Sambhūti as Asambhūti

[Advayananda]

Respected Scholars,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

This query is with reference to Verse 14 of Īśa Upaniṣad, the first pāda, which goes as: sambhūtiṁ ca vināśaṁ ca.

Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes 'sambhūtiṁ' as 'asambhūtim'. This is grammatically valid since the verse 13 ends with the word विचचक्षिरे

Refer to his commentary:  "सम्भूतिं च विनाशं च" इत्यत्र अवर्णलोपेन निर्देशः द्रष्टव्यः।

I request for guidance about the padapāṭha in this regard: Does the first word of this verse go as सम्भूतिम् or as असम्भूतिम् in the padapāṭha of the Īśa Upaniṣad?

My heartfelt gratitude for the team of great scholars for the many enlightening discussions in this forum.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Scholars,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

This query is with reference to Verse 14 of Īśa Upaniṣad, the first pāda, which goes as: sambhūtiṁ ca vināśaṁ ca.

Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes 'sambhūtiṁ' as 'asambhūtim'. This is grammatically valid since the verse 13 ends with the word विचचक्षिरे

Refer to his commentary:  "सम्भूतिं च विनाशं च" इत्यत्र अवर्णलोपेन निर्देशः द्रष्टव्यः।

I request for guidance about the padapāṭha in this regard: Does the first word of this verse go as सम्भूतिम् or as असम्भूतिम् in the padapāṭha of the Īśa Upaniṣad?

Namaste.

My guess is that the first word goes as ' सम्भूतिम्' alone.  In other words, Shankara has taken it as सम्भूतिम् alone as can be seen in the beginning of the bhashyam.  He suggests, later, that in keeping with the phalashruti in the 14th mantra for 'asambhUti upAsana' namely: prakRti layaH, one should 'take' the first word of this mantra as 'asambhUti'.  That is why He says: 'a-varNalopena nirdeshaH draShTavyaH.'  So, according to Him the mantra is doing the ’nirdesha’ of the word asambhUti as 'sambhUti', by doing the the lopa of the letter 'a'.  असम्भूतिरेव अवर्णलोपेन सम्भूतिशब्देन निर्दिश्यते इत्यर्थः ।

In the 13th mantra there are two: 'sambhava' and 'asambhava'.  There the former was explained as 'kAryabrahma' which corresponds to the term 'vinAsha' in the 14th mantra.  There is the word 'asambhava' in the 13th which, therefore, corresponds to the term 'sambhUtim' in the 14th  mantra.  He has taken the word in the 4th pAda of the 14th mantra as 'asambhUtyA' alone which corresponds to the word 'asambhava' in the 13th mantra. 

There is no separate vyAkhyaanam in the Anandagiri's gloss.  The Editor Sri Subrahmanya Sastri, while giving a footnote mentions:

अत्र व्याकृताव्याकृतोपासनयोः समुच्चयः विधित्सितः । माध्यन्दिनपाठे आदौ अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति ये सम्भूतिमुपासते इति मन्त्रत्रयं पठित्वा तदनन्तरम् अन्धम् तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्यामुपासते इद्यादिमन्त्राः पठिताः, तदनुसारेण माण्डूक्यकारिका तद्भाष्यं च प्रवृत्ते । तत्र च सम्भूतिरित्येव पदच्छेदो नाकारप्रश्लेष:, ....।   

regards
subrahmanian.v

My heartfelt gratitude for the team of great scholars for the many enlightening discussions in this forum.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

[Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya]

महोदयाः,

सादरम्प्रणम्य।ईशावास्योपनिषदि द्वादशश्लोके "येऽसंभूतिमुपासते"इत्यत्र अकारप्रश्लेषेण "असंभूति"रिति

लिखितम्।अत्र अविद्यामिति मूलश्लोके न दृश्यते। संभूतिर्नाम ब्रह्मप्राप्तिरूपफलम्।(The fruit of attaining Brahman).असंभूतिर्नाम प्रकृतिबन्धरूपशरीरनिवृत्तिः/विनाशः।संभूत्यसंभूत्यर्थविज्ञानं ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनमिति तात्प्रर्यम्।आङ्ग्लभाषायां असंभूतिर्नाम "Destruction of the body acting as hindrance.

शङ्करभाष्ये संभूत्यसंभूतिशब्दयोः एवमर्थः कथितोऽस्ति। "संभूतिर्नाम सृष्टिकर्ता हिरण्यगर्भः।असंभूति र्नाम लयस्थानमचेतनमव्याकृतम्।हिरण्यगर्भोपासनेन मृत्युतरणं नाम अणिमाद्यष्टैश्वर्यसिद्धिः।अव्याकृतोपासनेन(अचेतनरूपप्रकृत्युपासनेन) अमृतत्वप्राप्तिर्नाम तस्मिन् अचेतने लयप्राप्तिः।"इति।(पश्यन्तु----ईशावास्योपनिषत्--प्रतिपदार्थ,तात्पर्य,व्याख्या,विशेषार्थसहिता--महामहोपाध्यायैःविरचिता--सत्सम्प्रदायपरिरक्षणसभया वरङ्गल् नगरे मुद्रिता च)कर्मकाण्डे इव इन्द्र,

हिरण्यगर्भादि तत्तद्देवतोपासनं वा, अणिमाद्यैहिकफलप्राप्तिर्वा कर्मनिष्ठाय बोधनं ब्रह्मविद्यासम्बन्धित

उपनिषत्प्रकरणसम्बन्धि न भवतीति,मृत्यु,तरण,अमृत शब्दानां प्रकृतिसम्बन्धपरित्याग इति,मोक्ष इति स्थितान् सहजान् अर्थान् परित्यज्य अणिमादिप्राप्ति,लय रूपगौणार्थकथनमनुचितमिति च व्यख्यातं तत्र पुस्तके।

अभिवाद्य,

ऐवियन्।

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com> wrote:

[V Subrahmanian]

2012/7/29 Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com>

महोदयाः,

सादरम्प्रणम्य।ईशावास्योपनिषदि द्वादशश्लोके "येऽसंभूतिमुपासते"इत्यत्र अकारप्रश्लेषेण "असंभूति"रिति

लिखितम्।अत्र अविद्यामिति मूलश्लोके न दृश्यते। संभूतिर्नाम ब्रह्मप्राप्तिरूपफलम्।(The fruit of attaining Brahman).असंभूतिर्नाम प्रकृतिबन्धरूपशरीरनिवृत्तिः/विनाशः।संभूत्यसंभूत्यर्थविज्ञानं ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनमिति तात्प्रर्यम्।आङ्ग्लभाषायां असंभूतिर्नाम "Destruction of the body acting as hindrance.

शङ्करभाष्ये संभूत्यसंभूतिशब्दयोः एवमर्थः कथितोऽस्ति। "संभूतिर्नाम सृष्टिकर्ता हिरण्यगर्भः।असंभूति र्नाम लयस्थानमचेतनमव्याकृतम्।हिरण्यगर्भोपासनेन मृत्युतरणं नाम अणिमाद्यष्टैश्वर्यसिद्धिः।अव्याकृतोपासनेन(अचेतनरूपप्रकृत्युपासनेन) अमृतत्वप्राप्तिर्नाम तस्मिन् अचेतने लयप्राप्तिः।"इति।(पश्यन्तु----ईशावास्योपनिषत्--प्रतिपदार्थ,तात्पर्य,व्याख्या,विशेषार्थसहिता--महामहोपाध्यायैःविरचिता--सत्सम्प्रदायपरिरक्षणसभया वरङ्गल् नगरे मुद्रिता च)कर्मकाण्डे इव इन्द्र,

हिरण्यगर्भादि तत्तद्देवतोपासनं वा, अणिमाद्यैहिकफलप्राप्तिर्वा कर्मनिष्ठाय बोधनं ब्रह्मविद्यासम्बन्धित

उपनिषत्प्रकरणसम्बन्धि न भवतीति

अत्रेदमवधेयम् - १५ तमन्त्रस्यारम्भभाष्ये एवमुक्तं श्रीशंकराचार्यैः - मानुषदैववित्तसाध्यं फलं शास्रलक्षणं प्रकृतिलयान्तम्। एतावती संसारगतिः । अतः परं पूर्वोक्तमात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः इति सर्वात्मभाव एव सर्वैषणासन्न्यासज्ञाननिष्ठाफलम् । एवं द्विप्रकारः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिलक्षणो वेदार्थोऽत्र प्रकाशितः । तत्र प्रवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य विधिप्रतिषेधलक्षणस्य कृत्स्नस्य प्रकाशने प्रवर्ग्यान्तं ब्राह्मणमुपयुक्तम् । निवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य प्रकाशनेऽत ऊर्ध्वं बृहदारण्यकमुपयुक्तम् ।

इति विभागेन अर्थः प्रदर्शितः भाष्ये । एषा शैलिः कठोपनिषद्यपि दृश्यते । आद्यद्वयवरविषयः साम्सारिकस्ततः परं तृतीयवरविषय एव पारमार्थिकः मोक्षविषयक इति । एवं उपनिषदां शैलिमनुसृत्यैव भाष्यं प्रवर्तते इति न ईषदप्यसामञ्जस्यम् । 

,मृत्यु,तरण,अमृत शब्दानां प्रकृतिसम्बन्धपरित्याग इति,मोक्ष इति स्थितान् सहजान् अर्थान् परित्यज्य अणिमादिप्राप्ति,लय रूपगौणार्थकथनमनुचितमिति च व्यख्यातं तत्र पुस्तके।

अभिवाद्य,

ऐवियन्।

 
उपर्युक्तविषये इदं किञ्चित् प्रदर्श्यते - 

मया पूर्वोदाहृतग्रन्थे ज्येष्ठविद्वांसः प्रान्तियंकरै श्री एस्.सुब्रह्मण्यशास्त्रिणः टिप्पण्यां एवं लिलिखुः -

यत्तु रामानुजीयनां व्याख्यानम् - विद्यां चाविद्यां चेति ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयविधानम् । तत् विद्या साक्षाद्भगवत्प्राप्तिसाधनं कर्म च तस्या अङ्गमित्युक्तम् । तन्न । अविद्याशब्दितस्य कर्मणः अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वेति पृथक्फलश्रवणात्, अङ्गानां फलाभावात् । अतः कर्मणां न विद्याङ्गत्वम् । अङ्गत्वे विद्यापदेन साङ्गं पृतक् गृह्येत ।

यत्तु संभूतिं च विनाशं चेत्यत्र सम्भूतिः ब्रह्मानुभूतिः । विनाशः समाध्यन्तरायाणां विनाशः इति; तत्राप्युक्तविनाशस्य समाध्यङ्गत्वात् विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वेति पृथक्फलकथनमयुक्तम्, अङ्गानां पृथक्फलाभात् । अपि च येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते  समाधिविरुद्धरागद्वेषादिनिवृत्तिमात्रनिष्ठाः ते अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्तीति चित्रं ’नहि कल्याणकृत् कश्चिद्दुर्गतिं तात गच्छति’ इति भगवद्वचनविरोधात् । ये ब्रह्मसमाधिमात्रनिष्ठास्ते तमः प्राप्नुवन्तीत्यपि न; ’यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम”त्यनेन विरोधात् । अपि च सम्भूतिं च विनाशं चेत्यत्र सम्भूतिः समाधिरिति व्यख्यानमयुक्तम्, सम्भूतेरुत्पत्त्यर्थत्वात् । अपि च विनाशशब्देन पूर्वोक्तसम्भूतिपरामर्शो न युक्तः उत्पन्नस्य विनाशित्वनियमात् अनुत्पन्नस्याविनाशित्वात् । इति ।

एवं पूर्वोक्तविरोधाद्यभावात् शंकरभाष्यमेव साधु इति समर्थयन्ति ।

[Advayananda]

Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.

My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim? 

While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'. How does Śrī Rāmanujācārya and and Śrī Madhvācārya take this word: as 'sambhūtim' or 'asambhūtim'? More importantly what does the padapāṭha of this verse say? 

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

It is without akara in the beginning, i.e, sambhUtim only.
The accent also is not 'नञ्' svara. In Shri Ramanuja's system,
commentary by Sri Vedanta Desika and five others have taken as
sambhUtim only.

Ramanujan

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com> said:

> Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,
> Hari Om! Salutations.
>
> Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.
>
> My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim?
>
> While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'. How does Śrī Rāmanujācārya and and Śrī Madhvācārya take this word: as 'sambhūtim' or 'asambhūtim'? More importantly what does the padapāṭha of this verse say?
>
> In Shri Guru Smriti,
> Advayananda
>
>
> On 29-Jul-2012, at 10:46 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/29 Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com>
>> महोदयाः,
>> सादरम्प्रणम्य।ईशावास्योपनिषदि द्वादशश्लोके "येऽसंभूतिमुपासते"इत्यत्र अकारप्रश्लेषेण "असंभूति"रिति
>> लिखितम्।अत्र अविद्यामिति मूलश्लोके न दृश्यते। संभूतिर्नाम ब्रह्मप्राप्तिरूपफलम्।(The fruit of attaining Brahman).असंभूतिर्नाम प्रकृतिबन्धरूपशरीरनिवृत्तिः/विनाशः।संभूत्यसंभूत्यर्थविज्ञानं ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनमिति तात्प्रर्यम्।आङ्ग्लभाषायां असंभूतिर्नाम "Destruction of the body acting as hindrance.

>> शङ्करभाष्ये संभूत्यसंभूतिशब्दयोः एवमर्थः कथितोऽस्ति। "संभूतिर्नाम सृष्टिकर्ता हिरण्यगर्भः।असंभूति र्नाम लयस्थानमचेतनमव्याकृतम्।हिरण्यगर्भोपासनेन मृत्युतरणं नाम अणिमाद्यष्टैश्वर्यसिद्धिः।अव्याकृतोपासनेन(अचेतनरूपप्रकृत्युपासनेन) अमृतत्वप्राप्तिर्नाम तस्मिन् अचेतने लयप्राप्तिः।"इति।(पश्यन्तु----ईशावास्योपनिषत्--प्रतिपदार्थ,तात्पर्य,व्याख्या,विशेषार्!

थसहिता--महामहोपाध्यायैःविरचिता--सत्सम्प्रदायपरिरक्षणसभया वरङ्गल् नगरे मुद्रिता च)कर्मकाण्डे इव इन्द्र,
>> हिरण्यगर्भादि तत्तद्देवतोपासनं वा, अणिमाद्यैहिकफलप्राप्तिर्वा कर्मनिष्ठाय बोधनं ब्रह्मविद्यासम्बन्धित
>> उपनिषत्प्रकरणसम्बन्धि न भवतीति
>>

>> अत्रेदमवधेयम् - १५ तमन्त्रस्यारम्भभाष्ये एवमुक्तं श्रीशंकराचार्यैः - मानुषदैववित्तसाध्यं फलं शास्रलक्षणं प्रकृतिलयान्तम्। एतावती संसारगतिः । अतः परं पूर्वोक्तमात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः इति सर्वात्मभाव एव सर्वैषणासन्न्यासज्ञाननिष्ठाफलम् । एवं द्विप्रकारः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिलक्षणो वेदार्थोऽत्र प्रकाशितः । तत्र प्रवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य विधिप्रतिषेधलक्षणस्य �!
��ृत्स्नस्य प्रकाशने प्रवर्ग्यान्तं ब्राह्मणमुपयुक्तम् । निवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य प्रकाशनेऽत ऊर्ध्वं बृहदारण्यकमुपयुक्तम् ।

>>
>> इति विभागेन अर्थः प्रदर्शितः भाष्ये । एषा शैलिः कठोपनिषद्यपि दृश्यते । आद्यद्वयवरविषयः साम्सारिकस्ततः परं तृतीयवरविषय एव पारमार्थिकः मोक्षविषयक इति । एवं उपनिषदां शैलिमनुसृत्यैव भाष्यं प्रवर्तते इति न ईषदप्यसामञ्जस्यम् ।
>> ,मृत्यु,तरण,अमृत शब्दानां प्रकृतिसम्बन्धपरित्याग इति,मोक्ष इति स्थितान् सहजान् अर्थान् परित्यज्य अणिमादिप्राप्ति,लय रूपगौणार्थकथनमनुचितमिति च व्यख्यातं तत्र पुस्तके।
>> अभिवाद्य,
>> ऐवियन्।
>>
>>
>> उपर्युक्तविषये इदं किञ्चित् प्रदर्श्यते -
>>
>> मया पूर्वोदाहृतग्रन्थे ज्येष्ठविद्वांसः प्रान्तियंकरै श्री एस्.सुब्रह्मण्यशास्त्रिणः टिप्पण्यां एवं लिलिखुः -
>>
>> यत्तु रामानुजीयनां व्याख्यानम् - विद्यां चाविद्यां चेति ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयविधानम् । तत् विद्या साक्षाद्भगवत्प्राप्तिसाधनं कर्म च तस्या अङ्गमित्युक्तम् । तन्न । अविद्याशब्दितस्य कर्मणः अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वेति पृथक्फलश्रवणात्, अङ्गानां फलाभावात् । अतः कर्मणां न विद्याङ्गत्वम् । अङ्गत्वे विद्यापदेन साङ्गं पृतक् गृह्येत ।
>>

>> यत्तु संभूतिं च विनाशं चेत्यत्र सम्भूतिः ब्रह्मानुभूतिः । विनाशः समाध्यन्तरायाणां विनाशः इति; तत्राप्युक्तविनाशस्य समाध्यङ्गत्वात् विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वेति पृथक्फलकथनमयुक्तम्, अङ्गानां पृथक्फलाभात् । अपि च येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते समाधिविरुद्धरागद्वेषादिनिवृत्तिमात्रनिष्ठाः ते अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्तीति चित्रं ’नहि कल्याणकृत् कश्चिद्दुर्गतिं तात गच्छति’ इति भग�!
�द्वचनविरोधात् । ये ब्रह्मसमाधिमात्रनिष्ठास्ते तमः प्राप्नुवन्तीत्यपि न; ’यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम”त्यनेन विरोधात् । अपि च सम्भूतिं च विनाशं चेत्यत्र सम्भूतिः समाधिरिति व्यख्यानमयुक्तम्, सम्भूतेरुत्पत्त्यर्थत्वात् । अपि च विनाशशब्देन पूर्वोक्तसम्भूतिपरामर्शो न युक्तः उत्पन्नस्य विनाशित्वनियमात् अनुत्पन्नस्याविनाशित्वात् । इति ।

>>
>> एवं पूर्वोक्तविरोधाद्यभावात् शंकरभाष्यमेव साधु इति समर्थयन्ति ।
>>
>

> --
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा
युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
> to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
> https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

--
Dr. P. Ramanujan
AD-IHLC,
C-DAC, Bangalore (KP)
ra...@cdac.in
080-25246350, 66116444 (Off.-Dir.)



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

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2012/7/30 Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com>

Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.

My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim? 

While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'. How does Śrī Rāmanujācārya and and Śrī Madhvācārya take this word: as 'sambhūtim' or 'asambhūtim'? More importantly what does the padapāṭha of this verse say? 

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

HariH Om.

Yes. I too noticed the explanations on the word असंभूति and संभूति, except the solution to the question specifically you had raised.

The question is yet complicated, as it pre-supposes the "a" as elided in "sandhi" between the two words in two independent verses as is available today the last word of verse 13 and the first word [अ]संभूति। In the first instance itself, श्रीशंकराचार्य, had made no such remark in verse 14th itself. But only in the next verse last पाद. I think there is some thing missed in the word by word explanations of the sentence of शाङ्करभाष्य and deep interpretations by both the scholars above.

I noticed something strange. It is in the second पाद the "mantra" says, where there is clearly he has split, 

विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा+

[अ]संभूत्या अमृतमश्नुते।

and then asks to take अ in respect of the first word also in the beginning, even though he has not commented anything, in the first occurrence. Now this has statement been taken as supported by प्रकृतिलय-फल-श्रुति by this splitting with"a". This has been accomplished with inserting the "अ" प्रश्लेष by महीधर also, but in the word विनाश instead of असंभूति, in both places, which he justifies as referring to the earlier verses:

’अन्यदेवाहुः संभवादन्यदाहुरसंभावात्’, which he offers an alternative explanation for the same verse after he has commented as संभूति and विनाश in the first place. 

संभूत्युपासनयोरेकपुरुषार्थत्वात् समुच्चय एव युक्त इत्याह। 

 

As it can be seen in the image, he prefers अ-वर्ण with विनाश in both places, instead of संभूति, unlike श्रीशंकर. But this makes the possibility of अ-प्रश्लेष both in संभूति or विनाश in the same manner, पृषोदरादि, which is the short cut to regularize irregular compounds generally and any irregular word. Mallinatha, makes कोविद as a compound of ओकः and विद. In the same way, we can have a compound with "अ" and संभूति or विनाश, and elide अ, due to पृषोदरादि, if one wants to defend the commentaries. But both seek support from प्रकृतिलयश्रुति as is evident from the last sentence.

As the "sandhi" may not be permissible between विचचक्षिरे+ in the end of the previous verse and [अ] संभूति in the beginning of the next verse. But पृषोदरादि is possible, just like महीधर has done with विनाश in the same mantra. And पदपाठ is available for संहिता only, which is ऋक् or यजुस् divided into अनुवक, कण्डिका etc. within the sections, ऋक्, or कण्डिका. But it depends on the commentators also. In the Edition with the भाष्य of उव्वट and महीधर, though स्वर is available for संहिता, there is no पदपाठ given. The commentator anyhow, takes them as they are, and comments in both ways without change in the inflected form for the संहितापाठ as विनाश or संभूति. Only with "sandhi" the accent in पदपाठ may differ, but not on the commentator's volitional interpretation as पृषोदरादि formation. Hence in the case of श्रीशंकराचार्य's commentary also the same justification can be given. Here is his relevant portion

Hope this solve the issue raised. 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Shrisha Rao]

El jul 30, 2012, a las 10:58 p.m., Dr. P. Ramanujan <ra...@cdac.in> escribió:

> It is without akara in the beginning, i.e, sambhUtim only.
> The accent also is not 'नञ्' svara. In Shri Ramanuja's system,
> commentary by Sri Vedanta Desika and five others have taken as
> sambhUtim only.

The टीका of श्री जयतीर्थ and the टिप्पणी of श्री वादिराजतीर्थ are clear as crystal upon this point as well:

टीका -- "सम्भूतिं च विनाशं च" इत्यत्र, 'कुतोऽयं विनाश आपातितः?' इति चिन्त्यम् | 'विनाशधर्मकत्वाद्विनाशो हिरण्यगर्भ' इति चेन्न -- सम्भूतिपदेन पौनरुक्त्यात् | अव्याकृतोक्त्यभावाच्च | अकारलोपेन सम्भूतिरव्याकृतम्, इत्यपूर्वं व्याकरणकौशलं इत्यास्ताम् |

टिप्पणी -- "अव्याकृतोक्त्यभावात्" इत्यत्र प्रागसम्भूतिपदेन, 'न विद्यते सम्भूतिः यस्या' इति असम्भूतिपदेन प्रकृतिमुक्त्वा इदानीं तत्स्थाने प्रयुक्त विनाशपदेन हिरण्यगर्भोक्तौ प्रकृतिवाचकपदाभावादिति भावः | "अकारलोपेन" इत्यत्र सम्भूतिपदे अकारप्रक्षेपं कृत्वा प्रकृतिमभिधाय, पुनः तल्लोपे सति सम्भूतिपदमात्रमुर्वरितम्, इति व्याख्यानस्य प्रसिद्धव्याकरणे अनुशासनाभावाद् "अपूर्वं व्याकरणकौशलम्" इत्युक्तम् | यद्यपि निरुक्तिमात्रे वर्णनाशादिकमुक्तं, तथाऽपि स्वापेक्षितलौकिकप्रयोगेषु वर्णनाशादेः कथने घटपदमघटवाचकं पटपदमपटवाचकं ऐक्यपदं चानैक्यवाचकं स्याद्, इति सर्वव्यवहारेषु सङ्करप्रसङ्गः -- इति भावः |

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Ramanujan
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,
>> Hari Om! Salutations.
>>
>> Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.
>>
>> My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim?
>>
>> While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'. How does Śrī Rāmanujācārya and and Śrī Madhvācārya take this word: as 'sambhūtim' or 'asambhūtim'? More importantly what does the padapāṭha of this verse say?
>>
>> In Shri Guru Smriti,
>> Advayananda
>>
>>
>> On 29-Jul-2012, at 10:46 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/29 Iragavarapu Narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com>
>>> महोदयाः,
>>> सादरम्प्रणम्य।ईशावास्योपनिषदि द्वादशश्लोके "येऽसंभूतिमुपासते"इत्यत्र अकारप्रश्लेषेण "असंभूति"रिति
>>> लिखितम्।अत्र अविद्यामिति मूलश्लोके न दृश्यते। संभूतिर्नाम ब्रह्मप्राप्तिरूपफलम्।(The fruit of attaining Brahman).असंभूतिर्नाम प्रकृतिबन्धरूपशरीरनिवृत्तिः/विनाशः।संभूत्यसंभूत्यर्थविज्ञानं ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनमिति तात्प्रर्यम्।आङ्ग्लभाषायां असंभूतिर्नाम "Destruction of the body acting as hindrance.
>>> शङ्करभाष्ये संभूत्यसंभूतिशब्दयोः एवमर्थः कथितोऽस्ति। "संभूतिर्नाम सृष्टिकर्ता हिरण्यगर्भः।असंभूति र्नाम लयस्थानमचेतनमव्याकृतम्।हिरण्यगर्भोपासनेन मृत्युतरणं नाम अणिमाद्यष्टैश्वर्यसिद्धिः।अव्याकृतोपासनेन(अचेतनरूपप्रकृत्युपासनेन) अमृतत्वप्राप्तिर्नाम तस्मिन् अचेतने लयप्राप्तिः।"इति।(पश्यन्तु----ईशावास्योपनिषत्--प्रतिपदार्थ,तात्पर्य,व्याख्या,विशेषार्!
> थसहिता--महामहोपाध्यायैःविरचिता--सत्सम्प्रदायपरिरक्षणसभया वरङ्गल् नगरे मुद्रिता च)कर्मकाण्डे इव इन्द्र,
>>> हिरण्यगर्भादि तत्तद्देवतोपासनं वा, अणिमाद्यैहिकफलप्राप्तिर्वा कर्मनिष्ठाय बोधनं ब्रह्मविद्यासम्बन्धित
>>> उपनिषत्प्रकरणसम्बन्धि न भवतीति
>>>

>>> अत्रेदमवधेयम् - १५ तमन्त्रस्यारम्भभाष्ये एवमुक्तं श्रीशंकराचार्यैः - मानुषदैववित्तसाध्यं फलं शास्रलक्षणं प्रकृतिलयान्तम्। एतावती संसारगतिः । अतः परं पूर्वोक्तमात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः इति सर्वात्मभाव एव सर्वैषणासन्न्यासज्ञाननिष्ठाफलम् । एवं द्विप्रकारः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिलक्षणो वेदार्थोऽत्र प्रकाशितः । तत्र प्रवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य विधिप्रतिषेधलक्षणस्य à!

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

2012/7/30 Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com>

Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.

My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim? 

While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'.

 

HariH Om.

Yes. I too noticed the explanations on the word असंभूति and संभूति, except the solution to the question specifically you had raised.

Sir,

I humbly point out that I did address that particular question raised excepting of course the grammatical explanations of पृषोदरादि etc. which are beyond my knowledge.:

  Namaste.

// My guess is that the first word goes as ' सम्भूतिम्' alone (in the padapATha).  In other words, Shankara has taken it as सम्भूतिम् alone as can be seen in the beginning of the bhashyam. [this addresses the question about the 'pada pATha'.] He suggests, later, that in keeping with the phalashruti in the 14th mantra for 'asambhUti upAsana' namely: prakRti layaH, one should 'take' the first word of this mantra as 'asambhUti'.  That is why He says: 'a-varNalopena nirdeshaH draShTavyaH.'  So, according to Him the mantra is doing the ’nirdesha’ of the word asambhUti as 'sambhUti', by doing the the lopa of the letter 'a'.  असम्भूतिरेव अवर्णलोपेन सम्भूतिशब्देन निर्दिश्यते इत्यर्थः ।
In the 13th mantra there are two: 'sambhava' and 'asambhava'.  There the former was explained as 'kAryabrahma' which corresponds to the term 'vinAsha' in the 14th mantra.  There is the word 'asambhava' in the 13th which, therefore, corresponds to the term 'sambhUtim' in the 14th  mantra.  He has taken the word in the 4th pAda of the 14th mantra as 'asambhUtyA' alone which corresponds to the word 'asambhava' in the 13th mantra.  //


Regards
subrahmanian.v
 

[V Subrahmanian]

We can see each school subjecting the other's commentary to critical examination:

The Editor of the bhashyam book I had cited before in this thread says with respect to this mantra:

यत्तु माध्वव्याख्यानम् - येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते प्रलयकर्ता भगवान्, ये सृष्टेकर्तेत्युपासते, ते नरकं यान्ति । ये सम्भूत्या इताः भगवान् सृष्टेरेव कर्था इति ज्ञानवन्तः तेऽपि तमः प्रविशन्ति अतो भगवान् सृष्टिप्रलययोः कर्तेत्युपासनीय इति ।  तन्न । एवं सति स्थितिकर्तृत्वानुपासनात् पुनः नरकप्राप्तिं को वारयेत् ? किञ्च भगवत्तत्त्वज्ञानान्मोक्षप्राप्तिः तत्र तत्राभिहिता विरुध्येत ।

If someone says 'sriShTi and pralaya' form a set in between which sthiti is there and so it is as good as having been said, then the objection will be, as other Acharyas fault with respect to their rival schools: where is the word in the mantra to designate this? 

regards
subrahmanian.v

 

2012/7/30 Shrisha Rao <shrish...@gmail.com>

[Shrisha Rao]

El jul 31, 2012, a las 12:06 a.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:

> We can see each school subjecting the other's commentary to critical examination:

Yes, and that is certainly to be welcomed, though I personally prefer classical critiques ("read the masters") over contemporary ones.

> The Editor of the bhashyam book I had cited before in this thread says with respect to this mantra:
>
> यत्तु माध्वव्याख्यानम् - येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते प्रलयकर्ता भगवान्, ये सृष्टेकर्तेत्युपासते, ते नरकं यान्ति । ये सम्भूत्या इताः भगवान् सृष्टेरेव कर्था इति ज्ञानवन्तः तेऽपि तमः प्रविशन्ति अतो भगवान् सृष्टिप्रलययोः कर्तेत्युपासनीय इति । तन्न । एवं सति स्थितिकर्तृत्वानुपासनात् पुनः नरकप्राप्तिं को वारयेत् ? किञ्च भगवत्तत्त्वज्ञानान्मोक्षप्राप्तिः तत्र तत्राभिहिता विरुध्येत ।
>
> If someone says 'sriShTi and pralaya' form a set in between which sthiti is there and so it is as good as having been said, then the objection will be, as other Acharyas fault with respect to their rival schools: where is the word in the mantra to designate this?

This might be an objection if the mantra were to be understood in isolation. However, the teaching of the स्थितिकर्तृत्व of भगवान् has already happened in the very opening words of the उपनिषत्, cf. the खण्डार्थ of श्री राघवेन्द्र स्वामी -- "यत्किञ्च" जगदिदं तत्सर्वं प्रवृत्त्यर्थं आत्मनि "ईशावास्यम्" | आवासमर्हति, इति आवास्यम् | ईशस्य आवास्यं "ईशावास्यं," ईशानुप्रविष्टमित्यर्थः | "तदेवानुप्राविशद्" इत्यादेः | अतोऽस्वतन्त्रमिति भावः | किञ्च "जगत्याम्" प्रकृताविदं सर्वमाश्रितम् | सा च ईशायत्ताऽतोऽपि अस्वतन्त्रम् | ईश एव स्वतन्त्रः -- etc., etc. The student is also advised in mantra 3 that those who fail to realize this will obtain अन्धं तमस् -- as such, these are not issues that remain open as of mantra 14, which thus does not repeat what has been said earlier.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

2012/7/31 Shrisha Rao <shrish...@gmail.com>

El jul 31, 2012, a las 12:06 a.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:

> We can see each school subjecting the other's commentary to critical examination:

Yes, and that is certainly to be welcomed, though I personally prefer classical critiques ("read the masters") over contemporary ones.

Since the tradition is a continuing one there is scope for newer scholars to examine and re-examine past works and give their observations.  What an earlier Acharya might have not highlighted, some other points being in his priority, a later one might notice and highlight.  I think there is nothing wrong in it. 

> The Editor of the bhashyam book I had cited before in this thread says with respect to this mantra:
>
> यत्तु माध्वव्याख्यानम् - येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते प्रलयकर्ता भगवान्, ये सृष्टेकर्तेत्युपासते, ते नरकं यान्ति । ये सम्भूत्या इताः भगवान् सृष्टेरेव कर्था इति ज्ञानवन्तः तेऽपि तमः प्रविशन्ति अतो भगवान् सृष्टिप्रलययोः कर्तेत्युपासनीय इति ।  तन्न । एवं सति स्थितिकर्तृत्वानुपासनात् पुनः नरकप्राप्तिं को वारयेत् ? किञ्च भगवत्तत्त्वज्ञानान्मोक्षप्राप्तिः तत्र तत्राभिहिता विरुध्येत ।
>
> If someone says 'sriShTi and pralaya' form a set in between which sthiti is there and so it is as good as having been said, then the objection will be, as other Acharyas fault with respect to their rival schools: where is the word in the mantra to designate this?

This might be an objection if the mantra were to be understood in isolation.

I had pointed out this very thing in my response to another member.  Shankara at the introduction to the bhashya of the 9th mantra where exactly the upAsana part begins has stated the two-fold teaching of this Upanishad: pravRtti and nivRtti, from the first few mantras as the input.  So, all these subsequent mantras about upAsana are, accordingly, not directly leading to moksha.  As upasana of the saguNa brahman leads one to other lokas (samsara) and even brahma loka, those upAsya entities were taken as Hiranyagarbha, avyAkRta, etc. and the respective phalams specified as aNimAdi siddhi or prakRti laya.  Shankara reiterates the earlier stated agenda of the Upanishad in the introduction to the 15th mantra too which I had copied and presented:

अत्रेदमवधेयम् - १५ तममन्त्रस्यारम्भभाष्ये एवमुक्तं श्रीशंकराचार्यैः - मानुषदैववित्तसाध्यं फलं शास्रलक्षणं प्रकृतिलयान्तम्। एतावती संसारगतिः । अतः परं पूर्वोक्तमात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः इति सर्वात्मभाव एव सर्वैषणासन्न्यासज्ञाननिष्ठाफलम् । एवं द्विप्रकारः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिलक्षणो वेदार्थोऽत्र प्रकाशितः । तत्र प्रवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य विधिप्रतिषेधलक्षणस्य कृत्स्नस्य प्रकाशने प्रवर्ग्यान्तं ब्राह्मणमुपयुक्तम् । निवृत्तिलक्षणस्य वेदार्थस्य प्रकाशनेऽत ऊर्ध्वं बृहदारण्यकमुपयुक्तम् ।

इति विभागेन अर्थः प्रदर्शितः भाष्ये । एषा शैलिः कठोपनिषद्यपि दृश्यते । आद्यद्वयवरविषयः साम्सारिकस्ततः परं तृतीयवरविषय एव पारमार्थिकः मोक्षविषयक इति । एवं उपनिषदां शैलिमनुसृत्यैव भाष्यं प्रवर्तते इति न ईषदप्यसामञ्जस्यम् । 

    

In the first introduction (mantra 9) Shankara draws attention to the parallel of the same 'vibhAga' in the Brihadaranyaka too by pointing out the one-to-one correspondence in this vibhAga. 

If one looks at the complete context one will not find room for objections. 

One can see that each of the objections has pointed out to the 'error' or lacuna of the explained word or concept not being found in the original mantra.  This is a common feature in all the objections.  Someone said: if the critic understood and appreciated the work the same way the author has, then there will be nothing to criticize.   Sometimes there might be understanding and no appreciation.  Sometimes even understanding will be missing.  In both instances there will be criticism.

Regards
subrahmanian.v
  

 

[Shrisha Rao]

El jul 31, 2012, a las 11:50 a.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:

> Shankara at the introduction to the bhashya of the 9th mantra where exactly the upAsana part begins has stated the two-fold teaching of this Upanishad: pravRtti and nivRtti, from the first few mantras as the input. So, all these subsequent mantras about upAsana are, accordingly, not directly leading to moksha.

This discussion is going rather afield at this point; I don't see what this has to do with either the objection that reading सम्भूति as असम्भूति is ungrammatical, or that considering सम्भूति and विनाश as creation and destruction leaves open the question of sustenance.

For what it is worth, though, सम्भूत्या अमृतमश्नुते &c. are taken as referring to मोक्ष only (as in Shankara's own explanation of अमृत as मोक्ष in BG II-15 and elsewhere); the reading of अमृतम् as प्रकृतिलयलक्षणम् is non-standard as far as I know. So the dichotomy of saying that verse 14 and others, unlike previous ones, do not talk of मोक्ष would be yet another contentious issue, not a simple matter.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

A quick reply to this is:  In more than one place the term 'amRtatvam' is not taken as meaning moksha.  One example is: the kaThopanishat mantra 1.1.13:

स त्वमग्निं स्वर्ग्यमध्येषि मृत्यो प्रब्रूहि त्वं श्रद्दधानाय मह्यम् । स्वर्गलोका अमृतत्वं भजन्त एतद् द्वितीयेन वृणे वरेण ॥ (Katha Upanishad, 13th Mantra).
Here the bhashyam is:  स्वर्गलोका यजमानाः अम्तत्वम् = अमरणतां देवत्वं भजन्ते..

In yet another place for the similar word the bhashyam specifies: आपेक्षिकम् अमृतत्वम् (relative amRtatvam and not absolute amRtatvam).  The latter alone will mean mokSha. 

So the context is important.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> subrahmanian.v

[Shrisha Rao]

El jul 31, 2012, a las 1:16 p.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Shrisha Rao <shrish...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For what it is worth, though, सम्भूत्या अमृतमश्नुते &c. are taken as referring to मोक्ष only (as in Shankara's own explanation of अमृत as मोक्ष in BG II-15 and elsewhere); the reading of अमृतम् as प्रकृतिलयलक्षणम् is non-standard as far as I know. So the dichotomy of saying that verse 14 and others, unlike previous ones, do not talk of मोक्ष would be yet another contentious issue, not a simple matter.
>
> A quick reply to this is: In more than one place the term 'amRtatvam' is not taken as meaning moksha.

It is of course quite well known that अमृत has other meanings -- e.g., literally a "substance" described in Purana-s that confers immortality, or used for comparison to denote something of great value, as in यत्तदग्रे विषमिव परिणामे अमृतोपमम् (BG XVIII-37). However, that is not relevant here -- the reading of अमृतम् as प्रकृतिलयलक्षणम् *in mantra 14*, which is the current context, is non-standard (not followed by all commentators) as far as I know. So one has some distance to cover before one can argue for universal acceptance that मोक्ष is not a topic seen in verses 9 and later.

This will be last posting on this topic.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Advayananda]

Respected Shri Hari Narayana Bhatji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Many thanks for your inputs which I am finding very useful. I am thinking on the lines you have suggested. Grateful for your detailed explanation. 

The first image you sent is not showing itself....the one wherein you are speaking of Sri Mahidhara's explanation. Without the image, I am having difficulty fully comprehending. Could you please resend it. After going through it, I shall get back to you.

I am indeed grateful to the learned explanations of other scholars too. 

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

<image.png>

Hope this solve the issue raised. 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

>> 2012/7/30 Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,
>>> Hari Om! Salutations.
>>>
>>> Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.
>>>
>>> My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim?
>>>
>>> While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'.
>
>  
>>
>> HariH Om.
>>
>> Yes. I too noticed the explanations on the word असंभूति and संभूति, except the solution to the question specifically you had raised.
>
>
> Sir,

 I humbly point out that I did address that particular question raised excepting of course the grammatical explanations of पृषोदरादि etc. which are beyond my knowledge.:

Thanks for pointing out to your solution of the question and the relevant information therein.   If it is to be taken in the second half,  

असंभूत्या, for the reasons of Prakritilaya, then he suggests that in the first half itself "संभूतिंच विनाशं च" it should be taken as असंभूति as it is read in his commentary and the remaining reasons are clear. If it is for the sake of "sandhi" the "a" is dropped, it should be in the पदपाठ also as असंभूति, which we could not confirm with पदपाठ. So the question is where the अ-कार-प्रश्लेष is suggested, if it is not in the first word संभूति. Now the question is not solved with the support of पदपाठ, but gives raise to another question, where the "a" is to be inserted which was elided in संहिता-पाठ. 

In the light of the above alternative explanation, first giving the meaning as संभूति 
and विनाश, offers the similar explanation probably with retaking that of शाङ्करभाष्य, with अकारप्रश्लेष, in both places of विनाश, as अविनाश, making it mean असंभव, or असंभूति, in conformity with the earlier expression "संभव, असंभव" corresponding to "संभूति. and विनाश" in this verse. The reasoning is the same and as given by Sri Shankara with the same introduction. So probably it is not in the case of संभूति, that "अ" is inserted as understood by Advaitanandaji, but in the word "विनाश" according to Mahidhara. and without splitting as "asambhUtyA"  in the second also.

This is the view as Mahidhara understood the lines of Sankara.  Either he misunderstood the lines or the Editors misunderstood the lines in splitting the sentence. This is the short and long of the issue. This what I said something amiss in the total.

Other scholars may have different opinions on these interpretations. 

Anyhow, this is not any attempt to prove other interpretations by other commentators are wrong or which one is the right one. But only what is raised in question is the doubt in the lines of the commentary in question. Hence better stick to the point raised for discussion so that confusion or misunderstanding by others can be averted in advance.

Hope the alternative explanation of Mahidhara is readable from the image pasted and compared with that of Sri Shankara's.

With regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

From the above explanation we see that apart form taking विनाश as अविनाश Mahidhara has also changed the phalam of the upAsana.  In Shankara bhashya the Hiranyagarbhopasana phalam is अणिमादिसिद्धिरूपानैशवर्यमृत्युतरणम् .  And through the avyAkRtopaasana the phalam is प्रकृतिलय.  This has been changed in Mahidhara commentary.  For him the Hiranyagarbhopasana phalam is prakRtilaya and the avyAkRtopAsana phalam is anaishvaryarUpamRtyutaraNam. This is somewhat odd as in the hierarchy avyAkRta is above Hiranyagarbha. And as such the phalam also is superior for avyAkRtopAsana. 

This is just my observation.

 subrahmanian.v

[Advayananda]

Respected Shri Hari Narayana Bhatji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Now Shri Mahidhara's commentary has come out clearly. Grateful.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

On 31-Jul-2012, at 9:35 PM, Hnbhat B.R. wrote:

>> 2012/7/30 Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Respected Sri V Subrahmanianji and Sri Narasihmacharyaji,
>>> Hari Om! Salutations.
>>>
>>> Grateful for both your inputs which I found very valuable for my reflection.
>>>
>>> My basic query is about the padapāṭha of verse 14 of Īśa-upaniṣad, the first word of the first pāda. Does it go as sambhūtim or asambhūtim?
>>>
>>> While giving his commentary, Śrī Śaṅkarācārya takes the first word of the first pāda as 'asambhūtim'.
>
>  
>>
>> HariH Om.
>>
>> Yes. I too noticed the explanations on the word असंभूति and संभूति, except the solution to the question specifically you had raised.
>
>
> Sir,

 I humbly point out that I did address that particular question raised excepting of course the grammatical explanations of पृषोदरादि etc. which are beyond my knowledge.:



Thanks for pointing out to your solution of the question and the relevant information therein.   If it is to be taken in the second half,  

असंभूत्या, for the reasons of Prakritilaya, then he suggests that in the first half itself "संभूतिंच विनाशं च" it should be taken as असंभूति as it is read in his commentary and the remaining reasons are clear. If it is for the sake of "sandhi" the "a" is dropped, it should be in the पदपाठ also as असंभूति, which we could not confirm with पदपाठ. So the question is where the अ-कार-प्रश्लेष is suggested, if it is not in the first word संभूति. Now the question is not solved with the support of पदपाठ, but gives raise to another question, where the "a" is to be inserted which was elided in संहिता-पाठ. 

<image.png>

[Advayananda]

Most respected Sri Hari Narayana Bhatji and Sri V.Subramanianji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

1. Went through the commentary of Sri Mahidhara which Sri Hari Narayana Bhatji had attached. It is odd to consider that the fruit of Hiranyagarbhopasana (sambhuti-upasana) as prakritilaya. So far, I have only heard that the ultimate fruit of Hiranyagarbhopasana is Brahmalokaprapti only and never as Prakriti Laya. It will only be logical to consider the fruit of Asambhuti Upasana (related with Karana Brahman) as Prakriti laya. Hence the interpretation of Sri Mahidhara is a little problematic.

2. Where do I ge the complete commentary of Sri Mahidhara and the other commentary that you were referring to, the Uvata(?) one.

3. I have been also trying to understand what this Sambhuti Upasana and Asambhuti Upasana is in terms of how it is practiced. Do you have any references in this regard. 

Once again I express my heartfelt gratitude for all the inputs provided.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

On 31-Jul-2012, at 11:15 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

<image.png>

Namaste