Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2002 shrIlalitAyai namaH continuing on chhAndogya upaniShad, chapter 6 sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam, taddhaika AhuH, asad evedam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam, tasmAd asataH sat jAyata 6.2.1 saumya: dear boy idam: this (universe) agre: in the beginning (before creation) ekam: one eva: only advitIyam: without a second sat: existence eva: only AsId: was tad: about that ekeha: some Ahu: say idam: this agre: in the beginning ekam: one eva: only advitIyam: without a second asat: non-existence eva: alone AsId: was tasmAd asat: from that non-existence sat: whatever exists jAyet: arose (was born) In the beginning, dear boy, there was existence alone, one only without a second. Some people say that, in the beginning, there was non-existence alone, one only without a second. From that non-existence (they say), arose whatever exists. SAT (existence, truth): SAt is which is self-evident and does not require any proof and does not need anything else to exist. e.g. I exist irrespective of anything else and this does not require a proof. Also, SAT is that which exists the same in all three periods of time (past, present and future) trikAla abadhitam satyam. Now, let us look at world and creation. Creation is the name (nAma) and form (rUpa) with qualities (guNa) in time (kAla) and space (desha). That which exists before creation must be nameless, formless and attributeless and not bound by time and space. Such is SAT. SAT stands for that which is mere existence, extremely subtle, all-pervading, ekam, pure consciousness, and indivisible. EVA (only): That which exists before creation of name and forms must be beyond time and space and must be infinite. There cannot be two infinities, and therefore SAT *alone* (eva) existed before creation. IDAM (this): The world that is experienced and known to us is referred to as idam (compare with pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam). SAT is adaH beyond purview of thought and cannot be known as this. Also, SAT cannot be objectified by thoughts. AGRE (before): We should recognize 'when', 'where', 'before' are all time and space concepts and are parts of creation. AsIt (was): The question can be raised why the word 'AsIt' (was) was used here in the past tense. SAT is there even now and is ever exstent, not only before creation. The word 'was' is used with reference to our present experience of the world. ekam eva advitIyam (one only without a second): i.e. it (SAT) has no svajAtIyabheda (no generic difference, i.e. no difference within the same species), no svagatabheda (no intrinsic difference, i.e. no difference within one self), or no vijAtIyabheda (no extrinsic difference, i.e. no difference between species). Thus, it (SAT) is homogeneous, only one and without a second. It is also suggested here, that some say that before creation there was only non-existence and from that non-existence arose existence. But, that idea is refuted in this and the next mantra. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 5, 2002 --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > > shrIlalitAyai namaH > > continuing on chhAndogya upaniShad, chapter 6 > ....... ekam evAdvitIyam, > tasmAd asataH sat jAyata 6.2.1 ....... > ekam eva advitIyam (one only without a second): i.e. it (SAT) > has no svajAtIyabheda (no generic difference, i.e. no difference > within the same species), no svagatabheda (no intrinsic difference, > > i.e. no difference within one self), or no vijAtIyabheda (no > extrinsic > difference, i.e. no difference between species). Thus, it (SAT) is > homogeneous, only one and without a second. Here Bhagavaan Ramanuja differs from advaitic interpretation. According to him, it is one without a second alright but it has internal differences - svagata bheda-s. Internal difference consists of - three entities constituting under eternal existence - conscious entities - paramaatma and jiiva-s and inert entity -prakRiti or universe. In that internal differences there are differences again from jiiva-jiiva bhinnatvam - there are eternally liberated jiiva-s and jiiva-s bound due to annadi avidya. Being paramaatma, he pervades the existence as antaryaami -in dweller of all while still remaining as separate - just as the individual soul pervades the individual body yet distinctly different from it. We raise some of these issues when Murthy gaara comes to the discussion of tat tvam asi part. Sending a copy of this mail to Shreeman Mani if he has any input. Hari OM! Sadananda > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > -------------------------- ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 5, 2002 Namaste Sadanandaji wrote: > > > > Here Bhagavaan Ramanuja differs from advaitic interpretation. > According to him, it is one without a second alright but it has > internal differences - svagata bheda-s. . > In fact Sri Madhvacharya makes one more difference substantial, namely, vijAtIya bheda i.e. difference between categories. The subtle distinctions among these three philosophies, advaita, viSishTAdvaita and the dvaita philosophies as far as this concept of difference and non-difference is concerned is explained from scratch by putting them in juxtaposition on the following web page: The Art and Science of Spiritual Love - Difference and Non-difference: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/74.html praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 11, 2002 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > shrIlalitAyai namaH > > sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam, > taddhaika AhuH, asad evedam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam, > tasmAd asataH sat jAyata 6.2.1 > In the beginning, dear boy, there was existence alone, > one only without a second. Some people say that, in the > beginning, there was non-existence alone, one only without > a second. From that non-existence (they say), arose whatever > exists. ____________________ Namaste Murthyji and Sunderji. The way Ch. Up. 6.2.1 is translated raises a question. Which came first – the Upanishad or the "some people who say that there was non- existence alone in the beginning"? I should believe that the Upanishad was there before those people. (Recall Sunderji very kindly cautioned me against creating a neologism when I inadvertently used the term "upanishadkAraka"). Scholars believe that Ch. Up. was written some time about 700 BC, i.e. at least one and a half centuries before Buddha. Obviously, those "some people" (Buddhists unless others are meant by the term nihilists) did not exist at that time. "Taddhaika AhuH", therefore, may not mean "some people say". However, we find that Sankara, in his commentaries so very kindly provided by Sunderji, has gone all out to decimate the Buddhists. Any comments? The first time I read 6.2.1 in Devnaagri script a long while ago, the meaning that registered on my mind was something on the following lines: "Oh boy! All this (universe) is "the one and one-without-a-second sat" as was existent in the beginning. That is said as One. All this (multiplicity or "more-than-oneness") is asad only, which in the beginning was (the cause of which is) that one and one-without-a- second. May asat, therefore, yield (reveal, give way to) sat (May sat be born from asat. May you understand sat from asat.)." Doesn't that last line (asataH sat jAyata) sound like "tamasormA jyotirgamaya, mrityormA amritam gamaya? Sunderji, where on the Net can I find Ch. Up. in its entirety in Dev Nagari? Murthyji, may I request you to include the anvaya for the verses in future if that is not a very difficult task? Pranams and best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 11, 2002 Namaste, advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: Scholars believe that Ch. Up. was > written some time about 700 BC, i.e. at least one and a half > centuries before Buddha. ********** For a critique of this idea, pl. see: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap9.htm ============================================================== > find Ch. Up. in its entirety in Dev > Nagari? ************* http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/doc_upanishhat.html chhAndogya upan. is available in itx, ps, pdf, xdvng formats. Regards, Sunder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Namaste. Thanks Sunderji. I have this url but can't find the whole of Ch. Up. there, particularly chapters 5 and 6. About the critique, are we to consider the Up. timeless or take it back to Gokhale's figure? In either case, who is the "some one" then implied in the verse? Read your brilliant quote of Jnaneswara about BG 8.20. That is the answer. Thanks. Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote: > > http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap9.htm > > > > http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/doc_upanishhat.html > > chhAndogya upan. is available in itx, ps, pdf, xdvng formats. > > > Regards, > > Sunder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 12, 2002 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > can't find the whole of Ch. Up. there, > particularly chapters 5 and 6. > > About the critique, are we to consider the Up. timeless or take it > back to Gokhale's figure? In either case, who is the "some one" then > implied in the verse? Namaste, Namaste Madathilji, In the .pdf and .ps files I just checked, pp. 15-19 cover Ch. 5, and pp.19-22 cover Ch. 6. Paramacharya has pointed out in this and previous chapters the basis of the approach of Indological studies, and what the 'Hindu' guru-paramparA [Apta-vAkya] say. The choice is ours to adopt whatever convinces us personally, and whether it is of such crucial importance in the pursuit of our goal. ('Some one' may be referring to anyone opposed to the view of the Rishi, I think). Regards, Sunder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
