Sri Lalita Trishati (82. hrI.nkAranilayA)

[Guest guest]

|| AUM mahAgaNapataye namaH ||

|| AUM shrI sha.karAchAryavaryAya namaH ||

|| AUM shrImAtre namaH ||

 

82. hrI.nkAranilayA

She who resides in hrIm.h

 

This name indicates that SHE always resides in hrIM, but is separate

from it, just as the resident is separate from the residence. SHE is

separate from hrIM which is HER residence and which expresses HER as

HER own vAchaka. Without such a relationship hrIm cannot express HER.

 

AUM hrI.nkAranilayAyai namaH

 

(*) The notes are unclear to me, I will be thankful if someone

could clarify. Where is the implication of separateness ? More

to the point, why would one even want to bring about the notion

of separateness and then expound on it ? And what does the last

line "Without such a relationship hrIm cannot express HER" mean ?

Also, what does the statement "SHE always resides in hrIM" mean ?

 

Regards,

Sridhar.

[Guest guest]

, Sridhar - Seshagiri <seshagir@e...> wrote:

> || AUM mahAgaNapataye namaH ||

> || AUM shrI sha.karAchAryavaryAya namaH ||

> || AUM shrImAtre namaH ||

>

> 82. hrI.nkAranilayA

> She who resides in hrIm.h

>

> This name indicates that SHE always resides in hrIM, but is

separate

> from it, just as the resident is separate from the residence. SHE

is

> separate from hrIM which is HER residence and which expresses HER

as

> HER own vAchaka. Without such a relationship hrIm cannot express

HER.

>

> AUM hrI.nkAranilayAyai namaH

>

> (*) The notes are unclear to me, I will be thankful if someone

> could clarify. Where is the implication of separateness ? More

> to the point, why would one even want to bring about the notion

> of separateness and then expound on it ? And what does the last

> line "Without such a relationship hrIm cannot express HER" mean ?

> Also, what does the statement "SHE always resides in hrIM" mean ?

 

a) why would one even want to bring about the notion

> of separateness and then expound on it ?

 

To explore the name in depth. Since 60 names are associated with

hriim, it is good to look at it from various points of view. Some of

them will throw enormous insight and provoke the reader to gain

greated understanding. Like this name clicked a trigger when I was

reading yoga suutra-s vibhuuti paada verse 17.

 

b) Where is the implication of separateness ?

 

It is implicit in the name. When one says "Ramu lives in Apt 13" that

means Ramu is not apartment 13. When I say this my body I am

established here, that means I am not the body.

 

 

c) what does the statement "SHE always resides in hrIM" mean ?

 

Ramu now lives in Apt 13. Will it be always true. His lease or VISA

may expire. He may buy a house, or even die. This will not always

hold good. But what about the relationship between HER and hrIm. It

is permanent. Commenting on tasya vaachakaH praNavaH (YS), vyAsa says

that AUM is symbol of iishvara *always*. That is in all periods of

time, even after hundred cosmic praLayams and recreation. That

relationship is inherent in the structure of mAyA. Nothing can be

done about that. So it is with hrIm. That is why - *always*

 

d) "Without such a relationship hrIm cannot express HER" mean ?

 

This is where, yoga suutras book 3 verse 17 comes into play. It is

pretty tough one. I should say, I have barely understood 1% of it.

This verse and its commentary and foot notes by Swami Hariharananda

AraNya is mind blowing.

 

A word, the object it denotes and the corresponding mental conception

are three different things. There may be overlap. A word is a

symbol. It is not same as the object. This suutra explores this in

details in the context of samyama (another touch concept) on the

sound. Depending on the context, this difference is not seen or the

overlap is great. Also it depends on from what level you see this.

 

i) hrIm is same as HER there is no difference

 

ii) hrIm is HER symbol and it expresses HER, but SHE is different

from it. How can you explain "x" with "x". You have explain "x" with

something you know or atleast comprehend (little bit) or something

that will by chance push you to that understanding.

 

Both are valid in their terms. Here we take (ii). Think of the

following

 

1) What is a word

2) what is sound of the word, or the sequence of alphabets

3) what is hearing and how it is done

4) what happens when you hear

5) What is mental conception?

6) How one can perceive the object outside mental conception.

 

Can one do a samyama (chain of dhAraNa, dhyAna and samadhi) on the

word, its sound, or its mental conception? and what about the reality.

 

This is the subject matter of the suutra and the commentary.

 

 

This is amazingly complex area. I will stop here, as I do not

understand much of it in detail.

 

My 2c.

 

Ravi

 

(sorry for the delay in reply, when you posted the question I did not

understand it, after sometime when I was reading YS V bhaashya, I got

the idea, but completely forgot to post it. Yesterday, when I was

reading Swami Yogananda's works, it struck the cord again, I thought

I will share my 2c).