May, 13:50, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I often here these two expressions in various Indian chants:
>
> * Tasmai sri guruve namah

tasmai "to that" shri "Esq" gurave"to teach" namah"oblation, bow"

> * Hare Om

hari"one of the appelations of God Vishnu" Om"appelation of universal
truth"



Vees
2007-05-10 18:21:19 EST
On May 10, 9:00 am, Romanise <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 May, 13:50, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends,
>
> > I often here these two expressions in various Indian chants:
>
> > * Tasmai sri guruve namah
>
> tasmai "to that" shri "Esq" gurave"to teach" namah"oblation, bow"
>
> > * Hare Om
>
> hari"one of the appelations of God Vishnu" Om"appelation of universal
> truth"


Thanks for the clarification. would then the proper translation into
English of "Hare Om" be "God is the Universal Truth"?


I*@comcast.net
2007-05-10 23:13:34 EST
On May 10, 5:21 pm, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 9:00 am, Romanise <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 May, 13:50, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear friends,
>
> > > I often here these two expressions in various Indian chants:
>
> > > * Tasmai sri guruve namah
>
> > tasmai "to that" shri "Esq" gurave"to teach" namah"oblation, bow"
>
> > > * Hare Om
>
> > hari"one of the appelations of God Vishnu" Om"appelation of universal
> > truth"
>
> Thanks for the clarification. would then the proper translation into
> English of "Hare Om" be "God is the Universal Truth"?

The word "God" has many confusing connotations - it is not a well-
defined word, lacks personality and form, and it is often abused by
monotheistic traditions. Where as, in Vedic traditions, Hari/Vishnu
has definite personality, traits, form. Hindus prefer to refer to
Vishnu as Vishnu, to avoid all ambiguity and negetives associated with
the western word "God". There is a consensus among all religions that
something akin to god exists, but beyond that, there is no consensus.
God is where consensus begins as well as ends. We do not have
universal concept of God that all religions agree on. So how can God
be universal truth? We can say that universal truth = God, but
converse is not true, God is not = Universal Truth. Some people might
worship rat as God, but that does not make rat = universal truth. Got
my point?



AKT
2007-05-11 00:30:48 EST
vees <vineyardsaker@gmail.com> wrote:

> * Tasmai sri guruve namah

"I bow to that teacher."

Clearly , this should comes after something about the teacher has
already been said.

Made-up illustrative example "Who came and lifted me from my ignorance,
I bow to that teacher."

> * Hare Om

More likely "Hari Om". Difficult to translate!

Hari is God in His Preserver role (the other two being Creator and
Destroyer).

Om (=Aum) is the Hindu representation of the most basic religious
truth. (It is the *only* sound that is not alphabetized, but given its
own symbol, which is used in no other connection.)

Jivadas
2007-05-20 10:35:34 EST

This <zloka> Shloka Verse says, in full:

gurur brahma gurur viSNur
gurur devo mah^ezvaraH |
gurur eva paraM brahma
tasmai zrI gurave namaH

guruH brahma - The teacher is Brahma the Immense; -- guruH viSNuH -
the teacher is Vishnu the Pervader;--
guruH devaH mahA-Izvara - the teacher is the god of great-power
[<ziva> Shiva]
guruH - the teacher -- eva - in fact -
[in another popular version, this line says <gurur sAkSAt paraM
brahma>=<sa-akSa-at> "with-eyes-thus" or "evidently".]
paraM brahma - the supreme Brahman Immensity -


tasmai - to that --
zrI-gurave - Shri Guru - Rev. Teacher --
[is this:]
namaH - bowing, honoring, reverencing.

The teacher is Brahma, Vishnu,
and Shiva the Enforcer; the
teacher is the supreme Brahman --
for that fine teacher is this praise!




Nikolaj
2007-05-21 12:30:31 EST
Exactly. Do you know where this stance is from (which text, or something)?

My version says 'gurus sAkSAt', not 'gurur'.




> This <zloka> Shloka Verse says, in full:
> ...

Joachim Pense
2007-05-21 14:42:01 EST
Am Mon, 21 May 2007 18:30:31 +0200 schrieb Nikolaj:

> Exactly. Do you know where this stance is from (which text, or something)?
>
> My version says 'gurus sAkSAt', not 'gurur'.
>

Shouldn't it be 'guruH sAkSat'?

Joachim

Nikolaj
2007-05-22 14:12:40 EST
Joachim Pense pravi:
> Am Mon, 21 May 2007 18:30:31 +0200 schrieb Nikolaj:
>
>> Exactly. Do you know where this stance is from (which text, or something)?
>>
>> My version says 'gurus sAkSAt', not 'gurur'.
>>
>
> Shouldn't it be 'guruH sAkSat'?
>

It seems that final sibilants have some alternative sandhis.

From Wikner's grammar:

172. Before an initial sibilant - z, S, s - s is either assimilated,
becoming the same sibilant, or it is changed into visarga.

a. The native grammarians are in some measure at variance as to which of
these changes ahould be made, and in part they allow either at pleasure.
The usage of the manuscripts is also discordant; the conversion of
visarga is the prevalent practice, though the sibilant is also not
infrequently found written, especially in South-Indian manuscripts.
European editions generally write visarga; but the later dictionaries
and glossaries generally make the alphabetic place of a word the same as
if the sibilant were read instead.

Examples: manuH svayam or manus svayam;
indraH zUraH or indraz zUraH;
tAH SaT or tAS SaT

173. There are one or two exceptions to these rules:

a. If the initial sibilant has a surd mute after it, the final s may be
dropped altogether - and by some authorities is required to be dropped.
Thus vAyava stha or vAyavaH stha; catustanAm or catuHstanAm. With regard
to this point the usage of the different manuscripts and editions is
greatly in variance.

b. Before ts, the s is allowed to become visarga, instead of being retained.

Joseph
2007-06-18 17:14:24 EST
<*d@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1178853214.192494.114900@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 5:21 pm, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 10, 9:00 am, Romanise <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10 May, 13:50, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Dear friends,
>>
>> > > I often here these two expressions in various Indian chants:
>>
>> > > * Tasmai sri guruve namah
>>
>> > tasmai "to that" shri "Esq" gurave"to teach" namah"oblation, bow"
>>
>> > > * Hare Om
>>
>> > hari"one of the appelations of God Vishnu" Om"appelation of universal
>> > truth"
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. would then the proper translation into
>> English of "Hare Om" be "God is the Universal Truth"?
>
> The word "God" has many confusing connotations - it is not a well-
> defined word, lacks personality and form, and it is often abused by
> monotheistic traditions. Where as, in Vedic traditions, Hari/Vishnu
> has definite personality, traits, form. Hindus prefer to refer to
> Vishnu as Vishnu, to avoid all ambiguity and negetives associated with
> the western word "God". There is a consensus among all religions that
> something akin to god exists, but beyond that, there is no consensus.
> God is where consensus begins as well as ends. We do not have
> universal concept of God that all religions agree on. So how can God
> be universal truth? We can say that universal truth = God, but
> converse is not true, God is not = Universal Truth. Some people might
> worship rat as God, but that does not make rat = universal truth. Got
> my point?

That does not mean the one true "God", i.e. the cause of all causues is not
the absolute truth. He is regardless of who or what people may worship in
His place.


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron