The correct meaning of verse 14.27

[devotee]

Namaste,

Some zealous Vaishnavs believe and preach that Krishna is even above Brahman. This can be noticed in the discussions taking place on this forum too. In all Upanishads and Veda-samhitAs, Brahman is stated to be Supreme and essence of all that is. If we accept this version that Krishna has a higher status than Brahman ... it negates what Shruti says.

This understanding finds its support in translation of this verse of Bhagwad Gita :

BrahmaNo hi pratishthAham Amritasya Avyayasya cha |
Shashvatsya cha Dharmasya sukhasyaikantimeva cha || BG 14.27||

This translation is found as this in many places which has caused this problem of irreconcilability of Bhagwad Gita with Shruti :

For, I am the substratum of the imperishable Brahman, of immortality, of the eternal Dharma and of unending immutable bliss.


There are some other translations too with slight variations but the message of Lord Krishna declaring Himself being substratum of Brahman appears and creates all this confusion. It is to be noted that Lord Krishna declares Himself as both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman and therefore, this translation poses no threat to violating Shruti if it means that Nirguna Brahman is the substratum of SaguNa Brahman. This cannot have any issues as both saguna and Nirguna are aspects of the same Brahman. But as for Vaishnavas, Krishna in saguna form alone is supreme ... it creates a problem when it is given a meaning that Saguna Brahman i.e. Lord Krishna is substratum of Nirguna BrahmaNa i.e. Brahman in that verse.

However, if we examine closely, the translation should be a little different which leaves no scope of manipulating the meaning of the verse. How ? Let's see :

Brahmano means Brahman and not "of Brahman". If the verse intended to say, "of Brahman", there should have been seventh vibhakti in Brahman i.e. Brahmanasya instead of BrahmaNo. If we consider that translation, the meaning appears as given below :

Brahmano = Brahman
hi = alone
PratishThAham = I Am + PratishTha = I am support/base/substratum/source
Amritasya = of Immortality
Avyayasya = of the Imperishable
Shashvatasya = of the Eternal
cha = and
Dharmasya = of Dharma
sukhasyaikantimeva cha = sukhasya + ekAntim + eva + cha = of happiness/bliss + unending + alone/too + and

So, it translates into :

I alone am Brahman (Brahmano hi) and source of Immortality and of the Imperishable and eternal dharma and unending bliss too.

... Needless to say that this translation doesn't contradict Shruti. :)

OM

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

It seems that devotee's ongoing crusade against the "zealous Vaishnavs" will not be ending anytime soon. For those who might be wondering, the interpretation being criticized by devotee is actually that of the gauDIya vaiShNavas, i.e. those following chaitanya. Now, I don't want to seem like I am defending their interpretation, but I think we should make one significant correction in the name of fairness and accuracy.



BrahmaNo hi pratishthAham Amritasya Avyayasya cha |
Shashvatsya cha Dharmasya sukhasyaikantimeva cha || BG 14.27||


....

Brahmano means Brahman and not "of Brahman". If the verse intended to say, "of Brahman", there should have been seventh vibhakti in Brahman i.e. Brahmanasya instead of BrahmaNo. If we consider that translation, the meaning appears as given below :

Brahmano = Brahman
hi = alone
PratishThAham = I Am + PratishTha = I am support/base/substratum/source
Amritasya = of Immortality
Avyayasya = of the Imperishable
Shashvatasya = of the Eternal
cha = and
Dharmasya = of Dharma
sukhasyaikantimeva cha = sukhasya + ekAntim + eva + cha = of happiness/bliss + unending + alone/too + and

So, it translates into :

I alone am Brahman (Brahmano hi) and source of Immortality and of the Imperishable and eternal dharma and unending bliss too.

... Needless to say that this translation doesn't contradict Shruti. :)


First of all, I think devotee actually means the 6th vibhakti, which is the genitive case. The 7th vibhakti is the locative case.

The 6th vibhakti of "brahman" (neuter) is NOT "brahmanasya." There is no such construction in Sanskrit, certainly not for neuter stems ending in "-an." Rather, the 6th vibhakti would be "brahaNas" which becomes "brahmaNo" before "hi" through sandhi, i.e. "brahaNas hi pratiShThAham" becomes "brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham"

Devotee's incorrect translation would require that "brahman" be declined in either the first or second vibhaktis, which would be "brahma," which would not become "brahmaNo" through sandhi.

Practically every translation I have seen takes "brahman" in the genitive case, i.e. "I am the basis or the support of brahman." How can this be, since Krishna is brahman? Does this not contradict shruti, to suggest that Krishna, who is Brahman, is actually the foundation for Brahman? Not really, because "brahman" in this context actually has a secondary meaning. The gauDIyas take it to refer to the effulgence radiating from His body based on some shlokas from the harivamsha. The sense of their interpretation as I understood it is that the attainment of this brahmajyoti means to dwell in His physical presence, bathed in His natural effulgence. Thus, it is consistent with "brahman" in this context which is clearly in the genitive case.

Meanwhile, rAmAnuja takes it to refer to the jIva, since the jIva has brahman as its inner controller. This too is consistent, for the jIva is equated to brahman in numerous ways, even as the difference is also mentioned.

EDIT: Just to clarify, the -asya ending is seen for masculine a- stems, i.e. "devasya" which is genitive for "deva." Devotee has confused the declension tables between different classes of stems, hence his erroneous remarks above.

[Twilightdance]

One would think those who believe in two brahmans should find it easy to explain one (krishna) to be the basis of the other, instead of this unfortunate cock-up.

[Twilightdance]

Just checked the boring shankara bhasya, and truely he explains it as everyone else like phil has said. From advaita pov he finds no issue of sri krishna being ground of brahman, as they r same.

But he also gives another explanstion which is what i thought in the last post. Brahman here is taken to be to be the lesser brahman with attributes (although krishna would fit that bill better imo).

[Sahasranama]

BrahmaNo hi pratishthAham Amritasya Avyayasya cha |
Shashvatsya cha Dharmasya sukhasyaikantimeva cha || BG 14.27||

This verse is not from the Bhagavad Gita.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Madhva interprets Brahman in this verse to mean Laxmi.

One wonders what the author of this BG verse actually meant, as a literal reading does not align with any of the three major interpretations.

[orlando]

One wonders what the author of this BG verse actually meant, as a literal reading does not align with any of the three major interpretations.

One should find the answer in the purport or explanation by a self-realized guru of his path.

For example,as gaudiya-vaishnava,I believe in the purport of Swami Prabhupada.
A Sri Vaishnava believes in the purport of Sri Ramanuja etc

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

take ananta¹ and cut it in half , what do you get ? amita.

iti śivaṁ

worfds

ananta - endless , boundless , eternal , infinite ; some call śeṣa, others call śeṣa's brother vāsuki
amita - unmeasured , boundless , infinite

[Ra K Sankar]

Namaste to all

>> The Purushottama is in the heart of every creature and is manifested in his countless Vibhutis; the Purushottama is the cosmic spirit in Time and it is he that gives the command >> to the divine action of the liberated human spirit. He is both Akshara and Kshara, and yet he is other because he is more and greater than either of these opposites.

>> Uttamah.purus.as tvanyah. param¯atmetyud¯ahr.tah. , yo lokatrayam ¯ avi´sya bibhartyavyaya ¯ı´svarah. ,

>> “But other than these two is that highest spirit called the supreme Self, who enters the three worlds and upbears them, the imperishable Lord.” This verse is the keyword of the >> Gita’s reconciliation of these two apparently opposite aspects of our existence.

The above is an extract from pages 441 and 442 of "Essays on the Gita" by Sri Aurobindo.

The monistic philosophy of Adi Shankara, assigning primal status to monks pursuing renunciation through direct inwardness into the Immutable Silent Self, had for its kernel the method of Self-Inquiry. This was thrown open to everyone by Sage Ramana. This method is of immeasurable utility to the common man, if pursued intermittently, as laid down by Saint Sri Sadhu Aum, a primeval disciple of Sage Ramana.

However, as Sri Aurobindo says above, the doctrine of Purushottama, that at once exceeds the mutable Kshara Brahman and the immutable Akshara Brahman, who is the Master of all works and who is seated in the hearts of all, and to whom all works are to be offered in consecration, may be the secret of the Upanishads, which was explicitly laid down in the Gita by Bhagawan Krishna. This surely makes one try to recover God in the manifest world of painful contraries. :)

Incidentally, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother propounded a new "Vaishanvo-Shaaktam", in the 20th century, for the benefit of all humanity.

Ra K Sankar

[Seeker]

Namaste Devotee Ji,

Doesn't advaitins believe that any being that realizes Self , is identified as Self? If Krishna is such an exalted figure - I believe he was , since he showed viswaroopa to Arjuna by just touching him - is it incorrect to equate Krishna to Brahman?

Is this just a question of how we choose to name the Nameless? Does it mater whether we name the Supreme one as Brahman or Shiva or Narayana or Krishna?

[devotee]

Namaste Phil,

Thanks for correction. It is indeed sixth vibhakti and not seventh.
However, I don't find your arguments convincing for the following reasons :

a) Please give proof why Brahman should be treated as Neuter gender ? Any PramANa from any authentic book will do. In my opinion, it should be treated as Masculine gender. With Masculine gender ending with "a" sound at the end, it should follow the forms of "Gaja", Baalaka" etc.

b) Even if Brahman is to be treated as Neuter Gender, which It should not be, the form will still be "BrahmaNasya" for the sixth vibhakti as then it would follow the form of Vana (forest) as form of words ending with "a" sound.

This video gives forms of Vana which is a neuter gender ending in "an" sound. However, let me clarify that I have not seen any noun ending with "an" sound being treated differently than nouns with "a" sound. You may be able to clarify this point. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPshFFIbhQU

PS : Please read the footnote below the video : All अकारान्त (words ending with letter अ) नपुन्सकलिङग् (neuter gender) noun words are declined similar to वन (Van). So, once you learn the vibhakti (declension) of वन (Van), you have learnt the declensions of all the अकारान्त (words ending with letter अ) नपुन्सकलिङग् (neuter gender) noun words. That means, you know how to use all अकारान्त नपुन्सकलिङग् noun words in correct grammatical manner. It is so easy.

Are you sure, Brahmana in sixth vibhakti should be read as "Brahmanas" ? Can you give any proof ?

c) Please note that BrahmaNo has been used in the verse without any sandhi. There are other verses too in BG where it has been used independently. Therefore, can you tell us how this logic of sandhi fits in here ?

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Seeker,



Doesn't advaitins believe that any being that realizes Self , is identified as Self? If Krishna is such an exalted figure - I believe he was , since he showed viswaroopa to Arjuna by just touching him - is it incorrect to equate Krishna to Brahman?

Is this just a question of how we choose to name the Nameless? Does it mater whether we name the Supreme one as Brahman or Shiva or Narayana or Krishna?

You have not read my post correctly. I have said that Krishna is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. So, if the verse means to say that Krishna as NirguNa Brahman is the abode/ support/base/substratum of Saguna Brahman then the meaning doesn't violate Shruti. See, there are many verses in Bhagwad Gita where Lord Krishna portrays Himself as NirguNa Brahman.

So, Krishna is Brahman and there cannot be any doubts at all. The question is how to interpret the verse without violating Shruti ?

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Sahas,

Yes, you are right. My memory failed me ! :(

It should be Sukhasyaikantikasya and not Sukhasyaikantimeva. However, my area of focus was the first part of the verse, as there is no issues in the second part and therefore, no harm really done. :)

OM

[Sahasranama]

It's indeed a minor problem. I remember that once before you quoted sanshayatma pranashyati from the Bhagavad Gita, but that should have been sanshayatma vinashyati. Just letting you, it's not relevant to the arguments here.

[Sahasranama]

a) Please give proof why Brahman should be treated as Neuter gender ? Any PramANa from any authentic book will do. In my opinion, it should be treated as Masculine gender. With Masculine gender ending with "a" sound at the end, it should follow the forms of "Gaja", Baalaka" etc.

Brahman can be used both as a neuter word and as a masculine word depending on the context and meaning. You can look this up in the Monnier Williams dictionary.

But the gender does not prove your point here, because a nAntaH-puMlinga shabda is not declined similarly to an a-karantaH puMlinga shabda. And a nAntaH napuMsaka linga shabda is not declined as an akarantaH napuMsaka linga shabda either. Therefore, whether it is neuter or masculine does not matter, either way it will not be declined as Gaja, Balaka, etc.


b) Even if Brahman is to be treated as Neuter Gender, which It should not be, the form will still be "BrahmaNasya" for the sixth vibhakti as then it would follow the form of Vana (forest) as form of words ending with "a" sound.No, not all neuter words are declined similarly to vana. Brahman is not an a-karantaH word like vana, but a nAntaH word.


This video gives forms of Vana which is a neuter gender ending in "an" sound. However, let me clarify that I have not seen any noun ending with "an" sound being treated differently than nouns with "a" sound. a-karanta words and nAnta words are declined differently. Look at any table of Sanskrit declensions like the Shabdamanjari or Shabdarupavali and this becomes quite apparent.

Since you ask for proof, here it is, Brahman is declined similarly to Atman:

http://i47.tinypic.com/282hxmf.png

[devotee]

Thanks, Sahas ! However, why should it not use the Singular number ? Then it should have been used as Aatmanah/Brahmanah ? :) Why should we accept that BrahmaNo means "of BrahmaN" in Shashthi and not "Brahman" in PrathamA ?

OM

[Sahasranama]

The singular is used here, but the visarga changes because of Sandhi.

[devotee]

But where is sandhi ? With which word ? The version of Bhagwad Gita printed from Gita Press, Gorakhpur writes this :

"Brahmano hi pratishThaahm ..."

I don't see any sandhi here.

OM

[Sahasranama]

But where is sandhi ? With which word ? The version of Bhagwad Gita printed from Gita Press, Gorakhpur writes this :

"Brahmano hi pratishThaahm ..."

I don't see any sandhi here.


There is always sandhi, sometimes it is not apparent. First of all there is an internal sandhi in the word brahmaNas refered by pANini in sutra 8.4.1. raShAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade. This says that the na-kAra turns into a Na-kAra, because of the repha in brahman. There is also a external sandhi which turns brahmanas into brahmanaH or into brahmano before consonants when preceded by an a-kAra. I do not know the exact reference for this rule, but when I find it I will let you know.


Why should we accept that BrahmaNo means "of BrahmaN" in Shashthi and not "Brahman" in PrathamA ?

According to the declension table from the shabdarupavali which I have attached in the image, the singular nominative (prathamA) form of brahman is brahmA.

[devotee]

There is always sandhi, sometimes it is not apparent. First of all there is an internal sandhi in the word brahmaNas refered by pANini in sutra 8.4.1. raShAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade. This says that the na-kAra turns into a Na-kAra, because of the repha in brahman. There is also a external sandhi which turns brahmanas into brahmanaH or into brahmano before consonants when preceded by an a-kAra. I do not know the exact reference for this rule, but when I find it I will let you know.

Thanks. However, Sandhi (means "joining") is always of word with another word, as far as I know. However, there may be some exceptions. I will also look up for any such rule.

OM

[Sahasranama]

Thanks. However, Sandhi (means "joining") is always of word with another word, as far as I know. However, there may be some exceptions. I will also look up for any such rule.

OM
It also means joining of letters. Traditionally in devanagari all words within a sentence were written together. Only later did people start to write words separate from each other (possibly because of foreign influence), but the sandhi rules still apply.

[devotee]

Can you do the sandhi-vicchheda of Brahmano ?

OM

[devotee]

According to the declension table from the shabdarupavali which I have attached in the image, the singular nominative (prathamA) form of brahman is brahmA.

How ? Atmaa is in its original form in Prathama singular number and therefore, Brahman too should be like that. Why should it change its form to BrahmA violating the form ?

OM

[Sahasranama]

brahmaNaH + hi = brahmaNo hi


How ? Atmaa is in its original form in Prathama singular number and therefore, Brahman too should be like that. Why should it change its form to BrahmA violating the form ?I think you are confusing the prathamA singular form with the stem. These are not the same thing, but sometimes they are similar. The stem is Atman and the ekavachana prathamA form is AtmA.

[devotee]

I have to attend some urgent work. See you after some time. This has been fruitful discussion so far.

OM

[devotee]

brahmaNaH + hi = brahmaNo hi

Oh ! Then Brahmano hi should have been joined together as Brahmanohi and not written as Brahmano hi.

This is no sandhi but anyway ... nothing more to add.

OM

[Sahasranama]

Oh ! Then Brahmano hi should have been joined together as Brahmanohi and not written as Brahmano hi.

This is no sandhi but anyway ... nothing more to add.

Like mentioned before, traditionally all words were written and pronounced together in one sentence. Sandhi rules can apply internally within a word when letters change because of other letters within a word and it can change externally, because of letters that follow/ precede from another word.

[devotee]

Like mentioned before, traditionally all words were written and pronounced together in one sentence.

Even if this is accepted where I have no proof to rely upon but you are talking about joining the words together. I am talking about keeping the words separate after sandhi which is not sandhi at all.


Sandhi rules can apply internally within a word when letters change because of other letters within a word and it can change externally, because of letters that follow/ precede from another word.

See, sandhi rules can apply only when two words (even one letter-word) create a third word by joining together. It cannot happen that a word is separate and another word too is separate and they keep remaining separate after sandhi. What you are saying about internal sandhi (I am not aware of this terminology being used in Sanskrit Grammar that I have read)... is basically two-words joining where one word is some pratyaya, Upsarga or some vibhakti etc. which joins with the another word to create the "vikaar" in sandhi. "Vikaar" cannot arise when the words are kept separate. In the verse, "Brahman" and "hi" are two different words and if "Brahman" word is changing its form due to sandhi then both should create a new word combining together. Here there is no such combination and yet the "vikaar" of Brahman changing to Brahmano has taken place.

If there is any other rule known to you, please share.

OM

[devotee]

I got this table after a little search on internet :

Declension table of brahman

*********** Singular********Dual********Plural

Nominative brahma brahmaṇī brahmāṇī
Vocative brahma brahmaṇī brahmāṇī
Accusative brahma brahmaṇī brahmāṇī
Instrumental brahmaṇā brahmabhyām brahmabhiḥ
Dative brahmaṇe brahmabhyām brahmabhyaḥ
Ablative brahmaṇaḥ brahmabhyām brahmabhyaḥ
Genitive brahmaṇaḥ brahmaṇoḥ brahmaṇām
Locative brahmaṇi brahmaṇoḥ brahmasu

So, the PrathamA, singular number of Brahman is Brahma and not Brahmaa/BrahmA. Normally, the stem is as near the PrathmA singular number as is used in normal usage. Like AtmA is used as it is in language and hardly anyone uses it as Atman or Atma.

Anyway, it was not our part of discussion. I am unable to see how sandhi can occur without words joining together.

OM

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Phil,

Thanks for correction. It is indeed sixth vibhakti and not seventh.
However, I don't find your arguments convincing for the following reasons :

a) Please give proof why Brahman should be treated as Neuter gender ? Any PramANa from any authentic book will do. In my opinion, it should be treated as Masculine gender. With Masculine gender ending with "a" sound at the end, it should follow the forms of "Gaja", Baalaka" etc.

b) Even if Brahman is to be treated as Neuter Gender, which It should not be, the form will still be "BrahmaNasya" for the sixth vibhakti as then it would follow the form of Vana (forest) as form of words ending with "a" sound.

This video gives forms of Vana which is a neuter gender ending in "an" sound. However, let me clarify that I have not seen any noun ending with "an" sound being treated differently than nouns with "a" sound. You may be able to clarify this point. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPshFFIbhQU

PS : Please read the footnote below the video : All अकारान्त (words ending with letter अ) नपुन्सकलिङग् (neuter gender) noun words are declined similar to वन (Van). So, once you learn the vibhakti (declension) of वन (Van), you have learnt the declensions of all the अकारान्त (words ending with letter अ) नपुन्सकलिङग् (neuter gender) noun words. That means, you know how to use all अकारान्त नपुन्सकलिङग् noun words in correct grammatical manner. It is so easy.

Are you sure, Brahmana in sixth vibhakti should be read as "Brahmanas" ? Can you give any proof ?

c) Please note that BrahmaNo has been used in the verse without any sandhi. There are other verses too in BG where it has been used independently. Therefore, can you tell us how this logic of sandhi fits in here ?

OM

Stems ending in "-a" are not declined the same as stems ending in "-an." Look at any standard Sanskrit textbook for the proof you desire. Thus, "devasya" is a legitimate Sanskrit construction but "brahamaNasya" is not. They follow different declension paradigms. "deva" and "ashva" follow the same declension paradigm, but words like "brahman" and "Atman" follow a different one.

Because of sandhi rules, "brahmaNas" or "brahmaNaH" (the genitive/sixth vibhakti of "brahman") became "brahmaNo" before "hi." Again, check any standard Sanskrit text.

[Sahasranama]

I got this table after a little search on internet :

Declension table of brahman

*********** Singular********Dual********Plural

Nominative brahma brahmaṇī brahmāṇī
Vocative brahma brahmaṇī brahmāṇī
Accusative brahma brahmaṇī brahmāṇī
Instrumental brahmaṇā brahmabhyām brahmabhiḥ
Dative brahmaṇe brahmabhyām brahmabhyaḥ
Ablative brahmaṇaḥ brahmabhyām brahmabhyaḥ
Genitive brahmaṇaḥ brahmaṇoḥ brahmaṇām
Locative brahmaṇi brahmaṇoḥ brahmasu

So, the PrathamA, singular number of Brahman is Brahma and not Brahmaa/BrahmA.

Please give the source of this table. I think that the difference comes from taking brahman either as a masculine word or as a neuter word which are both correct depending on the context.

Either way, the genitive (shashti) of both tables are completely the same.


Even if this is accepted where I have no proof to rely upon but you are talking about joining the words together. I am talking about keeping the words separate after sandhi which is not sandhi at all.
...............................


If there is any other rule known to you, please share.

You don't have to rely on my word. You can look at any Sanskrit translation that has pada-pATha and examine each word closely and then compare the individual words of the pada-pATha with the words in verse form. This way you can see for yourself how common it is for sandhi to occur between words that are not "joined together." In Sanskrit all words are joined together in a sentence. But please, see for yourself examining the pada-pATha and verse form of any text.


But where is sandhi ? With which word ? The version of Bhagwad Gita printed from Gita Press, Gorakhpur writes this :

"Brahmano hi pratishThaahm ..."

I don't see any sandhi here.

Okay, since you mention the Gita Press, here is the Gita Press translation with pada-pATha. Hopefully, this ends the discussion.

http://s9.postimage.org/iwo5qcllb/gita_1427.png

[devotee]

Namaste Sahas,

It is difficult yo locate the site again. But it is an engine which gives you the table for any word you type. I have kept Brahman as Neuter gender and not Masculine for getting the above result. In fact, the prathamaa singular number is Brahma alone and not Brahmaa/BrahmA as I could get in various verses in Upanishads. But you may try, if other form too is acceptable. I could not find Brahman being used as Brahmaa in Prathamaa anywhere in usage.

I was not seeking Bhagwad Gita translation from Gita Press. I already had that. However, I didn't have this what you have posted as it gives meaning of all words separately whereas I had to rely on my own sandhi-viccheda. It is not that this meaning was not known to me. However, the issue arose due to incompatibility of the meaning the verse with what Shruti says. I hope you understand that. Therefore, that was my try to translate the verse with my knowledge of Sanskrit. Now, I learnt Sanskrit nearly 40 years back and only upto school level. So, I can't claim to be an expert of Sanskrit as it is not a language too in which I interact with the world around me.

Now that said, I am still firm that Brahmno hi when written separately don't make a sandhi. It cannot be. Again I have not read about two different types of sandhis. I agree that being old in age, my memory fails me sometimes but I don't think it can be so much. Again,. I am not claiming anything as I don't consider myself an expert on sanskrit.

I agree that sometimes vikaar comes even without sandhi which perhaps has happened to Brahmanah in this verse but then that vikaar is not due to sandhi. In sandhi, the words must join together and form another word otherwise it is not sandhi but anything else. I could not get hold on any rule for this but I saw this trend in many cases in usage. Your assertion that it is because of visarga before consonant doesn't appear to be correct to me, that you can check up. Yes, when a word ending with visarga joins with another word starting with a vowel, visarga does change into 'o" sound. In usage of Brahmanah, in Chhandogya Upanishad, I could not get any strict rule being followed. It has been used as Brahmano even without any strict rule and also as Brahmanah in other places.

**********

BTW, I don't want to dilute the importance of your contribution in this thread. It has been quite fruitful to me and may have helped others too who have followed this thread. Normally I rely on my memory but I learnt that it helps if one takes the help of internet, as it has become today a powerful tool for learning Sanskrit. Thanks Sahas, Phil and others who participated in this thread.

OM

[philosoraptor]

Dear devotee,

Please brush up on your Sanskrit. This whole thread could have been avoided or made substantially more meaningful if you had tempered your need to make a sectarian argument with some actual knowledge of Sanskrit grammar. "brahmaNo hi" is sandhi of "brahmaNaH hi." There is nothing controversial about this. Any Sanskrit text you read, with few exceptions (like those written for beginniners) will have the text written out with sandhi rules already applied. Hence, you have to be alert for these and be prepared to reverse the rule to extrapolate the declined stem forms. There is no question that "brahmaNaH" (or brahmaNas as it will be written in some texts) is the singular genitive form. Everyone takes it this way. Everyone.

Bear in mind that I am no "expert" in Sanskrit either. But even I remember that stems like "Atman" or "brahman" are declined differently than stems like "deva" or "vana." If my Sanskrit professor caught me making a mistake like that, I would be flushing with embarassment. I also do still look up my textbooks including sandhi rules when I question any translation. I think this is a good habit to be in if it has been years since your last formal Sanskrit study.

regards,

[Omkara]

Meanwhile, rAmAnuja takes it to refer to the jIva, since the jIva has brahman as its inner controller. This too is consistent, for the jIva is equated to brahman in numerous ways, even as the difference is also mentioned.



Madhvacharya quotes an upanishad called parama upanishad in his vishnutatvanirnaya(which can be read here-https://sites.google.com/site/harshalarajesh/vishnutatvanirnaya ) where it is said that the word Brahman can mean various things, including the jiva, in different contexts-

brahmANi jIvAH sarve.api parabrahmANi muktigAH |
prakR^itiH paramaM brahma paramaM mahadachyutaH |
tasmAnna muktA na cha sA na kvachidvishhNuvaibhavam.h |
prApnuvanti sa evaikaH svatantraH pUrNashhaDguNaH" ||
iti paramashrutiH || 304||

304. The Parama-Sruti says: 'All the jivas are Brahmans; the jivas that attain release are superior Brahmans; prakrti(Lakshmi) is a still higher Brahman. Lord Acyuta is the greatest and highest Brahman. Therefore, neither the liberated souls nor she ever attain the splendour of Visnu anywhere, He alone is independent and has the six attributes to perfection'.

I don't think this upanishad is accepted by other sampradayas AFAIK though.

[devotee]

Yes, Phil, no one needs to be Einstein to figure out how you can pose yourself an expert and point out mistakes in others armed with Google search engine. It is quite evident. But anyway, I still give you credit to make the required efforts for getting the correct usage.

I thanked you when I stood corrected in choosing the form what "Brahman" will follow. However, you have decided to go a step ahead just to show your ahamkaar when your version was proven right. I have already stated that I am no expert of Sanskrit. Yes, if I would have cared to take the help of Google, I would have certainly matched your brilliance. That is a good piece of learning.

You come here for playing "I win --- you lose game". I have no such intentions ... I have pointed this out to you earlier too. Now you can understand why I ask you not to react to my posts.

I allow myself to commit mistakes and I don't see why one should feel let down if corrected by anyone else who knows better by any means.

I and Sahas have had differences in the past ... but he has behaved in a much mature fashion. You can learn a tip or two from him.

OM

[philosoraptor]

...you... I... I... I... you... your... your... I... I... I... I... your... I... you... I... I... you... you... I... you... my... I... I... anyone else... I... he... You...

Devoteeji, with all due respect, I submit that you are spreading feelings of duality with your words.

Also, I did not use Google to correct your mistake. I wasn't even aware before yesterday that Sanskrit declension tables were available on Google. I remembered from my college course that "brahmaNasya" is an incorrect construction as it based on the declension of "deva" which follows a different declension paradigm. But, just to make sure, I checked one of my Sanskrit textbooks, in this case the one by Michael Coulson entitled _Sanskrit for Beginners_. It has a nice sandhi table as well as answer keys for exercises, although its explanations are bit too dry and grounded in Western linguistics. Another book I can recommend is _Devavanipravesika_ published by a professor at UC Berkley. I like this one because the explanations make use of traditional Sanskrit terminology and paradigms of learning (for example it arranges verb conjugations according to the order preferred by Sanskrit grammarians), and many of the examples use sentences from the Ramayana (making it extra sweet to read), although sadly it lacks an answer key. Anyway, I'm sure there are many Sanskrit textbooks you can consult, and I'm sure we would all thank you to do so before, well, you know.

cheers!

philosoraptor (remember, I'm just you - there is no difference between us - the difference is only due to maya!)

[devotee]

Also, I did not use Google to correct your mistake. I wasn't even aware before yesterday that Sanskrit declension tables were available on Google. I remembered from my college course that "brahmaNasya" is an incorrect construction as it based on the declension of "deva" which follows a different declension paradigm. But, just to make sure, I checked one of my Sanskrit textbooks, in this case the one by Michael Coulson entitled _Sanskrit for Beginners_. It has a nice sandhi table as well as answer keys for exercises, although its explanations are bit too dry and grounded in Western linguistics. Another book I can recommend is _Devavanipravesika_ published by a professor at UC Berkley. I like this one because the explanations make use of traditional Sanskrit terminology and paradigms of learning (for example it arranges verb conjugations according to the order preferred by Sanskrit grammarians), and many of the examples use sentences from the Ramayana (making it extra sweet to read), although sadly it lacks an answer key.

That is better post ! ... and I yes, you do deserve praise if you didn't take the help of Google in this exercise. There must be very few here who can claim thus.

OM

[Sahasranama]

Namaste Sahas,

It is difficult yo locate the site again. But it is an engine which gives you the table for any word you type. I have kept Brahman as Neuter gender and not Masculine for getting the above result. In fact, the prathamaa singular number is Brahma alone and not Brahmaa/BrahmA as I could get in various verses in Upanishads. But you may try, if other form too is acceptable. I could not find Brahman being used as Brahmaa in Prathamaa anywhere in usage. Is it this website? http://sanskrit.inria.fr/DICO/grammar.html

This website confirms the table from the Shabdarupavali I posted earlier when you select masculine and gives the table you quoted when you select neuter. This confirms what I thought.

[devotee]

Is it this website? http://sanskrit.inria.fr/DICO/grammar.html

Yes. Did you try with "Brahman" in "Masculine gender" ? Can you post the print out ? I couldn't get it. The engine didn't allow that. May be the data fed didn't incorporate that.

OM

[Sahasranama]

Yes, I can make a print screen and post the tables here. First table is after selecting masculine and second is after selecting neuter.

http://s2.postimage.org/yta0l5es9/declension_brahman.png

[devotee]

Great work done ! :)

OM

[devotee]

Did you face any problem of transliteration while giving input to the engine ? I was getting error message "Illegal transliteration Brahman" when input was made for "Brahman" or "Brahma". I would like to know what input you choose ?

OM

[Sahasranama]

Did you face any problem of transliteration while giving input to the engine ? I was getting error message "Illegal transliteration Brahman" when input was made for "Brahman" or "Brahma". I would like to know what input you choose ?The input is case sensitive. You have to type in brahman with small letters.

[devotee]

The input is case sensitive. You have to type in brahman with small letters.

Oh ! Thanks. It bugged me for a long time. Now it is working.

OM

[devotee]

Experiment on Brahma has resulted in many outputs :

If Brahma (Neuter Gender) is used and not Brahman as the stem, then output follows "patra" or "Vana" tables :

सुबन्त ब्रह्म

नपुंसकम् एकः द्वौ बहवः

प्रथमा ब्रह्मम् ब्रह्मे ब्रह्माणि
सम्बोधनम् ब्रह्म ब्रह्मे ब्रह्माणि
द्वितीया ब्रह्मम् ब्रह्मे ब्रह्माणि
तृतीया ब्रह्मेण ब्रह्माभ्याम् ब्रह्मैः
चतुर्थी ब्रह्माय ब्रह्माभ्याम् ब्रह्मेभ्यः
पञ्चमी ब्रह्मात् ब्रह्माभ्याम् ब्रह्मेभ्यः
षष्ठी ब्रह्मस्य ब्रह्मयोः ब्रह्माणाम्
सप्तमी ब्रह्मे ब्रह्मयोः ब्रह्मेषु

Declension table of brahma

Neuter Singular Dual Plural
Nominative brahmam brahme brahmāṇi
Vocative brahma brahme brahmāṇi
Accusative brahmam brahme brahmāṇi
Instrumental brahmeṇa brahmābhyām brahmaiḥ
Dative brahmāya brahmābhyām brahmebhyaḥ
Ablative brahmāt brahmābhyām brahmebhyaḥ
Genitive brahmasya brahmayoḥ brahmāṇām
Locative brahme brahmayoḥ brahmeṣu

When Brahma is used as Masculine gender then the output is :

Declension table of brahma

Masculine Singular Dual Plural

Nominative brahmaḥ brahmau brahmāḥ
Vocative brahma brahmau brahmāḥ
Accusative brahmam brahmau brahmān
Instrumental brahmeṇa brahmābhyām brahmaiḥ
Dative brahmāya brahmābhyām brahmebhyaḥ
Ablative brahmāt brahmābhyām brahmebhyaḥ
Genitive brahmasya brahmayoḥ brahmāṇām
Locative brahme brahmayoḥ brahmeṣu

i.e. it follows the tables of Gaja or Baalaka.

OM

[Sahasranama]

Since you have used brahma as an a-kAranta word, logically it will follow the template of the a-kAranta stem, but that is not the form used in this verse. Here brahman, a nAnta (ending in n) word is used. Brahmano cannot come from any of the declensions of a-karanta brahma, it can only come from the singular panchami or shashti declension of a nAnta word and in this context it is clearly used in shashti.

If you have any further doubt, check the translations of a traditional acharya like Shankara or Ramanuja.

[devotee]

No, No. No doubts otherwise I would have written that. I was just wondering how this too exists and what this Brahma means ? Or may be, it doesn't exist and the engine just follows a logical route to generate the table.

OM

[Sahasranama]

No, No. No doubts otherwise I would have written that. I was just wondering how this too exists and what this Brahma means ? Or may be, it doesn't exist and the engine just follows a logical route to generate the table. According to the dictionary both forms exist.