Especially the phrase "an_aadimat paraM brahma"
which Vaishnavites, I believe,(e.g. Hare Krishnas)
prefer to read like this: "an_aadi matparaM brahma".
English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary -
Swami Gambhirananda
13.13 Pravaksyami, I shall speak of, fully describe just as it is;
tat, that; yat, which; is jenyam, to be known. In order to interest
the hearer through inducement, the Lord speaks of what its result is:
Jnatva, by realizing; yat, which Knowable; asnute, one attains;
amrtam, Immortality, i.e.; he does not die again. Anadimat, without
beginning-one having a beginning (adi) is adimat; one not having a
beginning is anadimat. What is that? The param, supreme,
unsurpassable; brahma, Brahman, which is under discussion as the
Knowable. Here, some split up the phrase anadimatparam as anadi and
matparam because, if the word anadimat is taken as a Bahuvrihi
compound, ['That which has no (an), beginning (adi) is anadi.' Matup
("PaaNinian" technical grammatical term for the ending 'mat'? --
carde) is used to denote possession. Since the idea of possession is
already implied in anadi, therefore matup, if added after it, becomes
redundant.] then the suffix mat (matup) becomes redundant, which is
undesirable. And they show a distintive meaning: (Brahman is anadi,
beginningless, and is) matparam, that of which I am the supreme
(para) power called Vasudeva. Trully, the redundance could be avoided
in this way if that meanig were possible. But that meaning is not
possible, because what is intended is to make Brahman known only
through a negation of all attributes by saying, 'It is called neither
being nor non-being.' It is contradictory to show a possession of a
distinctive power and to negate attributes. Therefore, although matup
and a bahuvrihi compound convey the same meaning of 'possession', its
(matup's) use is for completing the verse. [The Commentator accepts
anadimat as a nan-tatpurusa compund. If, however, the Bahuvrihi is
insisted on, then the mat after anadi should be taken as completing
the number of syllables needed for versification. So, nat need not be
compounded with param.] Having aroused an interest through inducement
by saying, 'The Knowable which has Immortality as its result is
beeing spoken of by Me,' the Lord says: Tat, that Knowable; ucyate,
is called; na sat, neither being; nor is it called asat, non-being.
Objection: After strongly girding up the loins and declaring with a
loud voice, 'I shall speak of the Knowable,' is it not incongruous to
say, 'That is called neither being nor non-being'? Reply: No. What
has been said is surely consistent. Objection: How? Reply: For in all
the Upanisads, the Knowable, i.e. Brahman, has been indicated only by
negation of all attributes-'Not this, not this' (Br. 4.4.22), 'Not
gross, not subtle' (op. cit. 3.3.8), etc.; but not as 'That is this',
for It is beyond speech. Objection: Is it not that a thing which
cannot be expressed by the word 'being' does not exist? Like-wise, if
the Knowable cannot be expressed by the word 'being', It does not
exist. And it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable', and 'It
cannot be expressed by the word "being".' Counter-objection: As to
that, no that It does not exist, because It is not the object of the
idea, 'It is non-being.' Objection: Do not all cognitions verily
involve the idea of being or non-being? This being so, the Knowable
should either be an object of a cognition involving the idea of
existence, or it should be an object of a cognition involving the
idea of non-existence. Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being
super-sensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of
the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as
pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of
existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of
non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from
the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not,
like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two
ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being. As for
your objection that it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable,
but it is neither called being nor non-being,'-it is not
contradictory; for the Upanisad says, 'That (Brahman) is surely
different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown' (Ke.
1.4). Objection: May it not be that even the Upanisad is
contradictory in its meaning? May it not be (contradictory) as it is
when, after beginning with the topic of a shed for a sacrifice,
[Cf. 'Pracinavamsam karoti, he constructs (i.e. shall construct) (the
sacrificial shed) with its supporting beam turned east-ward' (Tai,
Sam.; also see Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Monier Williams).-Tr.] it
is said, 'Who indeed knows whether there exists anything in the other
world or not!' (Tai. Sam. 6.1.1)? Reply: No, since the Upanisad
speaking of something that is different from the known and the
unknown is meant for establishing an entity that must be realized.
[The Upanisadic text is not to be rejected on the ground that it is
paradoxical, for it is meant to present Brahman as indentical with
one's own inmost Self.] But, '...whether there exists anything in the
other world,' etc. is merely an arthavada [See note on p. 40. Here,
the passage, '...whether there exists...,' etc. is to be interpreted
as an arthavada emphasizing, the need of raising a shed, irrespective
of any other consideration.-Tr.] connected with an injunction. From
reason who it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words
as being, non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an
object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning
through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus,
action, quality and relation; not in any other way, because that is
not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse,
etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through
action; white or black, through quality; a rich person or an owner of
cows, through relation. But Brahman does not belong to any genus.
Hence it is not expressible by words like 'being' etc.; neither is It
possessed of any qualitity with the help of which It could be
expressed through qualifying words, for It is free from qualities;
nor can It be expressed by a word implying action, It being free from
actions-which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'Partless,
actionless, calm' (Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is
one, non-dual, not an object of the senses, and It is the Self.
Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And
this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words trun
back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc. Therefore it is logical that It cannot be
expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts
as, 'From which, words turn back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc. Since the
Knowable (Brahman) is not an object of the word or thought
of 'being', there arises the apprehension of Its nonexistence. Hence,
for dispelling that apprehension by establishing Its existence with
the help of the adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures,
the Lord says:
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
