My sanskrit interpretations and can you appreciate it?

My argument for my interpretations.

The language is read from left to right (at least Sanskrit is ) and when it is translated into english sure there will be some differences in the way a sentence is understood but the words do not have to jumbled up to make meaning, and if the words are given the correct meaning it can be understood the way it is meant to be understood reading from left to right. When Sanskrit is read and practiced that way, it should be understood that way. The beauty of veda is it should allow you to close eyes in the way you can ponder its measure. See my translation or interpretation of the verses word to word and the full meaning and see if you can appreciate it.

Sanskrit is no longer a spoken language. It has been absorbed by regional languages and the ending of these words have that regional language spelling or dialect but it does not change that the word comes from Sanskrit. Too often it is said not be sanskrit because it is not spelled the same way or enunciated the same way. Telugu’s do not all enunciate or speak the same way or understand the words the same way. 

What I am seeing when I open Gita is form of Telugu that is not understood in the way either Telugu or Sanskrit is studied at present day. If 1.42 Gita patanti means fall down, there might be validity to my argument about the work that I am doing. And as with many other words. Please also take a look at all that I have posted and my meaning of sahanavavatu, and Gita meditation verse also to know what I am speaking of.

I might be on my own with what I am doing I neither knowing Telugu well, or Sanskrit and am only to rely on the way I am seeing the meaning how it is speaking to me and my spiritual experience.  

When a verse is translated it should have this flow of language and understanding. Take for example 1.32 and 1.33.

1.32-1.33

na kāṅkṣe vijayam kṛiṣhṇa na ca rājyaṁ sukhāni ca
kiṁ no rājyena govinda kiṁ bhogair jīvitena vā
yeṣām arthe kāṅkṣitaṁ no rājyaṁ bhogāḥ sukhāni ca
ta ime’ vasthitā yuddhe prāṇāṁs tyaktvā dhanāni ca

The meaning online.

https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/1/verse/32-33

I combined 1.32 and 1.33. JK yog webiste also has it this way. Tapasyananda’a version has 1.32 and 1.33-1.34 combined. One thing noticed about the JK yog website was the “h” was added to a lot of words where there is no “h” in the way it is written in sanskrit, for example “ca” and many other words. Other versions of text do not have this “h” in the words, the Sanskrit of the transliteration to English is as is!

My meaning

1.32-1.33

na kāṅkṣe vijayaṁ kṛiṣhṇa na ca rājyam sukhāni ca
kiṁ no rājyena govinda kiṁ bhogair jīvitena vā
yeṣām arthe kāṅkṣitaṁ no rājyam bhogāḥ sukhāni ca
ta ime’ vasthitā yuddhe prāṇāṁs tyaktvā dhanāni ca

na – not

kāṅkṣe – do I desire

vijayaṁ – victory

kṛiṣhṇa – krishna

na – not

ca – also

rājyam – having the kingdom

sukhāni  – the happiness from it

ca – also

kim- why

no – even

rājyena – if I am the king

govinda – all will be gone or have to be given up in the end

kiṁm – why

bhogair – the luxuries

jīvitena – by which to live this life

vā – either

yeṣām – for whose sake in the end the thrown out or discarded

arthe  – meaning

kāṅkṣitaṁ – desired to know

no – even

rājyam – having the kingdom

bhogāḥ – the luxuries of it

sukhāni – will bring about that happiness

ca – also

ta ime’ – from me

vasthitā – the true, reality of which is

yuddhe – to fight

prāṇāṁs – with one’s life

tyaktvā – is to sacrifice

dhanāni – the wealth they have

ca – also

Full meaning: Not do I desire victory Krishna. Not also having the kingdom the happiness from it also. Why even if I am the king all will be gone or have to be given up in the end. Why the luxuries by which to live this life or either the thrown out or discarded meaning that I desired to know; even if having the kingdom the luxuries of it, will bring about that happiness also. From me the true, reality of which is, to fight with one’s life is to sacrifice the wealth they have also. 

I chose this verse for my argument to be understood. Govinda means all is gone in the end or must be given up in the end, and what is chanted by the people going up to the vekateswara in Thirupati, it is how Telugu’s use it. Govinda does not necessarily only mean a name of krishna. Why does the poet use Govinda here and not Krishna or madhu sudana in this particular verse, that should be thought about also to understand why it makes sense to me that way.

This particular verse and the meaning I have is not that much different from what is in the text if are looking for the gist of it. There are verses where my meaning makes a difference that you can see. I suggest you look at some of the other verses I have translated or interpreted below.  I hope what I am doing can be understood and appreciated.  

https://iksvakave.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/17-22-adesa-kale-yad-danam/ 

https://iksvakave.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/gita-4-38/

https://iksvakave.wordpress.com/category/iksvakave-entries-am-i-a-hindu/meditation-verse-on-gita/

https://iksvakave.wordpress.com/category/iksvakave-entries-am-i-a-hindu/sahanavavatu-mantra/

Thank you for taking the time!