Location: India

Friday, August 04, 2006

Sloka - 23 and 24

Hari OM,

Thanks to Lord for the precious comments for the previous slokas. And pardon all for the delay between slokas and also if any of the words or explanations from this limited intellect have been unnecessary or misguiding or deviating from the reality. May AMMA’s ever present grace lead us in learning the work without any misinterpretations.


raagechchhaasukhaduHkhaadi buddhau satyaaM pravartate .
sushhaptau naasti tannaashe tasmaad.hbuddhestu naatmanaH .. 23..

Pada artha:
Ragaha: attachment
Iccha: desire
Sukha: pleasures
Dukhaadi: pain etc.
Budhyav satyaam: when mind or intellect functions
Pravartate: are perceived
Sushptav: in deep sleep
Na: not
Asti: is
Tannaashe: at the destruction of it (mind)
Tasmaat: therefore
Budhehe: of the mind
Tu: only
Na: not
Atmanaha: of the atman

Attachment, desire, pleasure, pain, etc., are perceived to exist so long as Buddhi or mind functions. They are not perceived in deep sleep when the mind ceases to exist. Therefore they belong to the mind alone and not to the Atman.

In the previous sloka we learnt that the agency of all actions and enjoyment belong only to the mind and can never be attributed to the Self. In this Sloka Acharya is explaining again through experience and logic that all the emotions of attachment, desire etc. belong only to the mind.

It is our experience that there are no emotions of any pleasures, desires or sadness when one is in deep asleep, i.e. when the mind is inactive. But it is only when the mind is active and perceives the outer world that all the limitations are superimposed on Self. If happiness, desire, pain etc. were the attributes of Atman, then they must be ever present as the Self is ever present, but it is never so. In deep sleep, though Self exists, none of the thoughts of attachments and aversions exist. Hence, it is only due to the function of the mind that the limitations are perceived.

Thus all pleasures and pains exist only in the waking state and the dream state when the mind is active. Acharya explains about the nature of Atman in the next sloka.


prakaasho.arkasya toyasya shaityamagneryathoshhNataa .
svabhaavaH sachchidaanandanityanirmalataatmanaH .. 24..

Pada artha:
Prakashaha: luminosity
Arkasya: of the sun
Toyasya: for water
Shaityam: coolness
Agnehe: for fire
Yatha: just as
Ushnataa: heat
Swabhavaha: nature
Sat: reality
Chit: consciousness
Aanandaha: bliss
Nitya: eternity
Nirmalataa: purity
Atmanaha: of the atman

Just as luminosity is the nature of the Sun, coolness of water and heat of fire, so too the nature of the Atman is Eternity, Purity, Reality, Consciousness and Bliss.

The nature of Atman is explained here as Existence-consciousness-bliss. Atman is ever pure and real. Acharya here says that these are not the qualities of the Atman but the very nature of Atman. Just like the coolness of water, the heat of fire and the luminosity of sun, Atman is ever pure, and is verily consciousness-existence-bliss.

It is well known that anything can never be separated from nature. We can never separate luminosity from sun nor heat from fire. These are not qualities that can be removed or changed but they the very nature. The sun will always be luminous and fire always hot i.e. there can never be cool fire nor a dark sun. Similarly, though the Atman seems to be limited and subjected to misery due to ignorance, it is ever present and bliss alone.

Let us learn more about the nature of Atman in the next sloka.

Hari OM

With regards,
Mallika R
What you have is God's gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to God


Blogger vedanta said...


Prostrations to all.

Is Buddhau and Buddheh translated as "mind" or "intellect"????? raaga, dvesha etc. are considered activities of the intellect or buddhi in the sankhya kaarika and since vedanta closely follows sankhya except for a final difference as to purusha-prakrithi etc., therefore here buddhi ought to mean intellect and not mind. Also Sankara would have mentioned MANAH instead of BUDDHI as he was very well used to vedantic terminologies.....

Or is it that Sankara here is pointing out only the antah karana in general and hence the word Buddhi???

Mallika, can you please clarify on the same?????

Prostrations to all.


Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

8:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home