mahAvAkyaratnAvaliH- Translation No. 43.

[Guest guest]

*mahAvAkyaratnAvaliH- Translation No. 43. Miscellaneous statements.*

 

 

 

168. sa eshho akalo amRitaH—

 

He (AtmA) is partless and immortal.

 

169. na antaHprajnam na bahiHprajnam nobhayataHprajnam na prajnAnaghanam na

prajnam nAprajnam. adRishyam avyavahAryam agrAhyam alakshhanam acintyam

avyapadeshyam ekAtmapratyayasAram prapancopashamam shAntam shivam advaitam

caturtham manyante sa AtmA sa vijneyaH—mANDUkya up. 7.

 

They consider the Fourth to be that which is not conscious of the internal

world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of either of the

worlds, nor a mass of consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor

unconsciousness; which is not visible, beyond empirical dealings, beyond the

grasp (of the organs of action), devoid of any indicatory marks and so not

knowable by inference, which is not accessible to thought, indescribable;

which is known only by the knowledge that it is the one Self that exists in

all the three states; in which all phenomena cease; which is unchanging,

auspicious, and non-dual. That Self is that which is to be known.

 

(It is very difficult to translate this passage satisfactorily. I have taken

Swami Gambhirananda's translation and made some changes on the basis of the

bhAshya to make it clearer. It is easy for any one to pick out individual

words and find fault with the translation. One should try to understand the

spirit of the passage as a whole.)

 

Shri Shankara explains the various terms in this passage as under:

 

na antaHprajnam—not conscious of the internal world—By this the dream state

is eliminated.

 

na bahiHprajnam—not conscious of the external world—By this the waking state

is eliminated.

 

nobhayataHprajnam—not conscious of either of the worlds—By this the

intermediate state between dream and waking is eliminated (Shri Shankara

seems to assume the existence of such a state—I do not kow what it is).

 

na prajnAnaghanam—not a mass of consciousness—by this is denied the state of

deep sleep, for this consists in a state of latency where everything becomes

indistinguishable. (One may ask how the state of deep sleep sleep can be

said to be a mass of consciousness, when the person is not conscious of

anything at all. I do not know the answer. I have only copied what Shankara

has said. If anybody can explain this, I shall be grateful).

 

na prajnam—not simple consciousness—by this is denied the awareness of

everything simultaneously. (This too, I cannot explain further. Help will be

welcome).

 

nAprajnam—not unconsciousness—By this, insentience is denied.

 

shAntam—unchanging.

 

The statement " That is to be known " implies, according to Shri Shankara,

that just as the rope is known to be different from the (illusory) snake,

the Self is to be known as different from the three states. This is stated

from the standpoint of the previous state of ignorance, for, on the dawn of

knowledge no duality is left. (Shri Shankara seems to say this in order to

meet the possible objection that the Self cannot be known).

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> *mahAvAkyaratnAvaliH- Translation No. 43. Miscellaneous

statements.*

>

>

>

> 168. sa eshho akalo amRitaH—

>

> He (AtmA) is partless and immortal.

>

> 169. na antaHprajnam na bahiHprajnam nobhayataHprajnam na

prajnAnaghanam na

> prajnam nAprajnam. adRishyam avyavahAryam agrAhyam alakshhanam

acintyam

> avyapadeshyam ekAtmapratyayasAram prapancopashamam shAntam shivam

advaitam

> caturtham manyante sa AtmA sa vijneyaH—mANDUkya up. 7.

>

> They consider the Fourth to be that which is not conscious of the

internal

> world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of

either of the

> worlds, nor a mass of consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor

> unconsciousness; which is not visible, beyond empirical dealings,

beyond the

> grasp (of the organs of action), devoid of any indicatory marks

and so not

> knowable by inference, which is not accessible to thought,

indescribable;

> which is known only by the knowledge that it is the one Self that

exists in

> all the three states; in which all phenomena cease; which is

unchanging,

> auspicious, and non-dual. That Self is that which is to be known.

>

> (It is very difficult to translate this passage satisfactorily. I

have taken

> Swami Gambhirananda's translation and made some changes on the

basis of the

> bhAshya to make it clearer. It is easy for any one to pick out

individual

> words and find fault with the translation. One should try to

understand the

> spirit of the passage as a whole.)

>

> Shri Shankara explains the various terms in this passage as under:

>

> na antaHprajnam—not conscious of the internal world—By this the

dream state

> is eliminated.

>

> na bahiHprajnam—not conscious of the external world—By this the

waking state

> is eliminated.

>

> nobhayataHprajnam—not conscious of either of the worlds—By this the

> intermediate state between dream and waking is eliminated (Shri

Shankara

> seems to assume the existence of such a state—I do not kow what it

is).

>

> na prajnAnaghanam—not a mass of consciousness—by this is denied

the state of

> deep sleep, for this consists in a state of latency where

everything becomes

> indistinguishable. (One may ask how the state of deep sleep sleep

can be

> said to be a mass of consciousness, when the person is not

conscious of

> anything at all. I do not know the answer. I have only copied what

Shankara

> has said. If anybody can explain this, I shall be grateful).

>

> na prajnam—not simple consciousness—by this is denied the

awareness of

> everything simultaneously. (This too, I cannot explain further.

Help will be

> welcome).

>

> nAprajnam—not unconsciousness—By this, insentience is denied.

>

> shAntam—unchanging.

>

> The statement " That is to be known " implies, according to Shri

Shankara,

> that just as the rope is known to be different from the (illusory)

snake,

> the Self is to be known as different from the three states. This

is stated

> from the standpoint of the previous state of ignorance, for, on

the dawn of

> knowledge no duality is left. (Shri Shankara seems to say this in

order to

> meet the possible objection that the Self cannot be known).

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

na bahiHprajnam—not conscious of the external world—By this the waking

state

is eliminated.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

May I request your goodself for the little more elaboration of the above

statement prabhuji...In what sense we can say turIya vasta (the fourth

state) would eliminate the external world?? does this mean, those who are

in turIya would not *see* both internal (dream/svapna prapancha) and

external world (vyAvahArika prapancha in jAgrat sthiti) since above it is

said that waking state is eliminated I am getting this doubt ?? Kindly

dont think I am questioning the above interpretation.......I'm just

seeking your further clarification....Hope you wont mind prabhuji....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar