--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > GYeyaM yattatpravakShyaami yajGYaatvaamR^itamashnute . > anaadi matparaM brahma na sattannaasaduchyate .. 13\-13.. >
"Clarifying", without sandhi: jñeyam; yat; tat; pravakSyaami; yat; jñaatvaa; amRtam; ashnute | an_aadimat; param (Vaishnava[?]: an_aadi; mat-param); brahma; na; sat; tat; na; asat; ucyate > > > Note that the transliteration above is apparently > by a "Hare Krishna". The Devanaagarii even in Swami > Prabhupaada's As It Is has it "anaadimatparaM brahma", > and the Roman as "anaadimat paraM brahma", > although technically there would be no need to write > "anaadi" and "mat" together if one is for the Vaishnava(?) > interpretation of those words that Shankara below objects to. > On the other hand, accoding to the rules of DN, "mat" and > "param" are to be written together, which actually makes > the "Hare Krishna" interpretation feasible. > > (There might be something missing below, because the pd-file > was for me rather difficult to cut and paste.) > > Shankara's commentary on Giitaa XIII 13, translated > by 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 (a), beginning > (adi) is anadi.' Matup is used to denote possession. Since the idea of > possession is a 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: > 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/
