Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian ramakris at EROLS.COM
Sat Mar 11 11:27:36 CST 2000

Anand Hudli <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>  The only comment that nArayaNa's dIpikA makes on the above mantra
>  is "virUpAxaM namAmi-iti sheshhaH|" narayaNa can then be
>  as reading the above mantra with a "namAmi" inserted after
>  virUpAxaM. The mantra can then be interpreted as:
>  R^itaM satyaM paraM brahma purushhaM kR^ishhNa-piN^galam.h|
>  UrdhvaretaM virUpAxaM (namAmi) vishvarUpAya vai namaH ||
>  (Note: nArayaNa's version has only "...vai namaH", not "vai namo
>  In this interpretation, it does make sense to have the
>  as well as masculine-gender nouns in the accusative case.

Thanks for this info. In this case the vishvarUpAya vai namo namaH
would have to be taken as a separate sentence, I guess. I tried to
interpret the verse as a whole. I agree my interpretation is forced,
but what is the fun if you can't give some forced interpretations once
in a while? :-).

>  What is significant in nArayaNa's version is that the mantra
>  the  end of the nArayaNa sUkta, is "sa brahmaa sa shivaH sendraH so
>  .axaraH paramaH svarAT.h" Compare this with what we have today:
>  "sa brahmaa sa shivaH sa hariH sendraH so .axaraH paramaH
>  The second version has "sa hariH" but not the first! This

The sa hariH occurs in the Andhra version of the tatittirIya AraNyaka.
I believe bhaTTa bhAskara (who lived before shAyaNa) recognizes sa
hariH. I don't have his commentary with me, but I can try to take a
look the next time I go to the library.


bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives :
Help     : Email to listmaster at
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list