LalithA SahasranAma [414] manovAcAmagocarA

[Guest guest]

manovAcAmagocarA : Beyond mind and speech.

 

Manas included the functions of mind. The Sruti [Tai. Up., II. 9. 1]

says, "From whence speech and mind turn away unable to reach [lit]".

In the Visnu Pr. PrahlAda's saying is, "I bow down to the supreme

Isvari who transcends speech and mind and who can be grasped by the

wisdom of the wise alone."

 

Or, in whom is not to be found any object of thought or speech.

 

Or, A is to be prefixed to the name, then, manas, mind, vAcA,

speech, Ama, not purified [lit unbaked, eg. A clay vessel]

A, not, she is beyond those whose mind and speech are not purified

and therefore cannot be known by them. How is it, the Sruti in one

place says, "the mind turns away, etc" and again in another place.

[Katha. Up. IV. 11}, "By mind alone it should be perceived, etc"?

This contradiction is removed in the BhAmati [the commentary on

Samkara's commentary on the Ved. SU. By Vacaspati-Misra] by

adding "Not purified and purified" respectively to the word "mind".

 

 

BhAskararAya's Commentary

Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry

[Guest guest]

In case anyone cares to comment or correct the inconsistency, the

version of LS that I use (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 2000) gives this

as name 415.

 

Here is Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy's modern commentary:

 

"Mano-vAchAmagocharA [means] 'beyond the grasp of mind and speech.'

The Mind cannot comprehend Her, nor can speech describe Her. She is

yato vAcho nivartante, 'where words turn back.' (AnnapUrnA Upanisad,

2). Yanneti neti vachanaiH nigamA avochuH, 'She is the One whom the

Vedas describe as NOT THIS, NOT THIS.' Mind and speech are Her

creations, and are very far removed from Her; as such, they cannot

apprehend Her."

 

 

, "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...>

wrote:

>

> manovAcAmagocarA : Beyond mind and speech.

>

> Manas included the functions of mind. The Sruti [Tai. Up., II. 9.

1]

> says, "From whence speech and mind turn away unable to reach

[lit]".

> In the Visnu Pr. PrahlAda's saying is, "I bow down to the supreme

> Isvari who transcends speech and mind and who can be grasped by

the

> wisdom of the wise alone."

>

> Or, in whom is not to be found any object of thought or speech.

>

> Or, A is to be prefixed to the name, then, manas, mind, vAcA,

> speech, Ama, not purified [lit unbaked, eg. A clay vessel]

> A, not, she is beyond those whose mind and speech are not purified

> and therefore cannot be known by them. How is it, the Sruti in one

> place says, "the mind turns away, etc" and again in another place.

> [Katha. Up. IV. 11}, "By mind alone it should be perceived, etc"?

> This contradiction is removed in the BhAmati [the commentary on

> Samkara's commentary on the Ved. SU. By Vacaspati-Misra] by

> adding "Not purified and purified" respectively to the word "mind".

>

>

> BhAskararAya's Commentary

> Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry