http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.

pdf

- ---
-
-

-- --

nanu jvasya brahma-abheda asagata brahmaa eva asiddhe | dea-klavastu-pariccheda-nyam vastu hi brahma iti ucyate | na ca tat sambhavati klakde dvityasya vidyamnatvena vastu-pariccheda abhvasya asiddhe na ca
kde brahmai ropitatvena mithytvt tena tasya na dvityatvam iti vcyam
kde adhyastatve mna abhvt | na ca tmana ka sambhta iti ruti
tatra mnam iti vcyam tatra kde brahma kryat-mtra-pratte iti akya
brahmaa advityatva-siddhaye kde adhyastatvam sdhyati

nanu no(doubt)
- jvasya brahma-abheda asagata nondifference(identity) of individual self with Brahman is untenable.

brahmaa eva asiddhe (the existence) of Brahman itself is not

conclusively arrived at.

--- -

dea-kla-vastu-pariccheda-nyam vastu hi brahma iti ucyate you are

saying that Brahman is devoid of limitations arising from space, time and things.

na ca tat sambhavati that is not so -

- kla-kde
dvityasya vidyamnatvena vastu-pariccheda abhvasya asiddhe time, ether etc.
are known to exist in addition to Self(vastu) hence the Self could not be concluded
as not excluded by anything

kde brahmai ropitatvena mithytvt ether etc. are superimposed on

Brahman hence become mity

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 1

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf
na ca tena tasya na dvityatvam iti vcyam the statement that by
that(superimposition) its(of Brahman) duality do not occur is also ruled out

kde adhyastatve mna abhvt

since there is no evidence to prove ether etc. are only superimposed on Self

na ca

tmana ka sambhta iti ruti tatra mnam iti vcyam in this (on
superimposition), you cannot quote the ruti tmana ka sambhta as proof

-- tatra kde brahma kryat-mtrapratte for it proves only that ether etc. are effects of Brahman and Brahman is the
cause

iti akya expecting such an objection

- brahmaa advityatva-siddhaye to conclusively prove nondual nature of Brahman

kde

adhyastatvam sdhyati (the author) proves the superimposed nature of ether etc.

na hi bhndte sattva narte bhna cito'cita |
citsambhedo'pi ndhysdte tenhamadvaya || 7||

bhnt te without experience na hi sattvam (there can

be) no existence (of things)
acita of the inert

cita te without Consciousness

na bhnam (there can be) no appearance

adhyst te without (there being) superimposition - citsambheda api the association with Consciousness also
tena therefore

na cannot be there

aham I (the Consciousness) advaya am one

without a second
The world cannot be reckoned to exist without its experiences. The experiences of
the inert world, in turn are not possible without Consciousness. The association of
the inert with Consciousness, again, cannot be there but for superimposition.
Therefore, I (the Consciousness) am one without a second.

--
Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 2

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf

-
- -
-

-- - -

--

na hi iti | bhnt te prakam vin padrthasya sattvam sadbhva na asti

aprakamna-aa-viade sattva adarant iti artha | tata kim tatra ha na
te itydin acita jaasya cita te caitanyasya sambandham vin bhnam
praka na asti svata bhnavatve jaatva bhva-prasagt iti artha | tata api
kim tatra ha cit-sabheda itydin cit-sabheda api caitanya-sambandha api
adhyst te citi ropitatvam vin jaasya na sambhavati iti artha | ayam bhva -cit-jaayo dhysika-sambandha atiriktam sambandham vadan vd praavya
kim tayo sambandha samyoga uta samavya atha tdtmyam athav viayaviayi-bhva iti |

na hi iti the verse no: 7 beginning with na hi is now commented.

bhnt te = prakam vin without effulgence

padrthasya of the objects sattvam = sadbhva proof

of existence

na asti is not there --

aprakamna-aa-viade sattva adarant since the existence of

horn of a hare and the like which are not effulgent(presented for perception), is not
accepted

arrived at?)

iti artha this is the meaning

tata kim so what(is

tatra ha na te

explained in the verse with words beginning with te

jaasya of the inert objects

itydin that is

acita =

cita te =

caitanyasya sambandham vin without connection with Consciousness

bhnam = praka effulgence

na asti is not there

- svata

bhnavatve jaatva

bhva-prasagt iti artha if they are self-effulgent; inertness itself is not in them

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 3

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf

tata api kim so what(is further proved) tatra ha

this(the conclusion) is explained

- cit-sabheda itydin

with verse words cit sambheda..

- cit-sabheda api =

- caitanya-sambandha api the connection with

Consciousness also

adhyst te =

citi ropitatvam vin apart from being superimposed on Consciousness

jaasya na sambhavati iti artha do not happen in case of

inert objects is the meaning.

ayam bhva -- This is proved. -

cit-jaayo between the two Consciousness and inert object dhysika-sambandha atiriktam some thing other than the
connection of superimposition
the arguer is presenting

sambandham vadan vd if

praavya to be extablished(by him) is

kim tayo sambandha iti what is the connection between

the two(Consciousness and inert object)

conjunction

samyoga is the connection

uta or samavya inheritance/co-inherence

atha tdtmyam else identification athav or else -

- viaya-viayi-bhva the connection of viaya and viayi (subject and

object)

na adya cita adravyatvena samyoga anupapatte guna-rayasya eva dravyatvt

cita nirguatvt |

na adya not the first (option i.e. sayoga) cita of the conscious
adravyatvena being not a dravya(object)
samyoga anupapatte conjunction is impossible

guna-rayasya eva dravyatvt that which is an raya(receptacle) of guna(quality)

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 4

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf

alone is said to have dravyatva(objectness)

cita nirguatvt

but consciousness is not said to have guna(qualities)

-- -
na api samavya cit jaayo gua-gu-diu anya-tamatva abhvt |

na api samavya not even co-inherence cit

jaayo among consciousness and insentient

-
- -

gua-gu-diu anya-tamatva abhvt

cannot be categorized as gua-

gu etc (gua-gu; aa-a; kriy-kriyvn; jti-vyakti; nityadravyavieadharma)

-- -
- - -

- -
- -

nanu cit jaayo krya-kraa-bhvt tantu-paayo iva samavya astu iti cet na
tantu-paayo samavye avayava-avayavity eva prayojakatvena krya-kraabhvasya aprayojakatvt anyath turpaayo api samavya-prasagt avayavaavayavity ca dg-dyayo abhvt |

nanu no(objection) cit jaayo between consciousness and inert

-- krya-kraa-bhvt accepting cause-effect relation -
tantu-paayo iva like thread and cloth
samavya astu iti cet be (among them-cit-jadayoH) samavya (inherence)
relationship then (such relation) should be admitted.

na not-possible(reply) -

tantu-paayo samavye in case of acceptance of relation of

inherence between thread and cloth

avayava-avayavity eva prayojakatvena the consideration is they being related as

part and whole

-- krya-kraa-bhvasya

aprayojakatvt not on the consideration of their being cause and effect(though cloth
may be effect and thread its cause)

anyath if above said is not accepted

- turpaayo api samavya-prasagt you will

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 5

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf
have to proclaim inherence relation between loom and cloth. (those having
samavya relation should be seen together always. Loom is not seen always with
cloth though loom is also a cause for it)

- avayava-

avayavity ca and also the other type suggested i.e. related as part and whole
(hence inherence relation is possible)

- dg-dyayo

abhvt cannot exist between the seer and the seen.

- -
na api tdtmyam paraspara-vilakaayo tayo tdtmya-asambhavt |

na api tdtmyam relation of identity could

accepted

not also be

- paraspara-vilakaayo tayo between

these two(cit-jaa) which are reciprocal contradictories

tdtmya-asambhavt cannot have any identity

-- --
-

na api viaya-viayi-bhva tasya mla-sambandha-prvakatvt tat-asambhavasya

ca uktatvt anyathti-prasagt

-- na api viaya-viayi-bhva not even the relation of

viaya-viayi

tasya mla-sambandha --

prvakatvt since that presupposes an earlier relationship

tat-asambhavasya ca uktatvt and that relation is not explained

(viayam yasya asti tat viayi. So to be a viayi it should already be connected to a

viaya and that relation is unproved)

- anyath ati-

prasagt otherwise it will reflect elsewhere. (as per naiyyiks viayajnna and
viaya have inherence relation and tman is inert. If they accept samavya here it is
equal to their accepting tman as caitanya)

taduktam sarvajtmamunibhi-- thus it has been

concluded by sarvajtmamuni--

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 6

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf
na sakaro npi ca sayutistayorna csti tadvat samavyasambhava |
ato na ciccaityasamanvaya prati pratyate kcana mlasagati || iti |
Neither identity, nor conjunction, similarly not even inherence, hence in reference to
the connection between consciousness and inert there appears no original
concurrence.

tata tayo dhysika eva sambandha iti vcyam tath ca jaa-padrthabhnaanyath anupapatti eva kdi adhyastatve pramam tadapi tai eva uktam

tata therefore tayo between them

dhysika eva sambandha iti vcyam only the relation of superimposition

is to be admitted

- tath ca jaa-padrthabhna owing to

which inert objects shine

anyath anupapatti eva

otherwise it cannot happen

kdi adhyastatve pramam tadapi tai eva uktam the proof(prama)

also is his (sarvajtmamuni) words (as follows)

tato viyanmukhyamado jagajjaa cidtmano'syaiva vivarta iyatm |
andyavidypaasavttmanastadopalabhyatvamamuya kalpyate || iti ||

Let the inert world therefore be declared an illusory emanation of intelligent Self of
the nature of supreme bliss; this world is supposed to be congnisable to individual
self when enveloped in the folds of beginningless illusion.

- -
-
--

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 7

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse07.pdf
tena kde adhyastatvena aham pratyag-abhinna paramtm advaya
advitya iti artha | tata ca brahmaa vastu-pariccheda abhvena trividhapariccheda-nyatvam siddham iti artha | taduktam vidyraya-gurubhi
pacakoaviveke --

tena by this kde adhyastatvena thro

superimposed nature of ether etc.,

aham pratyag-abhinna paramtm advaya advitya iti

artha it is concluded that I am not different from innermost Supreme Self,
Indivisible, Secondless.

- tata ca

brahmaa vastu-pariccheda abhvena since this brings non-difference with

Supreme Brahman

- - trividha-

pariccheda-nyatvam siddham iti artha (for Me the Self) three types of limitations
(space, time and things) is naught is proved.
-

taduktam vidyraya-gurubhi pacakoaviveke thus our guru

ri vidyaraya declares in pacakoaviveka

deaklnyavastn kalpitatvcca myay |
na dedikto'nto'sti brahmnantya sphua tata || iti |

Space, time and other things, being imagined by illusion, can constitute no limit;
thence the infinity of Supreme Self is obvious.

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 8