Madhusuudana says: Pravaks.yaami, I shall clearly (pra), thoroughly, speak; of tat, that; yat jñeyam, which is to be known by a seeker of liberation. In order to draw the attention of the hearer, the Lord, eulogizing it by mentioning its results, says; jñaatvaa, by knowing; yat, which, the entity to be known, which is going to be spoken of; as`nute, one attains; amr.tam, deathlessness, i.e. one become free from the world. What is it? Param, the supreme, all surpassing; brahma, Brahman, the entity called the supreme Self, unlimited in every repect; which is anaadimat that which does not have a beginning is anadimat. Here, though the meaning is obtained from merely the word anaadi formed as a bahuvriihi compound (thus that which has no aadi , beginning, is anaadi), still the suffix matup is used to denote super-excellence or constancy. If the word anaadi, beginningless, alone is used, then it may as well refer to the unmanifest (pradhana) etc. which also, as series, are beginningless. The addition of mat obviates this difficulty.
Some prefer (the division of this text anaadimatparam into) the words anaadi and matparam. The meaning (of matparam then) is, mat to Me, param, the superior, (who am the qualified Brahman). However, it is wrong to explain (the phrase as), `That (brahman) of which I am the supreme power call Vaasudeva', because, the context being that of presenting the unconditioned Brahman, it is out of place to speak of the possession of power. The Lord states the unconditioned nature itself: Tat, That; ucyate, is called; na sat, neither being; na asat, nor non-being. That which becomes and object of valid knowledge through positive assertion is referred to by the word sat. But that which becomes an object of knowledge through negative assertion is referred to by the word asat. However, this One is different from both of these because It is attributeless and is by nature self-effulgent Consciousness as has been said in the Shruti. > > > > anaadimatparaM brahma > > > > Shankara: *anaadimat* paraM brahma > > A.C: anaadi *matparaM* brahma > >From AS-IT-IS: Chapter 13, verse 12/13 jneyam yat tat pravaksyami yaj jnatvamrtam asnute anadi mat-param brahma na sat tan nasad ucyate SYNONYMS jneyam--knowable; yat--that; tat--which; pravaksyami--I shall now explain; yat--which; jnatva--knowing; amrtam--nectar; asnute--taste; anadi--beginningless; ***mat-param--subordinate to Me***; brahma--spirit; na--neither; sat--cause; tat--that; na--nor; asat--effect; ucyate--is called. TRANSLATION I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. This is beginningless, and it is subordinate to Me. It is called Brahman, the spirit, and it lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world. --- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anaadimatparaM brahma > > > > > > > Hmmm...just realized one thing that might or mightn't be > > "crucial". > > > > So, devanaagarii (DN) is a syllabic writing system: as a main > > rule, almost all characters form a syllable that consist > > of a consonant (k, kh, g, gh, and so on), a conjunct consonant > > (st, kl, str, gr, pr, etc.) and a diacritic for the vowel > > after [in Roman and pronunciation] the consonant/conjunct consonant). > > > > One of several peculiarities of DN is that the diacritic for a > > *short* 'i' is written *before* the consonant/conjunct consonant. > > > > So, e.g. in 'anaadi* the last syllable, di, looks to someone not > > used to that pecularity like it would read 'id'. > > > > We have never thought about whether it's a convention, or stuff, > > to write whatever follows the 'di' (or any such combination) > > without a space between it and the following syllable -- in > > the line, or rather part of a line in question, mat (actually > > ma-tpa-ram, but that's not important here). > > > > All that boils down to this: if one writes (in DN) 'anaadimat', it > > might or mightn't indicate that one thinks thats a word > > in its own right, or whatever, and the "wording" anaadi matparam > > is not justified. > > > > (And we are afraid almost no-one understands what the fak > > we are trying to explain...) > > > > Just read that and realized what a supreme teacher Maharishi > was. He could explain extremely abstract stuff so that most > people had at least a chance to understand what he was > talking about! ;D >
