Sri Lalita Trishati (24. etattadityanirdeshyA)

[Guest guest]

|| AUM mahAgaNapataye namaH ||

|| AUM shrI sha.karAchAryavaryAya namaH ||

|| AUM shrImAtre namaH ||

 

 

24. etattadityanirdeshyA

She who cannot be described as this or that.

 

"etat" is that which can be delimited as so much in space and time. "tat"

is beyond the sense experience and hence, it cannot be defined.

 

According to the pANini sUtra "itthaM bhAve tR^itiyA", ettaditi is

described by the words "this" and "that". Hence the name means, SHE who

cannot be described or defined by "this" or "that". In this world, it is

possible to define only things which have qualities by the means of

qualifications. For instance, parokShatva which means "being beyond

senses" which is its qualification. But in HER case, attributes which are

in the range of mind and speech, such as kind, quality, action, possession

and so on, are unrelated to HER. brahman is without any attributes.

shrutis say "ashabdam asparsham arUpam avvyayam" [kenopaniShad 3-15] which

means "without sound, touch, form, and unexpendable". "nirguNam

nishkalam" [shvetashvataropaniShad 6-19] which means "without attributes

or parts". In such a case, by what agency or words can such brahman be

defined?

 

"yadvAchAnabhyuditam" [kenopaniShad 1-4] which means "whose is not

expressed by speech". SHE is beyond one's perception, knowledge, mind or

speech.

 

Or "etat" can mean the "jagat" which is the result and which can be

verified by the senses. And it is subsequent to the cause. "tat" means the

unseen cause of the "jagat", which is antecedent to it and near it. The

word "iti" connects both these terms. Hence, the name can mean, SHE who is

the pure consciousness which cannot be defined as cause or effect, as SHE

has no limitation which can produce either cause or effect. SHE is beyond

the causal law. Hence it is not possible for the words "cause" and

"effect" to describe HER.

 

The word "etat" can also mean "jIvA". "jIvA" is the individual

awareness which is perceptible and known to all as the 'I' notion. It

is expressed by the word "tvam". The word "tat" denotes "Ishvara",

the awareness which is known beyond the sense experience. The word

"iti" means 'the same only'. Hence by this name different schools of

philosophy are indicated. In the "sAmkhyamata", "prakR^iti" is the

creatrix, and awareness "jIva" is multiple in nature. In

"sAmkhyamata" it is accepted that there is no overlord "Ishvara". In

"bhagavatamata" , according to the saying "guNi sarvavit"

[shvetAshvatAropaniShad 6-16] which means "with attributes all

knowing", it is accepted that jIvAs are impermanent. Their birth and

death are caused by the supreme Lord, viShNu, with eternal attributes

and who is the only ultimate. Since both these schools of thought are

rejected by the upaniShadic school by the author of brahmasUtras and

their commentators, SHE cannot be defined as posited in sAmkhya or

bhAgavata schools. SHE can only be mentioned as the "devata"

mentioned in the "ChandogyopaniShad", as the ultimate reality of the

form "sat-chit-Ananda". Or as mentioned in the kaNADa school, SHE

cannot be defined as having a constantly distinct and separate form

from jIva and the Ishvara who is "taTastha". The tarkikAs or

logicians argue that jIvAtma and paramAtma are different, but for

vedAntins they are one. It is not possible to establish a definite

separateness between them.

 

AUM etattadityanirdeshyAyai namaH