Dec 12, 2013 — USA (SUN) —
Recently, I saw an article concerning Bhagavad-gita 1.46. In the article, one of the questions asked is:
"How did JAS change the word upastha to upasthe when he separated the word rathopastha, which consists of two words - ratha and upastha?"
First and foremost, my respects to all devotees, including the devotee who has raised the question.
Then I would like to say that — "Without touching any other question raised by the author, the simple fact is that the term 'upasthe' used in the new edited edition is the correct breakup."
Why so?
This is because of the verb 'upāviśat' which immediately follows the term upasthe. The term upāviśat begins with a vowel "u" and that is what causes the entire transformation. While writing the original verse, the terms are all joined together according to rules of sandhi, and while breaking down the verse into synonyms (which is technically known as 'anvaya'), the sandhis are broken apart and the original terms are shown to the readers.
In the English language, the term 'empathy' is an example of this.
When the original word is spoken, it is spoken with rules of sandhi, as empathy, whereas when it is broken up, the word-for-word is given on the website as 'en' + 'pathy'.
Similar is the case with the word rathopastha upāviśat.
For those who do not wish to get into technicalities, the simple truth is that since the term 'upāviśat' (beginning with the vowel 'u') is present after 'upasthe', the 'upasthe' changes to 'upastha'. However, since the purpose of the synonyms is to show the original terms, the term 'upasthe' regains its original form in the synonyms.
Those who want to get into the technicalities, the formation of the term "rathopastha upāviśat" from "rathopasthe upāviśat" is as follows,
rathopasthe + upāviśat
= rathopasth + ay + upāviśat (according to Pāṇini 6.1.78 — eco 'ayavāyāvaḥ)
= rathopastha + upāviśat (deletion of 'y', according to Pāṇini 8.3.19 — lopaḥ śākalyasya)
Thus, the final formation in the verse is rathopastha upāviśat, whereas the breakup is rathopasthe + upāviśat. Thus, the changing of upastha to upasthe is justified according to rules of Sanskrit Grammar.
In fact, if the synonyms would have maintained the term 'upastha' instead of upasthe, then there would be a mistake as follows,
rathopastha + upāviśat
= rathopasthopāviśat (according to Pāṇini 6.1.87 — ād guṇaḥ).
This would have led to the incorrect term 'rathopasthopāviśat' in Lord Krishna's original words.
Someone may not want to believe the way I have explained it all, so I am also attaching a screenshot of Sri Ramanujacharya's commentary on the same verse, where he uses the original unbroken term 'rathopastha upāviśat', and the subsequent sub-commentary of his devoted follower Sri Vedanta Deshika's where he breaks down the same term as 'rathopasthe'.
If someone still doesn't believe what I have to say, they can also see all editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is Verse 2.9, where the original verse has "na yotsya iti" and in the synonyms, the term "yotsya" has been changed to "yotsye", because of the vowel "i" which follows in the term "iti" after it.
Finally and most importantly, I do not work for the BBT. Nor am I trying to support anyone because of a personal bias. I only wanted to comment on this ONE SPECIFIC issue and nothing else. I certainly do not wish to answer any questions related to translation changes. Respects to one and all again by,
their servant,
Hari Parshad das
