NOTES ON BRAHMASUUTRA IIIE

[Guest guest]

sadaashiva samaarambhaam shankaraachaarya madhyamam|

asmadaachaarya paryantaam vande guruparamparaam||

 

I prostrate to the lineage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who is ever

auspicious and with Bhagavaan Shankara in the middle and all the way up to

my own teacher.

 

vaatsalya ruupam triguNairatiitam

aananda saandram amalairnidhaanam|

shree chinamayaananda guro praNiitam

sadaa bhajeham tava paada pankajam||

 

Who is the very embodiment of motherly affection who is beyond the three

guNa-s, who is full with bliss, and who is the very source of purity who is

the best among the teachers, Shree Chinmayaananda, to his lotus feet I

(sada) always prostrate.

--------------------------------

Notes on Brahmasuutra IIIE

 

 

It should be understood from the analysis presented so far that in all our

transactions, we all have this problem of adhyaasa or error involving

aatma-anaatma mithuniikaraNam - satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam - mixing up of

real and unreal or aatma and anaatma. In should be recognized that we have

one unitary experience, but unaware that in that unitary experience, we are

mixing two things in all our transactions. This is exactly like the fellow,

who mistakes that there is a snake, is not aware of the fact that he is

mixing two things; a real rope as an existent entity and an unreal snake.

In his vision there is one single entity or unitary experience that it is a

snake. So when I say 'aham jaanaami', 'I know' it looks like there is one

single entity, knower. But upon analysis there is mixing up of 'chetana

aatma' conscious self and 'achetana vR^itti', inert thoughts are involved.

 

Hence Shankara says in Atmabodha:

 

aatmanaH sashchidaMshashcha

bhuddher vR^itti ritidvayam|

samyojya cha avivekena

jaanaami iti pravartate||

 

Thus in 'aham jaanaami' - I know - there is 'aatmanaH sat and chit aMashH',

that is 'I am existent and conscious entity' is involved. At the same time

'vRitti', a thought process, in the intellect is involved. The changeless

chit and sat belong to aatma and changing vR^itti belongs to anaatma- these

two get mixed together, forming into one entity leaving me with the notion

that 'I am the knower'.

 

Thus we transact all the time, due to the notions about ourselves, based on

adhyaasa. In the same text, Shankara says:

 

aatmano vikR^iyaa naasti

buddherbodhona jaatvati

jiivasarva malam JNaatvaa

JNaata drashhTeti muhyati||

 

aatma cannot be a knower since it cannot go through the knowing process

(since it is 'avikaaraH', changeless), anaatma cannot be a knower because it

is jaDam or inert. Then we create a new entity by combining aatma and

anaatma, and thus, a 'knower' is born. Thus, there is a mix-up of aatma and

anaatma - satya asatya mithuniikaraNam, real and unreal parts into one

single unitary experience.

 

Thus adhyaasa pramaaNa proves that there is satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam

resulting in adhyaasa.

 

3-11 adhyaasa upasaMhaaraH - Conclusion of adhyaasa bhaashhyam:

 

In this last topic, Shankara says we are interested in this adhyaasa, not

for an academic interest, but for our own evolution, because adhyaasa is

harmful to the entire humanity, since adhyaasa alone brings in the notion

that I am 'anityaH' or mortal. Therefore, because of this adhyaasa, there

is a constant fear of death, and this fear in turn results into constant

insecurity. Hence wealth becomes very important in life, since we have a

strong notion that wealth brings some security - food on a plate to eat, a

shelter above my head etc., through the wealth. But the fact of the matter

is wealth only provides comforts and one can be comfortably insecure, since

the basic insecurity does not go away even if one has any amount of money.

The famous example is the terminal life of multi billionaire -Howard Hughes

of the fifties. Thus because of adhyaasa only there is samsaara. Since

adhyaasa leads to pravR^itti and nivR^itti vyavahaara, we go after things or

try to get rid of things. Because of the adhyaasa 'that I am limited', I go

after for all those things that I like, to remove my limitations. Hence all

types of actions, vyavahaara, are due to adhyaasa alone. These actions

produce merits and demerits or punya and paapa phalam. These, in turn,

result in re-birth, thus cycle of birth and death. Thus adhyaasa propels

one to action, karma, and karma leads to janma, birth. All karma-s are

based on this error. This includes both laukika karma or worldly actions

and vaidika karma or alaukika karma, or scriptural sanctioned actions, since

both involve the notion of kartR^itva bhaava or the notion of doer-ship. To

put it another way around, because of this adhyaasa alone, all the karma-s

originate. Because of laukika and vaidika karma-s, worldly and ritualistic

actions, one reaps different results. The laukika karma-s, the worldly

actions, produce dR^ishhTa phalam or tangible results and vaidika karma-s

produce adR^ishhTa phalam or intangible results. Because of this the cycle

of birth and death, there is the associated suffering involving janma,

jaraa, vyaadhi, duHka, birth, old-age, disease and suffering, etc.

 

If we want to get rid off samsaara, we need to get over the adhyaasa or

committing the error. Only remedy to samsaara is adhyaasa nivR^itti. How

does adhyaasa go away? - Only by eliminating the cause of adhyaasa. Cause

for adhyaasa is aJNaanam or ignorance. Ignorance will go away only with

knowledge - hence athaato brahma giJNaasa - inquiry into the nature of

Brahman.

 

This adhyaasa occurs at various levels. The first adhyaasa is that 'aham

pramaataa' or I am a knower' caused by the mixing up of aatma and the anthaH

karaNam, mind and intellect. Through the mind, the error, as if, flows down

to sense organ level. At that level, there is further mixing up I and the

sense organs resulting in the second level of adhyaasa. For example, if I

say 'I am blind' - the problem of the sense organ is super imposed on aatma.

Through the sense organs the error further flows down to the level of the

body - aham purushhaH, aham strii, aham sthuulaH, aham vR^iddaH, I am a man,

woman, fat, old, etc. The properties of the upaadhii-s, equipments, are

taken as my property by the superimposition on aatma. aatma in principle is

 

naiva strii na pumaan eshha na chaivaayam napuMsakaH|

yadyat shariiram aadatte tena tena sa yujyate||

 

as stated in Svetaashvatara Upanishhad 5-10. He is neither female, nor

male, nor neuter. Whatever body he assumes he becomes identified with that.

This is further echoed as:

 

naasa nnasanna sadasanna mahanna jaanuu

na strii pumaan naja napumsaka meka biijam||

 

I am neither non-existent ( from aatma aMsha) nor existent (from anaatma

aMsha), neither existent and non-existent (mixture of both aatma and

anaatma), neither female nor male nor neuter - I am none of these - those

properties of the body are superimposed on the self and properties of the

self are superimposed on the non-self - all due to adhyaasa. Just like the

long, curved, poisonous, fearful snake, where there is only a rope.

 

Through the physical body, the adhyaasa goes to surrounding environment.

Through the body I get relationships with all types of people - father,

mother, brother, uncle, grand father etc.,. etc. In this process, one

develops ahankaara adhyaasa and mamakaara adhyaasa, I-ness and my-ness in

the upaadhiis or equipments and the surroundings. Really speaking aatma

being asanghaH with no associations, it is relation-less. But because of

this adhyaasa, the roots of samsaara spread all over - Krishna comparing the

samsaara as an ashvattha or peepal tree says (15-2):

 

adhashchordhvam prasutaastasya shaakaaH

guNapravR^iddhaa vishhyapravaalaaH|

adhashcha muulaani anusantataani

karmaanubandhiini manushhyaloke||

 

Its branches extend both above and below, nourished by guNa-s they indulge

in sense objects. Their secondary roots extend downwards resulting in

actions that bind the human beings. The root of samsaara spreads all over

the world - some even to America - families spreading from east coast to

west coast.

 

One has to work for the removal of adhyaasa. How does adhyaasa start?

adhyaasa is born of ignorance - since the error is centered on the self 'I',

and therefore the self-error is born out of self-ignorance. It is not

ignorance of any thing or any subject - That is why any amount of removal of

other ignorance such as the ignorance of chemistry, physics, etc. will not

remove the self ignorance. In spite of all the degrees that can be attached

to the name, he will be only an educated samsaari or an erudite samsaari

since he has gained an anaatma JNaanam which cannot remove samsaara.

Instead of being an unintelligent fool, I will be an intelligent fool.

Samsaara can only be removed by aatma JNaanam, since we have an error with

regard to aatma. That is the reason in Ch. U. in the seventh chapter known

as Bhuuma vidya, we find Naarada approaching Shree Sanatkumaara to learn

Brahma vidya. Naarada gives a big list of degrees he has so far received.

He has a Ph.D. in every subject possible in this world. But then he says in

the end: soham bhagavan sochaami- ‘I am still suffering’. Sanatkumaara says

'tarati shokam aatmavit' grief can go away only by self-knowledge. Hence

Shankara says 'aatma ekatva vidyaa pratipattaye sarve vedaantaaH

aarabhyante| asyaaH anartha hetoH prahaanaaya|' all the Upanishads begin

with an intention of giving only, the knowledge of aatma or knowledge of

oneself alone removes the suffering resulting from adhyaasa. In MunDaka

Upanishad - the student approaches the teacher, realizing that no amount of

objective knowledge is making him wiser, asks the teacher - 'kasmino bhagavo

viJNaate sarvam idam viJNaatam bhavati' - 'Hai bhagavan, please teach me

that knowledge, knowing which everything of 'this' is known. The teacher

teaches him self-knowledge which makes him to realize that he is the very

essence of all knowledge. He is the very JNaanam in all JNeyam.

 

When we say aatma JNaanam, self knowledge, has to be gained to remove aatma

aJNaanam, self ignorance, one point has to be noted. We already have

partial knowledge or partial ignorance of the adhishTaanam, the substratum.

It is not total ignorance. Remember, if the rope is totally not seen there

will not be an error. There is a partial knowledge that 'there is' - some

object is there, the satya aMsha or real part. Only the ignorance is about

the visheshha aMsha or 'rope-ness' of the object. Similarly the self-error

is because of partial ignorance. I know 'aham asmi' - the sat part is

known and the chit part is known. What is not known is "aham brahma asmi'

or brahmatva aMsha is not known. The Brahman feature or Brahmanhood or

Brahman status of mine is not known. Thus whenever we say Brahma JNaanam it

is not that we are going to know a new thing called 'Brahman', it is knowing

the Brahman status of mine. We are only knowing the full real status of

'I'. Hence 'Brahma JNaanam means 'aatmanaH Brahmatva JNaana' the knowledge

of my real status as Brahman. When the real status is not known, a false

status is taken up as real that is my jiivatva status. Hence what is

required is a self-correction involving knowing my Brahman status and in the

process displacing my jiivatva status. Hence 'athaato brahma giJNaasa'

therefore inquiry into the nature of myself as Brahman - athaataH aatmanaH

brahmatva giJNaasaH - I should learn my own superior status as Brahman. For

this purpose alone all the Upanishads begin teaching. This is the

difference between Vedanta shaastra and all other shaastra or sciences. All

other shaastra-s take our inferior status as a fact. Then they prescribe

the methods of improving the status. Some religions follow the same

methodology. They start with the statement that we are sinners. Only a

sage of the Upanishad screams at the top of his voice - 'shruNvantu vishve

amR^itasya putraaH' addressing all of us as 'Listen you all, Oh! Sons of

Immortality!' implying that immortality is our birth right! He even dares

to address the Gods in the Heavens - 'aayo dhaamaani divyaani santi - you

too the indwellers of the heavens!' That is the goal of Vedanta - to make

us to inherit our own true divine nature. We waste our whole life in

working to improve our status symbol. Even the karmakaanDa is promoting

this status enhancement assuming an inferior status of us as a fact. All

sciences take the view that our inferior status as a fact. Only Vedanta

raises the very fundamental question- whether this, my present inferior

status, is a fact or a presumption on my part. Upanishads instigate us to

inquire saying that you do not have to work for improving your status. You

as you are 'a nitya shuddha budhha mukta swabhaavaH' -you are eternal, pure,

free from any limitations- there is no competitor for you since you are

ekaH, one without a second. It is not an image building but for removal of

superimposed low image. This is done by instigating us to inquire into the

nature of Brahman - which is the nature of our own self - athaato brahma

giJNaasa - to remove the superimposed error or misunderstanding on our part

by correct understanding of our own nature. Hence the inquiry into the

nature of Brahman.

 

This ends the essence of adhyaasa bhaasya.

 

3.12 Further questions on adhyaasa:

 

Here we will briefly mention couple of important objections raised by the

post-Shankara philosophers, that are relevant to adhyaasa. These include

from VishishhTaadvaita school, Shree Raamaanuja and Shree Vedanta Deshika;

and from Dvaita school Shree Madhvachaarya, Shree Jayatiirtha and Shree

Vyaasatiirtha. There were also several advaitin masters who addressed these

issues. These include Shree Harsha, Shree Vidyaaranya, Shree Citsukha, and

Shree Madhusuudana Saraswati. These are only few names but in reality there

were many more involving arguments and counter arguments. These in fact

helped in crystallizing the concepts for each school of philosophy. We will

mention couple of objections that were raised and we will address them once

we complete the Shankara Bhaashhya.

 

1. Who or what is the locus of avidya?

 

According to Shankara, adhyaasa or error is due to ignorance and error

involves mixing up of satya aMsha as in 'I am' and asatya aMsha as in 'a

samsaari'. This is the jiiva who consists of a mixture of real part of the

statement ' I am' or aham which implies that I am sat and chit, and unreal

part 'a parichchhinnaH' a limited entity, or jiiva asmi. My true nature is

aham brahma asmi. This error occurred because I am ignorant of my true

nature that is aham brahma asmi. Now Raamanuja asks - there has to be a

locus for avidya and what or who is that locus? That is who has this avidya

or ignorance - jiiva or Brahman? Brahman cannot be the locus because (1)

that will make Brahman ignorant, in which case He cannot be Brahman any

more, (2) If ignorance rests with Brahman then ignorance is as real as

Brahman and now we have two real entities, Brahman and ignorance and that

violates the advaita principles of non-duel nature of Brahman as well as his

nirguNatvam, since He has ignorance. Lastly 3) Brahman is of the nature of

light and ignorance of the nature of darkness and are diagonally opposite to

each other, and therefore cannot exist together. Thus Brahman is the locus

of ignorance is unacceptable. On the other hand jiiva cannot be the locus

of avidya since jiiva is the product of avidya. That is, the status of

jiiva or jiivatvam arose because of the presence of avidya. That implies

Jiiva status comes after avidya. That is avidya existed even before

jiiva-hood arose. Hence jiiva cannot be the locus of avidya. Ignorance is

not an independent entity to exist without any locus. Therefore we conclude

that Advaitic concept of avidya is wrong. Hence there is a fundamental

problem in the doctrine of Advaita based on adhyaasa as the cause for jiiva.

 

2. Ontological status of PramaaNa:

 

The next important issue is related to Veda-s as pramaaNa. Shankara says

ignorance can only go with the knowledge of Brahman and the source of the

knowledge for Brahman is Veda-s which are apourushheya. Hence the inquiry

into the nature of Brahman as stated in Brahmasuutra. But in the discussion

of adhyaasa, the satya aMsha is only 'aham' or 'I am' and any other is only

a superimposition of unreal on the real. This include all idam vastu-s or

all that can be identified as idam or 'this' - These are not real and are

superimposition on Brahman. Then the question is, are Veda-s real or

unreal?. If Veda-s are real like Brahman then we have duality, Brahman and

Veda-s and that violates the Advaita doctrine which states that Brahman is

one without a second. If Veda-s are unreal then how can the unreal pramaaNa

provide a knowledge of the reality? Falls books cannot teach us about real

science! If Veda-s are unreal and such unreal texts are pramaaNa, the

knowledge that they provide will also be apramaa or bhrama. Hence there is

no use of inquiry of Brahman using invalid tools. In addition as per

Advaitin, if Veda-s are considered as unreal, similar to the world which is

considered as unreal, then Advaita cannot claim as aastika system of

philosophy. It should be considered as naastika system similar to Budhhism.

In fact they are more parallel to Buddhism, with nirguNa Brahman, which

cannot described by any means, since all descriptions presuppose guNa-s.

Brahman is as good as 'suunyam', which cannot be described since there is

nothing to describe it.

 

Thus there are many questions raised against Advaita doctrine and Shree

Vedanta Deshika has written a book with the title a 'shataduushanii',

hundred objections to advaita. We will address some of these later but it

is suffice at this stage to know that philosophical discussions were kept

alive. These discussions and counter discussion are back bone of our

culture, and inquiry into the nature of reality is there at the time of Veda

Vyaasa, at the time of Shankara and even now with advancement of science

and technology, as in the advaitin list serve! These discussions are not

necessarily for convincing somebody else, but at least for convincing the

discussor himself. Otherwise there will be 'vyabhicaara dosha' - a vagaring

mind uncertain about what the goal is.

 

Now, those who want to venture into the discussion of the above issues may

do so. But for the time being we will formally end here the adhyaasa

bhaashhyam and we will next take up Shankara's Brahmasuutra Bhaashhyam.

When and if the time permits we will come back later to address the above

issues.

 

This completes the Notes on Adhyaasa Bhaashhyam. With this introduction,

Shankara takes up the Suutra Bhaashhyam. Adhyaasa bhaashhyam forms the back

bone for the entire analysis of the suutras and hence its importance need

not be emphasized. This section should be thoroughly studied not only from

the point of its contents but also from the point of its implications in

terms of our day to day life.

----------

We will start the notes with discussion of Suutra 1, after three weeks.

This will give some time to contemplate on the contents discussed so far.

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Kuntimaddi Sadananda"

<k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

> --------------------------------

> Notes on Brahmasuutra IIIE

>

>

> Hence Shankara says in Atmabodha:

>

> aatmanaH sashchidaMshashcha

> bhuddher vR^itti ritidvayam|

> samyojya cha avivekena

> jaanaami iti pravartate||

 

**** In Itrans [with split 'sandhi'] this would read as:

 

aatmanaH sat chit a.nshaH cha

buddheH vR^ittiH iti dvayam.h |

sa.nyojya cha avivekena

jaanaami iti pravartate ||

 

 

In the same text, Shankara says:

>

> aatmano vikR^iyaa naasti

> buddherbodhona jaatvati

> jiivasarva malam JNaatvaa

> JNaata drashhTeti muhyati||

 

**** aatmanaH vikriyaa na asti

buddheH bodhaH na jaatu iti |

jiivaH sarvamala.n j~naatvaa

drashhTaa iti muhyati ||

 

>

> naiva strii na pumaan eshha na chaivaayam napuMsakaH|

> yadyat shariiram aadatte tena tena sa yujyate||

 

****

na eva strii na pumaan eshhaH na cha eva ayam napu.nsakam.h |

 

yat yat shariiram aadatte tena tena sa yujyate ||

 

>

> as stated in Svetaashvatara Upanishhad 5-10. He is neither female,

nor

> male, nor neuter. Whatever body he assumes he becomes identified

with that.

> This is further echoed as:

>

> naasa nnasanna sadasanna mahanna jaanuu

> na strii pumaan naja napumsaka meka biijam||

 

**** ? Source

[i have difficulty splitting the sandhis from the translation given!]

 

 

>

> I am neither non-existent ( from aatma aMsha) nor existent (from

anaatma

> aMsha), neither existent and non-existent (mixture of both aatma

and

> anaatma), neither female nor male nor neuter - I am none of these -

 

 

- Krishna comparing the

> samsaara as an ashvattha or peepal tree says (15-2):

>

> adhashchordhvam prasutaastasya shaakaaH

> guNapravR^iddhaa vishhyapravaalaaH|

> adhashcha muulaani anusantataani

> karmaanubandhiini manushhyaloke||

 

****

adhaH cha uurdhvam prasR^itaaH tasya shaakhaaH

guNa-pravR^iddhaa vishhaya-pravaalaaH |

adhaH cha muulaani anusantataani

karma-anubandhiini manushhya-loke ||

 

 

>

> Its branches extend both above and below, nourished by guNa-s they

indulge

> in sense objects. Their secondary roots extend downwards resulting

in

> actions that bind the human beings.

 

 

In MunDaka

> Upanishad - the student approaches the teacher, realizing that no

amount of

> objective knowledge is making him wiser, asks the teacher -

'kasmino bhagavo viJNaate sarvam idam viJNaatam bhavati' -

 

****

kasmin nu bhagavaH vij~naate sarvam idam vij~naataM bhavati |

 

 

 

'Hai bhagavan, please teach me

> that knowledge, knowing which everything of 'this' is known. The

teacher

> teaches him self-knowledge which makes him to realize that he is

the very

> essence of all knowledge.

 

- giJNaasaH -

 

***

jij~naasaH

 

 

> Brahman is as good as 'suunyam',

 

***** shuunyam

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

[Guest guest]

>"sunder hattangadi" <sunderh

> > This is further echoed as:

> >

> > naasa nnasanna sadasanna mahanna jaanuu

> > na strii pumaan naja napumsaka meka biijam||

>

>**** ? Source

>[i have difficulty splitting the sandhis from the translation given!]

 

Sundar- frankly I do not know the source but if some knows I appreciate the

info. May be from one of Shankara's PrakaraNa granthaas.

The splitting is

na asat na sat sat asat na mahat na jaanuu|

na stree pumaan na ja na pumshakam eka biijam||

 

There is somewhat similar sloka in VivekachuuDamani - sannapya saanna

ubhayaatmikaano .... etc.

>>

> > I am neither non-existent ( from aatma aMsha) nor existent (from

>anaatma

> > aMsha), neither existent and non-existent (mixture of both aatma

>and

> > anaatma), neither female nor male nor neuter - I am none of these -

>

>

> - Krishna comparing the

> > samsaara as an ashvattha or peepal tree says (15-2):

> >

> > adhashchordhvam prasutaastasya shaakaaH

> > guNapravR^iddhaa vishhyapravaalaaH|

> > adhashcha muulaani anusantataani

> > karmaanubandhiini manushhyaloke||

>

>****

>adhaH cha uurdhvam prasR^itaaH tasya shaakhaaH

>guNa-pravR^iddhaa vishhaya-pravaalaaH |

>adhaH cha muulaani anusantataani

>karma-anubandhiini manushhya-loke ||

>

>

>

> >

> > Its branches extend both above and below, nourished by guNa-s they

>indulge

> > in sense objects. Their secondary roots extend downwards resulting

>in

> > actions that bind the human beings.

>

>

>In MunDaka

> > Upanishad - the student approaches the teacher, realizing that no

>amount of

> > objective knowledge is making him wiser, asks the teacher -

> 'kasmino bhagavo viJNaate sarvam idam viJNaatam bhavati' -

>

>****

>kasmin nu bhagavaH vij~naate sarvam idam vij~naataM bhavati |

>

>

>

> 'Hai bhagavan, please teach me

> > that knowledge, knowing which everything of 'this' is known. The

>teacher

> > teaches him self-knowledge which makes him to realize that he is

>the very

> > essence of all knowledge.

>

>- giJNaasaH -

>

>***

> jij~naasaH

>

>

>

> > Brahman is as good as 'suunyam',

>

>***** shuunyam

>

>

>Regards,

>

>s.

 

Thanks sunder for the pains you are taking.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

> > This is further echoed as:

> >

> > naasa nnasanna sadasanna mahanna jaanuu

> > na strii pumaan naja napumsaka meka biijam||

>

> **** ? Source

> [i have difficulty splitting the sandhis from the translation

given!]

>

 

na asan na san na sadasan na mahanna na ca aNuH |

na strii pumaan na ca napuMsakam eka biijam ||

 

I don't know the source - seems to be a mixture of half-verses from

two different original sources.

 

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you! The first 4 words are reminiscent of the naasadiiya

suukta, but nothing else fits in it!

 

Could it be: .... na mahaan na cha aNuH . ?

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

advaitin , "Vidyasankar Sundaresan"

<vsundaresan@h...> wrote:

>

> > > This is further echoed as:

> > >

> > > naasa nnasanna sadasanna mahanna jaanuu

> > > na strii pumaan naja napumsaka meka biijam||

> >

> > **** ? Source

> > [i have difficulty splitting the sandhis from the translation

> given!]

> >

>

> na asan na san na sadasan na mahanna na ca aNuH |

> na strii pumaan na ca napuMsakam eka biijam ||

>

> I don't know the source - seems to be a mixture of half-verses from

> two different original sources.

>

> Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Kuntimaddi Sadananda"

<k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

> Thanks sunder for the pains you are taking.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

 

Namaste,

 

ya.n labdhvaa chaapara.n laabhaM manyate naadhika.n tataH !!

 

No 'pains' are more worth bearing than learning such lessons.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

s.

[Guest guest]

--- Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda

wrote:

>

>

>

> >"sunder hattangadi" <sunderh

>

> > > This is further echoed as:

> > >

> > > naasa nnasanna sadasanna mahanna jaanuu

> > > na strii pumaan naja napumsaka meka biijam||

> >

> >**** ? Source

> >[i have difficulty splitting the sandhis from the

> translation given!]

>

> Sundar- frankly I do not know the source but if some

> knows I appreciate the

> info. May be from one of Shankara's PrakaraNa

> granthaas.

> The splitting is

> na asat na sat sat asat na mahat na jaanuu|

> na stree pumaan na ja na pumshakam eka biijam||

 

Dear Sadanandaji,

The splitting,I think, should actually be :

 

" Na asat na sat na sadasat na mahat na cha aNu"

 

'Neither false nor truer nor a combination of false

and true neither huge nor atomic'

 

There is a similar sloka in Mandukya Karika:

 

"Naasad nasad na sadasad vaapi kinchit vastu jaayate"

 

 

 

 

Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!