Shloka
सन्नाप्यसन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो
भिन्नाप्यभिन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो ।
साङ्गाप्यनङ्गाप्युभयात्मिका नो
महाद्भुतानिर्वचनीयरूपा ॥ १११ ॥
sannāpyasannāpyubhayātmikā no
bhinnāpyabhinnāpyubhayātmikā no ;
sāṅgāpyanaṅgāpyubhayātmikā no
mahādbhutānirvacanīyarūpā . 111 .
Anvaya
- सत् नsat na
- It (māyā) is not real
- असत् अपि नasat api na
- not even unreal
- उभय–आत्मिका अपि नubhaya–ātmikā api na
- not even of dual nature (as real and unreal)
- भिन्ना अपिbhinnā api
- (not) even distinct (from Brahman)
- अभिन्ना अपिabhinnā api
- (not) even non–distinct
- उभयात्मिका नubhayātmikā na
- not dual in nature
- साङ्गा अपिsāṅgā api
- (not) an entity with limbs
- अनङ्गा अपिanaṅgā api
- (not) an entity without limbs
- महा–अद्भुताmahā–adbhutā
- highly marvelous
- अनिर्वचनीय–रूपाanirvacanīya–rūpā
- indefinable in nature
Translation
It is not even real (sat), not even unreal (asat) and not even both in nature. It is not even distinct from Brahman, not non–distinct from Brahman and not even both in nature. It is not even a whole with limbs, not a whole without limbs and not even both in nature. It is highly astonishing and indefinable in nature.
Annotation
1) What is not negated at any time is sat. Everything in the universe is subject to origin and decay. Brahman is the only thing which cannot be negated at any time and hence it is called sat. 2) Something which has no existence at all is asat. The examples are a flower in space or a son of a barren woman. Māyā is neither real like Brahman nor totally unreal like the son of a barren woman. Though it is originless, it ends with realisation. If it were to be total unreal, it would not have transactional reality. It is also not a combination of both because real and unreal are mutually exclusive. 3) If it is held that māyā is distinct (separate) from Brahman, it would contradict the infinite nature of Brahman. Nothing can be apart from Brahman. On the other hand, if it is held that māyā is non–distinct from Brahman, it would be non–negatable like Brahman. Hence it is said to be neither different nor non–different from Brahman. And also, it is not a combination of both because they are mutually exclusive. 4) Similarly māyā is not (sāṅgā) a whole with limbs. If it were to be so, it would have a beginning and end but māyā has no beginning but has an end. It is not even a whole with limbs (anaṅgā). If it were so it would be like Brahman and it would not transform and evolve into Hiranyagarbha, the five elements and the universe. Māyā is the transformative material cause for the universe. Māyā is not a combination of both as they are mutually exclusive. Hence it is indefinable (Jagadguru).