pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins!

 

I am one day early dangerously treading into Dennisji's March

territory. Can't help it as I won't be having access to the net in

the coming three or four days. Besides, I don't want to April fool. I

am in the midst of shifting residence with the year end office work

and a sprained left foot plaguing my BMI.

 

Thus, here goes the lead post on pUrNamadah. Please feel free to

criticize, improve, embellish and correct. Scriptural quotes are

also welcome.

 

Thank you all in advance.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

OM PARASAKTIAI NAMAHA

 

PURNAMADAH PURNAMIDAM REVISTED

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The pUrNamadah verse, appearing at the end of this post, is the

shAntipATa (prayer verse) with which IshAvAsyOpaniSad begins. It is

familiar to all of us and is often chanted at the end of satsangs all

over the world. However, we miss its profundity because that is the

time we feel our pockets for the car keys in our hurry to reach back

home. Usually, the gastric fire is also at work in the hope of a

sumptuous prasAd more calorific than normal meals!

 

Exhaustive interpretations for the verse exist. I have found the

explanations of Sw. Chinmayanandaji and Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji

very enlightening. It is usually deciphered by first equating "I"

with "THAT" (adah) of the shrutIs. Analogies of snake-rope, post-

ghost, gold-ornaments, ocean-waves etc. are then effectively employed

to explain the relation between "THAT" and "THIS" (idam) and then

unravel the advaitic truth remaining hidden in the verse.

 

I believe pUrNamadah can be lived every moment of our life. I am

therefore making an attempt here to understand the verse with my eyes

open looking at the duality of the world, a duality that spans from

ants to stars and galaxies, but yet standing firmly rooted on

scriptural pronouncements and affirmations.

 

 

THE UNIVERSE

 

I look out through the window. There is the unending expanse of the

sky speckled with glittering stars. I close my eyes and look

inside. There are scintillating thoughts, ideas, concepts and

memories streaking my unending mental sky.

 

Did I use the words out and in? The outside and inside of what?

There is no answer to that question because I cannot set borders for

the being that I am and because all that listed above, from thoughts

to stars, including my awareness of myself, are the things seen,

acknowledged or objectified. They are all there. That is all I

know. I exist knowing them all – a self-evidence that is

formlessness.

 

All that are experienced and objectified constitute the universe for

the purposes of this discussion. Since the day man began to think,

the shape of the universe (of course, sans what he falsely considers

himself to be) has been his biggest botheration. He sees a tree, he

sees a mountain, he sees his wife. All of them have definite

borders, precise forms. Naturally, therefore, he expects the same of

the universe. It should have a form. He should know its limits.

 

He thus began theorizing. The basic assumption that went

unquestioned in his pondering was his `taken for granted' separate

identity (from the object of study, i.e. the universe) as the

theorizer existing within and bounded by the outer limits of his

skin. Thus, the universe for him remained an outside with he himself

appropriating and identifying with the inside together with its

perceived borders!

 

Naturally, due to this separation, he visualized the universe as an

object born in a Big Bang that occurred several billion years ago or

as something that has always been existent in a steady state.

Whatever these theories, they left several questions unanswered and

gave rise to several other intractable conundrums. If the universe

originated in a Big Bang, what was it that `banged' and where did it

exist? What was the `before' of the Bang like? If the universe is

still expanding after the Bang, where is it expanding in and to?

Bang or steady state, where are its outer limits and what lies beyond

them?

 

Some argued the primordial atom that banged big existed in a meta-

universe. That raised unanswerable questions about the origin and

limits of that meta-universe. An added problem when the one in hand

was already begging answers! Others thought that time and space began

with the Bang? But how could there be the existence of the something

that banged without time and space? That was ridiculous.

 

As no satisfactory answers emerged, the spiritually inclined among

the theorizers threw their hands up and exclaimed in

exasperation: "The universe is infinite." They were then closer to

the truth than ever before. But, there was opposition as some others

swore that the universe was finite – as finite as an apple-pie. They

brought in evidence like Olber's Paradox to support their

contention. The pity was that finitude was too familiar for their

scientific minds to think in the opposite direction of utter

freedom. In fact, they were wary that a no man's land lay in the

opposite way, a wilderness where profound-looking philosophers and

theologians wandered aimlessly, to navigate which there were no

frames of reference available to them. And the problem was that they

were vainly trying to impose finitude on the universe as that is the

only way they were scientifically comfortable.

 

As finite models fell far short of offering satisfactory answers,

some of them had argued that the universe, as it spanned countless

light-years, couldn't be looked at simply from the Euclidian

angle. The space-time continuum was brought in with gravitational

bending of space. Others had speculated additional dimensions

forgetting that that could give rise to the possibility of countless

dimensions. An unending multiplicity of universes one within the

other didn't matter to them as long as they thought they were really

researching. Actually, they were staring in the face of the infinite

but vehemently refusing to acknowledge it in the vain hope of finding

salvation in finitude. Succumbing to `uncertainty', they thought,

was more desirable than acknowledging the infinitude of the really

infinite!

 

Whatever theories or mathematical equations the human mind cooks up,

the questions that unendingly beg answers will remain

the `before', `after' and `beyond' of the universe. There is no hope

of salvation without undoing these three that emanate from space and

time in whose prison all empirical thinking is condemned to languish.

The only solution, therefore, is to consider all creation,

objectified both `inside' and `outside' us, as one single universe

and understand it as infinite – an infinity in relation to which time

and space have no meaning.

 

To any enquiring mind, this infinitude of the universe should be as

evident as broad daylight. The universe that I am trying to limit by

being strictly empirical is in fact limitless. It is the infinite or

infinity!

 

 

THE INFINITE OR INFINITY

 

Infinite and infinity are perhaps the most misunderstood words in

English language. Our dictionaries suggest that infinite is the

antonym of finite and infinitesimal. Some people see it as the

opposite end of zero. Philosophically, that is our undoing.

 

Mathematics has made things worse. There was this mathematics

teacher of mine in high school who was in the habit of showing off

his knowledge. While on an uncalled for digression into mathematical

infinity, he asked the class to answer the question of infinity

divided by infinity. The brightest among us said one. Asked why, he

explained that a number divided by the same number is always one. He

was applauded. I had a doubt. I mustered enough courage to point

out that there simply couldn't be two infinities for the division to

be performed. The teacher chided me and dubbed me an idiot trying to

be smart!

 

Many decades have passed since then with me remaining an idiot and

the world very intelligent. Else, how can we explain the way infinity

continues to bother our finest minds. Type out the word `infinity'

in a Google search. You will see what I mean. Or, try this one:

http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8R69.html for some fun.

 

With our vEdAntic knowledge, let us try to find out what the Infinite

or Infinity is not or has not:

 

Infinity is unending. It never therefore began.

Infinity being boundless, it cannot have an outside. There is

therefore no question of a second infinity. It is, therefore, one

without a second.

Infinity therefore has no antonyms.

When there is no outside, no inside is warranted. So, infinity is

without parts or contents.

When there are no parts, no separation is generated. Thus, infinity

is spacelessness.

As space and time go hand in hand, infinity is timelessness too.

Infinity is thus fullness or completeness; nothing is there to add to

it; nothing can be taken out from it; no outside agency can exist

that can do the addition or subtraction!

Infinity alone remains.

 

 

VEDANTA

 

But, all this is contrary to my experience. I see the universe as

composed of many different things like galaxies, stars, planets,

living beings, the unknowns etc. etc. They are all separate. Then,

there is me theorizing about the universe standing aside and

altogether separate from it! Thus, the universe and me are mutually

limiting.

 

VedAnta comes to our rescue here. It says that the experience of

separation is an error and the multiplicity or duality generated

thereby is non-real. The different entities objectified, including

the limited me with all my internalizations, are miTyA. The seeming

reality of duality is thus negated.

 

In contrast, mathematics, the first systematic language of ignorance,

wants infinity to serve it as its house-maid while it does book-

keeping for miTyA – the non-reality of finitude!

 

Experience connotes duality – an experiencer and experienced. The

fullness or completeness called infinity doesn't brook two or more.

My sense of having a separate existence from the universe as its

experiencer should, therefore, be an error that needs correction.

If the outsideless and partless infinitude of the universe is

granted, then my separation ends. I am then the universe and the

universe is me. Experience of duality is thus understood as non-

real, miTyA, an appearance. Then, my false conclusion that I am

different from the universe or the universe is different from me

stands corrected.

 

 

THE PURNAMADAH VERSE

 

Thus, in the pUrNamadah verse, idam (meaning THIS) stands for this

one-without-a-second universe [idam sarvam (all this) or idam viswam

(this world)]. I am IT.

 

Adah means THAT. What THAT? The THAT of the mahAvAkYa tat twam asi

(That Thou art). "Thou" corresponds to the `I" of the other

mahAvAkya "AhAM BrahmAsmi" (I am Brahman). Thus, THAT means the one-

without-a-second Brahman of vEdAnta which is ME!

 

Brahman and the infinitude called the universe are thus identified as

one and the same. The universe, which appears to encompass within

itself the experiencing limited me and all the diverse experienced

phenomena as separate entities and thereby imposes limitations on

itself, is in fact the one-without-a-second *partless*, *indivisible*

fullness called Brahman!

 

THIS IS THAT I AM!

 

Thus, this universe is completeness. The Brahman of vEdanta that is

me is completeness. The apparent universe of duality, where the

limited I see limited things, rises (udacyatE) from Brahman or me.

The rising is only an appearance – miTyA, because completeness is

indivisible. It is like a city reflected in a mirror (viswam

darpaNadrishyamAna nagarI… of DakshiAmUrtyashTakam).

 

The verse continues to say: Taking away fullness from fullness or

adding fullness to fullness, fullness alone remains. Take away this

universe (of experienced forms, of appearance) from me (Brahman), I

still remain fullness – This is what happens when I sleep every

night! Bring back the universe in the morning when I awake – Even

then I alone remain fullness in spite of the seeming appearances.

Thus, nothing can be removed from "This is that I am". Neither can

anything be added. Thus, "this-is-that-I am" is an imperishable

fullness that always remains.

 

All standard interpretations understand AdAya as both additive and

subtractive. The word with its opposing meanings, therefore, fits

the context perfectly as it emphasizes the impossibility of enhancing

or reducing the already full fullness. Nothing can be added to

fullness. Nothing can be removed from fullness. It also seems to

laugh out aloud at the finitudinal naivety of mathematics' attempts

to add/subtract infinity to/from infinity!

 

Thus, I am not apart from the universe. Neither am I a part of it.

I am it. Thus, the *sense* of seeing (experiencing) as seer

(experiencer) apart from the seen (experienced) is the nature of my

ignorance. When this is realized and the false *sense* loses grip,

seeing `stops' to spontaneously become being. The universe will then

not be seen. Nay, the appearing universe then resolves into the

erstwhile seer's or experiencer's total being – infiniteness,

fullness and completeness. He begins to `heave' with the whole

universe in and as his being like Lord DakshiNAmUrti – an ocean of

fullness. The waves then are an apparence that resolves in the

depths of his silence. Thus, what is negated (nEti, nEti) is the

appearance and not the infinitude called the universe. Negating that

infinitude is tantamount to negating me!

 

The infinitude of the universe is the anirvacanIya (indefinable) that

we discuss here frequently. It is ineffable only as long we stand

apart totally confounded and scratch our heads in awe. When

pUrNamadah is properly understood, no anirvacanIya remains. What is

there indefinable in my knowledge of myself? In the silence that I

am, my pUrNa nature is crystal-clear to me. Indefinability arises

only when I try to communicate with others. Well, then I am apUrNa

by creating duality and playing with miTyA, as I am doing now!

 

 

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WORLD IN FULLNESS?

 

Even when my *sense* of separation is understood and acknowledged as

an error, the world doesn't simply disappear as one would expect.

In nirvikalpa samAdhi, which I haven't experienced, it is said that

the world vanishes. I cannot go into that. Nevertheless, it would

help noting that whoever testified so had come out to the external

world of duality to say so! Perhaps, in samAdhi, the samAdhist's

apparent separation from the world coalesces into his fullness with

time and space undone. He thus becomes totally and experientially

convinced of the non-real nature of what he `sees' when he is not in

samAdhi. However, I can't help repeating Swami Dayananda

Saraswatiji's very profound and enlightening observation in this

context:

 

QUOTE

 

A fullness dependent on experience grants reality to duality. To

enjoy such a fullness one engages in various practices seeking the

release of nirvikalpa-samAdhi, or one courts moments of great joy.

Courting the experience of nonduality is based on fear of the

experience of duality. Duality is seen as something from which one

must escape. But escape by means of experience is false freedom.

You, the limited being, and this world, which limits you, are always

waiting when the experience is over.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Let the mountains, rivers, stars, and all the beings therefore remain

as they are. What does it matter? If I am fullness, for which shruti

is my guarantee, the mountain cannot be outside me or other than me.

Therefore, the mountain is me. Thus, the river is me, the star is

me, everything is me. I am the fullness that pervades all of them.

They are not parts of me or in me (Ref: Bhagwad GItA – 9th Chapter),

because as fullness I can't have parts or contents. They are all

verily me! When I am `looking' at them, I am `face to face' with

infinity – the reality that I am!

 

Thus the pUrNamadah verse has all vEdanta encapsulated in it!

 

The deluded and limited me is just an appearance like all the rest of

the things in this perceived universe. They are just non-real

(miTyA) superimpositions on the reality that I am. Take them away or

bring them back – the fullness that I am remains unaltered and

undiminished, whether the seeming me is awake, asleep or dead!

 

Thus we sing:

 

Om pUrNamadah pUrNamidam

pUrNAt pUrNamudacyatE

pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya

pUrNamEvAvashiSyatE

 

Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntihi

 

[Completeness is that, completeness is this,

from completeness, completeness comes forth.

Completeness from completeness taken away,

completeness to completeness added,

completeness alone remains.

 

Peace, peace, peace!]

 

(Translation from Sw. Dayanandaji's interpretation)

 

_____________________

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

Delightful words! An expression of Advaita that is after my own heart!

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Advaitins!

>

> I am one day early dangerously treading into Dennisji's March

> territory. Can't help it as I won't be having access to the net in

> the coming three or four days. Besides, I don't want to April fool.

I

> am in the midst of shifting residence with the year end office work

> and a sprained left foot plaguing my BMI.

>

> Thus, here goes the lead post on pUrNamadah. Please feel free to

> criticize, improve, embellish and correct. Scriptural quotes are

> also welcome.

>

> Thank you all in advance.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ___________________

>

> OM PARASAKTIAI NAMAHA

>

> PURNAMADAH PURNAMIDAM REVISTED

>

> INTRODUCTION

>

> The pUrNamadah verse, appearing at the end of this post, is the

> shAntipATa (prayer verse) with which IshAvAsyOpaniSad begins. It

is

> familiar to all of us and is often chanted at the end of satsangs

all

> over the world. However, we miss its profundity because that is

the

> time we feel our pockets for the car keys in our hurry to reach

back

> home. Usually, the gastric fire is also at work in the hope of a

> sumptuous prasAd more calorific than normal meals!

>

> Exhaustive interpretations for the verse exist. I have found the

> explanations of Sw. Chinmayanandaji and Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji

> very enlightening. It is usually deciphered by first equating "I"

> with "THAT" (adah) of the shrutIs. Analogies of snake-rope, post-

> ghost, gold-ornaments, ocean-waves etc. are then effectively

employed

> to explain the relation between "THAT" and "THIS" (idam) and then

> unravel the advaitic truth remaining hidden in the verse.

>

> I believe pUrNamadah can be lived every moment of our life. I am

> therefore making an attempt here to understand the verse with my

eyes

> open looking at the duality of the world, a duality that spans from

> ants to stars and galaxies, but yet standing firmly rooted on

> scriptural pronouncements and affirmations.

>

>

> THE UNIVERSE

>

> I look out through the window. There is the unending expanse of

the

> sky speckled with glittering stars. I close my eyes and look

> inside. There are scintillating thoughts, ideas, concepts and

> memories streaking my unending mental sky.

>

> Did I use the words out and in? The outside and inside of what?

> There is no answer to that question because I cannot set borders

for

> the being that I am and because all that listed above, from

thoughts

> to stars, including my awareness of myself, are the things seen,

> acknowledged or objectified. They are all there. That is all I

> know. I exist knowing them all – a self-evidence that is

> formlessness.

>

> All that are experienced and objectified constitute the universe

for

> the purposes of this discussion. Since the day man began to think,

> the shape of the universe (of course, sans what he falsely

considers

> himself to be) has been his biggest botheration. He sees a tree,

he

> sees a mountain, he sees his wife. All of them have definite

> borders, precise forms. Naturally, therefore, he expects the same

of

> the universe. It should have a form. He should know its limits.

>

> He thus began theorizing. The basic assumption that went

> unquestioned in his pondering was his `taken for granted' separate

> identity (from the object of study, i.e. the universe) as the

> theorizer existing within and bounded by the outer limits of his

> skin. Thus, the universe for him remained an outside with he

himself

> appropriating and identifying with the inside together with its

> perceived borders!

>

> Naturally, due to this separation, he visualized the universe as an

> object born in a Big Bang that occurred several billion years ago

or

> as something that has always been existent in a steady state.

> Whatever these theories, they left several questions unanswered and

> gave rise to several other intractable conundrums. If the universe

> originated in a Big Bang, what was it that `banged' and where did

it

> exist? What was the `before' of the Bang like? If the universe is

> still expanding after the Bang, where is it expanding in and to?

> Bang or steady state, where are its outer limits and what lies

beyond

> them?

>

> Some argued the primordial atom that banged big existed in a meta-

> universe. That raised unanswerable questions about the origin and

> limits of that meta-universe. An added problem when the one in hand

> was already begging answers! Others thought that time and space

began

> with the Bang? But how could there be the existence of the

something

> that banged without time and space? That was ridiculous.

>

> As no satisfactory answers emerged, the spiritually inclined among

> the theorizers threw their hands up and exclaimed in

> exasperation: "The universe is infinite." They were then closer

to

> the truth than ever before. But, there was opposition as some

others

> swore that the universe was finite – as finite as an apple-pie.

They

> brought in evidence like Olber's Paradox to support their

> contention. The pity was that finitude was too familiar for

their

> scientific minds to think in the opposite direction of utter

> freedom. In fact, they were wary that a no man's land lay in the

> opposite way, a wilderness where profound-looking philosophers and

> theologians wandered aimlessly, to navigate which there were no

> frames of reference available to them. And the problem was that

they

> were vainly trying to impose finitude on the universe as that is

the

> only way they were scientifically comfortable.

>

> As finite models fell far short of offering satisfactory answers,

> some of them had argued that the universe, as it spanned countless

> light-years, couldn't be looked at simply from the Euclidian

> angle. The space-time continuum was brought in with

gravitational

> bending of space. Others had speculated additional dimensions

> forgetting that that could give rise to the possibility of

countless

> dimensions. An unending multiplicity of universes one within the

> other didn't matter to them as long as they thought they were

really

> researching. Actually, they were staring in the face of the

infinite

> but vehemently refusing to acknowledge it in the vain hope of

finding

> salvation in finitude. Succumbing to `uncertainty', they thought,

> was more desirable than acknowledging the infinitude of the really

> infinite!

>

> Whatever theories or mathematical equations the human mind cooks

up,

> the questions that unendingly beg answers will remain

> the `before', `after' and `beyond' of the universe. There is no

hope

> of salvation without undoing these three that emanate from space

and

> time in whose prison all empirical thinking is condemned to

languish.

> The only solution, therefore, is to consider all creation,

> objectified both `inside' and `outside' us, as one single universe

> and understand it as infinite – an infinity in relation to which

time

> and space have no meaning.

>

> To any enquiring mind, this infinitude of the universe should be as

> evident as broad daylight. The universe that I am trying to limit

by

> being strictly empirical is in fact limitless. It is the infinite

or

> infinity!

>

>

> THE INFINITE OR INFINITY

>

> Infinite and infinity are perhaps the most misunderstood words in

> English language. Our dictionaries suggest that infinite is the

> antonym of finite and infinitesimal. Some people see it as the

> opposite end of zero. Philosophically, that is our undoing.

>

> Mathematics has made things worse. There was this mathematics

> teacher of mine in high school who was in the habit of showing off

> his knowledge. While on an uncalled for digression into

mathematical

> infinity, he asked the class to answer the question of infinity

> divided by infinity. The brightest among us said one. Asked why,

he

> explained that a number divided by the same number is always one.

He

> was applauded. I had a doubt. I mustered enough courage to point

> out that there simply couldn't be two infinities for the division

to

> be performed. The teacher chided me and dubbed me an idiot trying

to

> be smart!

>

> Many decades have passed since then with me remaining an idiot and

> the world very intelligent. Else, how can we explain the way

infinity

> continues to bother our finest minds. Type out the word `infinity'

> in a Google search. You will see what I mean. Or, try this one:

> http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8R69.html for some fun.

>

> With our vEdAntic knowledge, let us try to find out what the

Infinite

> or Infinity is not or has not:

>

> Infinity is unending. It never therefore began.

> Infinity being boundless, it cannot have an outside. There is

> therefore no question of a second infinity. It is, therefore, one

> without a second.

> Infinity therefore has no antonyms.

> When there is no outside, no inside is warranted. So, infinity is

> without parts or contents.

> When there are no parts, no separation is generated. Thus,

infinity

> is spacelessness.

> As space and time go hand in hand, infinity is timelessness too.

> Infinity is thus fullness or completeness; nothing is there to add

to

> it; nothing can be taken out from it; no outside agency can exist

> that can do the addition or subtraction!

> Infinity alone remains.

>

>

> VEDANTA

>

> But, all this is contrary to my experience. I see the universe as

> composed of many different things like galaxies, stars, planets,

> living beings, the unknowns etc. etc. They are all separate. Then,

> there is me theorizing about the universe standing aside and

> altogether separate from it! Thus, the universe and me are

mutually

> limiting.

>

> VedAnta comes to our rescue here. It says that the experience of

> separation is an error and the multiplicity or duality generated

> thereby is non-real. The different entities objectified, including

> the limited me with all my internalizations, are miTyA. The

seeming

> reality of duality is thus negated.

>

> In contrast, mathematics, the first systematic language of

ignorance,

> wants infinity to serve it as its house-maid while it does book-

> keeping for miTyA – the non-reality of finitude!

>

> Experience connotes duality – an experiencer and experienced. The

> fullness or completeness called infinity doesn't brook two or

more.

> My sense of having a separate existence from the universe as its

> experiencer should, therefore, be an error that needs correction.

> If the outsideless and partless infinitude of the universe is

> granted, then my separation ends. I am then the universe and the

> universe is me. Experience of duality is thus understood as non-

> real, miTyA, an appearance. Then, my false conclusion that I am

> different from the universe or the universe is different from me

> stands corrected.

>

>

> THE PURNAMADAH VERSE

>

> Thus, in the pUrNamadah verse, idam (meaning THIS) stands for this

> one-without-a-second universe [idam sarvam (all this) or idam

viswam

> (this world)]. I am IT.

>

> Adah means THAT. What THAT? The THAT of the mahAvAkYa tat twam

asi

> (That Thou art). "Thou" corresponds to the `I" of the other

> mahAvAkya "AhAM BrahmAsmi" (I am Brahman). Thus, THAT means the

one-

> without-a-second Brahman of vEdAnta which is ME!

>

> Brahman and the infinitude called the universe are thus identified

as

> one and the same. The universe, which appears to encompass within

> itself the experiencing limited me and all the diverse experienced

> phenomena as separate entities and thereby imposes limitations on

> itself, is in fact the one-without-a-second *partless*,

*indivisible*

> fullness called Brahman!

>

> THIS IS THAT I AM!

>

> Thus, this universe is completeness. The Brahman of vEdanta that

is

> me is completeness. The apparent universe of duality, where the

> limited I see limited things, rises (udacyatE) from Brahman or me.

> The rising is only an appearance – miTyA, because completeness is

> indivisible. It is like a city reflected in a mirror (viswam

> darpaNadrishyamAna nagarI… of DakshiAmUrtyashTakam).

>

> The verse continues to say: Taking away fullness from fullness or

> adding fullness to fullness, fullness alone remains. Take away this

> universe (of experienced forms, of appearance) from me (Brahman), I

> still remain fullness – This is what happens when I sleep every

> night! Bring back the universe in the morning when I awake – Even

> then I alone remain fullness in spite of the seeming appearances.

> Thus, nothing can be removed from "This is that I am". Neither can

> anything be added. Thus, "this-is-that-I am" is an imperishable

> fullness that always remains.

>

> All standard interpretations understand AdAya as both additive and

> subtractive. The word with its opposing meanings, therefore, fits

> the context perfectly as it emphasizes the impossibility of

enhancing

> or reducing the already full fullness. Nothing can be added to

> fullness. Nothing can be removed from fullness. It also seems to

> laugh out aloud at the finitudinal naivety of mathematics' attempts

> to add/subtract infinity to/from infinity!

>

> Thus, I am not apart from the universe. Neither am I a part of

it.

> I am it. Thus, the *sense* of seeing (experiencing) as seer

> (experiencer) apart from the seen (experienced) is the nature of my

> ignorance. When this is realized and the false *sense* loses grip,

> seeing `stops' to spontaneously become being. The universe will

then

> not be seen. Nay, the appearing universe then resolves into the

> erstwhile seer's or experiencer's total being – infiniteness,

> fullness and completeness. He begins to `heave' with the whole

> universe in and as his being like Lord DakshiNAmUrti – an ocean of

> fullness. The waves then are an apparence that resolves in the

> depths of his silence. Thus, what is negated (nEti, nEti) is the

> appearance and not the infinitude called the universe. Negating

that

> infinitude is tantamount to negating me!

>

> The infinitude of the universe is the anirvacanIya (indefinable)

that

> we discuss here frequently. It is ineffable only as long we stand

> apart totally confounded and scratch our heads in awe. When

> pUrNamadah is properly understood, no anirvacanIya remains. What

is

> there indefinable in my knowledge of myself? In the silence that I

> am, my pUrNa nature is crystal-clear to me. Indefinability arises

> only when I try to communicate with others. Well, then I am apUrNa

> by creating duality and playing with miTyA, as I am doing now!

>

>

> WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WORLD IN FULLNESS?

>

> Even when my *sense* of separation is understood and acknowledged

as

> an error, the world doesn't simply disappear as one would expect.

> In nirvikalpa samAdhi, which I haven't experienced, it is said

that

> the world vanishes. I cannot go into that. Nevertheless, it would

> help noting that whoever testified so had come out to the external

> world of duality to say so! Perhaps, in samAdhi, the samAdhist's

> apparent separation from the world coalesces into his fullness

with

> time and space undone. He thus becomes totally and experientially

> convinced of the non-real nature of what he `sees' when he is not

in

> samAdhi. However, I can't help repeating Swami Dayananda

> Saraswatiji's very profound and enlightening observation in this

> context:

>

> QUOTE

>

> A fullness dependent on experience grants reality to duality. To

> enjoy such a fullness one engages in various practices seeking the

> release of nirvikalpa-samAdhi, or one courts moments of great joy.

> Courting the experience of nonduality is based on fear of the

> experience of duality. Duality is seen as something from which one

> must escape. But escape by means of experience is false freedom.

> You, the limited being, and this world, which limits you, are

always

> waiting when the experience is over.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> Let the mountains, rivers, stars, and all the beings therefore

remain

> as they are. What does it matter? If I am fullness, for which

shruti

> is my guarantee, the mountain cannot be outside me or other than

me.

> Therefore, the mountain is me. Thus, the river is me, the star is

> me, everything is me. I am the fullness that pervades all of

them.

> They are not parts of me or in me (Ref: Bhagwad GItA – 9th

Chapter),

> because as fullness I can't have parts or contents. They are all

> verily me! When I am `looking' at them, I am `face to face' with

> infinity – the reality that I am!

>

> Thus the pUrNamadah verse has all vEdanta encapsulated in it!

>

> The deluded and limited me is just an appearance like all the rest

of

> the things in this perceived universe. They are just non-real

> (miTyA) superimpositions on the reality that I am. Take them away

or

> bring them back – the fullness that I am remains unaltered and

> undiminished, whether the seeming me is awake, asleep or dead!

>

> Thus we sing:

>

> Om pUrNamadah pUrNamidam

> pUrNAt pUrNamudacyatE

> pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya

> pUrNamEvAvashiSyatE

>

> Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntihi

>

> [Completeness is that, completeness is this,

> from completeness, completeness comes forth.

> Completeness from completeness taken away,

> completeness to completeness added,

> completeness alone remains.

>

> Peace, peace, peace!]

>

> (Translation from Sw. Dayanandaji's interpretation)

>

> _____________________

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

> Please feel free to criticize, improve, embellish and correct.

 

There is nothing to criticize, improve or correct...

 

Whatever is there in advaita is there in this article...

Whatever is not there in here, is not adaviata !!!

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.