pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Humble praNAms Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[isn't the 'pUrNamidam' statement in the verse under discussion

sufficient? I am sure Sankara had also chanted that verse umpteen

number of times with full conviction!]

 

bhaskar:

 

Oh yes, he might have chanted this N no. of times. But unfortunately, we

dont have his commentary on this shAnti mantra & especially his commentary

on *idam* in this mantra. Moreover, as you have yourself seen in this same

thread, this mantra can be interpreted in different ways. You know

something prabhuji, in vAdAvali list someone of our dvaita bandhu-s

commented on the same mantra & said this shAnti mantra has been glorifying

the lord's pUrNAvatAra & it can noway be related to jagat etc.etc. Anyway,

that's a different issue altogether. Nevertheless, we, fortunately, have

shankara's unambiguous commentary at various places in prasthAna trayi

bhAshya on jagat & jagat kAraNatva of parabrahman this would definitely

ease out our efforts in resolving this issue. He clearly says that this

jagat is mAyA, a figment of avidyA. Considering this we can say this jagat

is avidyAkruta, shankara in gItA bhAshya says avidyA lakShaNA prakrutiH

mAyA. prabhuji, what we are holding close to our chest as pUrNa here

shankara calls it as avidyA. Further, in shwetAshwEtara Up. it is said

that the prakruti/jagat is mAyA. And what exactly this mAya?? shankara

clarifies this also in kArikA bhAshya : mAyA nAma vastu tarhi?? maivaM sA

cha mAyA na vidyatE! mAyEtyavidyamAnasyAkhyA ityabhiprAyaH..it is crystal

clear here that shankara saying there is nothing called mAya rather

prakruti/jagat as such. That which is not there is called mAyA. Now, you

tell me prabhuji, how can we still consider this non existent thing in our

swarUpa as pUrNa & one without a second etc.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[We would be delighted if you do initiate such a discussion.

Sunderji, kindly note and grant Bhaskarji an appropriate date.]

 

bhaskar:

 

I've already explained my limitations in leading the discussion to Sri

Sunder & Sri Ramachandra prabhuji. However, if god wills, we shall take it

up in detail prabhuji.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[Why should we reconcile contradictions if they are only apparent?

Then, we need only see through them. I don't find any difference

between atmaikatva and the eternal reality of jagat. By using the

word eternal, you have implied jagat's infinitude. Infinitude is

fullness and, therefore, the one-without-a-second Atman!]

 

bhaskar:

 

Here, in *idam* case, I believe, reconciliation is indispensable since you

are holding jagat as eternal reality & not an apparent reality. As said

earlier, jagat kAraNatva of parabrahman is just to teach us the concept of

EkAtma pratyaya sAram & pls. note not_holding_the_eternal reality of jagat

in nirvishEsha brahman (reference vide sUtra bhAshya of shankara) . Anyway,

U R telling the same thing below & still holding asat nAma rUpAtmaka jagat

as satya & pUrNa in sat vastu.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[You were to lead an adhyAropa discussion. What happened?

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes, I know, now it's become a long pending topic prabhuji. what to do, my

infrastructural facility here in my office is limited & restrictive. First

of all, I should get stand alone PC to do something in this direction. I

am reading/sending mails from my colleague's work station.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

You define sad-vastu because you are in the transactional,

 

bhaskar:

 

ofcourse prabhuji, there is no other way to go, as you said elsewhere in

your mail, vyAvahArika & pAramArthika states are still under the realm of

vyavahArika only as long as we are dealing in duality.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

which now has three apparent components - the sad-vastu sadly objectified

and defined in your effort to understand it, the asat jagat of plurality

and the asat limited you.

 

bhaskar:

 

strictly speaking vyAvahArically, here it is only two components is it

not?? can you able to see the asat vastu jagat without identifying

yourself with BMI complex prabhuji?? has anybody seen this jagat without

BMI?? Shankara says these upAdhi-s are avidyA, this perceived world

through limited adjuncts (upAdhi-s) is avidyAtmaka & does not have any

reality whatsoever in our true svarUpa.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If you are sure that only sad-vastu remains when you go to sleep, you have

then understood pUrNamadah very well.

 

bhaskar:

 

yes, as you can see I dont have any problem in understanding pUrNamadah

prabhuji. My only apprehension is against pUrNamidam rather idam=pUrNa

jagat.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

It is the same sad-vastu that apparently presents before you as the limited

you in a limited, ever-changing jagat.

 

bhaskar:

 

na katrutvam, na karmAni lOkasya srujati prabhuhu, so says krishna in gIta.

Prabhuji, we cannot blame parabrahman for projecting avidyA/asat vastu

before us. It is our own anAdi avidyA / inherent nature (ajnAnenAvrutam

jnAnam..... svabhAvastu pravartate) which is the root cause of dualistic

perception. What is this avidyA then?? shankara clarifies this in sUtra

bhAshya.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If you understand this, then the jagat with you in its fold, which cannot

be

anything but infinite, is essentially full. This is the pUrNamidam.

 

bhaskar:

 

As explained above, jagat is avidyAkruta, mayA mAtram, so prabhuji, I just

keep it as false appearance.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The reason: Even as asat, it cannot have an existence aside or apart

from sat.

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes U R absolutely right prabhuji. satyanchAnrutancha satyamabhavatu so

says taitirIya upanishat. But at the same time we have to be careful in

labelling asat/jada/anAtma vastu as pUrNa & one without second.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If it has, then sat cannot be fullness. It, therefore,

derives that asat, but for its apparent dualistic appearance,

resulting from misapprehension on part of the limited you, who again

is a part of asat, is sat. Asat as such is not, therefore, to be

negated. Only the erroneous understanding of it as dual and other

than you needs correction.

 

bhaskar:

 

exactly prabhuji, as you said, we are not analysing here sat & asat as

parallel reality. Simply put, asat is not an existing thing & sat vastu is

the ONE & ONLY reality. It is due to our ignorance in jIva bhAva we are

thinking that we are perceiving multifarious reality of jagat.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Then it is pUrNa. When you sleep, this pUrNa jagat together with the

limited you is taken away - yet, the sad-vastu pUrNa remains. The truth is

that at no time anything is ever added or removed to or from pUrnA because

that is an impossibility.

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes, in all the three avasthA, pUrNa is pUrNa only, & the fact remains that

what we are holding as a concrete reality & pUrNa jagat in waking state is

conspicuous by its absence in deep sleep state & with different kAla dEsha

in dream state is it not??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

This means that there is no change actually taking place. Perception of

change and multiplicity is, therefore, an error. Where is the changing

jagat then that bothers you so much vis a vis the unchanging sat? The

changing jagat is the sad-vastu sadly

misunderstood. Remove the misunderstanding - then jagat is sad- vastu.

PUrNamidam!]

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji, kindly pardon me, I am not able to get your above statement

properly...what is this *The changing jagat is the sad vastu*?? when the

very perception of duality is due to avidyA how can you attribute satyatva

to avidyA?? If the jagat also pUrNa & satya on par with parabrahman why

shruti-s should call parabraman as satsatyam sa Atma, tadEtad satyam,

EnAksharam purusha vEda satyam etc.etc. Why should shankara say,

brahmaimeva satyam, jagan mithyA?? why should shruti tell us we should

treat both jAgrat & svapta with same reality?? Why shruti should call this

jagat as gandharva nagari?? Pls. clarify.

 

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

Humble praNAms onceagain,

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

I have explained as best as I can. If there is a disagreement still,

I can only say, as Sadaji usually does, let us agree to disagree.

 

Nevertheless, here is a last short attempt on the last para of your

post quoted below if that can resolve the problem:

____________

 

">...what is this *The changing jagat is the sad vastu*?? when the

> very perception of duality is due to avidyA how can you attribute

satyatva

> to avidyA?? If the jagat also pUrNa & satya on par with

parabrahman why

> shruti-s should call parabraman as satsatyam sa Atma, tadEtad

satyam,

> EnAksharam purusha vEda satyam etc.etc. Why should shankara say,

> brahmaimeva satyam, jagan mithyA?? why should shruti tell us we

should

> treat both jAgrat & svapta with same reality?? Why shruti should

call this

> jagat as gandharva nagari?? Pls. clarify."

______________

 

Take the case of an astigmatic. He looks at a tree. He may see it as

many or in many pieces. Yet, he is looking at the same tree that you

are looking at with your normal viion. Cure his astigmatism. He

begins to see the tree properly as you see it.

 

The tree in its normal form as you see it stands here for sad-vastu.

The astigmatic's vision of it is the misapprehended pluralistic

jagat. The tree is the tree whether astigmatism is suffered from or

cured. It doesn't undergo any change. Thus, the astigmatic's zig-

zag tree is Bhaskarji's normal tree. The tree dosn't suffer from zig-

zagness.

 

Another example is our famous 'sOyam Devadatta' (This is that

Devadatta). I see this Devadatta fellow every morning as I go to my

office. I have a dislike for the way he looks and behaves. He is

very ordinary and shabbily dressed. One day, a mutual friend

formally introduces him to me as the Booker prize winner Devadatta

and I exclaim in surprise: "My God! Is this that Devadatta!?". In

one short second, my entire conception of the man changes because I

am an ardent admirer of writer Devadatta's works. Did Devadatta

undergo any change here? No. Only my ignorance of his identity was

removed.

 

Thus, Bhaskarji, in conclusion, jagat is sad-vastu misunderstood,

like the mis-seen tree, miscognized Devadatta and the mistaken snake

on the rope. The mis-seen, miscognized, mistaken, or misapprehended

jagat is pUrNa as the sad-vastu it really is. So, where is the change

now. The contention that the world changes is in fact as erroneous

as the zig-zagness the astigmatic imposes on the normal tree. I

cannot go any farther than this. I hope I have carried you with me.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

Thanks.

 

May be I am mixed up. I will recheck my copy of Sw. Chinmayaji's

interpretation and get back to you. I may have to struggle really

hard to find it. My new house is in a mess.

 

In the meanwhile, here is another link where again the word is

interpreted as both subtractive and additive as quoted below:

 

http://www.gita-society.com/section2/2_purna.htm

 

That is infinite, this is infinite;

>From That infinite this infinite comes.

>From That infinite, this infinite removed or added;

Infinite remains infinite.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________________

 

 

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

> Swami Chinmayananda in his commentary on the Isavasya Upanishad

translates

> AdAya as 'is negated' in his word by word translation at the

beginning of

> his commentary. Later he quotes: "When this Whole is *taken out* of

that

> Whole, the Whole remains". ....................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Mohan.

 

I don't want to quote or give you references. I understnad from your

last post that you are interested in personal experiences. I would

therefore make very short statements about what have been beneficial

to me, which essentially constitute the 'right direction' I mentioned.

 

1. Since our subject is advaita, first of all acquire an advaitic

model for what you are and what you see around you, which satisfies

both logic and common-sense. Sankara offers this.

 

2. Once you have the model, contemplate on it as much as you can.

Read and listen. Ask questions. Write down your ideas on forums like

this. Talk to other aspirants. Make changes to your model, if

necessary, so that your questions are fully answered and the model is

made shipshape and foolproof.

 

3. As you continue with the contemplation, the scriptural

statements, which you thought you understood well before, will

acquire new meanings. This is the stage they get assimilated into

your life. Till now, they were actually foreign existing in books.

Now they are your own. With that new insights will begin to dawn on

you spontaneously.

 

4. Do the sAdhana prescribed by your dharma - whatever it is.

Don't tax yourself unnecessarily. When advaita takes root, you will

slowly recognize that you don't have to hurry unnecessarily. Only

the one in fear hurries or runs. An advaitin knows his immortality.

He is neither scared nor hasty.

 

5. Don't try to buy bhakti hoping that it will save. Bhakti can't

be bought. It has to arise spontaneously. Real bhakti is your

imperishable love for yourself. You are both the lover and the

loved. In other words, you are love. When you conclude advaitically

that you are everything and repeat that to yourself, you will begin

to become an ocean of love spontaneously. If you have an

ishtadevata, you will know that you are your own ishtadevata and will

be united in total love with Her/Him. You can thus have an

ishtadevata and remain an advaitin too. That is advaita in apparent

duality of the lover and the loved.

 

6. Living such a life is liberation to my understading. As I said

in my pUrNamadah post, make the whole universe your being and heave

as the universe.

 

I have typed this in a hurry over a heavy load of office work. My

language may, therefore, be sloppy or thoughts haphazard. Yet, if

this helps in any way, I would be more than delighted. I hope I

didn't sound like making tallclaims.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> Could you kindly clarify what you mean by " right direction " ..

this would be of interest to many humble sadhakas like me !

[Guest guest]

Namaste"

 

Sri Nair has provided an excellent explanation to the question

raised by Bhaskar Prabbhuji and let me add some additional points.

 

Shankara stated that "Brahmaiva Satyam, Jagat mithyA" to illustrate

the distinction between paramarthika and vyavaharika level of

reality. At the Paramarthika level of reality, the Brahman/World is

changeless and there is no distinction between the world and the

Brahman. The shanthi mantra, "pUrNamadah pUrNamidam ..." is an

understanding at the paramartika level.

 

Shankara says that our perception of the world at the vyavaharika

level of reality is 'mithya' and it is due to our ignorance. Our

correct understanding Shankara's advaita philosophy requires us to

have clear understanding of the distinction between these states of

reality. The 'finite' and 'infinite' algebra of mathematics have

well defined operational rules and those who interchange such rules

will find all sorts of confusions and contradictions. This may

explain why our friends at the vAdAvaLi group couldn't understand

the beauty and the perfection of Advaita Philosophy as theolized by

Shankara.

 

Swami Dayanand used to distinguish between 'God's creation and our

own creation' with a beautiful illustration. Banana is God's

creation. Yellow banana, green banana, rotten banana, golden banana,

ugly banana, pretty banana, tasty banana, sweet banana, etc. are our

creation. Banana is always the Banana, but our perception of banana

does not remain the same, it varies by time, person and location! No

example or analogy can clear everyone's doubts because our minds are

filled with 'beliefs' that we don't want to give up easily! Until we

erase our 'wrong notions - beliefs' from the mind, we can't

liberated from 'confusions and contradictions' generated in our

mind. Vedanta and Shankara stress the importance of mind

purification for clear understanding of the changeless eternal

Brahman. As long as the water in the bucket oscillates, the

reflection of the Sun on the water will likely appear as though the

Sun is crooked!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskarji.

>

> I have explained as best as I can. If there is a disagreement

still,

> I can only say, as Sadaji usually does, let us agree to disagree.

>

> Nevertheless, here is a last short attempt on the last para of

your

> post quoted below if that can resolve the problem:

> ____________

>

> ">...what is this *The changing jagat is the sad vastu*?? when the

> > very perception of duality is due to avidyA how can you

attribute

> satyatva

> > to avidyA?? If the jagat also pUrNa & satya on par with

> parabrahman why

> > shruti-s should call parabraman as satsatyam sa Atma, tadEtad

> satyam,

> > EnAksharam purusha vEda satyam etc.etc. Why should shankara say,

> > brahmaimeva satyam, jagan mithyA?? why should shruti tell us we

> should

> > treat both jAgrat & svapta with same reality?? Why shruti

should

> call this

> > jagat as gandharva nagari?? Pls. clarify."

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

Continuing the thread, “Poornamadah. . . . . “, I thought I would add the

following :-

 

When the seer sees an object, or an experiencer experiences an object, what

exactly happens is, only the attributes of the seen, i.e. of the object or the

attributes of the experienced, are seen/known/experienced by him. The

seer/experiencer is not perceiving/experiencing the substratum of the seen or

the experienced. When I experience/know a rose flower, I experience/know it

through its colour/shape (vision), through touch (skin), through smell (nose),

through tongue (taste), backed by my mind. Suppose there in an object which has

no attributes, such as no taste, no color, no shape, no smell, no

hardness/softness, which produces no sound, can one know that object, can one

experience that object? All the means of knowledge/experience, including the

mind that back them, are subject to one’s experience and knowledge, as they have

their own attributes.

 

Without such attributes, can there be a vastu or object?

 

In the case of the seer or experiencer, if he is devoid of the all means of

knowing/experiencing, including his mind, will he/she/it be still there?

 

In both the cases, when devoid of the attributes, the substratum where these

attributes rest, rather appear, must be there. Without a substratum no attribute

cannot be there. What is that substratum of the seer and the seen, or the

experiencer and the experienced? The substratum for both i.e. subject and

objects must be same, because if one substratum, i.e. substratum of subject is

different from the other substratum, i.e. substratum of objects, the difference

must be due to some attribute/s. We have to ponder about the substratum, which

is attributeless.

 

The poornatwam is for this substratum. When it is said “Poornam idam” the

poornatwam referred to is the poornatwamn of the substratum.

 

Consciousness is poornam, i.e. poornam adah, and when poornam idam is mentioned,

it means the limited consciousness is also poornam, but without the limiting

adjuncts, i.e. attributes. Space is a good example. Space is poornam, room space

is also poornam, but without the limiting adjuncts of the four walls. These

limiting adjuncts are the attributes, which always change and they are not

poornam or satyam from the absolute point. They have satytwa or reality for the

time being, i.e. swakale astivat bhAti, i.e. at the given time they shine as if

real.

 

The ultimate substratum for all seen and unseen, known and unknown objects is

called “Brahman” i.e. existence per se, knowledge per se, consciousness per se,

awareness per se, etc. Once the said existence/consciousness/awareness etc. seem

to appear limited by attribute/s, the poornatwam also appears to be lost, only

so long as the attribute/upadhis/adjuncts rest/appear on the substratum. Since

the attributes continue to be seen resting on the substratum, although they go

on changing, being their nature (Jagat), all the time the substratum appears as

limited, or imperfect, or apoorna, etc.

 

“Ekam eva adwiteeyam Brahma” or One without a second, refers to this substratum,

and that substratum is poornam because it lacks nothing, as it is like a vessel

that accommodates all attributes, without itself changing at any time. If the

substratum also changes along with attributes, it is no more substratum.

 

I wonder whether I have managed to communicate my understanding.

 

Hari Om and warm regards

 

P.S. I posted this message earlier, but since it did not appear in the Mail, I

am sending it again. If there is duplication, I am sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

It is amazing how much useful discussion this `pUrnamadah

pUrnamidaM' topic has generated just within one week of its start.

It all goes to the credit of the members of this advaitin group.

Let me add a few observations of mine.

 

First: The mantra `pUrnamadah pUrnamidaM', in full, occurs in

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: V -1 -1.

 

The mantra "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM brahma" occurs in Taittiriya

Upanishad II – 1. The word "anantam" also means `infinite' and has

the same connotation as `pUrnaM'. The three words `satyaM' `jnAnaM'

and `anantaM' form the constitutive essence of brahman. They are

not its attributes, according to Sankara. Of the three words, the

word `infinite' denotes brahman by merely excluding all else,

whereas the words `real' and `consciousness' refer to brahman by

primarily signifying in themselves immutability and consciousness

and incidentally excluding falsity and insentience.

 

Infinity (or Completeness – pUrnaM) excludes all limitation by a

second thing; it excludes even abhAva or non-existence as something

distinct from brahman. It is interesting to study this `exclusion'.

The word `infinite' first predicates of brahman an association with

non-existence – which is itself a product of mAyA. But this

predication is to exclude all limitation. But by that very

predication, it excludes even non-existence, on the principle of the

kaTaka dust. The kaTaka dust, when dropped into muddy water, removes

the muddiness and then itself disappears. So the final pointer is

only to the One Essence, the One Existence. `sad-eva sowmya idam

agra AsIt' says the Chandogya Upanishad.

 

That these defining characteristics – satyaM or sat (Being,

Existence), jnAnaM or cit (Consciousness, Intelligence), anantaM or

AnandaM (Infinitude, Bliss, Transcendence of spatial and temporal

limitations) are to be accepted collectively everywhere is the

content and import of Brahma sutra III – iii – 11. 'AnandaM' is

bliss and 'anantaM' is infinity. What is total bliss has only to be

infinite, it cannot have any limitation. What is finite cannot be

happiness or bliss. Therefore "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM" is equivalent

to "sat-cid-AnandaM".

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nair,

Thanks for your detailed reply in spite of your various preoccupations. I am so

grateful. I want to study it more and will revert.

On the face of it, as you did so beautifully earlier for me, you have given

important confirmations to me.

Warm regards and pranams

S. Mohan

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Shri Mohan.

 

I don't want to quote or give you references. I understnad from your

last post that you are interested in personal experiences. I would

therefore make very short statements about what have been beneficial

to me, which essentially constitute the 'right direction' I mentioned.

 

1. Since our subject is advaita, first of all acquire an advaitic

model for what you are and what you see around you, which satisfies

both logic and common-sense. Sankara offers this.

 

2. Once you have the model, contemplate on it as much as you can.

Read and listen. Ask questions. Write down your ideas on forums like

this. Talk to other aspirants. Make changes to your model, if

necessary, so that your questions are fully answered and the model is

made shipshape and foolproof.

 

3. As you continue with the contemplation, the scriptural

statements, which you thought you understood well before, will

acquire new meanings. This is the stage they get assimilated into

your life. Till now, they were actually foreign existing in books.

Now they are your own. With that new insights will begin to dawn on

you spontaneously.

 

4. Do the sAdhana prescribed by your dharma - whatever it is.

Don't tax yourself unnecessarily. When advaita takes root, you will

slowly recognize that you don't have to hurry unnecessarily. Only

the one in fear hurries or runs. An advaitin knows his immortality.

He is neither scared nor hasty.

 

5. Don't try to buy bhakti hoping that it will save. Bhakti can't

be bought. It has to arise spontaneously. Real bhakti is your

imperishable love for yourself. You are both the lover and the

loved. In other words, you are love. When you conclude advaitically

that you are everything and repeat that to yourself, you will begin

to become an ocean of love spontaneously. If you have an

ishtadevata, you will know that you are your own ishtadevata and will

be united in total love with Her/Him. You can thus have an

ishtadevata and remain an advaitin too. That is advaita in apparent

duality of the lover and the loved.

 

6. Living such a life is liberation to my understading. As I said

in my pUrNamadah post, make the whole universe your being and heave

as the universe.

 

I have typed this in a hurry over a heavy load of office work. My

language may, therefore, be sloppy or thoughts haphazard. Yet, if

this helps in any way, I would be more than delighted. I hope I

didn't sound like making tallclaims.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> Could you kindly clarify what you mean by " right direction " ..

this would be of interest to many humble sadhakas like me !

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

Win an evening with the Indian cricket captain: India Promos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

our beloved professorji writes...

 

> First: The mantra `pUrnamadah pUrnamidaM', in full, occurs in

> Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: V -1 -1.

 

 

Our respected Nairji wrote in his introductory post on this subject

that this verse 'purnamadah purnamidam.... ....' occurs in ISAVASYA

upanishads.

 

professorji says this verse 'purnamadah purnamidam......' occurs in

Brihadarnyaka upanishads...

 

Which is correct?

 

also, professorji, i love the way you interpreted the

word'purnam... ' by quoting the verse 'satyam, jnanam, anantam...'

from taitriya upanishads...

 

Professorji explains

Existence), jnAnaM or cit (Consciousness, Intelligence), anantaM or

> AnandaM (Infinitude, Bliss, Transcendence of spatial and temporal

> limitations) are to be accepted collectively everywhere is the

> content and import of Brahma sutra III – iii – 11. 'AnandaM' is

> bliss and 'anantaM' is infinity. What is total bliss has only to

be

> infinite, it cannot have any limitation. What is finite cannot be

> happiness or bliss. Therefore "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM" is equivalent

> to "sat-cid-AnandaM".

 

wow! ANANTAM IS ANANDAM!

 

Avyakta, Ananta, Amrita, Ananda,

Achala, Amala, Akshara, Avyaya,

Chidanandarupah Sivoham Sivoham.

 

Unmanifested, endless, immortal, bliss,

Immovable, without impurities, imperishable, inexhaustible,

I am Siva, I am Siva of the form of knowledge and bliss.

 

note the attributes of Lord SIVA ! HE is 'Ananta' and 'Ananda'

 

INfinite and Blissful!

 

AUM Namaha SHIVAYE!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nairji:

Your concluding para in yur mail meant for Sri Mohanji reading

<<<6. Living such a life is liberation to my understading. As I said in my

pUrNamadah post, make the whole universe your being and heave as the universe.

>>>

 

Well said, Nairji, these words come from “assimilation of That Knowledge”. I am

happy to hear these words. Seeing “visions”, experiencing “Bliss” etc. all do

not have much sense, as “such a life” is Ananda itself.

 

Thanks for the very lucid explanation of “Liberation”.

 

Warm Regards and Hari Om

 

Mani

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Shri Mohan.

 

I don't want to quote or give you references. I understnad from your

last post that you are interested in personal experiences. I would

therefore make very short statements about what have been beneficial

to me, which essentially constitute the 'right direction' I mentioned.

 

1. Since our subject is advaita, first of all acquire an advaitic

model for what you are and what you see around you, which satisfies

both logic and common-sense. Sankara offers this.

 

2. Once you have the model, contemplate on it as much as you can.

Read and listen. Ask questions. Write down your ideas on forums like

this. Talk to other aspirants. Make changes to your model, if

necessary, so that your questions are fully answered and the model is

made shipshape and foolproof.

 

3. As you continue with the contemplation, the scriptural

statements, which you thought you understood well before, will

acquire new meanings. This is the stage they get assimilated into

your life. Till now, they were actually foreign existing in books.

Now they are your own. With that new insights will begin to dawn on

you spontaneously.

 

4. Do the sAdhana prescribed by your dharma - whatever it is.

Don't tax yourself unnecessarily. When advaita takes root, you will

slowly recognize that you don't have to hurry unnecessarily. Only

the one in fear hurries or runs. An advaitin knows his immortality.

He is neither scared nor hasty.

 

5. Don't try to buy bhakti hoping that it will save. Bhakti can't

be bought. It has to arise spontaneously. Real bhakti is your

imperishable love for yourself. You are both the lover and the

loved. In other words, you are love. When you conclude advaitically

that you are everything and repeat that to yourself, you will begin

to become an ocean of love spontaneously. If you have an

ishtadevata, you will know that you are your own ishtadevata and will

be united in total love with Her/Him. You can thus have an

ishtadevata and remain an advaitin too. That is advaita in apparent

duality of the lover and the loved.

 

6. Living such a life is liberation to my understading. As I said

in my pUrNamadah post, make the whole universe your being and heave

as the universe.

 

I have typed this in a hurry over a heavy load of office work. My

language may, therefore, be sloppy or thoughts haphazard. Yet, if

this helps in any way, I would be more than delighted. I hope I

didn't sound like making tallclaims.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> Could you kindly clarify what you mean by " right direction " ..

this would be of interest to many humble sadhakas like me !

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

Before writing anything to this message thread, I hesitated a lot.

Because, I thought I must try to give this message as much thought as

is possible. The verse poornamadah.... is supposed to be extremely

profound in Vedanta and has always been considered with awe.

 

I shall not digress into unnecessary details and come straight to my

question. I am not able to follow the meaning of Swami Dayananda

 

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:

 

I am not able to comprehend even one statement here. In light of

this, I would want to know more about the true intent of Swami

Dayananda's statements.

 

As far as the explanation of purna in terms of infinite is concerned,

I wanted to point out that mathematics does not err in understanding

infinte, possibly some teachers of the subject do.

 

However, I thought it besides the point and not having to do anything

with the central theme. The idea that you wanted to deliver in the

message was very beautiful and I agree with it, quite well. Still I

hope it wouldn't be wrong to add it here. It would just supplement

your ideas.

 

I don't know how many would be interested in the mathematical

definition of infinity, but thought it might interest you to know:

 

"Let M be a number belonging to the Real number set, such that for

any number m, belonging to the Real number set, however large, M is

greater than m, then M tends to infinity."

 

This is a calculus approach to the definition.

 

Infinity is a non-algebraic quantity. If one follows the definition,

one would see that while M is said to be larger than all numbers in

this Real number set, which is said to contain every number, one

would note that M is not equated to infinity but just tends to it.

This goes to show the immeasurable nature of infinity.

 

Let's forget the math here, please let me know about the meaning of

Swami Dayananda's statements here. Is he against nirvikalpa-samAdhi?

If so, then why do the great saints, including Bhagawan Ramana and

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa etc. try it? And yes, why do they come back?

Is there a definite answer that is plausible to people like me?

 

-Balaji

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Balaji:

 

First, I want to congratulate you for your determination, not to

digress into unecessary details and come straight to the question.

This is a first good step for all sadhakas like us so that we can

focus more on the subject matter.

 

You have raised a profound question and the Swamiji is the best

person to provide you with the most comprehend answer. Here is my

understanding.

 

When a seeker gets the experience of 'the state of nirvikalpa-

samadhi' during deep meditation, it does not mean that he/she

becomes a realized soul instantaneously. Swamiji wants to caution,

such moments of great joy only can provide 'false freedom.' The

complete liberation or the status of "pUrNamadah pUrNamidam" is very

different from a seeker's experience of nirvikalpa-samadhi during

the practice of meditation.

 

For example, Ramana Maharishi during his early age, had 'near death'

experience several times. Maharishi felt awakened and determined to

undertake 'deep Tabas' in the foot hills of Arunachala. According to

his biography, Maharishi was in deep meditation for weeks without

food or any contact inside a cave. His true devotion and total

surrender to the light of Arunachala helped him to attain the state

of 'pUrNamadah pUrNamidam.'

 

In conclusion, Swamiji wants to point out that 'temporay momentary

experiences during meditation' should be considered more like an

event to 'escape from duality' and it should not interpreted

as 'realization of Self.' Swamiji's point is quite valid and it can

help greatly seekers to get rid of this false notion on 'Self-

realization.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Please note that what I have stated are my own understanding

and corrections/additions from learned members of the list are

always welcome.

 

 

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

>.....

> I am not able to follow the meaning of Swami Dayananda

>

> 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:

>

> I am not able to comprehend even one statement here. In light of

> this, I would want to know more about the true intent of Swami

> Dayananda's statements.

[Guest guest]

our beloved balaji asks ...

 

If so, then why do the great saints, including Bhagawan Ramana and

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa etc. try it? And yes, why do they come back?

Is there a definite answer that is plausible to people like me?

 

Sure!

 

Shri Ramakrishna and Ramana maharishi themselves have responded to

these questions on many occasions.

 

IN the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, on page 245, it says,

 

"'Trailanga Swami once said that because a man reasons he is

conscious of multiplicity, of variety. Attaining samadhi, one gives

up the body in twenty-one days. . . '" (Ramakrishna was talking to

his devotees.)

 

hERE IS HOW sHRI ramana responds to this ...

 

 

Talks with Ramana, 3rd edition, page 293

 

 

Disciple : Ramakrishna says that nirvikalpa samadhi can not last

longer than 21 days. If persisted in, the person dies. Is it so ?

 

Ramana : When the prarabdha [karma] is exhausted the ego is completely

dissolved without leaving any trace behind. This is final liberation.

Unless prarabdha is completely exhausted, the ego will be rising up

in its pure form even in jivanmukta [liberated person]. I still doubt

the statement of the maximum duration of 21 days. It is said that

people can not live if they past 30 or 40 days. But there are those

who have fasted longer, say a hundred days. It means there is still

prarabdha for them.

 

Talks with Ramana, 3rd edition, page 432

 

 

Disciple : It is said that one remaining in Nirvikalpa samadhi for 21

days must necessarily give up the physical body

 

Ramana : Samadhi means passing beyond dehatma buddhi and

non-identification of the body with the Self is a foregone conclusion.

There are said to be persons who have been immersed in Nirvikalpa

Samadhi for a thousand years or more.

 

www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_4/msg00117.html - 10k - Cached

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

here is what shri ramakrishna says why he came down from Samadhi ...

 

"I was for six months in that state of nirvikalpa. Days and nights

succeeded unnoticed. Flies would enter the mouth and nostrils without

producing any sensation. Hairs became matted with dust. Sometime even

nature's calls were answered unawares. Hardly would the body have

survived this state but for a sadhu who recognized my condition, and

also understood that the Mother had yet to do many things through

this body—that many persons would be benefited if it were preserved.

So at mealtime he used to fetch food and try to bring me to external

consciousness by administering a good beating to the body. As soon as

traces of consciousness were perceived, he would thrust the food into

the mouth.

 

"After some days in this state, I came to hear the Mother's

command: 'Remain on the threshold of relative consciousness

(bhavamukha) for the instruction of mankind.' Then appeared blood

dysentery. There was acute writhing pain in the intestines. Through

this suffering for six months the normal body consciousness slowly

reappeared. Or else, every now and then the mind would, of its own

accord, to the nirvikalpa state.

 

"The natural tendency of this (my) mind is upwards (towards the

nirvikalpa state). Once that is reached, it does not like to come

down. For your (disciples') sake I drag it down perforce. Downward

pull is not strong enough without a lower desire. So I create some

trifling desires, for instance, for smoking, for drinking water, for

tasting a particular dish, or for seeing a particular person, and

repeatedly suggest them to my mind. Then alone the mind slowly comes

to the body. Again, while coming down, it may run back upward. Again

it has to be dragged down through such desires."

 

(From the words of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, as spoken to his

disciples during the latter part of the 19th century)

 

********************************************************************?

 

SO, IN THIS CONTEXT, 'DRIDHA NISCAYA' ALSO MEANS IN 'DEEP SAMADHI'

and shri ramakrishna comes down the earthly plane to enjoy the

company of devotees and impart spiritual knowledge .

 

there is a sanskrit verse which explains this , i cannot readily

recall which uses this phrase 'dridha niscaya' to mean deep samadhi

and explains why shri ramakrishna came down from nirvikalpa samadhi

(deep samadhi) to relative plane of consciousness only to enjoy

the 'mahabhava' of a devotee and be in the company of bhaktas.

 

HARI AUM TAT SAT !

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ramji:

 

As the older members know, we have had these type of discussions before. I give

my views respectfully below.

 

First, Ramji, your comments about Sri Ramana are not fully accurate. They are

actually somewhat misleading. Other moderators such as Sunderji, who know about

Sri Ramana's life may be able to do more justice, I don't know.

 

Second, Swami Dayananda's comments consist of enough half-truths to make them

appear somewhat credible but are based on a complete lack of experience of

nirvikalpa samadhi.

 

As I vaguely recall, in a discussion of this nature, one scholar claimed on the

list some years ago that Vivekachudamani (which speaks of nirvikalpa samadhi) is

not really the work of Sri Shankra.

 

Any young Sadhaka of a serious nature will quickly grasp the essentials of what

needs to be done and get to work of doing the Sadhana.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> "advaitins" <moderators

> 2004/04/09 Fri AM 07:45:11 EDT

> advaitin

> Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

>

>

[Guest guest]

harshaji,

 

since i have just returned from a blissful 3 day stay in Ramanashram,

Thiruvannamalai, i am still suffering from a Ramana HANGOVER and most

of my time is spent in reading Baout maharishi and his thoughts.

 

here is what Bhagwan Says about Samadhi!

 

What is samadhi?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "The state in which the unbroken

experience of existence-consciousness is attained by the still

mind, alone is samadhi. That still mind which is adorned with

the attainment of the limitless Supreme Self, alone is the reality

of God.

 

When the mind is in communion with the Self in darkness, it is called

nidra (sleep), that is the immersion of the mind in

ignorance. Immersion in a conscious or wakeful state is called

samadhi. Samadhi is continuous inherence in the Self in a waking

state. Nidra or sleep is also inherence in the Self but in an

unconscious state. In SAHAJ SAMADHI the communion is continuous.

 

The immersion of the mind in the Self, but without its destruction,

is known as Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi. In this state one is not free

from vasanas and so one does not therefore attain mukti (liberation).

Only after the vasanas have been destroyed can one attain liberation."

 

 

Question: "When can one practice Sahaj Samadhi?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "Even from the beginning. Even

though one practises Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi for years

together, if one has not rooted out the vasanas one will not

attain liberation.

 

Question: "Is samadhi, the eighth stage of raja yoga, the

same as the samadhi you speak of?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "In yoga the term samadhi refers to

some kind of trance and there are various kinds of samadhi.

But the samadhi I speak of is different. It is SAHAJ SAMADHI.

>From here you have samadhan (steadiness) and you remain

calm and composed even while you are active. You realise that you are

moved by the deeper real Self within. You have no worries, no

anxieties, no cares, for you come to realise that there is nothing

belonging to you. You know that everything is done by something with

which you are in conscious union.

 

 

Question: "If this sahaj samadhi is the most desirable condition, is

there no need for nirvikalpa samadhi?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "The nirvikalpa samadhi of raja yoga may have

its use. But in Jnana yoga this sahaj sthiti (natural state) or sahaj

nishtha (abidance in the natural state) itself is the nirvikalpa

state. In this natural state, the mind is free from doubts. It has no

need to swing between alternatives of possibilities and

probabilities.It sees no vikalpas (differences) of any kind. It is

sure of the truth because it feels the presence of the real. Even

when it is active, it knows it is active in the reality, the Self,

the Supreme Being."

 

 

Question: "How can one function in the world in such a state?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "One who accustoms himself naturally to

meditation and enjoys the bliss of meditation will not lose his

samadhi state whatever external work he does, whatever thoughts may

come to him. That is Sahaja Nirvikalpa. Sahaj Nirvikalpa is Nasa

Manas (total destruction of the mind). Those who are in the laya

samadhi state (a trance like state in which the mind is temporarily

in abeyance) will have to bring the mind back under control from time

to time. If the mind is destroyed, as it is in sahaj samadhi, it will

never slide down from their high state.

 

 

Question:"Is samadhi a blissful or ecstatic state?"

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: "In samadhi itself there is only perfect peace.

Ecstasy comes when the mind revives at the end of samadhi. In

devotion the ecstasy comes first. It is manifested by tears of joy,

hair standing on end, and vocal stumbling. When the ego finally dies

and the Sahaj is won, these symptoms and the ecstasies cease."

 

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

 

Aum sri Ramanaaya Namaha!

[Guest guest]

Thank you for those quotes on Samadhi by Sri Ramana. Sri Ramana's devotees know

them well and they have often been posted and discussed on these lists before.

 

Love to all

Harsha

>

> "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16

> 2004/04/09 Fri PM 07:01:00 EDT

> advaitin

> Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Sri Harsha:

 

I do remember that we had a discussion on a similar statement from

Swami Dayananda Saraswati. At that also, I do recollect that you

didn't agree with Swamiji's assertion. I fully respect your

objection but at the same time I highly regard him as a great scholar

of Shankara's advaita philosophy. He is very credible and I do not

believe that his comments contain half-truths. Before we make any

derogative comments about Swamiji, we should carefully understand his

intent and context of his comments. I have heard him personally

several times and he is credible and very scholarly.

 

As I have stated before, what I have stated is purely on the basis of

my own understanding and I welcome any corrections/additions. I am

looking forward to hear from Sri Sunder and other members of the list.

I appreciate your input on this important subject matter.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, wrote:

> Dear Sri Ramji:

>

> As the older members know, we have had these type of discussions

before. I give my views respectfully below.

>

> First, Ramji, your comments about Sri Ramana are not fully

accurate. They are actually somewhat misleading. Other moderators

such as Sunderji, who know about Sri Ramana's life may be able to do

more justice, I don't know.

>

> Second, Swami Dayananda's comments consist of enough half-truths to

make them appear somewhat credible but are based on a complete lack

of experience of nirvikalpa samadhi.

>

> As I vaguely recall, in a discussion of this nature, one scholar

claimed on the list some years ago that Vivekachudamani (which speaks

of nirvikalpa samadhi) is not really the work of Sri Shankra.

>

> Any young Sadhaka of a serious nature will quickly grasp the

essentials of what needs to be done and get to work of doing the

Sadhana.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > "advaitins" <moderators@a...>

> > 2004/04/09 Fri AM 07:45:11 EDT

> > advaitin

> > Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April

04 topic)

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste Balaji.

 

Please read 22073 for my understanding of the relevance of Sw.

Dayanandaji's statement. About your observations on mathematical

infinity, I am least competent to comment.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

..........please let me know about the meaning of

> Swami Dayananda's statements here. Is he against nirvikalpa-

samAdhi?

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Balaji, and others,

 

You have stated :

 

<<<<I am not able to follow the meaning of Swami Dayananda

 

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's forget the math here, please let me know about the meaning of

 

Swami Dayananda's statements here. Is he against nirvikalpa-samAdhi?>>>>>

 

 

 

The word experience, implies experiencer, experience and experienced. So when

fullness is “experienced” , it means the experiencer experience the fullness.

Who is that experiencer? Is he “included” in the experienced, i.e. fullness, or

is he outside the experienced?

 

To enjoy the fullness, nothing special need to be “done” or no special

engagement is required. Because, if the one experiencing the fullness is outside

that fullness, that fullness is no more full, as the experiencer is limiting its

fullness. The special engagement itself is an action and the result of the

action is time bound as the action itself is time bound, and therefore, whatever

one experiences in an “engagement” say samadhi, whether nirvikalpa or savikalpa,

the experience resulting from such engagement is also time bound. However, Atma

is not time bound, and one never misses Atma in each and every experience one

has.

 

Swami Dayanandaji says while talking on Kenopanishad, particularly on

“pratibodhaviditam matam” :-

 

Quote:

 

Brahman cannot be known as an object, for it is the very subject of the knower.

The question then arises, how is this Brahman to be known, how is it matam? The

answer is that it is “pratibodha viditam” - known through each and every

cognition. What does bodham mean? It indicates what takes place in the budhi.

All cognition, be it of external objects such as a pot or flower, or internal

processes such as doubt or resolution taking place in the mind in the forms of

thought alone. These thought forms are called vrittis. Therefore what is known

through each budhi vritti is Brahman alone. This means that you do not have an

object called Brahman, but you can recognize that the Atma is the sakshi, the

witness of all vrittis arising in the mind. The witness of all vrittis is Atma,

which is non-separable from Brahman. Brahman or the witness consciousness is the

subject; everything else is the object of awareness. In other words, the

self-evident Atma which is in the form of consciousness

or awareness brings to light all things, things ranging from the perception of

so-called external objects to changing internal processes occurring in the mind.

>From this it follows that anything that needs to be lighted up by awareness is

incapable of revealing itself otherwise. In other words, all objects of

consciousness are jadam or inert. But awareness exists in the form of sentience

that is self-effulgent. This means that in addition to revealing all else, the

Atma is self-aware, i.e. it is capable of revealing itself, without the need for

another sentience to recognize its existence.

 

Unquote

 

In short, in and through all our “experiences” or “non-experiences” also, “I” or

Atma not only precedes, but also pervades such “experiences” or

“non-experiences”, without any break or absence of its own existence.

Experiencing Atma itself is self-evident as without Atma being there, no

experience can take place.

 

So the moment the question of any “experience of Atma” other than its

self-evident experience, comes, who is that experiencer, that is experiencing

the

Atma. If you say, one experiences Atma in Nivikalpa Samadhi, it amounts to an

experiencer other than Atma, which is not possible.

 

Moreover, the Samadhies are States of the Mind, and these states of the Mind are

witnesseed by Atma itself.

 

Atmanubhava is not a state, it is a continuous experience, never absent.

 

The word “experience” misleads. When you eat a mango, you experience its taste,

flavor, etc. It has a beginning and end. Yes, afterwards, the knowledge of that

experience remains in the form of memory in the mind. In the case of Atma since

the “experience of Atma” has no beginning nor any end, the memory need not

register or does not register or cannot register it, because even the absence or

presence of memory and the mind is lighted up by the witnessing the Atma.

 

The question is what is the purpose or necessity of Samadhi, be it Savikalpa or

Nirvikalpa? Is it for knowing/experiencing Atma or Brahman. No, as Atma is

always self-evident-experience and does not require any special experience. If

not, for what purpose? For enjoying “the bliss of Atma or Brahman”? That is also

not correct, because when one enjoys “the bilss of atma or Brahman” the duality

has already come, and even if there is some experience of bliss during Samadhi,

because the enjoyer of Atma then is different from the bliss if Atma. Moreover,

how does one know it is Atma’s bliss?

 

So to escape from the world of sorrow or from the fear of the world, one’s

engagement in Samadhi/Mouna, etc. does not help. Because when he comes out of

the Samadhi/Mouna, etc. the same world he has to confront with is already there.

These “states” may give some temporary relief.

 

So, what can release you from the fear of the world/suffering,? It is knowledge

of one’s self alone,

 

i.e. self is not limited, it is Poorna.

 

The questions are, “the Samadhies wbether savikalpa or nirvikaplpa”, :

 

a) Is it for knowing or experiencing Atma?

 

b) Is it for getting release from the fear of world/sorrow? “Is it for

Liberation?”

 

c) Is it for removing the “limitedness” or the feeling of lacking one has?

Or, is it for becoming “complete” or “full” or “poorna”?

 

d) Is it for “becoming” happy or Ananda?

 

The answer for all the above lies in self-knowledge.

 

Whoever says, does not matter, whatever is said, does not matter, it is

ultimately for the seeker of answers to the above questions, to find the

answers, as he can get only indications from others. Bhagavan Ramana used to say

“you find out who is asking that question”.

 

All I can say is “yaha pashyati saha pashyati”

 

Hari om

 

 

 

 

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

Sponsor

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramchandranji,

May I second what you said. We are not able to understand something because we

lack the capacity to understand.

That is why "yaha pashyati saha pashyati"

Hari Om

Mani

 

Ram Chandran <RamChandran wrote:

Namaste dear Sri Harsha:

 

I do remember that we had a discussion on a similar statement from

Swami Dayananda Saraswati. At that also, I do recollect that you

didn't agree with Swamiji's assertion. I fully respect your

objection but at the same time I highly regard him as a great scholar

of Shankara's advaita philosophy. He is very credible and I do not

believe that his comments contain half-truths. Before we make any

derogative comments about Swamiji, we should carefully understand his

intent and context of his comments. I have heard him personally

several times and he is credible and very scholarly.

 

As I have stated before, what I have stated is purely on the basis of

my own understanding and I welcome any corrections/additions. I am

looking forward to hear from Sri Sunder and other members of the list.

I appreciate your input on this important subject matter.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, wrote:

> Dear Sri Ramji:

>

> As the older members know, we have had these type of discussions

before. I give my views respectfully below.

>

> First, Ramji, your comments about Sri Ramana are not fully

accurate. They are actually somewhat misleading. Other moderators

such as Sunderji, who know about Sri Ramana's life may be able to do

more justice, I don't know.

>

> Second, Swami Dayananda's comments consist of enough half-truths to

make them appear somewhat credible but are based on a complete lack

of experience of nirvikalpa samadhi.

>

> As I vaguely recall, in a discussion of this nature, one scholar

claimed on the list some years ago that Vivekachudamani (which speaks

of nirvikalpa samadhi) is not really the work of Sri Shankra.

>

> Any young Sadhaka of a serious nature will quickly grasp the

essentials of what needs to be done and get to work of doing the

Sadhana.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > "advaitins" <moderators@a...>

> > 2004/04/09 Fri AM 07:45:11 EDT

> > advaitin

> > Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April

04 topic)

> >

> >

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

Thanks for your profound thoughts in 22026 where you have beautifully

related satyam-jnAnam-anantam to be the same as sat-chit-Anandam.

 

However, permit me to make a minor observation on your following

statement:

 

QUOTE

> The mantra "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM brahma" occurs in Taittiriya

> Upanishad II – 1. The word "anantam" also means `infinite' and has

> the same connotation as `pUrnaM'. The three words `satyaM' `jnAnaM'

> and `anantaM' form the constitutive essence of brahman. They are

> not its attributes, according to Sankara. Of the three words, the

> word `infinite' denotes brahman by merely excluding all else,

> whereas the words `real' and `consciousness' refer to brahman by

> primarily signifying in themselves immutability and consciousness

> and incidentally excluding falsity and insentience.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Because brahman is attributeless (Even the adjective attributeless

cannot be used in reference to Brahman!), vEdantins studiously avoid

using adjectives in their discussions. They use nouns and underscore

the fact that all nouns so used are synonyms. Thus, Brahman is not

infinite but the Infinite or Infinity or Infinitude. Brahman is

Reality and that Reality is not the opposite of falsity. Neither is

Consciousness the opposite of insentience. Falsity and insentience

are limited opposites of limited reality and limited consciousness,

which are all miTyA. Thus, brahman cannot be exclusive or inclusive

of anything. I have endeavoured to highlight this thought in my

discussion on infinity in the lead post by pointing out that infinite

cannot be the antonym of infinitesimal or finite.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ramji:

 

I do not know Sri Dayananda Swami and have never heard him speak. I apologize if

my comments about Swamiji's statements containing half-truths offended anyone.

 

Those who know Swamiji here evidently have a great deal of respect for him as a

scholar and a knower of Sri Shankra's philosophy and are in the best position to

speak about his views.

 

Many of our sages and scriptures do place a high regard on meditation, various

samadhis, and finally nirvikalpa samadhi and the sahaj state.

 

Sri Krishna advises in the Gita that an aspirant should find a place of solitude

and meditate. It is not to escape reality but to find Reality or See One's Own

Reality. Sri Ramana has said that scriptures truly make sense when one realizes

the Self.

 

Sat-Chit-Ananda-Nityam-Poornum. This is the recognition/feeling/knowing that

spontaneously overcomes on Self-Recognition. It is beyond wordly and scriptural

knowledge.

 

In a wet sponge, both the sponge and the water are there, appearing as one. When

the water recognizes itself as water, independent of the sponge, that is

Self-Realization.

 

Body and Self appear to us as one. Sages say, "I am the body" idea is bondage.

This "I am the body" idea gradually weakens through hearing the truth of

scriptures, meditating, etc., and the Self asserts It Self through It's own

power of Being, Existing, and Knows It own wholeness as its very nature. This

Knowing is beyond language and is beyond duality. The Self does not know. The

Self Is Knowing. The Self does not experience Ananda. The Self is Ananda.

 

Eternal, Whole, Self-Existence, Self-Bliss, Self-Knowledge, All-Same, One

without a second.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

> "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran

> 2004/04/10 Sat AM 12:22:13 EDT

> advaitin

> Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

 

Namaste dear Sri Harsha:

 

I do remember that we had a discussion on a similar statement from Swami

Dayananda Saraswati. At that also, I do recollect that you didn't agree with

Swamiji's assertion. I fully respect your objection but at the same time I

highly regard him as a great scholar of Shankara's advaita philosophy. He is

very credible and I do not

believe that his comments contain half-truths. Before we make any derogative

comments about Swamiji, we should carefully understand his intent and context of

his comments. I have heard him personally several times and he is credible and

very scholarly.

 

As I have stated before, what I have stated is purely on the basis of my own

understanding and I welcome any corrections/additions. I am looking forward to

hear from Sri Sunder and other members of the list.

 

I appreciate your input on this important subject matter.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nairji. Prof Krishnamurthiji, and others

 

Hope my adding the following will not be taken as uninvited intrusion :-

 

Swami Dayanandaji has given the following interpretation for “Satyam Gnanam

Anantam Brahma”

 

************************************************_

 

Satyam and Gnanam are not attributes of Brahman. They are Swaroopa of Brahma,

and Not Tatastha Lakshananas, i.e. temporary attributes. Satyam means Existence

and Gnanam means Knowledge/Consciousness/Awareness. The word “anantam” goes with

both Satyam and Gnanam i.e. it is Anantam Satyam and Anantam Gnanam. Anantam

means one without any end, or ever lasting, without any change, as existence and

gnanam are changeless, and it is therefore Poornam Satyam and Poornam Gnanm.

Since it is Poornam/Anantam Satyam and Poornam/Anantam Gnanam, it lacks nothing,

and also being ever lasting without a beginning, and is (are) also not subjected

to any change, it is Anandam.

 

Satyam Gnanam Anantam is therefore Sat Chit Anandam, Chit being Consciousness.

 

 

What is mentioned above are not exactly Swamiji’s words, which I do not have

now, but my understanding of his interpretation.

 

Actually, what appears to hide Anandam/Poornatwam of Atma, is the apparent

Upadhies of the Atma, which are subjected to change, and due to Atmani Anatma

Budhi and Anatmani Atma Budhi, (i.e. taking Atma for Anatma and Anatma for Atma)

the Poornatwam or Anandamayam of Atma appears to be disturbed.

 

In “Druk Drushya Viveka” or “VakyaSudha” ascribed to Adi Shankaracharya, it is

said:

 

“Asti Bhaati Priyam Roopam naama cha iti amsha panchakam

 

aadya trayam brahma roopam jagadroopam tato dwayam”

 

= Every entity has five characteristics, viz: existence, cognizablity (which

makes one aware of the existence of an object), attractiveness (dear), form and

name, and of these the first three belong to Brahman and the next two to the

world.

 

Lakshmidhara Kavi in his “Advaita Makaranta” says:

 

“Aham asmi sadaa bhami kadachid na aham apriyaha,

 

brahma eva aham matha siddham sat-chid-ananda lakshanam”

 

=I exist ever and always I shine, never do I dislike myself, therefore it is

established that Brahman of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss alone

am, I.

 

Warm regards and Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Namaste Prof.

Krishnamurthyji.

 

Thanks for your profound thoughts in 22026 where you have beautifully

related satyam-jnAnam-anantam to be the same as sat-chit-Anandam.

 

However, permit me to make a minor observation on your following

statement:

 

QUOTE

> Sponsor

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

>

> Thanks for your profound thoughts in 22026 where you have

beautifully

> related satyam-jnAnam-anantam to be the same as sat-chit-Anandam.

>

> However, permit me to make a minor observation on your following

> statement:

>

> QUOTE

>

> > The mantra "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM brahma" occurs in Taittiriya

> > Upanishad II – 1. The word "anantam" also means `infinite' and

has

> > the same connotation as `pUrnaM'. The three words `satyaM'

`jnAnaM'

> > and `anantaM' form the constitutive essence of brahman. They are

> > not its attributes, according to Sankara. Of the three words,

the

> > word `infinite' denotes brahman by merely excluding all else,

> > whereas the words `real' and `consciousness' refer to brahman by

> > primarily signifying in themselves immutability and consciousness

> > and incidentally excluding falsity and insentience.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> Because brahman is attributeless (Even the adjective attributeless

> cannot be used in reference to Brahman!), vEdantins studiously

avoid

> using adjectives in their discussions. They use nouns and

underscore

> the fact that all nouns so used are synonyms. Thus, Brahman is not

> infinite but the Infinite or Infinity or Infinitude. Brahman is

> Reality and that Reality is not the opposite of falsity. Neither

is

> Consciousness the opposite of insentience. Falsity and insentience

> are limited opposites of limited reality and limited consciousness,

> which are all miTyA. Thus, brahman cannot be exclusive or

inclusive

> of anything.

 

Namaste Nairji,

 

Is not Brahman inclusive of everything there is? Just like every

shade of color is actually present in sunlight, but sunlight itself

is colorless, can we say that every attribute is included in Brahman,

but Brahman itself is attributeless? The analogy may be imperfect,

but I hope the idea I am trying to articulate is clear.

 

I would like your thoughts on this.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji.

 

No analogy is perfect because they all belong to miTyA. So, don't

worry. Your analogy is beautiful and it conveys what you want to

say. Brahman is without attributes. Brahman IS, attributes ARE.

It cannot be the other way around. MiTyA cannot constitute Brahman.

In that sense, therefore, attributes are not *included* in Brahman.

Yet, Brahman pervades all attributes like It does things miTyA in

this actually infinite but normally misunderstood universe.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

____________________

 

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

 

> Is not Brahman inclusive of everything there is? Just like every

> shade of color is actually present in sunlight, but sunlight

itself

> is colorless, can we say that every attribute is included in

Brahman,

> but Brahman itself is attributeless? The analogy may be imperfect,

> but I hope the idea I am trying to articulate is clear.

>

> I would like your thoughts on this.

>