अहम् शून्यं न वा एकम्
--
A Sanskrit composition freshly done today :
अहम् शून्यं न वा एकम्
यदा यदा हि परं अहम् |
यदा एकं अद्वितीयं
तदा परं-अपरं अहम् ||
--
अर्थ :
'मैं' न तो शून्य अथवा एक हूँ जब जब मैं सत्मात्र (परब्रह्म) होता हूँ |
(किन्तु) जब एक की तरह समझा जाता हूँ तब अद्वितीय होता हूँ |
तब मैं परं तथा अपरं दोनों ही होता हूँ |
--
English version:
ahaM shUnyaM na wA ekaM, yadA yadA hi paraM ahaM |
yadA ekaM advitIyaM, tadA paraM-aparaM ahaM ||
Meaning : I am not zero ('nothing' of bauddha) or 'one' (of VedAntins, or of those who proclaim 'He is one'), whenever I am Supreme.
Still when I am 'one', I am unique without the other. Yet I am the 'other' as well > para-ahaM is akin to para-brahma / para-Atman, while apara-ahaM is to multitude of many 'selves'.
--
Aperahama is Abraham in Maori (?)
--
Is He 'He'?
--
Come Feb. 1945, when I paid my first visit to the Holy Hill (Lord Arunacheshwara).
Though I was already somewhat aware about the Spiritual elder brother of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, who had, referring to Sri Bhagavan as his elder brother had remarked while addressing a visitor devotee in these words :
"I earn 1000/- Rupees per month, my elder brother earns 10,000/- Rupees per month, why don't you earn at least 100/- Rupees per month?"
He was hinting at the spiritual prosperity.
His name was 'Sheshadri Swami', And one can sure visit the Ashram that came around in His name, adjacent to Sri Ramana Ashram in Tiruvannamalai.
I got a small book in Sri Ramanashramam bearing the title :
"Is He He?"
At once it struck me what might be asked / hinted at in that short book but full of deepest core-truth about the Supreme Reality.
I don't remember well what has been enunciated or said in that book, but the question that arose in my mind was :
Is The Supreme Reality / Ishvara could be called 'He'?
These deep and core ontological questions that are not superficial philosophical intellectual jugglery but of tremendous importance for any sincere serious seeker have always been discussed and raised in the teachings of Great Scholars like Shankaracharya and other great luminaries / Rishis of the yore.
Modern philosophy looks just a pale imitation of that.
In the same vein 'devI-atharvasheershaM' begins with :
DevI said : "....brahmAbrahmaNI, shUnyaM chAshUnyaM cha..."
Devi asserted that the Supreme being is 'shUnya' as well as 'ashUnya', thus eliminating the contradiction that is caused by these words.
DevI again asserted :
"I am Brahman as well a-brahman."
The Rishi were aware that 'Brahman' and 'a-brahman are 'concepts' only in the same way, as are 'zero' and 'one', So The Supreme Being could not be properly described as 'One' either.
And the categorization like brahma- parabrahma- aparabrahma is as much fictitious as is saying : He is 'He' or 'She', 'This' or 'That', 'Zero', 'One' or a multitude of names and forms.
--
--
A Sanskrit composition freshly done today :
अहम् शून्यं न वा एकम्
यदा यदा हि परं अहम् |
यदा एकं अद्वितीयं
तदा परं-अपरं अहम् ||
--
अर्थ :
'मैं' न तो शून्य अथवा एक हूँ जब जब मैं सत्मात्र (परब्रह्म) होता हूँ |
(किन्तु) जब एक की तरह समझा जाता हूँ तब अद्वितीय होता हूँ |
तब मैं परं तथा अपरं दोनों ही होता हूँ |
--
English version:
ahaM shUnyaM na wA ekaM, yadA yadA hi paraM ahaM |
yadA ekaM advitIyaM, tadA paraM-aparaM ahaM ||
Meaning : I am not zero ('nothing' of bauddha) or 'one' (of VedAntins, or of those who proclaim 'He is one'), whenever I am Supreme.
Still when I am 'one', I am unique without the other. Yet I am the 'other' as well > para-ahaM is akin to para-brahma / para-Atman, while apara-ahaM is to multitude of many 'selves'.
--
Aperahama is Abraham in Maori (?)
--
Is He 'He'?
--
Come Feb. 1945, when I paid my first visit to the Holy Hill (Lord Arunacheshwara).
Though I was already somewhat aware about the Spiritual elder brother of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, who had, referring to Sri Bhagavan as his elder brother had remarked while addressing a visitor devotee in these words :
"I earn 1000/- Rupees per month, my elder brother earns 10,000/- Rupees per month, why don't you earn at least 100/- Rupees per month?"
He was hinting at the spiritual prosperity.
His name was 'Sheshadri Swami', And one can sure visit the Ashram that came around in His name, adjacent to Sri Ramana Ashram in Tiruvannamalai.
I got a small book in Sri Ramanashramam bearing the title :
"Is He He?"
At once it struck me what might be asked / hinted at in that short book but full of deepest core-truth about the Supreme Reality.
I don't remember well what has been enunciated or said in that book, but the question that arose in my mind was :
Is The Supreme Reality / Ishvara could be called 'He'?
These deep and core ontological questions that are not superficial philosophical intellectual jugglery but of tremendous importance for any sincere serious seeker have always been discussed and raised in the teachings of Great Scholars like Shankaracharya and other great luminaries / Rishis of the yore.
Modern philosophy looks just a pale imitation of that.
In the same vein 'devI-atharvasheershaM' begins with :
DevI said : "....brahmAbrahmaNI, shUnyaM chAshUnyaM cha..."
Devi asserted that the Supreme being is 'shUnya' as well as 'ashUnya', thus eliminating the contradiction that is caused by these words.
DevI again asserted :
"I am Brahman as well a-brahman."
The Rishi were aware that 'Brahman' and 'a-brahman are 'concepts' only in the same way, as are 'zero' and 'one', So The Supreme Being could not be properly described as 'One' either.
And the categorization like brahma- parabrahma- aparabrahma is as much fictitious as is saying : He is 'He' or 'She', 'This' or 'That', 'Zero', 'One' or a multitude of names and forms.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment