Post by vkaul1 on Sept 15, 2011 19:41:01 GMT -6
This verse from the Upanishad was discussed before Nitai ji on the pramanas thread. I read this description of the verse by someone in advaita tradition. He also speaks about how it is understood in bhakti tradition. What is your best guess on its translation?
nᾱyam ᾱtmᾱ pravacanena labhyo na medhayᾱ, na bahunᾱ śrutena:
yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ᾱtmᾱ vivṛṇute tanῡṁ svᾱm. (23)
This is a very famous, often quoted verse: “Not by speech can He be known; not by the intellect, not even by hearing.” Speech returns baffled. Who expresses speech? The Atman! Who can express the Atman? Even rationality, His partial expression through the buddhi which is a modification of prakriti, cannot express Him. Frail is the intellect when it tries to stretch itself beyond its limits. As a person who cuts the branch on which he sits will fall down, he who tries to know the Atman through the intellect will break. All the faculties of the human mind break down when they try to turn towards the Atman. “He is known only by him whom He chooses.” If God chooses, you may know; otherwise not. This is the interpretation of the Bhakti School. It is God’s grace that He gives you darshan. By a miracle taking place, you can see God; not by ordinary effort.
But Sankara’s interpretation is unique: It is not that someone chooses, because, for Sankara, that someone does not exist to choose. His understanding of this part of the mantra is: “He is beheld only by That which is the seeker himself.” That which you behold is within yourself, is the meaning. Who is the seeker? Is he outside the Atman? God is the prompter even behind the seeker. Sadhana is not possible without Him. Rather than from without, the choice has to come from within. The seeker and the sought are one.
The sought or God is not outside the seeker, choosing him arbitrarily; if it were so, we would have to attribute partiality to Him. Reality is one, and on the basis of this doctrine, Sankara opines that Self-knowledge is an inexplicable wonder: it arises—that is all. It is not caused by the jiva, because he has no freedom. But, if God is the cause, what conditions does He impose? If you say it is the jiva’s karmas, you limit His power; so even that is not a satisfactory explanation. Hence, either you accept that God’s ways are mysterious, ununderstandable, or knowledge is a miracle, and when you say miracle, you cannot say anything. By the passage of time, by the fructification of good deeds, by the process of the universe, by the grace of God—by a mysterious combination of all these factors which the jiva cannot understand, God is revealed. When He reveals Himself, the person (jiva) is no more. God reveals Himself to Himself. It is not an end reached by the effort of human personality.
The whole difficulty is expressed in a single statement: the Atman is the subject, not the object. Thus, He cannot be manipulated by an instrument. Speech, mind and intellect are signified by the terms pravacanena medhaya. Speech is indicative of all senses. So, not through them, not through the mind, not through the intellect can the Atman be realised, because these faculties have a tendency to move outward. They catch the object, not the subject. The mind never catches the mind. Both the mind and intellect work on the dictate of the senses which are untrustworthy, concluding that all reality is confined to phenomena. Any description of the Atman is given by them, and they cannot conceive of anything other than objects.
This mystery of atmasakshatkara is given in the second half of the verse. The Atman chooses the Atman. God chooses God. It is Self-efflorescence. To such a fortunate being who has so withdrawn himself into himself that he is indistinguishable from the Supreme Subject, to such a one is the Atman revealed—not by process, but instantaneously. It is a timeless flash of a sudden consciousness which is called atmasakshatkara. It comes by the maturity of one’s sadhana. The links of this process are indescribable. The last occurrence is such that it cannot be regarded as an effect of all the preceding ones, though it comes as a result of these. It is beyond the causational process.
nᾱyam ᾱtmᾱ pravacanena labhyo na medhayᾱ, na bahunᾱ śrutena:
yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ᾱtmᾱ vivṛṇute tanῡṁ svᾱm. (23)
This is a very famous, often quoted verse: “Not by speech can He be known; not by the intellect, not even by hearing.” Speech returns baffled. Who expresses speech? The Atman! Who can express the Atman? Even rationality, His partial expression through the buddhi which is a modification of prakriti, cannot express Him. Frail is the intellect when it tries to stretch itself beyond its limits. As a person who cuts the branch on which he sits will fall down, he who tries to know the Atman through the intellect will break. All the faculties of the human mind break down when they try to turn towards the Atman. “He is known only by him whom He chooses.” If God chooses, you may know; otherwise not. This is the interpretation of the Bhakti School. It is God’s grace that He gives you darshan. By a miracle taking place, you can see God; not by ordinary effort.
But Sankara’s interpretation is unique: It is not that someone chooses, because, for Sankara, that someone does not exist to choose. His understanding of this part of the mantra is: “He is beheld only by That which is the seeker himself.” That which you behold is within yourself, is the meaning. Who is the seeker? Is he outside the Atman? God is the prompter even behind the seeker. Sadhana is not possible without Him. Rather than from without, the choice has to come from within. The seeker and the sought are one.
The sought or God is not outside the seeker, choosing him arbitrarily; if it were so, we would have to attribute partiality to Him. Reality is one, and on the basis of this doctrine, Sankara opines that Self-knowledge is an inexplicable wonder: it arises—that is all. It is not caused by the jiva, because he has no freedom. But, if God is the cause, what conditions does He impose? If you say it is the jiva’s karmas, you limit His power; so even that is not a satisfactory explanation. Hence, either you accept that God’s ways are mysterious, ununderstandable, or knowledge is a miracle, and when you say miracle, you cannot say anything. By the passage of time, by the fructification of good deeds, by the process of the universe, by the grace of God—by a mysterious combination of all these factors which the jiva cannot understand, God is revealed. When He reveals Himself, the person (jiva) is no more. God reveals Himself to Himself. It is not an end reached by the effort of human personality.
The whole difficulty is expressed in a single statement: the Atman is the subject, not the object. Thus, He cannot be manipulated by an instrument. Speech, mind and intellect are signified by the terms pravacanena medhaya. Speech is indicative of all senses. So, not through them, not through the mind, not through the intellect can the Atman be realised, because these faculties have a tendency to move outward. They catch the object, not the subject. The mind never catches the mind. Both the mind and intellect work on the dictate of the senses which are untrustworthy, concluding that all reality is confined to phenomena. Any description of the Atman is given by them, and they cannot conceive of anything other than objects.
This mystery of atmasakshatkara is given in the second half of the verse. The Atman chooses the Atman. God chooses God. It is Self-efflorescence. To such a fortunate being who has so withdrawn himself into himself that he is indistinguishable from the Supreme Subject, to such a one is the Atman revealed—not by process, but instantaneously. It is a timeless flash of a sudden consciousness which is called atmasakshatkara. It comes by the maturity of one’s sadhana. The links of this process are indescribable. The last occurrence is such that it cannot be regarded as an effect of all the preceding ones, though it comes as a result of these. It is beyond the causational process.
