pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

Superb opening to a deep subject. May I offer the

literary version of the Invocation (Yeats/Purohit Swami)

"That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take

perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect.

May peace and peace and peace be everywhere."

 

Swami Gambhirananda translation:

 

That (supreme Brahman) is infinite and this (conditioned Brahman) is

infinite. This infinite (conditioned Brahman) proceeds from the infinite

(supreme Brahman). (Then through knowledge), taking the infinite of the

infinite(conditioned Brahman), it remains as the infinite (unconditioned

Brahman) alone.

Om! Peace! Peace! Peace!

 

The latter translation is hobbled by parentheses but between them and the

Swami Dayananda version we can plot the course from the fullness of

perfection or completion to the dynamic of the ever expanding infinity. My

take on infinity is that it is the character of a series and not a state.

This avoids the paradox of the infinity of the even numbers being the same

as the infinity of the odd numbers and half that of the natural numbers.

Infinity is not-bothering-to-stop and if it is curled in on itself like the

Moebius strip then it can be complete also. The void in the doughnut could

be the past or future which might allow us to occasionally pierce through

the strip on the principle that what we do we can do. I speak of pre-

cognition which in the adept becomes precall and is no different from

recall.

 

Please do not follow this tangent, it is merely a whimsy inspired by the

profound meditations of Madathil which I will address more directly when I

have time later in the day. He is East of me and this is early,an unwonted

hour for mail.

 

More Anon, Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

tthank you nairji !

 

a superb presentation.

 

Gandhiji used to say that the very first verse in Isavasya upanishad

sums up the entire philosophy of Hinduism. I would say that this

verse "poornamidam... " sums up the entire philosophy of all

religions !

 

How can our finite mind ever comprehend the infinite?

 

love and blessings

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

First, let me join others in congratulating Nairji for his excellent

summary introduction. The verse of pUrNamdah pUrNamidam quite deep

and according to my understanding, everthing including the mind is

necessarily infinite. The mind cluttered with impurity is unable to

comprehend the infinite. It is like our inability to see the SUN in

the presence of clouds. This may explain why Sankara and the sages

of the Upanishads stresses the importance of mind purification.

Vedantins consider our 'vasanas'(just like the clouds) as the main

obstracle for our inability to recognize our True Divine Nature.

 

Sri Benjamin recently suggested that the list should start a

discussion on 'Gods.' In the context of this verse, Ishwara (God) is

an integral part of the Brahman and this verse implicitly provides

the opportunity to include such a discussion. The idea of monthly

topic for our discussion is to help the members to focus on an

important aspect of Advaita philosophy. We should try hard to

elaborate the interrelationships between various concepts of Advaita

Philosophy. This can help us to get the 'full picture.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16> wrote:

>

> How can our finite mind ever comprehend the infinite?

>

> love and blessings

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

> 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.

>

> _____________________

 

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

Ashcharyavat pashyati kashchidenam......(Gita 2:29)

 

Your essay falls in this category too! Thank you.

 

The only caveat I have is that the above statement about

theorizing may create a wrong impression that the Rishis followed

this logical approach.

 

This is a revelatory mantra, superceding and prior to what

logic could contribute to its understanding.

 

The correlation of this intuition to the 'purity' of

character of the Rishis is perhaps a later stage of development.

 

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Yes,

 

without 'purification of mind' - chitta -shudhi, how is Sadhana

possible?

 

in this context, i would like to share something on Devi-kalotram...

uupa-agama

 

Veda Ãgamãs are the Divine lights that show the path to attain

Bhagavãn. Hindu Temples are built on the basis of `Ãgama vidhi'.

The `Ãgamãs' lay down the rules for sculpting the idols of different

gods, installing them, way of worshipping them, construction of

temples for such gods, the shape of the temple towers, performance

of `kumbãbhisheka', etc. They detail everything in this regard.

Generally, the conduct of puja in any Hindu Temple is done on the

rules of one of the Ãgamãs. Many `upa ãgamãs' (branches) have born

out of these `Ãgamãs'.

 

Devi Kãlotram is one such `upa ãgama'. This is a Jnãna bestowing one,

too. This is the surprising factor in it.

 

While Ramana Maharishi lived on Arunachala Mountain, a devotee

brought the Sanskrit palm leaflets of the `Ãgama'. He was surprised

to find amongst the branches of the `Ãgamãs' that detail `kriyãs',

one that preached Jnãna! It was in this that the Maharishi

found "Devi Kãlotra - Jnãnãsãra visãrapatalam" and "Sarva Jnãnotara -

Ãnma sakshãtkãra patalam". Both speak of the formless Para Brahmam!

Both are upadesa by Ishwara (Lord Siva), the former to Devi and the

latter to Muruga.

 

In later years while trying to write some songs on the `venpa' metre,

Bhagavãn Ramana remembered the slokas of Devi Kãlotra that He had

written down while assisting a devotee. But these papers had been

misplaced and lost. However, these slokas rose up in Him, one by one,

and Bhagavãn Ramana wrote the Tamil version for it. This `Devi

Kãlotram' was thus born out of memory without actually seeing

the `moola' (Original).

 

Vasanas...

 

" `Ãlamaba mella maravittu yammanatthai

yelath tharippith thidayatthe - chãlath

thulakkamã yevvarivu thonrumo vahdu

balakkave yenrum pazhagu' (V.41)

 

 

 

`Ãlambam ellãm aravittu' - shunning all kinds of worldly matters

without exception.

 

One who goes in search of worldly matters can never attain Moksha.

(`Vishaya sukham') Enjoyment through senses is opposed to Liberation

(Moksha). The other day I said that there was no need to advise a

person to practise vichara with `vairãgya' (dispassion). Why? This is

because when one does vichara it means that he is dispassionate. The

manas is always enquiring into the Self. Only if it comes out does it

take hold of worldly matters. But, in the path of Bhakti we

call `vishaya sukha' (enjoyment through senses) and bhakti as east

and west directions. They are verily opposite poles. One cannot move

in both directions simultaneously. When one moves in the direction of

Bhakti, worldly matters reduce. When one gets into worldly matters,

Bhakti gets reduced. Here, we should not take into account the bhakti

that `loukiika' (worldly) people do. In fact that cannot be called

bhakti at all.

 

Therefore, here He says, `Ãlamaba mellãm aravitte' - Give up all

worldly matters completely.

 

`Ammanatthai idayatthe yelath tharippithu' - if you would fix this

manas that has given up all desires deeply in the heart.

You have closed your eyes and turning your vision inward are doing

vichara. You do not permit any hold for the manas. You beat down the

manas that tries to rise up. What happens then? All vasanas get

annihilated.

 

`Evvarivu sãlatthulakkamãi thonrumo' - when you keep fixing the manas

in its place of origin.

 

What happens? `Mano nãsam' (annihilation of the mind) occurs.

`Ennam ezhumãgil av vennam yãrukkenru vichãrikka ennam udhitta

idatthile odungumãm' - on rising of each thought if you enquire, `for

whom is the thought?' the thought gets back to its place of origin.

When the thought rests at the place of origin, you should repeatedly

(every time the thought tries to rise up) keep pushing it back into

its place of origin.

 

How long should you keep doing this? Till all your vasanas are

totally annihilated. Thought rises up when there are vasanas.

 

`Evvarivu sãlatthulakkamãi thonrumo' - the Conscious (`arivu')that

then shines very brightly.

 

`Ahudu balakkave enrum pazhagu' - always practise to make this

Conscious attain its full power.

 

Do not give any hold to your manas. Do not imagine even any kind

of `bhãva' with your manas. Thus, when there is nothing to hold

(`ãsiriyam') the manas automatically dies down. Keep fixing the

manas, which has thus given up all worldly matters, deeply in the

heart. Every time it tries to rise up, push it back into its place of

origin. When you repeatedly push it back into its place of origin

vasanas get annihiliated. When vasanas die out, a great `prakãsh'

(light) is experienced within. He speaks of three things - He calls

this bright light as `arivu' (Conscious). What is the only `arivu' in

the world? Only this. It is only this that is most powerful (`Maha

shakti').

It is verily Brahman that is powerful, it is verily Brahman that is

Conscious and it is verily Brahman that is `Ãnanda' - `Arivu'

(Conscious), `Valimai' (powerful), `Ãnandam' (Bliss). Therefore,

practise such a spiritual discipline that will help you to be in this

state always. The goal (`lakshaya') should be only this.

 

www.madhuramurali.org/swamigal/essay/devikalotram/ji_devikalotram1a.ht

ml - 26k - Cached -

 

**********************************************************************

*Folks, i met Swamigal during my recent visit to Chennai! He has

initiated many disciples. Quite AWESOME!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> First, let me join others in congratulating Nairji for his

excellent

> summary introduction. The verse of pUrNamdah pUrNamidam quite deep

> and according to my understanding, everthing including the mind is

> necessarily infinite. The mind cluttered with impurity is unable to

> comprehend the infinite. It is like our inability to see the SUN in

> the presence of clouds. This may explain why Sankara and the sages

> of the Upanishads stresses the importance of mind purification.

> Vedantins consider our 'vasanas'(just like the clouds) as the main

> obstracle for our inability to recognize our True Divine Nature.

>

> Sri Benjamin recently suggested that the list should start a

> discussion on 'Gods.' In the context of this verse, Ishwara (God)

is

> an integral part of the Brahman and this verse implicitly provides

> the opportunity to include such a discussion. The idea of monthly

> topic for our discussion is to help the members to focus on an

> important aspect of Advaita philosophy. We should try hard to

> elaborate the interrelationships between various concepts of

Advaita

> Philosophy. This can help us to get the 'full picture.'

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, "adi_shakthi16"

> <adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> >

> > How can our finite mind ever comprehend the infinite?

> >

> > love and blessings

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

Adi_saktih referred to the

invocation as the epitome of religion - "Gandhiji

used to say that the very first verse in Isavasya

upanishad sums up the entire philosophy of Hinduism.

I would say that this verse "poornamidam... " sums up

the entire philosophy of all

religions !" Rumi refers to the myth of the naming of

the animals as the type of the primal co-creation in

which the world is blessed and accepted and inner and

outer truth are made one:

When Adam became the theater of Divine inspiration and

love,

his rational soul revealed to him the knowledge of the

Names.*

His tongue, reading from the page of his heart,

recited the name of everything that is.

Through his inward vision his tongue divulged the

qualities of each;

 

This is the basis of what is called 'abjid' (arabic)

or 'gematria' in Greek in which names are given a

numerical value. The Hebrew Kaballah has this

science also Aleph (1), Beth (2), Gimel (3) and so

on. "

 

In the Zohar it is written "Had the brightness of the

glory of the Holy One, blessed be his name, not been

shed over the whole of his creation how could he have

been perceived even by the wise? He would have

remained (totally) unapprehensible, and the words

"The whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3)

could never be spoken with truth. But the closer man

comes to his pure and divine essence, the more he

experiences the intrinsic unity in all the emanations

of the Sefiroth; for this unity is none other than

the essence of man, the supreme 'self'" ((from 'The

Universal Meaning of the Kabballah by Leo Schaya

pg.28))

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Oh! Michael! You mentioned Rumi, my favorite p0et- the derwish, whose

very name brings a song to my heart and my soul dances with joy!

 

here is a rumi to delight all the advaitins here ...

 

Returning to the source -rumi

 

 

 

 

If the Sun did not run across the sky

 

the world would not see

 

the colors of morning.

 

 

If water did not rise from the sea

 

plants would not be quickened

 

by rivers or rain.

 

 

It's only when a drop leaves the ocean -- and returns --

 

that it can find an oyster

 

and become a pearl.

 

 

 

When Joseph left his father

 

both were weeping.

 

Didn't he gain a kingdom and a fortune

 

in the end?

 

 

 

But you have no need to go anywhere --

 

journey within yourself.

 

Enter a mine of rubies

 

and bathe in the spleandor of your own light.

 

 

 

O great one,

 

Journey from self to Self

 

and find the mine of gold.

 

Leave behind what is sour and bitter --

 

move toward what is sweet.

 

Be like the thousand different fruits

 

that grow from briny soil.

 

 

This is the miracle --

 

Every tree becomes beautiful

 

when touched by sunlight;

 

Every soul becomes God

 

when touched by the Sun of Grace.

 

 

Rumi

 

**********************************************************************

 

Let us bask in the sunshine of God's love !

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji, & other learned members

 

Sri Nairji has given an excellent introduction to the subject for discussion.

 

I would like to approach this Shanti Mantra with the background of the

definition (?) of Brahman, i.e.

 

“Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma” (Tai.Up), and say the following:

 

 

 

“Gnaanam atha, gnaanam idam

 

gnaanaat gnaanam aduchyate

 

gnaanasya gnaanam aadaaya

 

gnaanam eva avasishyate”

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

“Chit atha, chit idam

 

chittaat chit aduchyate

 

chittasya chit aadaaya

 

chit eva avasishyate”

 

 

 

This is from the point of CONSCIOUSNESS OR GNAANAM

 

 

 

AND

 

 

 

“Satyam atha satyam idam

 

satyaat satyam aduchyate

 

satyasya satyam aadaaya

 

satyam eva avasisyate”

 

 

 

This is from the point of SAT OR SATYAM, I.E. EXISTENCE PER SE.

 

 

 

AND, since IT is “anantham satyam, and anantham chit (gnaanam)” IT is Anandam,

as it is Poornam, or Absolute and therefore:

 

 

 

“Aanandam atha aanandam idam

 

aanandat aanandam aduchyate

 

aanandasya aanandam aadaaya

 

aanandam eva avishyate”

 

 

 

My poor knowledge in Sanskrit may have resulted in a lot of mistakes,

grammatically etc., but I do hope the above interpretation can be analyzed by

the learned members also.

 

 

 

Everything is Consciousness/Knowledge (Gnaanam) only

 

Existence or sat or satyam, and Consciousness or Gnaanam or chit, are both sides

of the same coin. Since both(?) are Infinite, or Poornam, and therefore, lacks

nothing, as everything known and unknown are pervaded by them(?), it is Aanandam

or Happiness per se only.

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Namaste Advaitins!

 

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

Sponsor

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

As usual, a brilliant articulation of profound thoughts!! pls. accept my

humble praNAms prabhuji for your lucid explanation of upanishad shAnti

maNtra. If you could permit me, I'd like to share my humble understanding

on your observation *WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WORLD IN FULLNESS?* Infact, this

is the topic we've been discussing with Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji also some

time back.

 

First of all, I'd like to know the appropriateness of equating the word

*idam* with universe by saying universe is one without second!! It is the

high time to analyse what exactly this universe rather creation is. To

have the clear picture of this *universe*, obviously we have to go to

shruti-s. But, shruti, it seems carrying self contradicting definitions as

regards to creation. For exmp. if you take praSnOpanishad it says HE

created life, from life eather light water, earth, senses, mind, food etc.

In continuation it further says, from food this world emanated & in world

nAma etc. If you take AitarEya shruti it gives some other account : There

is Atman alone in the beginning & nothing else neither sentient nor

non-sentient. Then He thought (!!??) let me create the worlds & he created

these worlds etc. Prabhuji, if we observe the first shruti vAkya it is

clear that puruSha or HE created prAna (life) etc. but as we can see it

is not clear out of what substance this purusha created them. On the other

hand, the second, AitarEya shruti says all this universe was Atman alone

before creation. And finally take chAndOgya's famous verse tatvamasi, it

says all this universe has IT alone as its essence, that *alone* is real,

that is *Atman*, that is U Svetaketu etc. Here shruti declaring that the

pure being alone which created this apparent universe is strictly real &

that alone is the genuine (shuddha) brahman/Atman. This universe

comparitively unreal. So, it is through agnAna it appears that this really

real (satyasta satya) parabrahman appears as all the differentiated things

such as mountains, stars, trees, BMI, socalled individual self etc. etc.

as you said in your mail. Shankara simply rejects these nAma rUpAtmaka

jagat as vAchArambhaNam since it is avidyAkruta. In sutra bhAshya he says

the non existence of the effect in reality (fullness) is confirmed. On

what grounds?? since shruti declares that the socalled effect / universe is

merely the play of words (vAchArambhaNam) & other similar reasons. We can

see further elaborated shankara's view on universe in the janmAdhikaraNa

bhAshya in vEdAnta sUtra-s.

 

With this back ground, we can dig this term universe further by putting

ourselves some questions i.e. whether univese is real as brahma svarUpa??

whether it is mere illusory appearance?? whether it is waves in

consciousness?? whether it is insentient (jada) or sentient in terms of

brahman?? etc.etc. If we consider this jagat as jada or anAtma then we can

close this issue once & for all since our quest is in realising the Atma

chaitanya vastu. But surprisingly we are labelling jagat as pUrNa & one

without a second. This assertion really demands further investigation into

the existence of pUrNatva as jagat in all our 3 states i.e. jAgrat, svapna

& sushupti. It is well known fact that whatever we hold to be real has an

unquestionable free pass entry into the mind. But at the same time we

should not forget that the advaitic realisation of our true nature happens

only & ONLY when we give up our false attribution of reality to the world.

If we hold this universe as real as parabrahman there is hardly any

possibility for ourselves to realise the self.

 

For further clarity, let us take our famous analogy of rope & snake (rajju

-sarpa nyAya) here. As we all know self (rajju) is the reality underlying

the world (snake). When this rope is mistaken for a snake the *snake

factor* obscures the rope, so the world obscures the self (vyAvahArically

speaking!!). But after the dawn of pUrNa jnAna this snake factor (nAma

rUpAtmaka jagat) goes & ONLY rope factor remains. At any stretch of

imagination we can say that we are seeing both snake & rope in *rope* even

after realising it IS rope!! So, it is clear as long as the self appears

to us as the world, we shall not realise him as the self, the world

appearance even in reality effectually conceals the self & it will do so

ultil we get rid of the appearance & we cannot do so unless we understand

the the world appearance is unreal. For this reason the reality which is

self is in all practicality is non existent for those who believe the

world is real in pAramArthika state just as the rope is non existent for

him that sees it as a snake. This is the reason why, shruti giving special

emphasis on avasthAtraya which is the clear evidence to prove that the

world is not trikAla abhAdita satya.

 

Prabhuji, I earnestly hope that this is not digression from the main topic.

Kindly correct me if my understanding is wrong.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Further to my earlier mail, I'd like to know whether Shankara has commented

on this shAnti maNtra. The book what I have on IshAvAsya with shankara's

commentary directly starts from upanishad mantra. Sunder prabhuji, if

possible, kindly guide me.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:>

 

> Further to my earlier mail, I'd like to know whether Shankara has

commented

> on this shAnti maNtra.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Shankaracharya has not commented directly on this Mantra.

However, with Sri Nairji's reliance on the interpretations of Swami

Chinmayanandaji and Sw. Dayanandaji would give the necessary

authenticity of the tradition.

 

Sw. Krishnanandaji explains it similarly:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/sadh/sadh_07.html

 

It is curious that the word pUrNa does not occur anywhere else

in the ten major upanishads!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Excellent post Nairji. Below is the extract from my book 'The Spiritual

Seeker's Essential Guide to Sanskrit' to cover the actual Sanskrit (ITRANS)

and meaning to complement your essay. The interpretation was reviewed by

Sunderji so should be ok! (The book is being published by Sundeep Prakashan

in the next 2 - 3 months incidentally.) I've obviously removed the

devanAgarii elements.

 

 

'That is perfect' from the IshA upaniShad

This is the very famous introductory 'invocation'. The Upanishad occurs in

the initial section of the Yajur Veda, which is unusual in that Upanishads

normally occur at the end (hence vedAnta - veda anta - 'end of the Vedas').

The first sutra begins IshA vAsyamida{\m+}, if you recall (the text was

given in Section 2 G, when we looked at the chandra-bindu), and the document

is also sometimes called the Isavasya Upanishad.

OM puurNamadaH puurNamidaM puurNaat puurNamudachyate .

puurNasya puurNamaadaaya puurNamevaavashishhyate ..

OM shaantiH shaanntiH shaantiH .

 

This, then is the 'invocation'. It is often referred to as the 'Perfect

Prayer', for reasons that will become apparent.

 

There will be no difficulty with the first word, OM. This was described in

Section 2, C3 and G. The second word is pUrNamadaH. pUrNa means 'complete,

entire, fulfilled etc' and is often translated as 'infinite' or 'perfect',

though neither of these words is actually given in Monier-Williams. adas

means 'that' as opposed to idam (which occurs in the next word), which means

'this'. As usual, the verb 'to be' is omitted throughout and understood to

be present wherever necessary, so that this second word is translated as

'this is complete (or 'perfect' or 'infinite'). The first rule of visarga

saMdhi is that words ending in s can be changed to an H.

 

The next word, then, is pUrNamidaM and, as just explained, this means 'that

is complete'. The m, being at the end of a word, is changed to M, as was

explained in asatoma above. (The -m ending on the adjective pUrNa is the

neuter ending in the absence of any qualifying noun.)

 

The next word is pUrNAt. This is another example of the fifth (pa~nchami) or

ablative case, this time for the adjective pUrNa, in the singular,

masculine, meaning 'from the complete'. Now perhaps we can see why writers

choose to use a word like 'perfect' or 'infinite' - 'from perfect' will

sound much better.

 

The last word on line one is pUrNamudachyate. The verb ach means 'to go or

move'. The prefix ud means 'up' or 'upwards' in the sense of superiority, so

that udach would mean something like 'to promote'. The ending however is the

passive voice so that it is translated as 'is manifested' or 'comes out of'.

The clause therefore means that pUrNam or 'perfect' is manifested from

perfect.

 

The next line begins with pUrNasya, the genitive case meaning 'of the

complete or perfect'. This is followed by pUrNamAdAya. AdAya at the end of a

word has the sense of 'taking or seizing' so the two words together

literally mean 'taking the perfect of perfect'. Next comes pUrNameva - just

or exactly (eva) that same completeness or perfection (pUrNam).

avashiShyate comes from the verb avashiSh, meaning 'to remain' and means 'it

remains', being in what is called the 'middle voice' (Atmanepada or 'word

for one's self'). This clause therefore means that, when the 'perfect of

perfect' is taken, perfect remains.

 

Altogether, then, the prayer can be translated:

 

"This is perfect. That is perfect. Perfection is manifested from the

Perfect. When this perfection is taken from the Perfect, the Perfect still

remains."

 

 

Incidentally, just to remind everyone that Benjamin posted the relevant

extract from Sri Ananda Wood's book on this prayer in May 2003.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

thank you SIR!

 

you did a super job in translating this verse... "purna... ....

 

but i have a question...

 

in different versions,

 

purmam is translated as

 

1) complete

 

2) full

 

3) infinite

 

4) perfect

 

etc...

 

so, should we not look beyond these meanings to really get the true

essence of this verse?

 

There is a 'dwaita' interpretation to this verse as well!

 

 

 

AS PER KENA UPANISHAD,

 

 

"He who *thinks* he knows It not, knows it.

He who thinks he knows It, knows It not.

The true knowers think they can never know It,

while the ignorant think they know It."

 

So, the purnadam refers to "brahman" or what?

 

love and blessings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Excellent post Nairji. Below is the extract from my book 'The

Spiritual

> Seeker's Essential Guide to Sanskrit' to cover the actual Sanskrit

(ITRANS)

> and meaning to complement your essay. The interpretation was

reviewed by

> Sunderji so should be ok! (The book is being published by Sundeep

Prakashan

> in the next 2 - 3 months incidentally.) I've obviously removed the

> devanAgarii elements.

>

>

> 'That is perfect' from the IshA upaniShad

> This is the very famous introductory 'invocation'. The Upanishad

occurs in

> the initial section of the Yajur Veda, which is unusual in that

Upanishads

> normally occur at the end (hence vedAnta - veda anta - 'end of the

Vedas').

> The first sutra begins IshA vAsyamida{\m+}, if you recall (the text

was

> given in Section 2 G, when we looked at the chandra-bindu), and the

document

> is also sometimes called the Isavasya Upanishad.

> OM puurNamadaH puurNamidaM puurNaat puurNamudachyate .

> puurNasya puurNamaadaaya puurNamevaavashishhyate ..

> OM shaantiH shaanntiH shaantiH .

>

> This, then is the 'invocation'. It is often referred to as

the 'Perfect

> Prayer', for reasons that will become apparent.

>

> There will be no difficulty with the first word, OM. This was

described in

> Section 2, C3 and G. The second word is pUrNamadaH. pUrNa

means 'complete,

> entire, fulfilled etc' and is often translated as 'infinite'

or 'perfect',

> though neither of these words is actually given in Monier-Williams.

adas

> means 'that' as opposed to idam (which occurs in the next word),

which means

> 'this'. As usual, the verb 'to be' is omitted throughout and

understood to

> be present wherever necessary, so that this second word is

translated as

> 'this is complete (or 'perfect' or 'infinite'). The first rule of

visarga

> saMdhi is that words ending in s can be changed to an H.

>

> The next word, then, is pUrNamidaM and, as just explained, this

means 'that

> is complete'. The m, being at the end of a word, is changed to M,

as was

> explained in asatoma above. (The -m ending on the adjective pUrNa

is the

> neuter ending in the absence of any qualifying noun.)

>

> The next word is pUrNAt. This is another example of the fifth

(pa~nchami) or

> ablative case, this time for the adjective pUrNa, in the singular,

> masculine, meaning 'from the complete'. Now perhaps we can see why

writers

> choose to use a word like 'perfect' or 'infinite' - 'from perfect'

will

> sound much better.

>

> The last word on line one is pUrNamudachyate. The verb ach

means 'to go or

> move'. The prefix ud means 'up' or 'upwards' in the sense of

superiority, so

> that udach would mean something like 'to promote'. The ending

however is the

> passive voice so that it is translated as 'is manifested' or 'comes

out of'.

> The clause therefore means that pUrNam or 'perfect' is manifested

from

> perfect.

>

> The next line begins with pUrNasya, the genitive case meaning 'of

the

> complete or perfect'. This is followed by pUrNamAdAya. AdAya at the

end of a

> word has the sense of 'taking or seizing' so the two words together

> literally mean 'taking the perfect of perfect'. Next comes

pUrNameva - just

> or exactly (eva) that same completeness or perfection (pUrNam).

> avashiShyate comes from the verb avashiSh, meaning 'to remain' and

means 'it

> remains', being in what is called the 'middle voice' (Atmanepada

or 'word

> for one's self'). This clause therefore means that, when

the 'perfect of

> perfect' is taken, perfect remains.

>

> Altogether, then, the prayer can be translated:

>

> "This is perfect. That is perfect. Perfection is manifested from the

> Perfect. When this perfection is taken from the Perfect, the

Perfect still

> remains."

>

>

> Incidentally, just to remind everyone that Benjamin posted the

relevant

> extract from Sri Ananda Wood's book on this prayer in May 2003.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

> It is curious that the word pUrNa does not

> occur anywhere else

> in the ten major upanishads!

 

Namaste,

Thanks for pointing this out. I had a look in Jacobs

and he gives two references in the Minor Upanishads

for pUrNananda.....Paramahamsa 3 (I think but the

number is poorly printed) and Ramottara (verse number

illegible). I do not have copies of these upanishads

so cannot see how it is used. Will do a web search

later.

Considering the frequent use of pUrNa in the Rgveda

.....where it certainly includes the meaning of

fulness......it is odd that it should have

disappeared.

I hope that someone else picks up Sunderji's posting

and can make some suggestions. Maybe there is a

synonym that could be proposed but that would still

omit the special significance of the word as mantra.

I have looked at Monier Williams English/Sanskrit

under 'fulness' but this does not seem to be a

fruitful line.

Best wishes

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway

http://promotions./design_giveaway/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya>

wrote:

>

> --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh> wrote:

> > It is curious that the word pUrNa does not

> > occur anywhere else

> > in the ten major upanishads!

>

> Namaste,

> Thanks for pointing this out. I had a look in Jacobs

> and he gives two references in the Minor Upanishads

> for pUrNananda.....Paramahamsa 3 (I think but the

> number is poorly printed) and Ramottara (verse number

> illegible). I do not have copies of these upanishads

> so cannot see how it is used. Will do a web search

> later.

> Considering the frequent use of pUrNa in the Rgveda

> ....where it certainly includes the meaning of

> fulness......it is odd that it should have

> disappeared.

> I hope that someone else picks up Sunderji's posting

> and can make some suggestions. Maybe there is a

> synonym that could be proposed but that would still

> omit the special significance of the word as mantra.

> I have looked at Monier Williams English/Sanskrit

> under 'fulness' but this does not seem to be a

> fruitful line.

> Best wishes

>

> ken Knight

 

Namaste, Sunderji, Ken-ji and all

 

Nairji's marathon essay on Purnamidam is wonderful.

 

The comments of Sunder and Ken Knight about the (non-)occurrence of

the word Purnam in major Upanishads are interesting. Does not the

word 'BhUmA' also mean 'fullness', 'Infinity', 'Completeness' and

the like? There is a beautiful passage in the Chandogya Upanishad

on 'BhUmA':

"yatra nAnyat pashyati ..... tad-bhUmA" meaning,

Where one does not see another, where one does not cognize

another, .... , that is Infinite, Complete and Full.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya>

wrote:

>

> --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh> wrote:

> > It is curious that the word pUrNa does not

> > occur anywhere else

> > in the ten major upanishads!

>

> Namaste,

> Thanks for pointing this out. I had a look in Jacobs

> and he gives two references in the Minor Upanishads

> for pUrNananda.....Paramahamsa 3 (I think but the

> number is poorly printed) and Ramottara (verse number

> illegible). I do not have copies of these upanishads

> so cannot see how it is used. Will do a web search

> later.>

> ken Knight

Namaste,

 

Nairji's marathon introductory essay on Purnamidam is wonderful!

 

The comments Of Sundarji and Ken-ji about the (non-) occurrence of

the word 'Purna' in the major upanishads are significant. Does not

the word 'BhUmA' also mean 'fullness', 'infinity'

and 'completeness'? There is a beautiful passage in the Chandogya

Upanishad on 'BhUmA'. "Yatra nAnyat pashyati .... tad-bhUmA":

meaning, 'Where one sees not another, where one cognizes not

another, .... that is BhUmA'.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya>

> wrote:

> >

> > --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh> wrote:

> > > It is curious that the word pUrNa does not

> > > occur anywhere else

> > > in the ten major upanishads!

> >

> "yatra nAnyat pashyati ..... tad-bhUmA" meaning,

> Where one does not see another, where one does not cognize

> another, .... , that is Infinite, Complete and Full.

>

 

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji,

 

Indeed, bhUmA has the same nuance. (Chand. VII:23:1, VII:24:1)

 

Brihadaranyaka does not miss out on anything!

 

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/doc_upanishhat.html

 

Brihadaranyaka upan VI:iii:4

 

..........pUrNamasi........

------------------------

 

Paramahansa upan.

 

sarveshhaamindriyaaNaaM

gatiruparamate ya aatmanyevaavasthiiyate

yatpuurNaanandaikabodhastadabrahmaahamasmiiti

kR^itakR^ityo bhavati kR^itakR^ityo bhavati .. 4..

--------------------------

 

Ramatapani upan.

 

eshho.ananto.avyaktaparipuurNaanandaikachidaatmaa

 

puurNaanandaikavij~naanaM paraM brahmasvaruupiNam.h ..

--------------------------

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Our most respected professorji writes...

 

Does not > the word 'BhUmA' also mean 'fullness', 'infinity'

> and 'completeness'? There is a beautiful passage in the Chandogya

> Upanishad on 'BhUmA'. "Yatra nAnyat pashyati .... tad-bhUmA":

> meaning, 'Where one sees not another, where one cognizes not

> another, .... that is BhUmA'.

 

Thank you for that wonderful reference!

 

may i also add another reference that describes the word 'purna?

 

Satyam, Gnanam, Anantham, Brahma -Taittriyopanishad

 

Here ANANTAM means 'one without an end' - endless or infinite.

 

Sat is also Truth. Truth is that which does not alter with the time.

This Sat is the Brahman, which is defined as the infinite knowledge.

 

Sathya Sai Baba Says ... (

 

"That is why the Lord is referred to as Sathya and Brahmam. This

Sathyam is Akhanda or indivisible. It is Adwaitha, non-dual. It is

Anantha, without end. In the Upanishads, this Sathya (associated with

the unmanifested Maya Sakthi) is called the Purna, 'Adah' and the

Sathya (associated with the unmanifested Maya Sakthi) is called the

Purna, 'Idam'. This is the secret of the Upanishadic Manthra,

Purnamadah Purnamidam..."

 

Our own beloved professor V,krishnamurthyji observes in his website

on science and spirituality ...

 

 

Beach 3: Focus on Three Qualities of God

 

 

Wave 4: The Absolute As It Is

 

 

Real, Consciousness, Infinite (satyam jnAnam anantam brahma) is the

Upanishadic definition of the Transcendental Absolute. This

definition is applicable irrespective of the religion on which we

want to base the discussion. Such a definition is called 'Definition

As Is'. The Sanskrit name for this is svarUpa-lakshaNa. In contrast

there is the other type of definiton called taTastha-lakshaNa. The

word 'taTa' means 'shore' or 'bank'. When someone wants you to show

the location of a river which is somewhere nearby but not visible,

very possibly you may show a tree that stands on the bank of the

river and say that the river is just where the tree is. Instead of

using this much of language the common man may just say: 'That is the

river', pointing to the tree. Here the tree is only a pointer to the

river. The river, in other words, is indicated by the tree on the

bank or shore. So also, the faint few-days-old moon is indicated by

pointing to the space between two branches of yonder tree. And it

must be noted that the moon has nothing to do with the branches of

the tree; yet the branches of the tree help us to precisely look in

the direction of the distant moon. That is why this type of

definition is called a 'Definition by Indication'. The technical

Sanskrit name for this, namely, 'taTastha-lakshaNa' means exactly

this. It means 'Definition' (of the river indicated by pointing the

tree) 'located on (its) 'bank'. So also when we want to specify the

Almighty who is the Transcendental Absolute brahman, since we cannot

handle or delimit the concept by our senses we just 'indicate' it (or

Him!) by saying

 

 

He is the Father of the Universe.

 

**********************************************************************

MatA cha pArvatI devI pita devo maheshvarah

bandhavah shiva bhaktashcha svadesho bhuvanatrayam.

 

Goddess Parvati is my mother. God Maheshvara is my father. All

devotees of Siva are my family. All three worlds are my home.

 

(annapurnashtakam- adi shankara)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji, Michaelji, Vishalji, all others who have

responded to my post whose messages I am yet read and all advaitins.

 

After a break of about four days during which I have been pretty

badly busy with shifting my residence, I am just taking my first peep

to list. I have yet read only the first three responses. There is

hell of a lot of office work and personal commitments awaiting me

literally threatening and limiting my fullness. It may, therefore,

take me a little more time to read the responses and answer all of

you. Please bear with me in the meanwhile.

 

Thanks and praNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

.......... which I will address more directly when I

> have time later in the day. He is East of me and this is early,an

unwonted

> hour for mail.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

Thanks for your good words. Sorry about the delay. I have mentioned

the reasons before.

 

To give due regard to your tangent which you have asked me to ignore,

Infinity can neither be a series nor a state. Perhaps, what you mean

is that the apparence (the conditioned Brahman of Sw. ambhiranandaji)

that rises and results in mathematical finitude is a series. Yes.

That sounds right. But, it is the 'not-bothering-to-stop' nature (I

would prefer 'unending')of the series that suggests that it is merely

an erroneous apparence on Infinity as 'unending' in other words

is 'not-begun'.

 

That last part about precall and recall is interesting. Well, if

time resolves in the Perfect, which is an ever-present present, past

and future have no relevance. Perhaps, that is why in the India of

good old days, daivagnyAs (knowers of God) used to be called

trikAlagnAnIs (knowers of the three times). Precall and recall

occurring without differentation may, therefore, be a sign of

Enlightenment.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________________

 

Michaelji wrote in his post 21816:

 

My

> take on infinity is that it is the character of a series and not

a state.

> This avoids the paradox of the infinity of the even numbers being

the same

> as the infinity of the odd numbers and half that of the natural

numbers.

> Infinity is not-bothering-to-stop and if it is curled in on itself

like the

> Moebius strip then it can be complete also. The void in the

doughnut could

> be the past or future which might allow us to occasionally pierce

through

> the strip on the principle that what we do we can do. I speak of

pre-

> cognition which in the adept becomes precall and is no different

from

> recall.

>

> Please do not follow this tangent, ........

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Thanks for your words of caution.

 

I can understand your concern. May I therefore hasten to point out

that the first part of my post till vEdanta pops up relates to the

extrovert enquirers after truth both of the West and East. Our

rishIs are, therefore, not among the theorizers.

 

I just wanted to avoid the beaten track by bringing in the 'seen'

ahead of the 'actual seer'. Thus, logic was given priority over

intuition. It goes without saying that the birth of the mantra

epitomizes the direct insigt of our rishIs. It has nothing to do

with conscious reasoning or logic. I have only attempted to prove

that those who insist on reasoning and logic can also appreciate the

mantra's import.

 

Purity of character and insight, I believe, are strongly interlinked

and directly proportional. The more a sAdhaka endeavours in the

right direction, insights just begin pouring over him. He then

doesn't have to struggle like logicians and theorizers. The testimony

to this fact is personal experience as I am sure you will right away

admit.

 

PraNAms and regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> The only caveat I have is that the above statement about

> theorizing may create a wrong impression that the Rishis followed

> this logical approach.

>

> This is a revelatory mantra, superceding and prior to what

> logic could contribute to its understanding.

>

> The correlation of this intuition to the 'purity' of

> character of the Rishis is perhaps a later stage of development.

>

> Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji.

 

Your post 21823.

 

Thanks a lot for your good words and for expanding the scope of this

discussion by dwelling in detail on the relationship between chitta-

shuddhi and sAdhana through Devi Kalotram and Bh. Ramana's profound

words.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> Yes,

>

> without 'purification of mind' - chitta -shudhi, how is Sadhana

> possible?

>

> in this context, i would like to share something on Devi-

kalotram...

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

Thank you very much for your learned views in 21826 and 21877.

 

You have done right by shifting attention from the duality of

creation and focussing it on feelings of limitations and inadequacy.

Fullness is that way better understood.

 

I am with you in all your different improvisations of the mantra.

The one on chit (gnAnam/Consciousness) should delight our Benji.

 

Don't worry about your Sanskrit proficiency. It is the advaita in

your thoughts that matter.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Thabk you Nair-ji!

 

Wonderful to see you back in our midst. Hope you are settled in your

new house and all the 'moving' did not put too much 'strain' on your

back.

 

as a moderator, You have a kind world for everyone including

newcomers like me and Balaji and i find that very DE;IGHTFUL! !

Advaitha is not about 'how' much one knows or whether one is 'right'

or wrong about this or that aspect of Adwaitha Philosophy. The main

charm of Sanatana Dharma IS it is ever-evolving, ever-changing and

still eternal. It is for this reason, i Simply LOVE OUR YOUNG

BAlaji's approach- nothing predictable , everything Fresh !

 

WHo Is a good hindu? Here is a defitinition...

 

nA hINAYATE ethi Hindu

 

One who does not hurt others is a Hindu!

 

I THINK THIS SUMS UP VERY WELL THE ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM!

 

THE recent communal violence in India over the Babri masjid has made

me wonder what is 'Dharma ' and what is 'Jihad' ?

 

aS OUR BELOVED MahatmA gANDHI reiterated time and again

 

"No violence requires a double faith. Faith in God and also faith in

man.

 

MUSLIMS ARE killing other men and women in the name of "JIHAD" BUT

THIS IS NOT THE 'JIHAD' THE PROPHET TAUGHT THE BELIEVERS.

 

Everyone thinks that jihad is bearing arms and killing people right

and left! THE PROPFET TALKS ABOUT the greater Jihad which is to fight

the "internal Jihad" within !

 

Jihad is derived from the Arabic word "struggle" and means struggle

in the path of GOD. AND WHAT IS THIS INTERNAL CONFLICT? THE GOOD AND

EVIL FORCES OF THE SOUL... OVERCOMING THE EVIL FORCES IS THE GREATER

JIHAD NOT THE JIHAD OF THE SWORD!

 

so jihad is nit synonymous with violence.

 

Similarly, Dharma - UPHOLDING dHARMA -THAT IS THE GREATEST TENET OF

sANATANA dHARMA ... showing compassion and having a forgiving

attitude towards one and all..

 

Gandhiji said " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will make

everyone blind and toothless."

 

Gandhiji often quoted Jesus CHRIST ...

 

"If any man slaps you on your right cheek show him your left too"

 

and he would say "Show me one Christian and I will become a

Christian. People cannot be called christians just becos they have

christian names..they must live like Jesus to be a christian. "

 

"If you want to smell the aroma of Christianity, you must copy the

rose. The rose irresistibly draws people to itself, and the scent

remains with them. The aroma of Christianity is subtler even than

that of a rose. Therefore, it should be imparted in an even quieter

and more imperceptible manner, if possible." - Mahatma Gandhi.

 

THE POINT IS THIS - one cannot be called a Brahmin merely because he

wears a sacred thread . He should practice the brahmanical virtues.

Similarly one cannot be calledn advaitin simply because he quotes ADI

Shankara LEFT AND RIGHT ... he/she must recognize the 'deivamsham' in

all living creatures ...

 

It is for this reason, i loved the way Balji interpreted

what ;hinduism' means ...

 

Nairji, you mentioned about your ishtadevi being "consciousness "

itself and i think our benjamini would be delighted to hear your

views on this because in my opinion , this is exactly what he is

attempting to understand - how we hinduus can easuily worship accept

a 'saguna' brahman (god with attributes)in an archa-vigraha and then

go on to meditate on 'nirguna brahman' (brahman without attributes)

with so much ease?

 

love and blessings

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji.

 

You wrote:

 

"

> WHo Is a good hindu? Here is a defitinition...

>

> nA hINAYATE ethi Hindu

>

> One who does not hurt others is a Hindu! "

 

Will you kindly clarify where you got it from? I have heard scholars

contending that the word Hindu is a corruption for the name Sindhu

(river) and that it is a recent coinage which has nothing to do with

Sanskrit. Hence, this request.

 

About telling Benji about Devi and Consciousness, he knows my

position very well and has seemed to appreciate it.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________________

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> Nairji, you mentioned about your ishtadevi being "consciousness "

> itself and i think our benjamini would be delighted to hear your

> views on this because in my opinion , this is exactly what he is

> attempting to understand ..............