chhAndogya upaniShad 6.1.4 - 6.1.7

[Guest guest]

shrIlalitAyai namaH

 

continuing on chhAndogya upaniShad, chapter 6

 

chhAndogya upaniShad 6.1.4 - 6.1.7

 

yathA, saumya, ekena mR^itpiNDena sarvaM mR^iNmayaM

vijnAtam syAt, vAcArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyam,

mR^ittiketyeva satyam.h 6.1.4

 

saumya: dear boy

yathA: just as

ekena mR^it-piNDena: through (or knowing of) a single lump of clay

sarvam: all

mR^inmayam: that is made of clay

vijnAtam: known

syAt: would become

vikAraH: all modifications

vAcA: upon words

ArambhaNam: based

nAmadheyam: is but name

mR^ittika: clay

iti eva: alone

satyam: is the truth

 

Dear boy, just as by one clod of clay all that is made of clay

becomes known, the modification being only a name arising from

speech while the truth is that it is just clay.

 

---

 

yathA, saumya, ekena lohamaNinA sarvaM lohamayaM vijnAtam

syAt, vAcArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam lohamityeva satyam. 6.1.5

 

 

saumya: dear boy

yathA: just as

ekena lohamaNinA: through a single nugget of gold

sarvam: all

lohamayam: that is made of gold

vijnAtam: known

syAt: would become

vikAro: all modifications

vAcA: upon words

ArambhaNam: based

nAmadheyam: is but name

loham: gold

iti eva: alone

satyam: is the truth

 

Dear boy, just as by one nugget of gold all that is made

of gold becomes known, the modification being only a name

arising from speech, while the truth is that it is just gold.

 

---

 

yathA, saumya, ekena nakha-nikR^intanena sarvam kArShNayasam

vijnAtam syAt, vAcArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM kArShNAyasam

ityeva satyam, evam saumya, sa Adesho bhavatIti 6.1.6

 

 

saumya: dear boy

yathA: just as

ekena nakhanikr^intanena: through a single nail-scissors

(i.e. a lump of iron)

sarvam: all

kArShNayasam: that is made of iron

vijnAtam: known

syAt: would become

vikAraH: modifications

vAcA: upon words

ArambhaNam: based

nAmadheyam: is but a name

kArShNAyasam: the iron

iti eva: alone

satyam: is the truth

evam: such

saumya: dear boy (good looking one)

sa: that

Adesho: teaching

bhavati: is

iti: thus

 

Dear boy, just as by a single nai-cutter (lump of iron),

all that is made of iron becomes known, the modification

being only a name arising from speech while the truth is

that it is just iron: thus, my dear, is that teaching.

 

-----

 

na vai nUnam bhagavantas ta etad avediShuH, yadd hy etad

avediShyan, katham me nAvakshyan iti bhagavams tv eva me

tad bravItv iti; tathA, saumya, iti hovAca 6.1.7

 

bhagavantaH: revered

te: they (my teachers)

nUnam vai: surely

etat: it

na avediShu: did not know

yat hi: for if

etat: it

avediShyan: they had known

me: to me

katham: why

na avakshyan: would they have not told

iti: thus

bhagavAn tu eva: however, revered (father)

me: to me

tat: it

bravIt: teach

saumya: dear boy

tathA: so be it

iti uvAca ha: said (the father)

 

"verily, my revered teachers did not know this; for if

they had known it, why would they have not told it to me?

However, revered father, please teach it to me". "So be it,

dear boy", said the father.

 

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

namaste

 

Referring to the word 'nakha-nikr^intanena', here was a distractive

observation from a mechanical engineering professor in the audience

of one of my lectures in the Kuppuswami Research Institute, Mylapore

Madras a few years ago. The Professor says that the use of

nail-scissors started only in a certain century (I don't remember the

exact century quoted by him) in the first millenium B.C. So he says

that Chandogya Upanishad cannot be older than that particular

century. Well, I was disinclined to accept that argument, because,

for me Chandogya Upanishad is part of the vedas. But I could not

negate his argument in any other way.

 

Can any one throw light on this?

 

praNAms to all advaitins

Yours, profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better

http://health.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The questioner should have wondered how the folks took care of

their nails before this 'invention' 1000 B.C.!

 

Sushruta, circa 800 B.C., mentions nakha-shastra, in his

Samhita on Surgery, which must have been a culmination of several

previous centuries of practice.

 

In any case the word refers to the material used in making the

instrument, nail-parer, namely iron, and not whether it resembled

anything we are familiar with!

 

For more on the history of scissors:

 

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Sushruta

 

http://www.aarogya.com/wellness/humour/shushrutha.asp

 

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blscissors.htm

 

http://www.vigyanprasar.com/dream/july2000/article1.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> namaste

>

> Referring to the word 'nakha-nikr^intanena', here was a distractive

> observation from a mechanical engineering professor in the audience

> of one of my lectures in the Kuppuswami Research Institute, Mylapore

> Madras a few years ago. The Professor says that the use of

> nail-scissors started only in a certain century (I don't remember

the

> exact century quoted by him) in the first millenium B.C. So he says

> that Chandogya Upanishad cannot be older than that particular

> century. Well, I was disinclined to accept that argument, because,

> for me Chandogya Upanishad is part of the vedas. But I could not

> negate his argument in any other way.

>

> Can any one throw light on this?

>

> praNAms to all advaitins

> Yours, profvk

>

> =====

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

> My website on Science and Spirituality is

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

> You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought

Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's

manuscripts from the site.

>

>

>

> Health - Feel better, live better

> http://health.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> The Professor says that the use of

> nail-scissors started only in a certain century (I don't remember >

>the exact century quoted by him) in the first millenium B.C. So he

says

> that Chandogya Upanishad cannot be older than that particular

> century. Well, I was disinclined to accept that argument, because,

> for me Chandogya Upanishad is part of the vedas. But I could not

> negate his argument in any other way.

>

> Can any one throw light on this?

 

 

Pranaam,

 

It is the nail-cutter as described by the Professor that

was 'invented' in the 1st millenium BC. But obviously there were

other instruments used for paring nails before that time. Surely

people did not go about growing lengthy nails or biting them off!

Razors like we know them today may have been 'invented' by modern

man, but obviously some other apparatus was definitely used by the

people before that. We all know that kataka nut were used to wash and

purify ornaments, water and bodies much before soaps were even

thought of. Gravity was in existence before it was 'discovered' isn't

it?

 

There can be a million such examples.

 

Regards,

 

Kamal

[Guest guest]

Namaste fellow members

 

I have a doubt regarding the dating of the Vedas. Does the dating of the

Vedas refer to the time when it was authored or the time when it was

revealed. We Vedantins claim that the Vedas are Anadi or beginningless and

apaurusheya or unauthored. If so how can we account for the dating of the

Vedas. What does it specifically refer to? I will appreciate if learned

members can shed light on this subject. Thanks.

 

Kathi

>

> kamal_kothari_india [sMTP:kamal_kothari_india]

> Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:32 AM

> advaitin

> Re: chhAndogya upaniShad 6.1.4 - 6.1.7

>

> advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> > The Professor says that the use of

> > nail-scissors started only in a certain century (I don't remember >

> >the exact century quoted by him) in the first millenium B.C. So he

> says

> > that Chandogya Upanishad cannot be older than that particular

> > century. Well, I was disinclined to accept that argument, because,

> > for me Chandogya Upanishad is part of the vedas. But I could not

> > negate his argument in any other way.

> >

> > Can any one throw light on this?

>

>

> Pranaam,

>

> It is the nail-cutter as described by the Professor that

> was 'invented' in the 1st millenium BC. But obviously there were

> other instruments used for paring nails before that time. Surely

> people did not go about growing lengthy nails or biting them off!

> Razors like we know them today may have been 'invented' by modern

> man, but obviously some other apparatus was definitely used by the

> people before that. We all know that kataka nut were used to wash and

> purify ornaments, water and bodies much before soaps were even

> thought of. Gravity was in existence before it was 'discovered' isn't

> it?

>

> There can be a million such examples.

>

> Regards,

>

> Kamal

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Namaskar sri krishnamurthy!

 

i have visited your web site and found it to be very interesting and

informative...

 

as per one source, chandogya upanishad is from about the seventh

century BC. this upanishad is based on sama veda...

 

upanishads are better than nail cutter- nail cutter only gets rid of

the nail... purely hygenic and cosmetic...

 

but upanishads does more than that- it helps you to 'cut' (discard)

and discover our true nature which is brahman! smiles!!

 

Tat twam asi -my favorite is chandogya upanishads...

 

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> namaste

>

> Referring to the word 'nakha-nikr^intanena', here was a distractive

> observation from a mechanical engineering professor in the audience

> of one of my lectures in the Kuppuswami Research Institute, Mylapore

> Madras a few years ago. The Professor says that the use of

> nail-scissors started only in a certain century (I don't remember

the

> exact century quoted by him) in the first millenium B.C. So he says

> that Chandogya Upanishad cannot be older than that particular

> century. Well, I was disinclined to accept that argument, because,

> for me Chandogya Upanishad is part of the vedas. But I could not

> negate his argument in any other way.

>

> Can any one throw light on this?

>

> praNAms to all advaitins

> Yours, profvk

>

> =====

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

> My website on Science and Spirituality is

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

> You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought

Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's

manuscripts from the site.

>

>

>

> Health - Feel better, live better

> http://health.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> Namaste fellow members

>

> I have a doubt regarding the dating of the Vedas. Does the dating

of the

> Vedas refer to the time when it was authored or the time when it was

> revealed.

 

Namaste,

 

Here is an excerpt from Kanchi Paramacharya's discourse:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap9.htm

 

Date of the Vedas : Inquiry not Proper

(HinduDharma: The Vedas)

 

 

"The idea that the Vedas are eternal does not fit into the mental

outlook of Western indologists. Their claims to impartiality and to

conducting research in a scientific manner notwithstanding, they are

not prepared to accord an elevated status to the Hindu texts. Many

Hindu research scholars have also found themselves unable to accept

the view that the Vedas are eternal. .............."

 

The whole book is on-line, and is worth a life-time of education.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Kathirasan,

 

The vedas are regarded as 'revealed' literature or

sruti, in the sense that they were understood

intuitively and were not based on any earlier

literature.

 

No one can say how old the oral tradition is. These

were ideas and thoughts gained from personal

experience by several sages over many centuries, much

as the theories of science have grown over many

centuries through the contributions of many wise

people. No one can say when it started.

 

These vedas were supposed to have been compiled,

categorised and put down in writing by Veda Vyasa

around 1000 BCE. Some of the works are said to be

later. Dating of these works is however, far from

accurate.

 

We must also remember that most dates have been

assigned by western scholars, who for all their skill

and hard work, had their own bias towards Jewish

scriptures and Greek philosophers and tended to push

Indian scriptures to dates later than these.

 

Some Indian scholars, and some western such as David

Frawley, are now trying to assign new dates to Indian

scriptures. How accurate these will be is another

matter. We have our own bias, after all.

 

Thanks & regards.

 

Sriram

 

 

--- K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir wrote:

> Namaste fellow members

>

> I have a doubt regarding the dating of the Vedas.

> Does the dating of the

> Vedas refer to the time when it was authored or the

> time when it was

> revealed. We Vedantins claim that the Vedas are

> Anadi or beginningless and

> apaurusheya or unauthored. If so how can we account

> for the dating of the

> Vedas. What does it specifically refer to? I will

> appreciate if learned

> members can shed light on this subject. Thanks.

>

> Kathi

>

> >

> > kamal_kothari_india

> [sMTP:kamal_kothari_india]

> > Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:32 AM

> > advaitin

> > Re: chhAndogya upaniShad 6.1.4

> - 6.1.7

> >

> > advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy"

> <profvk> wrote:

> > > The Professor says that the use of

> > > nail-scissors started only in a certain century

> (I don't remember >

> > >the exact century quoted by him) in the first

> millenium B.C. So he

> > says

> > > that Chandogya Upanishad cannot be older than

> that particular

> > > century. Well, I was disinclined to accept that

> argument, because,

> > > for me Chandogya Upanishad is part of the vedas.

> But I could not

> > > negate his argument in any other way.

> > >

> > > Can any one throw light on this?

> >

> >

> > Pranaam,

> >

> > It is the nail-cutter as described by the

> Professor that

> > was 'invented' in the 1st millenium BC. But

> obviously there were

> > other instruments used for paring nails before

> that time. Surely

> > people did not go about growing lengthy nails or

> biting them off!

> > Razors like we know them today may have been

> 'invented' by modern

> > man, but obviously some other apparatus was

> definitely used by the

> > people before that. We all know that kataka nut

> were used to wash and

> > purify ornaments, water and bodies much before

> soaps were even

> > thought of. Gravity was in existence before it was

> 'discovered' isn't

> > it?

> >

> > There can be a million such examples.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Kamal

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta

> Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> > Atman and Brahman.

> > Advaitin List Archives available at:

> > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> > To Post a message send an email to :

> advaitin

> > Messages Archived at:

> advaitin/messages

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

>

> >

>

 

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better

http://health.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Invoking the Grace of Goddess Vaani and Murthyji's blessings, I would

like to parse the first three verses slightly differently as follows:

 

saumya, yathA ekena mR^itpiNDena sarvaM mR^inmayam vijnaAtam syAt,

vAcArambhanNaM vikAro nAmadheyam (syAt).

mR^ittiketyeva satyam.

(vAca ityeva satyam.)

 

The same parsing can be applied to 2 and 3.

 

The words in parentheses have been supplied.

 

[boy, just as one totality of clay manifests (becomes known) as all

that is made of clay, all that begin with the (primal) sound

(pranava) and undergo modification are name(s). (As) the clay only

is the truth, (so) pranava only is the truth.]

 

I am compelled to think on these lines because in all the three

verses the words "vAcArambhanNaM vikAro nAmadheyam" is repeated.

That these words are repeated right in the middle seems very very

important. Looks like, the upanishadkAraka intends to tell us that

that is the central idea of the three verses. Otherwise, he could

have avoided the repetition. The word vAc represents a world of

meaning that include "the Vedas", "Godess Saraswathi" etc. etc. That

is why I am inclined to think that vAcA points at the first sound

(pranava) from which all other sounds issue forth giving us the world

of names.

 

Besides, there are references in our scriptures (I am not in a

position to locate them in my present circumstances where I have no

reference books available – perhaps Sunderji can help us.) that words

(sounds) first originated from pranava and then became forms. So,

names naturally gets precedence over rUpas (forms). Thus, in the

three verses vAca (pranava) should get precedence over clay, gold and

iron respectively. To summarise, like clay is the truth in things

made of clay, gold is the truth in things made of gold and iron is

the truth in things made of iron, PRANAVA is the TRUTH in all names

(and, therefore, forms).

 

This way of looking at the verses facilitates a bridge between

chhAndogya and mAndUkya because, in the latter, pranava is the

central theme representing the three states (waking, dream and deep-

sleep).

 

Any takers please? If I am wrong, please criticize me mercilessly so

that we have some heated but intelligent discussion on this topic.

 

Pranams to all.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> shrIlalitAyai namaH

>

> continuing on chhAndogya upaniShad, chapter 6

>

> chhAndogya upaniShad 6.1.4 - 6.1.7

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> [boy, just as one totality of clay manifests (becomes known) as all

> that is made of clay, all that begin with the (primal) sound

> (pranava) and undergo modification are name(s). (As) the clay only

> is the truth, (so) pranava only is the truth.]

>

> I am compelled to think on these lines because in all the three

> verses the words "vAcArambhanNaM vikAro nAmadheyam" is repeated.

> That these words are repeated right in the middle seems very very

> important. Looks like, the upanishadkAraka intends to tell us that

> that is the central idea of the three verses. Otherwise, he could

> have avoided the repetition. The word vAc represents a world of

> meaning that include "the Vedas", "Godess Saraswathi" etc. etc.

That

> is why I am inclined to think that vAcA points at the first sound

> (pranava) from which all other sounds issue forth giving us the

world

> of names.

>

> Besides, there are references in our scriptures (I am not in a

> position to locate them in my present circumstances where I have no

> reference books available – perhaps Sunderji can help us.) that

words

> (sounds) first originated from pranava and then became forms. So,

> names naturally gets precedence over rUpas (forms). Thus, in the

> three verses vAca (pranava) should get precedence over clay, gold

and

> iron respectively. To summarise, like clay is the truth in things

> made of clay, gold is the truth in things made of gold and iron is

> the truth in things made of iron, PRANAVA is the TRUTH in all names

> (and, therefore, forms).

 

Namaste,

 

Here is Sw. Swahananda's translation of Shankara-Bhashya on

these verses: [Did Murthy-Garu omit this intentionally?]

 

"Though by the instruction of the teacher a particular thing might be

known, Shvetaketu doubted how an unknowable thing can become known?

So the father replied that this doubt would be valid if the cause and

effect (material and its product)were different. But the cause and

its effect are not different from each other. So if the cause becomes

known, the effect also becomes known. In the jar, saucer , brick,

etc., there is clay together with their names and forms. Of these,

the clay pervades them all and is alone real; the name and form are

different in each case and are unreal." [Ch.Up. 6:1:4-5-6]

 

Madathilji, you will have to be your own critic in this case!

Advaitin sadhakas cannot abjure mercy!

 

Nama-Rupa appears to be an inseparable 'Siamese' twin! More on this

will be said later in this Upanishad itself, and occurs in

Brihadaranyaka, Mundaka, and Prashna upan. also. Brahma-sutra bhashya

also has several references, and I do not recall reading about name

taking precedence over form. Maybe someone else could clarify this.

 

[As an aside, the word 'upanishadkAraka' would be a 'neologism', and

Rishis would not consider themselves as such.]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Sunderji for your prompt feedback.

 

The word "upanishadkaaraka" was used for facility of expression to

mean the Grace that gifted the upanishads to us. If you find it an

unacceptable coinage, it is withdrawn.

 

About naamaroopa, I have noted your emphasis on the word "Siamese"

which conveys "togetherness". I can appreciate that naama and roopa

are inseparable. However, in the vyavaharika sense, both cannot have

birth at the same point of time. One has to precede the other. All

that I implied was that pranava (in the nature of sounds and words)

was the primal cause that preceded the universe of forms. That we

always say naamaroopa and not roopanaama is also significant.

 

Lastly, a different parsing was thought of just to initiate a

discussion. Looks like our members are reticent.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

>

> Nama-Rupa appears to be an inseparable 'Siamese' twin! More on this

> will be said later in this Upanishad itself, and occurs in

> Brihadaranyaka, Mundaka, and Prashna upan. also. Brahma-sutra

bhashya

> also has several references, and I do not recall reading about name

> taking precedence over form. Maybe someone else could clarify this.

>

> [As an aside, the word 'upanishadkAraka' would be a 'neologism',

and

> Rishis would not consider themselves as such.]

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Invoking the Grace of Goddess Vaani and Murthyji's blessings, I would

> like to parse the first three verses slightly differently as follows:

>

> saumya, yathA ekena mR^itpiNDena sarvaM mR^inmayam vijnaAtam syAt,

> vAcArambhanNaM vikAro nAmadheyam (syAt).

> mR^ittiketyeva satyam.

> (vAca ityeva satyam.)

>

> The same parsing can be applied to 2 and 3.

>

> The words in parentheses have been supplied.

>

> [boy, just as one totality of clay manifests (becomes known) as all

> that is made of clay, all that begin with the (primal) sound

> (pranava) and undergo modification are name(s). (As) the clay only

> is the truth, (so) pranava only is the truth.]

>

> I am compelled to think on these lines because in all the three

> verses the words "vAcArambhanNaM vikAro nAmadheyam" is repeated.

> That these words are repeated right in the middle seems very very

> important.

> [...]

>

> Pranams to all.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

 

namaste shri madathil-ji,

 

Your parsing of these mantrA-s is quite interesting

and may indeed be valid. I tend to agree with you

about vAc. As it comes later on in section 6.7, vAc

is the most subtle part of tejas. vAc can be interpreted

as the first I-thought. All the other thoughts originate

or are subsequent to that I-thought.

 

However, your way of parsing seems to give importance

to the clause rather than the main part of the sentence and

the teaching. That way of parsing assumes that svetaketu

already knew about the first part (ekena mR^itpiNDena sarvam

mR*inmayam vijnAtam syAt). I am not sure if that assumption

can be made of svetaketu at that stage of his learning.

Further, what is the truth that uddAlaka is trying to teach

svetaketu? I would think it is "all that is made up of clay

is clay only and just by knowing clay, we will know all things

made of clay." and so on. This will be further emphasized

with (i) the experiment of mixing water with salt, (ii) the

tree with successive branches chopped off.

 

Thus, although shri madathil-ji's parsing is quite elegant

and original, I would go along with the traditional interpretation

of the modification being only a name arising from speech

while the truth is that it is just clay. Similar interpretation

for the other two verses in the sequence.

 

 

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, sunderh wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Here is Sw. Swahananda's translation of Shankara-Bhashya on

> these verses: [Did Murthy-Garu omit this intentionally?]

>

> [...]

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

 

 

namaste shri sunder-ji,

 

I was of two minds in preparing the postings of chhAndogya

chapter 6; whether to post as much available material, or

to post only the mantra, the meaning and a brief commentary

summarizing the various sources. Further, I was thinking

of making each posting not longer than two screenfuls maximum

so that the reader can read it at the first access itself

rather than postpone for a later reading. As a follow-up

to c.u. 6.1.4 - 6.1.7, I was thinking of putting a few articles

to expand on this further as this is the beginning of uddAlakA's

teaching.

 

Thanks very much for posting from swami swahananda's text. Any

further inputs you or any one else may have not only on these

mantrA-s, but also future ones, either from swami swahananda

or other commentators are most appreciated and will add to the

discussion. As a follow-up to this set of mantrA-s, I am preparing

a short article on UddAlaka as the first natural scientist.

 

Thanks again for your posting.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> The word "upanishadkaaraka" was used for facility of expression to

> mean the Grace that gifted the upanishads to us. If you find it an

> unacceptable coinage, it is withdrawn.

********

Namaste,

 

The reason for questioning the new coinage is in reference to

Gita 15:15 : vedaantakR^it vedavit eva cha aham |

 

"I, indeed, am the author of the Vedanta, and the knower of Vedas."

 

The word R^ishi implies in it our debt to their Grace, and our

awareneness of the obligation of repaying it.

********

> About naamaroopa, I have noted your emphasis on the word "Siamese"

> which conveys "togetherness". I can appreciate that naama and

roopa

> are inseparable. However, in the vyavaharika sense, both cannot

have

> birth at the same point of time. One has to precede the other.

 

********

I do not see the logic in this. Space & Time arise simultaneously! .

 

**********

 

All

> that I implied was that pranava (in the nature of sounds and words)

> was the primal cause that preceded the universe of forms. That we

> always say naamaroopa and not roopanaama is also significant.

*******

As Murthy-ji points out, the I-thought is the primary 'cause'; the

Ishvara-saMkalpa 'eko.ahaM bahu syAm |'

********

>

> Lastly, a different parsing was thought of just to initiate a

> discussion. Looks like our members are reticent.

******

It definitely serves that purpose admirably. Reticence can mean

acquiescence, or deliberating on questions that require considerable

thought which my 'prompt' responses are bound to overlook!

****

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> I was of two minds in preparing the postings of chhAndogya

> chapter 6

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

 

Sw. Swahananda's translation of Shankara-Bhashya 6:1:7 -

 

"verily, my revered teachers did not know this; for if

they had known it, why would they have not told it to me?

However, revered father, please teach it to me". "So be it,

dear boy", said the father.

 

 

 

"Though the teacher's defect should never be mentioned, yet he spoke

of it, because he was afraid of being sent again to the house of the

teacher. Thus his motive must be construed as one of fear and not of

disrespect for the teacher."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

When I am aware of space, I am aware of space only. When I am aware

of time, I am aware of time only. Space and time together is just a

thought on final analysis. When that thought reigns, there is no

awareness of space or time.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> I do not see the logic in this. Space & Time arise

simultaneously! .

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

 

If I understand you right, one cannot say which, space or

time, was 'born' first. The same argument would apply to pranava and

manifest universe.

 

OM is the name of Brahman, and also Its dhvani-ruupa.

 

OM iti eka aksharaM brahma |

 

OM tat sat iti nirdesho brahmaNaH trividhaH smR^itaH |

 

jyotishhaam api tat jyotiH tamasaH param uchyate |

 

As I understand it (please correct me if wrong) ruupa is what is

perceived by the senses.

 

naama-ruupa is of the same class as desha-kaala, both originate from

'tat sat' .

 

Maybe Sadaji, Gregji, Ramji, Frankji, Murthyji, and others can throw

more light on this topic.

 

[brahmasutra bhashya 1:3:28 may prove you right, but I need to study

it in more depth, if it is relevant to this argument].

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji.

>

> When I am aware of space, I am aware of space only. When I am

aware

> of time, I am aware of time only. Space and time together is just

a

> thought on final analysis. When that thought reigns, there is no

> awareness of space or time.

>

[Guest guest]

namaste

 

Brahmasutra1.3.28 may prove Madathilji right, but below is Allady

Mahadeva Sastry's translation of Sayana's commentary of Taittiriya

Upanishad, Anandavalli, where the Upanishad talks about Evolution and

says:

tasmAdvA EtasmAdAtmana AkashassambhUtaH etc.

>From this Self is AkAsha born, etc.

 

Sayana's commentary:

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

...... The Sruti however has here described just a little of the

Evolution beginning with AkAsha, only by way of illustration. An

exhaustive description of the evolution is indeed impossible and is

of no avail. ...

No contemplation or knowledge of evolution in itself is declared

anywhere as a means to a distinct end. ... Hence it is that all

accounts of evolution given in the sruti, the smriti, the aagama, and

the puraana have been accepted by the vaartikakaara:

 

"By whatever account of evolution a knowledge of the Inner Self can

be imparted to men, that here in the vedic religion is the right one;

and there is no one process fixed for all".

 

There can be no rule that, of the various dreams seen by many, a

certain one alone should be accepted and not the rest. Let us not

discuss more, lest we say too much.

 

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

 

praNAms to all advaitins

Yours, profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

http://www.hotjobs.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

What I am after is the Vedic parallel for the Western concept of

creation beginning with "First there was the Word". I know that we

too have it somewhere but, due to situational limitations, I don't

have the means for a proper search. I found certain links on the

Net. However, most of them are too ridiculous to demand an

Advaitin's attention.

 

The thrust of my argument is the connection between Om/Vac & Creation

(Naamas & Roopas limited by space/time). Of naama and roopa, the

former is closer to Om/Vac and should, therefore, get precedence.

 

About space and time, there is no point surmising which preceded

which. However, it is evident from our experience that we are aware

of them separately. Space-time continuum exists only as a concept

vis a vis awareness.

 

I am yet to take a look at the BrahmasUtra Bhashaya. I have a link

to one by Swami Sivanandaji.

 

I am sure Kenji also may have something to say here.

 

I have nothing more to add.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________________

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> If I understand you right, one cannot say which, space or

> time, was 'born' first. The same argument would apply to pranava

and

> manifest universe.

..............

> naama-ruupa is of the same class as desha-kaala, both originate

from

> 'tat sat' .

.......

> [brahmasutra bhashya 1:3:28 may prove you right, but I need to

study

> it in more depth, if it is relevant to this argument].

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> "By whatever account of evolution a knowledge of the Inner Self can

> be imparted to men, that here in the vedic religion is the right

one;

> and there is no one process fixed for all".

>

> There can be no rule that, of the various dreams seen by many, a

> certain one alone should be accepted and not the rest. Let us not

> discuss more, lest we say too much.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Thank you, Prof. Krishnamurthy. A sagacious conclusion!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji.

>

> What I am after is the Vedic parallel for the Western concept of

> creation beginning with "First there was the Word".

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

The parallel may be hard to find from the advaitic

perspective. I think some Tantra texts do elaborate on the parallel.

 

Here are two excerpts from Brahmasutra Bhashya:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-3-08.html

 

Sabda iti chet, na, atah prabhavat

pratyakshanumanabhyam I.3.28 (91)

 

Sabda: regarding Vedic words; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: no; Atah:

from this, from these words; Prabhavat: because of the creation;

Pratyakshanumanabhyam: from direct perception (Sruti) and inference

(Smriti).

 

 

....................." Every word has for its counterpart a form or

an object which it denotes. Name and form are inseparable. Whenever

you think of a form its name comes before your mind at once. Whenever

you utter a name the object comes before your mind. The relation

between a name or word and form (the object) is

eternal. "..............................

 

..................."It is therefore quite clear that the Vedic sounds

are eternal and that there is no logical fallacy in the doctrine that

through them has been created the entire universe including the gods."

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

For the discourses of Kanchi Paramacharya on Sound,

Creation, and Mantra Yoga, please visit:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap7.htm

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap13.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji,

 

I parsed the father's words and the father knew.

 

Now that Sunderji has come out with the Brahmasutra reference, let us

wait till the other verses unravel themselves.

 

In the meanwhile, I didn't find your response to my post

about "Arjuna - jeevanmuktha....". May I assume that you agree? Or

are you shaping intelligent questions on the anvil?

 

I am a devoteee of Mother Lalita. I, therefore, like writing to you

who invoke Her.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________________

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

I am not sure if that assumption

> can be made of svetaketu at that stage of his learning.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste Murthyji,

>

> I parsed the father's words and the father knew.

>

> Now that Sunderji has come out with the Brahmasutra reference, let us

> wait till the other verses unravel themselves.

>

> In the meanwhile, I didn't find your response to my post

> about "Arjuna - jeevanmuktha....". May I assume that you agree? Or

> are you shaping intelligent questions on the anvil?

>

> I am a devoteee of Mother Lalita. I, therefore, like writing to you

> who invoke Her.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

 

namaste shri madathil-ji,

 

re. chhAndogya chapter 6, uddAlakA's further teachings will,

hopefully, clarify for us the proper parsing of these initial

mantrA-s.

 

re. karmaphala dialogue, I agree with what you have said.

Silence is the best description of the undescribable. Yet,

I find your following sentence interesting and we may venture

into breaking the silence and try to continue to describe

the undescribable. You said in your previous post "....

GM and MN now see Bhagwan RamaNa as an object ...."

 

I do not agree that we see It as an object. What is the

difference between Lord Krishna of the bhagavadgItA,

shri ramaNa and our own SELF? I have argued some time ago

(I can give the reference in the archives) that we will get

a better perspective of the bhagavadgItA if we see Lord Krishna

as the inner Conscience of Arjuna and that bhagavadgItA is not

a conversation between a warrior and a charioteer but the

conversation between the Consciousness and the intellect of

a warrior. The same with shri ramaNa's teachings or shri

ramaNa as an entity.

 

re shri lalitA parameshwarI, this is all Her mercy. She is

constantly at our side and directs this jagat. She is

sarvaprapancanirmAtrI.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji,

 

I would, indeed, love to see the reference.

 

However, a "better perspective" is still in the realm of the

objectifiable and subject to the laws of the describable. That is

all the more reason for us to get mired - of course in a very

intellectual manner.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

Yet, I find your following sentence interesting and we may venture

> into breaking the silence and try to continue to describe

> the undescribable. You said in your previous post "....

> GM and MN now see Bhagwan RamaNa as an object ...."

>

> I do not agree that we see It as an object. What is the

> difference between Lord Krishna of the bhagavadgItA,

> shri ramaNa and our own SELF? I have argued some time ago

> (I can give the reference in the archives) that we will get

> a better perspective of the bhagavadgItA if we see Lord Krishna

> as the inner Conscience of Arjuna and that bhagavadgItA is not

> a conversation between a warrior and a charioteer but the

> conversation between the Consciousness and the intellect of

> a warrior. The same with shri ramaNa's teachings or shri

> ramaNa as an entity