http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.

pdf

- -

- -- -

-nanu nityam vibhum sarvagatam suskmam itydi upaniatsu nityam

brahma ryate tm ca maradi dharmakatvt anitya eva anubhyate
tata ca na tayo aikyam iti akya kim tmana bauddha-paka iva
svata eva nam bravi uta daa-sayogt ghaasya iva
anyasambandht tmana nam bravi athav paa-nt paa-gatarpdivat raya-nt nam brav iti vikalpya dyam prati ha - nanu no(doubt)



nityam vibhum sarvagatam
suskmam itydi as nityam(everlasting) vibhum(all pervading)
sarvagatam(omnipresent) suskmam(most subtle) and such words

upaniatsu nityam brahma ryate the Brahman
is revealed as eternal in upaniats

tm ca maradi dharmakatvt anitya eva anubhyate but self

being subject to death, is experienced as non-eternal only
tata ca na tayo aikyam so also between them(Atman and

Brahman) no identity (is possible) iti akya expecting an

objection as such - kim
tmana bauddha-paka iva svata eva nam bravi are you telling
about the destruction(death) of Self resorting to Buddhist view of its
ceasing to be on its own -

uta daa-sayogt ghaasya iva anyasambandht tmana

nam bravi or are you telling Self, like the pot with the concussion of
staff gets destroyed, similarly conjunction with something else, gets
destroyed - -- - athav
paa-nt paa-gata-rpdivat raya-nt nam brav else like on
Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 1

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

destruction of cloth the color and such characters of that cloth also getting
destroyed, you are saying on the destruction of its substratum the Self will
also get destroyed iti vikalpya thus stating different possible
alternatives dyam prati ha starts replying to the first
alternative

na svata pratyabhijnnniraatvnna cnyata |
na crayavinnme vina sydanrayt ||4||
pratyabhijnt because of (there being) continuous memory

me vina my destruction na syt cannot be svata

by myself niraatvt because of (my) being partless
na ca anyata (my destruction) cannot be from another (factor) also
anrayt because (I) have no support - na ca
raya-vint not even by the destruction of support (can there be my
destruction)
I do not perish by myself since there is continuous recollection (as I, I).
Nor am I destroyed by someone else since I am partless. Also since I do
not depend on any support, destruction of support cannot cause my
destruction. (Hence I am imperishable).
na svata iti the verse beginning na svata is commented.
me = pratyagtmana = mama my na
svata na bhavati destruction wont be from myself tatra hetu
the reason here is pratyabhijnt owing to recognition

- tmana pratyabhijya-mnatvt Atman is

associated with recognition pratyabhijnam nma

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 2

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

recognition is(definition)
- -

prvam-anubhtasya klntare pramena tat tat ullekhaprvakam jnam the knowledge arising in subsequent time of an earlier
experience by digging up those cognitions with assurance tm hi
with respect to the Self

ya aham blye pitarau anvabhvam sa eva idnm

sthavire praaptn anubhavmi I, who knew my parents when I was young,
he(I) alone now in my old age know my great-grand-children
- ya aham supta svapnamadrkam sa eva idnm jgarmi iti ca I the one while asleep dreamt now
the same me alone am awake.

blydi avasthsu jgraddi avasthsu ca pratyabhijyate in

boyhood and old age, in dream and waking the Self is associated with
recognition -- tat ca
pratyabhijnam tmana nir-nimitta-ne na upapadyate now this
recognition attributed to the Self cannot be accounted for if it can cease to
be without any determinant -
tath hi tmana hi svata ne pratikaam-anya
anya tm iti vaktavyam if by its own it cease to be itself, we have to
conclude different another Self every moment.

tatra katham v anya anyena sa aham iti

pratyabhijyeta in that case how one can be recognized by another as I.
tm ca sa aham iti tmnam
pratyabhijnti the Self recognize Self as I.
tasmt na tasya svata na iti artha therefore cessation cannot
happen on its own(for the Self i.e. me) is the conclusion.

- -

- -

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 3

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

na dvitya iti ha | niraatvt na cnyata iti | niraatvt aarahitatvt nir-avayavatvd anyata hetu-sayogt api tmana na na
iti artha | tm hi cid-rpatvt niravayava | yadi niravayavasya tmana
svayavatvam-ucyeta tarhi vaktavyam tm avayav cetan acetan v |
na dvitya iti ha niraatvt
na cnyata iti not by second(destruction owing to conjunction with
something else) is explained by niraatvt na cnyata portion of the
verse. niraatvt = - aa-rahitatvt since without

parts(simple, single entity) - -

nir-avayavatvd anyata hetu-sayogt api tmana na

na iti artha because it is without parts, the Self is not destroyed even in
consequence of its conjunction with external cause. This is the meaning.
tm hi the Self is - cid-rpatvt niravayava
without parts since it is of the nature of consciousness

- yadi niravayavasya tmana sa-avayavatvam

ucyeta should you tell Self is composite(consists of parts) about the
partless Self tarhi vaktavyam then you should also state
tm avayav cetan acetan v the parts of the
Self are conscious(intelligent) or jada(unintelligent).
- -

na dya tm-avayavnm hi pratyekam cetanatve viruddha abhipryatay

arram-unmathyeta |
na dya cannot be the first proposition -
tm-avayavnm hi pratyekam cetanatve if each part of Self is
individually sentient - viruddha

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 4

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

abhipryatay arram-unmathyeta with distinct opinions/purposes the

body will tear apart
-

- -

na dvitya acetanai avayavai rabdhasya api tmana api acetanatvaprasagt na hi acetanai tantubhi rabdha paa cetana dyate tata
niravayava eva tm na niravayave ca tmani hetu-sayoga sambhavati
satya ekadea-vttitvt ata anyata api tmana na na iti bhva |
na dvitya neither the second proposition
- acetanai avayavai
rabdhasya api tmana api acetanatva-prasagt then of Self too which is
made up of insentient parts we have to attribute insentiency
na hi acetanai tantubhi rabdha paa
cetana dyate as it is not seen in case of a cloth to be sentient which is
made of parts of thread which are insentient tata

niravayava eva tm therefore Self is partless only - na niravayave ca tmani hetusayoga sambhavati satya ekadea-vttitvt in the partless Self the
hetu(destruction owing to conjunction with something else) cannot happen
as then it should join with the other in some point(part/place)
ata anyata api tmana na na iti
bhva Hence as cannot be from within so also from without there is no
destruction to the Self is the conclusion

- -

---

- -

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 5

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

--

-- - --

na api ttya iti ha | na ca raya itydin | raya-vint dhra-vint
api me mama vina na syt kuta anrayt rayasya dhrasya
bhvt | tm hi gua-kriy-jti-di anyatamatva abhvt anraya
niravayavatvt ca na api ghaavat raya | ata raya-nt api tmana
na na | tmana maradi-pratti tu dehdi updhikt | taduktam
strakt -- carcara vyapraya tu syt tad vyapadea bhkta tadbhva-bhvitvd iti | asya ca artha vidyraya-gurubhi adhikaraaratna-mlym darita |

jvasya janmamarae vapuo vtmano hi te |
jto me putra ityukterjtakarmdibhistath ||

-iti prvapake prpte siddhntam ha -

mukhye te vapuo bhkte jvasyaite apekya hi |
jtakarma ca lokoktirjvpeteti strata || iti |

tata trividha na abhvt nitya eva tm iti tasya brahmaa abheda
samyag ghaate iti bhva ||4||

na api ttya iti ha na ca
raya itydin not even by third(on supporters destruction the supported
will also be destroyed) is explained by verse portion na ca raya

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 6

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

- raya-vint - dhra-vint by destruction

of support/substratum ca = api also me = mama my

vina na syt destruction is not kuta How come?

anrayt = rayasya (= dhrasya) abhvt (I

have) no support/substratum
---

tm hi gua-kriy-jti-di anyatamatva abhvt

anraya Self is without a support/substratum because it do not inherit
quality, action, universal or any other. niravayavatvt ca also
being partless(support in sense of requiring unification-binding)

na api ghaavat raya not like a pot which require support

- ata raya-nt api tmana na

na hence no destruction owing to destruction of support/substratum
- tmana maradi-pratti tu but the idea of death
in respect of Self is dehdi updhikt caused
(imagined/occasioned) by its updhi like body etc.,

taduktam strakt the author of Stras(Brahma sura) has
told thus
--
carcara vyapraya tu syt tad vyapadea bhkta tad-bhvabhvitvd iti |
The moveable and immovable do not apply thereto, the attribution of them
thereto is tropical, because it is that which exists under these modes.
-
-- asya ca artha
vidyraya-gurubhi adhikaraa-ratna-mlym darita the same idea
has been conveyed by Guru Vidyaranya in Adhikarana Ratnamala.

jvasya janmamarae vapuo vtmano hi te |
Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 7

http://www.advaitin.net/PranipataChaitanya/AdvaitaMakarandaverse04.pdf

jto me putra ityukterjtakarmdibhistath ||

The birth and death of the individual belong either to the body or to the self,
for there are the saying There is born to me a son, and the ceremonial at
birth

iti prvapake prpte siddhntam ha after
stating primafacie question next lays down the established tenet:

mukhye te vapuo bhkte jvasyaite apekya hi |
jtakarma ca lokoktirjvpeteti strata || iti |
The birth and death pertain primarily to the body, and by a metaphor only to
the self; and the rites at birth and the common saying do not pertain to the
Self, according to the stras.
tata trividha na abhvt
nitya eva tm iti therefore since free from three kinds of destruction, Self
is eternal only. tasya brahmaa
abheda samyag ghaate iti bhva its non-difference with Brahman quite
possible is established.

Advaita Makaranda with Rasa-abhivyanjika

Page 8