pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

When one examines the Hermetic saying 'As above so below' it will

be seen that it encapsulates the ancient wisdom found in the Vedas, the

logoi of Pythagoras, Sufi cosmogony etc.

 

Says Laleh Bakthiar: 'Sufi, expressions of the mystic quest' : The one who

attains is the one who knows through God after travelling to God in God.

The goal of the quest is for Self to step aside and let the Absolute know

itself through itself...."The pilgrim, the pilgrimage and the Way are but a

journey from self to Self".(Farad al-Din 'attar)

 

David Bohm is a modern representative of this tradition who got there via

theoretical physics specifically quantum theory. He speaks of 'implicated

order' as though what was emerging was nothing absolutely new in the strict

sense but that it was there already and had merely to be evoked. He takes

as his primary analogy the hologram which he contrasts with the lens - the

representative of the old paradigm. A lens presents the image as a series

of points while the hologram presents the whole albeit as though seen

through the keyhole of the laser beam. Even if that image is divided it can

still be reconstituted and seen as a whole. "The law of the explicate order

emerges as an abstraction of what is actually a certain feature of a much

larger implicate order".

 

This is a statement of what is generally rejected as being ridiculously

counter intuitive viz. change is impossible, what is not as non-being cannot

emerge into being or to put it another way (Parmenides) whatever is possible

exists. The latter thought of Being as like a block of marble. To take

anything out of it, you merely take away what was not it as Michelangelo

remarked.cf. on Parmenides, Quantum kittens, Leibniz

 

http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Indiscernibles.html

 

The satkaryavada theorists declare that cause and effect are non-different.

This nips the Humean temporal succession view of causality in the bud by

denying the metaphysical separability of cause and effect.

 

This theory of implicate order dovetails with the idea that consciousness is

not something that can emerge and that the unfolding of the universe in

evolution is the revealing of what is already there.

 

http://fusionanomaly.net/davidbohm.html

 

has a lot of quotes and an account of the main lines of implicate order.

Warning - not suitable for those liable to epileptic seizures, they have

been at the animations toy-box :-)

 

Those knowledgeable of the Physics will be better able to judge the science

than a neophyte like me and perhaps they may care to add a map to my crude

signpost,

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

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

>

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

>

> praNAm Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> I have reread your messages. Although I understand your point of

> view expressed therein, i.e. doubts about pUrNamidam, I haven't

seen

> you conclusively produce Sankara's statement in full support

thereof.

> What I am, therefore, requesting you to quote is one single

> categorical statement from Sankara that corroborates your view that

> this jagat is not pUrNam as implied in the pUrNamadah... prayer.

By

> this, I don't mean the refutation by him of some other statement by

> somebody else.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> The point to be noted here is, while commenting on pUrNamadah

mantra

> shankara did not use the word *jagat* to represent pUrNamidam.

 

Namaste. Bhaskar prabhuji and Madathil Prabhuji, and all,

 

For the benefit of this discussion I extract below the

Paramacharya's reference to this "PUrNamadaH .." mantra in his

Soundaryalahari lectures. I had mentioned it in DPDS-50 But that was

on December 28 -- before our discussion on PurnamadaH started. Below

is the extract. The key words are "seems to be" (in reference

to 'this jagat being full') I checked the Tamil original very

carefully. The Paramacharya has emphasized the "seems to be" very

clearly. Here is the relevant extract from DPDS-50:

 

"The simple meaning of SheshhaM is `Remainder'. So the original,

which ought to be far more than the SheshhaM, is the SheshhI. That

is the paramAtman. From that fullness of the paramAtman all this

world has emerged, which appears to be infinite and full. After

emerging from fullness, what has emerged seems to be full. And even

after the emergence, the original is still full. This is what the

upanishadic mantra (pUrnamadaH pUrnamidaM) says. In other words it

only tells us that the paramAtman is the SheshhI and we are all his

Sheshha. Ambaa is manifesting as all the multitudinous universe and

the life within is the Shambhu-Brahman. Therefore "sharIram tvam

shambhoH". Ambaa is the sheshha and He is the Sheshhi."

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji and Bhaskarji.

 

With all respects to the Paramacharya and both of you, may I submit

the following:

 

There is a lurking danger in taking Prof. Krishnamurthyji's quote

literally. shESam and shESi belong to the transactional realm. If

the key words are "seems to be" or "appears to be", the natural

question in the transactional will be "what seems to be?". If we

answer "the shESam (jagat) seems to be", we would be creating a

parallel substratum or locus outside and other than the shESI for the

appearance to exist, like "John seems to be a teacher", where John is

the substratum for his appearance as the teacher to manifest. The

only solution (and the only advaitic one at that) then is to

answer: "the sheSi seems to be".

 

In my opinion, therefore, the pUrNamadah verse implies that it is the

sheSi of the quote that `appears' as the shESam. Therefore,

that `appearance' (miTyA) is to be negated to realize that shESam is

really shESi and therefore full. Thus, pUrnamidam.

 

The verse uses the verb "avashiSyate" (remains). What remains is

shESAm. If the logic of the above quote is misused or misapplied (as

it would in all probability considering the amount of dispute that we

already have), the verse would seem to equate shESam (`appearance' of

your quote) with the shESi (the paramAtman). That problem can be

avoided if we understand that the shESi `appears' as shESa and,

therefore, is always shESi and, therefore, full throughout

the `appearance'.

 

Now Bhaskarji, I just remembered Sankara's DakshiNAmUrti Ashtakam

verse "yasyaiva sphuraNaM sadAtmakamasat kalpArtakam bhAsatE". Here,

the sphuranam is this manifestation called the world (idam viswam or

jagat). Sankara says that it is sadAtmakasat (asat which is

essentially sat) and kalpArTakam bhAsate (appearing limited by time

and divided as objects). Then, in the second line of the verse, he

goes on to add: "SakshAt tat tvam asi iti vachasA

yObhodhayatyAshritAn". The mahAvAkya "That Thou Art" is introduced

here and please note how the "That" of the mahAvAkya stands in this

line as the pronoun for the sadAtmakamasat kalpArTakaM jagat. You

are here virtually asked to understand and rely on the recognition

that the sadAtmakam jagat is you indeed and, therefore, the THAT of

the mahAvakya. As I said in my lead post, the conclusion, therefore,

essentially is "THIS IS THAT I AM (idam adah aham)."

 

You are saying jagat is avidyA-kalpita. Agreed. Like snake is

avidya-kalpita on the rope. Rope has to exist for the appearance of

snake to manifest. What should exist for the appearance of jagat to

manifest. Brahman and nothing else. If you don't accept that and

maintain that jagat is just mAyAkalpita or avidyAkalpita on its own,

then you are creating parallel realities in mAyA and avidyA in the

same manner as I pointed out with regard to shESam in the second

paragraph above. Thus, this manifestation (vyaktamadhyAni bhutAni of

SrImad Bhagwad GItA) called idam viswam or jagat is avidyA-kalpita or

mAya-kalpita `appearance' of Brahman and, as such, really full even

while appearing as divided and limited to us due to our avidya (like

Amitabh Bachchan is millionaire Amitabh Bachchan even as he appears

as a beggar on the screen).

 

The appearing jagat ceases when your identification with it is full

and irreversible. Then, there is no THIS, THAT OR I. There is only

Fullness, the big I without a you, he, she, it or they. That

is `where there' is neither creation nor dissolution, no one bound

or undergoing spiritual discipline, no one who wants to be released,

no one released, as you rightly say. On the contrary, if jagat is an

illusion as you seem to imply, you will still be groping even if

someone helps you remove that illusion or another jagat may appear in

the place of the former making you repeat the clean up interminably.

So, what is done away with is one's own limitations imposed by avidya

whereby one realizes the oneness (THAT) encompassing the seer (I)

and the seen (idam). Since THAT is fullness, the rest cannot be its

parts. They are THAT only and therefore FULLNESS (pUrNam).

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> For the benefit of this discussion I extract below the

> Paramacharya's reference to this "PUrNamadaH .." mantra in his

> Soundaryalahari lectures. I had mentioned it in DPDS-50 But that

was

> on December 28 -- before our discussion on PurnamadaH started.

Below

> is the extract. The key words are "seems to be" (in reference

> to 'this jagat being full') I checked the Tamil original very

> carefully. The Paramacharya has emphasized the "seems to be" very

> clearly. Here is the relevant extract from DPDS-50:

>

> "The simple meaning of SheshhaM is `Remainder'. So the original,

> which ought to be far more than the SheshhaM, is the SheshhI. That

> is the paramAtman. From that fullness of the paramAtman all this

> world has emerged, which appears to be infinite and full. After

> emerging from fullness, what has emerged seems to be full. And even

> after the emergence, the original is still full. This is what the

> upanishadic mantra (pUrnamadaH pUrnamidaM) says. In other words it

> only tells us that the paramAtman is the SheshhI and we are all his

> Sheshha. Ambaa is manifesting as all the multitudinous universe and

> the life within is the Shambhu-Brahman. Therefore "sharIram tvam

> shambhoH". Ambaa is the sheshha and He is the Sheshhi."

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji and Bhaskarji

 

Humble praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji & Sri Krishnamurthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

In my opinion, therefore, the pUrNamadah verse implies that it is the

sheSi of the quote that `appears' as the shESam. Therefore,

that `appearance' (miTyA) is to be negated to realize that shESam is

really shESi and therefore full. Thus, pUrnamidam.

 

The verse uses the verb "avashiSyate" (remains). What remains is

shESAm. If the logic of the above quote is misused or misapplied (as

it would in all probability considering the amount of dispute that we

already have), the verse would seem to equate shESam (`appearance' of

your quote) with the shESi (the paramAtman). That problem can be

avoided if we understand that the shESi `appears' as shESa and,

therefore, is always shESi and, therefore, full throughout

the `appearance'.

 

bhaskar :

 

Just I'd like to make couple of comments on your reply to prof. prabhuji.

First, see prabhuji, when it is said shESa is *mere

appearance*/avidyAkruta/mithyA, it is quite obvious that ONLY shESi IS &

forever pUrNa & does not any way mean IN shESi (brahman) shESa (jagat) is

also pUrNa & this is what I've been seeing in this thread sofar. How can

we say jagat is pUrNa when it's been repeatedly said it is figment of

imagination due to avidyA?? Second, if you see pUrNamadaH mantra strictly

from advaita perspective this mantra is just conveying us pUrNatva of

parabrahman & adam, idam, AdAya etc. have hardly any role to play here from

pAramArthika stand point. When shruti propagating EkamEvAdvitIya brahman, I

dont think, we should give special emphasis on adam, idam once pUrNatva

realised in its entirety. So, we have to take ONLY pUrNa from this verse &

leave everything behind as everything else is notional in that state. More

interestingly rather surprisingly, you are agreeing that jagat is

appearance & at the same time you are telling it is pUrNa. Pls. tell me

prabhuji where shankara says *appearance* is pUrNa in whole of his

prasthAna trayi bhAshya.

 

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Now Bhaskarji, I just remembered Sankara's DakshiNAmUrti Ashtakam

verse "yasyaiva sphuraNaM sadAtmakamasat kalpArtakam bhAsatE". Here,

the sphuranam is this manifestation called the world (idam viswam or

jagat). Sankara says that it is sadAtmakasat (asat which is

essentially sat) and kalpArTakam bhAsate (appearing limited by time

and divided as objects). Then, in the second line of the verse, he

goes on to add: "SakshAt tat tvam asi iti vachasA

yObhodhayatyAshritAn". The mahAvAkya "That Thou Art" is introduced

here and please note how the "That" of the mahAvAkya stands in this

line as the pronoun for the sadAtmakamasat kalpArTakaM jagat. You

are here virtually asked to understand and rely on the recognition

that the sadAtmakam jagat is you indeed and, therefore, the THAT of

the mahAvakya. As I said in my lead post, the conclusion, therefore,

essentially is "THIS IS THAT I AM (idam adah aham)."

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji, I am not qualified enough to comment on your above para as I've

not studied dakshiNA murthy stOtra. While on the subject, I'd like to

mention that if any clarification is required on shankara siddhAnta, it is

better for us to stick to his prasthAna trayi bhAshya since authorship of

these parakaraNa-s being questioned in traditional circle.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

You are saying jagat is avidyA-kalpita. Agreed.

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji I am not saying this, shankara himself says avidyA kalpita mAya

(sUtra bhAshya), avidyAtmaka, avidyA lakshaNa mAya (gItA bhAshya) while

describing the jagat.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Like snake is avidya-kalpita on the rope. Rope has to exist for the

appearance of

snake to manifest. What should exist for the appearance of jagat to

manifest. Brahman and nothing else.

 

bhaskar:

 

I think this leads to entirely different topic, the locus of avidyA!! It

is not necessarily required some substratum to superimpose something.

Shankara deals with this problem elaborately in adhyAsa bhAshya & gives two

examples : blueness of sky & second moon due to cataract problem in eye.

Kindly refer Sri sadananda prabhuji's notes also on this prabhuji.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If you don't accept that and maintain that jagat is just mAyAkalpita or

avidyAkalpita on its own, then you are creating parallel realities in mAyA

and avidyA in the

same manner as I pointed out with regard to shESam in the second paragraph

above. Thus, this manifestation (vyaktamadhyAni bhutAni of SrImad Bhagwad

GItA) called idam viswam or jagat is avidyA-kalpita or mAya-kalpita

`appearance' of Brahman and, as such, really full even while appearing as

divided and limited to us due to our avidya (like

Amitabh Bachchan is millionaire Amitabh Bachchan even as he appears as a

beggar on the screen).

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji I only said jagat is avidyA-kalpita_mAyA & I never said

mAyAkalpita jagat. Shankara used both words avidyA & mAya

discriminatingly. As we all know, the Atman, the real *I* is the witnessing

consciousness. That alone is really real & that is what shruti also

telling us. With the same breath shruti saying the non-self which is

consisting of body, the senses & the mind through which we see this jagat

is nothing but unreal appearances sprout out of ignorance (ajnAna). Since

avidyA is an innate tendency (naisagikaH ..sUtra bhAshya) of human mind

which projects the non-real self (unAtman)& confound the identity of the

real & the unreal (satyAnruta mithunikrutvaM - sUtra bhAshya) & does not

have its own existence, shankara clearly denying parallel reality of avidyA

to brahman either. So, here Amitabh Bachchan neither a beggar nor a

millionaire HE IS Amitabh Bachchan without any elevated status thats all

:-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The appearing jagat ceases when your identification with it is full

and irreversible. Then, there is no THIS, THAT OR I. There is only

Fullness, the big I without a you, he, she, it or they. That

is `where there' is neither creation nor dissolution, no one bound

or undergoing spiritual discipline, no one who wants to be released,

no one released, as you rightly say. On the contrary, if jagat is an

illusion as you seem to imply, you will still be groping even if

someone helps you remove that illusion or another jagat may appear in

the place of the former making you repeat the clean up interminably.

So, what is done away with is one's own limitations imposed by avidya

whereby one realizes the oneness (THAT) encompassing the seer (I)

and the seen (idam). Since THAT is fullness, the rest cannot be its

parts. They are THAT only and therefore FULLNESS (pUrNam).

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji frankly speaking I am not able to catch your contention here. I

think, you are simply echoing my stand. No question of ceasing jagat here,

since jnAni realises after the dawn of knowledge that there is absolutely

no world for him whatsoever in the past, nor in the present & in the future

this is what kArika is also saying. Further, I've been repeatedly saying

the same thing in this thread that avidyA is the root cause for the whole

process of human knowledge of this jagat & its activity, avidyA is no

concept of Atman coz. Atman can never be perceived or conceived by the

mind, the mind itself being a superimposition on the self. So it is as

already said a notion having the semblance of a false concept

(mythyApratyayarUpaH). Finally at any stretch of our imagination we can

not calibrate jagat as pUrNa since it is a product of fictiously imagined

by avidyA.

 

AvasthAtraya prakriya is one of the main prakriya-s in determining shankara

siddhAnta conclusively. The world reality which we are holding as pUrNa in

waking state does not withstand the acid test of avasthAtraya prakriya

jnAna from sAkshi chEta's view point.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

Humble praNAms

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

 

Your post 22450.

 

I don't see any point in continuing this exchange any further. Let

us therefore await some third party opinion.

 

Thanks for your cooperation and input.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

>

> Your post 22450.

>

> I don't see any point in continuing this exchange any further. Let

> us therefore await some third party opinion.

 

Namaste,

 

I cannot think of a third party better than Shankara himself!

 

Here is his commentary on the mantra:[Translation by Sw. Madhavananda]

 

 

pUrNamadaH - pUrNaM na kutashchit vyAvR^ittaM vyApItyetat|

That is infinite, not limited by anything, i.e. all-pervading.

 

niShThA cha kartari draShTavyA|

The suffix 'kta' in the word 'Purna' (lit. complete) has a subjective

force.

 

ada iti parokShAbhidhAyi sarvanAma tat paraM brahmetyarthaH |

That is a pronoun denoting something remote; it means the Supreme

Brahman.

 

tat saMpUrNaM AkAshavadvyApi nirantaraM nirupAdhikaM cha |

It is complete, all-pervading like the ether, without a break, and

unconditioned.

 

tadeva idaM sopAdhikaM nAmarUpasthaM vyavahArApannaM pUrNaM svena

rUpeNa paramAtmanA vyApyeva, na upAdhiparichchhinnena visheShAtmanA |

So also is this conditioned Brahman, manifesting through name and

form and coming within the scope of relativity (the universe),

infinite or all-pervading indeed in its real form as the Supreme

Self., not in its differentiated form circumscribed by the limiting

adjuncts.

 

tadidaM visheShApannaM kAryAtmakaM brahma pUrNAtkAraNAtmanaH udachyate

udrichyate udgachchhatyetat |

This differentiated Brahman, the effect, proceeds or emanates from

the infinite, or Brahman as cause.

 

yadyapi kAryAtmanA udrichyate tathApi yatsvarUpaM pUrNatvaM

paramAtmabhAvaM tanna jahAti, pUrNameva udrichyate |

Although it emanates as an effect, it does not give up its nature,

infinitude, the state of the Supreme Self; it emanates as but the

infinite.

 

pUrNasya kAryAtmano brahmaNaH, pUrNaM pUrNatvaM, AdAya gR^ihItvA

AtmasvarUpaikarasatvamApadya vidyayA, avidyAkR^itaM

bhUtamAtropAdhisa.nsargajaM anyatvAvabhAsaM tiraskR^itya,

pUrNameva anantaramabAhyaM praj~nAnaghanaikarasasvabhAvaM kevalaM

brahma avashiShyate |

Taking the infinitude of the infinite, or Brahman as effect, i.e.

attaining perfect unity with its own nature by removing through

knowledge its apparent otherness that is created by ignorance through

the contact of limiting adjuncts, the elements, it reamins as the

unconditioned Brahman alone, without interior or exterior, the

homogeneous Pure Intelligence.

 

yaduktaM - 'brahma vaa idamagra AsIt tadAtmAnamevAvet tasmAttat-

sarvamabhavat' iti - eShaH asya mantrasyArthaH |

What has been said before, viz. 'This (self) was indeed Brahman in

the beginning. It knew only Itself. Therefore It became all (I:iv:10),

is the explanation of this mantra.

 

tatra 'brahma' ityasyArthaH 'pUrNamadaH' iti |

'Brahman' in that sentence is the same as, 'That is infinite';

 

idaM pUrNamiti 'brahma vA idamagra Asit ityasyArthaH |

and 'This is infinite' means, 'This (universe) was indeed Brahman

in the beginning'.

 

tathA cha shrutyantaraM - 'yadeveha tadamutra yadamutra tadanviha'

iti |

Similarly, another shruti says, 'Whatever is here is there, and

whatever is there is here' (Katha IV:10).

 

ataH adaHshabdavAchyaM pUrNaM brahma, tadeva idaM pUrNaM kAryasthaM

nAmarUpopAdhisa.nyuktaM avidyayA udriktaM tasmAdeva

paramArthasvarUpAt anyadiva pratyavabhAsamAnaM - tat, yat

AtmAnameva paraM pUrNaM brahma viditvA - ahaM adaH pUrNaM

brahmAsmi ityevaM, pUrNamAdAya, tiraskR^itya apUrNasvarUpatAM

avidyAkR^itAM nAmarUpopAdhisaMparkajAM etayA brahmavidyayA

purNameva kevalaM avashiShyate |

Hence the 'Infinite', denoted by the word 'That' is Brahman. That

again is 'this infinite' (universe)- Brahman manifested as effect,

connected with the limiting adjuncts of name and form, projected by

ignorance, and appearing as different from that real nature of its

own. Then knowing itself as the supreme, infinite, Brahman, so as to

feel, 'I am that infinite Brahman', and thus taking its infinitude,

i.e. removing by means of this knowledge of Brahman its own

limitation created by ignorance through the contact of the limiting

adjuncts of name and form, it remains as the unconditioned infinite

alone.

 

tathA choktaM 'tasmAttatsarvamabhavat' iti |

So it has been said, 'Therefore It became all'.

 

yaH sarvopaniShadartho brahma, sa eShaH anena mantreNa anUdyate,

uttarasabardhArtham |

Brahman, which is the theme of all the Upanishads, is described once

more in this mantra to introduce what follows...........

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

Sunder

 

p.s. Madathilji, please feel free to continue into next month if you

wish. Thanks.

[Guest guest]

> Now Bhaskarji, I just remembered Sankara's DakshiNAmUrti Ashtakam

> The appearing jagat ceases when your identification with it is

full

> and irreversible. Then, there is no THIS, THAT OR I. There is

only

> Fullness, the big I without a you, he, she, it or they. That

> is `where there' is neither creation nor dissolution, no one

bound

> or undergoing spiritual discipline, no one who wants to be

released,

> no one released, as you rightly say. On the contrary, if jagat is

an

> illusion as you seem to imply, you will still be groping even if

> someone helps you remove that illusion or another jagat may appear

in

> the place of the former making you repeat the clean up

interminably.

> So, what is done away with is one's own limitations imposed by

avidya

> whereby one realizes the oneness (THAT) encompassing the seer (I)

> and the seen (idam). Since THAT is fullness, the rest cannot be

its

> parts. They are THAT only and therefore FULLNESS (pUrNam).

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

 

Namaste Sri Nairji, Bhaskar-ji and everyone else,

 

Let me start off by saying I am no contender for you stalwarts, more

like an ant being run over by elephants, but what I have read so far

from the writings of Swami SacchidAnandendra Saraswathi Swamiji

makes me want to say a few words about this on-going debate. Again,

any mistakes are due to my mis-interpretation.

 

Jagat is real in the sense that the brahman/Atman

in the seer has lent reality to it by creating/cognizing

it. Jagat by itself has no independent reality, it depends on

brahman for its existence. So, really speaking, it doesn't seem

right to bestow the full pUrNatvam of brahman to jagat. Atman is the

only really real pUrNa.

 

Having said that, we could reconcile this shloka as a upAsanA mantra

of the Upanishad, where "idam" is seen as a sa-upAdhika Brahman,

that is Brahman with attributes, with a beginning and an end as in

the pralaya cycle - lower brahman, apara brahman, so to speak.

Saguna or sa-upAdhika brahman is one of the manifestations of

brahman - it is not its paramArthic essense.

 

Upanishads have both kinds of statements -

jnAna vAkyas and upAsanA vAkyas. Examples such as "aham

brahmAsmi", "tadeva brahma tvam viddi.." etc., are the jnAna

vAkyas. By hearing (sravaNa)these from a suitable guru, moksha is

possible in an eligible aspirant immediately. On the other hand

there are upAsanA vAkyAs also in the Upanishads. For example "sarvam

khalvidam brahma", "pUrNamadah..", etc. These are fit for dhyAna or

upAsana. Even an eligible aspirant cannot attain moksha by hearing

these from a suitable guru.

 

It is like rounding or estimation – for example, rounding 22,678 to

23,000 is ok when you are talking of population, etc., but is not ok

when the goal is to do addition in Math. "pUrNamadaH,

pUrNamidam,.." is more like a dhyAna mantra or a

upAsanA mantra where idam refers to the sopAdhika Brahman (jagat).

What happens to the jagat in pralaya, or for that matter,

even in your sleep?

 

"brahma satyam, jagan mitya, jIvo brahmaiva

na paraH". Anything that is mitya by definition is not

pUrNa. The essense of Shuddha shAnkara advaita is - Atman (brahman)

is the only reality, everything else has only borrowed

reality or pUrNatvam. Surely it seems that the nirguNa higher

Brahman (para brahman) is superior to the sa-upAdhika lower Brahman.

I think his is what Sri Bhaskar has been trying to derive by his

utmost painstaking research and elaborate explanations.

 

 

My 2 cents,

Savithri

[Guest guest]

praNAms Savithri mAtAji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your kind clarification on the ongoing discussion on

*pUrNamidam*. You've precisely presented my views in short mAtAji. We've

to study avasthAtraya prakriya through adhyArOpa apavAda to understand true

nature of Atman & false appearance of jagat. Otherwise it would be very

difficult to reconcile the kArya, kAraNa prakriya in parabrahman. Atman

alone is real in all the three state, this false appearance of world will

get changed from waking state to dream state & in sushupti it is completely

absent. Since waking world is strictly limited to waker & dreaming world

is strictly limited to dreamer, this world as such does not have real

existence, hence cannot be called as pUrNa. What is pUrNa is trikAla

abhAdita satya & does not undergo any modification from one avasthA to

another...it is always there unchanged & mere witnessing consciousness in

all the three states. This is what shankara also says in sUtra bhAshya

quoting kArika the jagat which is taught in various ways by means of

illustrations like that of mruthika (clay), metal & sparks IS ONLY a device

for the purpose of leading the mind to the truth (upAyaH sOvathArAya nAsti

bhEdaH), but in reality there is no diversity on any account whatsoever.

 

Humble praNAms once again

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Savitri-ji,

 

advaitin, "savithri_devaraj"

<savithri_devaraj> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Nairji, Bhaskar-ji and everyone else,

>

> The essense of Shuddha shAnkara advaita is - Atman (brahman)

> is the only reality, everything else has only borrowed

> reality or pUrNatvam.

> My 2 cents,

> Savithri

 

 

But Adi Shankara says that the effect is pre-existent in the cause.

How does one resolve such an assertion with the the opposition

presented by "anything else" than Brahman? I believe that one has to

read Shankara by resolving the tension of anirvacaniya.

 

How can there be "anything else" than Brahman? Isn't "everything

else" the coloured viewpoint of vyavaharika sathya?

 

The Upanishad says: "When everything has become Brahman, then what

does one see and through what?" How again in realisation does

everything "become" Brahman? The word "become" here must be

considered a metaphorical usage, for in realisation,

nothing "becomes" anything; it is only the truth that is revealed.

Thus, "everything becoming Brahman" must be read as "everything is

realised to be Brahman". Realisation is the revelation of what always

is, has been, and will be. It is the delusion clouding the intellect

that comprehends anything else than Brahman, but Brahman is always

purnam, "both in this and that".

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste, All,

 

The Teacher while explaining the shanty mantra “Poornamadaha. . . . . “ asked

the disciples to bring one big jar with filled with water and some small cups.

The disciples brought them. The teacher took two three cups of water, and asked

the disciples what they find. The disciples were a little confused. The teacher

said “the water in the jar is also water and the water in the cups is also

water. The water in the cups came from the water in the jar.” He poured the

water in the cups back to the jar and said “when the water in the cups is added

to the water in the jar, water alone remains”. He concluded “from water (in the

jar) water came (in the cups), so water (in the jar) is water in the cups, and

this (in the cups) is water, and when this (water in the cups) is added to that

(water in the jar) water only remains”. “I short ‘water is that water is this,

from water came water, when water is added to water, water alone remains’”.

 

While explaining further, the Teacher said, showing a necklace:

 

“Necklace is in gold, gold is in necklace, necklace is gold, but gold is not

necklace”.

 

“I am in the world, the world is in me, world is I, but I am not the world”.

 

“Consciousness or awareness is in the world, world is in consciousness or

awareness, world is consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness

is not world”

 

“Consciousness or awareness is in I (me), I am in consciousness or awareness, I

am consciousness or awareness” OR

 

“I is in consciousness or awareness, consciousness or awareness is in I,

consciousness or awareness is I”

 

the teacher stopped there.

 

Hari Om

 

 

savithri_devaraj <savithri_devaraj wrote:

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Though I wanted to have a detailed discussion on jagat kAraNatva of

parabrahman in your next month's topic, I'd just like to share some flashy

thoughts for the time being:

 

CN prabhuji:

 

But Adi Shankara says that the effect is pre-existent in the cause.

How does one resolve such an assertion with the the opposition

presented by "anything else" than Brahman? I believe that one has to

read Shankara by resolving the tension of anirvacaniya.

 

bhaskar:

 

The causal potentiality or mAyA or pre-existent effect in the cause in

avyAkruta rUpa is avidyAtmika (of the nature of avidyA). This is what

shankara clearly says in sUtra bhAshya (dont know the exact reference)

fictitiously imagined by avidyA as though they were identical with the

omniscient lord (AtmabhUte iva avdiyAkalpita nAma rUpe etc.). Here in this

sUtra bhAshya it is quite evident that this pre existent of effect (kArya)

in the cause (kAraNa) is nothing but figment of avidyA. It is called mAyA

(illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot be defined to be identical

with Ishvara or brahman. This is where exactly anirvachanIya of prakruti

comes into picture, which has been explained by shankara by giving example

of foam which is not quite the same as water but yet not a different entity

apart from water either. But this anirvachanIyatva of prakruti / mAyA has

been explained as avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupastApita, avidyAkruta etc.

which in short mean that the objective appearance is due to avidyA.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

How can there be "anything else" than Brahman? Isn't "everything

else" the coloured viewpoint of vyavaharika sathya?

 

bhaskar:

 

yes, THAT only really real (satyasya satyam) which is not objectifiable.

This nAma rUpAtmaka jagat is there only in vyavahArika drushti

(transactional view point) & does not have water in pAramArthika satya.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The Upanishad says: "When everything has become Brahman, then what

does one see and through what?" How again in realisation does

everything "become" Brahman? The word "become" here must be

considered a metaphorical usage, for in realisation,

nothing "becomes" anything;

 

bhaskar:

 

yes, after the dawn of ultimate knowledge jnAni realises there is

absolutely nothing from him in the past, present & in the future. He

realises his svarUpa one without second. nEhanAnasti kiNchana.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

it is only the truth that is revealed.

Thus, "everything becoming Brahman" must be read as "everything is

realised to be Brahman".

 

bhaskar :

 

shall we say here after truth is revealed one realises *nothing is there*

apart from HIM prabhuji?? I know, this leads to further question about

jnAni's vyavahAra after the dawn of knowledge!! that we can discuss in a

separate thread.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Realisation is the revelation of what always is, has been, and will be.

 

bhaskar :

 

exactly prabhuji, realisation of his true nature should be in harmony with

his universal experience of sAkshi svarUpa is it not??

 

CN prabhuji:

 

It is the delusion clouding the intellect that comprehends anything else

than Brahman, but Brahman is always purnam, "both in this and that".

 

bhaskar:

 

When he realises his own swarUpa which is ONE without second, *this* &

*that* donot come into picture..correct prabhuji?? do you feel this &

that classification in sushupti prabhuji?? pls. clarify.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS: Prabhuji this is only extempore thoughts. We can discuss this topic

in much more detail by taking references from prasthAna trayi bhAshya as

well as mAndukya kArikA & kArikA bhAshya of shankara.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Prabuji,

Actually there is no going back. The cup water coming to know/recognize that it

is also H2O as the jar water is. No going back is required as it is already

that.

The example was only to show how nama and roopa appear to limit the Atma, i.e.

I.

Rememebr the Sruti "Yato va imani bhootani jayante. . . . . ."

Hope I tried to make myself clear.

Warm regards, Hari om

 

bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

He poured the water in the cups back to the jar and said "when the water in

the cups is added to the water in the jar, water alone remains".

 

praNAms Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

prabhuji do you agree cup water going back to jar water?? Yes, this is what

exactly our state in sushupti. *This* Jar water & *that* cup water

remains water only ultimately . This millionaire Amitabh Bacchan & That

beggar Amitabh Bacchan is always ONLY Amitabh Bacchan. am I correct Sri

Nair prabhuji :-)) This reminds me mundaka shruti yathA nadyaH syandamAnAH

samudrEstham gacchanti nAma rUpe vihAya tathA vidyAnnAmarUpAdvimuktaH parAt

paraM puruShaM upaithi divyam.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

I think the primary point of contention between our respective

interpretions of Shankara Bhashya is: whether we should consider

Brahman as including or excluding the universe. Ultimately, we seem

to be saying the same thing, but while you persist with the claim

that the world stands negated when the truth is known, I would say

that the negation negates nothing because what is negated resolves

itself into Brahman in the revealing light of truth.

 

As for the claim that avidya is the cause of the universe, I don't

think it is a correct interpretation of the Acharya's exposition.

Avidya cannot even make me drive my car to the office; I would most

likely end up on a tree by the roadside. Cause entails intelligence,

whereas avidya means loss of intelligence. Hasn't this been argued at

length in the first adhyaya of the Bhashya? Hasn't it been said

unequivocally that Brahman is the efficient cause of the universe?

What is the dividing line between Maya, the power of the lord, and

avidya, the deluding darkness of the jeeva? Where lies the razor's

edge here? I feel it is necessary to resolve the tension between

seemingly opposing statements in the Bhashya for a proper

interpretation of Advaita. For example, when you say: "It is called

mAyA (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot be defined to be

identical with Ishvara or brahman", you are presenting only one side

of the Acharya's statement. The Acharya actually says: "It cannot be

said to be EITHER identical OR different FROM Brahman". The

interpretation must resolve this tension and not take only one aspect

of it as the truth. Of course, it would be a digression to undertake

such an excercise here. We will take it up when it comes up for

discussion later (which I believe would be in July or August).

 

Lastly, you are right in saying that "this" and "that" are not

applicable in paramarthika sathya. When I said that Brahman is always

purnam, "both in this and that", it was merely to say that what we

consider "this" and "that" in vyavaharkia sathya is only Brahman in

the revelation of paramarthika sathya. Again this is my understanding

wherein I understand negation as negating nothing.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

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

>

> praNAm Chittaranjan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Though I wanted to have a detailed discussion on jagat kAraNatva of

> parabrahman in your next month's topic, I'd just like to share some

flashy

> thoughts for the time being:

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> But Adi Shankara says that the effect is pre-existent in the cause.

> How does one resolve such an assertion with the the opposition

> presented by "anything else" than Brahman? I believe that one has to

> read Shankara by resolving the tension of anirvacaniya.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> The causal potentiality or mAyA or pre-existent effect in the cause

in

> avyAkruta rUpa is avidyAtmika (of the nature of avidyA). This is

what

> shankara clearly says in sUtra bhAshya (dont know the exact

reference)

> fictitiously imagined by avidyA as though they were identical with

the

> omniscient lord (AtmabhUte iva avdiyAkalpita nAma rUpe etc.). Here

in this

> sUtra bhAshya it is quite evident that this pre existent of effect

(kArya)

> in the cause (kAraNa) is nothing but figment of avidyA. It is

called mAyA

> (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot be defined to be

identical

> with Ishvara or brahman. This is where exactly anirvachanIya of

prakruti

> comes into picture, which has been explained by shankara by giving

example

> of foam which is not quite the same as water but yet not a

different entity

> apart from water either. But this anirvachanIyatva of prakruti /

mAyA has

> been explained as avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupastApita, avidyAkruta

etc.

> which in short mean that the objective appearance is due to avidyA.

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> How can there be "anything else" than Brahman? Isn't "everything

> else" the coloured viewpoint of vyavaharika sathya?

>

> bhaskar:

>

> yes, THAT only really real (satyasya satyam) which is not

objectifiable.

> This nAma rUpAtmaka jagat is there only in vyavahArika drushti

> (transactional view point) & does not have water in pAramArthika

satya.

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> The Upanishad says: "When everything has become Brahman, then what

> does one see and through what?" How again in realisation does

> everything "become" Brahman? The word "become" here must be

> considered a metaphorical usage, for in realisation,

> nothing "becomes" anything;

>

> bhaskar:

>

> yes, after the dawn of ultimate knowledge jnAni realises there is

> absolutely nothing from him in the past, present & in the future.

He

> realises his svarUpa one without second. nEhanAnasti kiNchana.

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> it is only the truth that is revealed.

> Thus, "everything becoming Brahman" must be read as "everything is

> realised to be Brahman".

>

> bhaskar :

>

> shall we say here after truth is revealed one realises *nothing is

there*

> apart from HIM prabhuji?? I know, this leads to further question

about

> jnAni's vyavahAra after the dawn of knowledge!! that we can

discuss in a

> separate thread.

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> Realisation is the revelation of what always is, has been, and will

be.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> exactly prabhuji, realisation of his true nature should be in

harmony with

> his universal experience of sAkshi svarUpa is it not??

>

> CN prabhuji:

>

> It is the delusion clouding the intellect that comprehends anything

else

> than Brahman, but Brahman is always purnam, "both in this and that".

>

> bhaskar:

>

> When he realises his own swarUpa which is ONE without second,

*this* &

> *that* donot come into picture..correct prabhuji?? do you feel

this &

> that classification in sushupti prabhuji?? pls. clarify.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

> PS: Prabhuji this is only extempore thoughts. We can discuss this

topic

> in much more detail by taking references from prasthAna trayi

bhAshya as

> well as mAndukya kArikA & kArikA bhAshya of shankara.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Prabuji,

 

praNAm Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Mani prabhuji:

 

Actually there is no going back. The cup water coming to know/recognize

that it is also H2O as the jar water is. No going back is required as it is

already that.

The example was only to show how nama and roopa appear to limit the Atma,

i.e. I.

Rememebr the Sruti "Yato va imani bhootani jayante. . . . . ."

Hope I tried to make myself clear.

 

bhaskar:

 

at the risk of stretching this analogy too long, if the going back of cup

water to jar water is not there, then the question of coming out of jar

water & identifying it as a cup water also does not arise is it not?? our

sAkshi svarUpa is never ever get affected by our false identification with

nAma rUpAtmaka upAdhi-s. Water is always water - Atman is always Atman,

water never ever thinks that it is cup or jar water likewise in Atman there

is never ever distinction of kAraNa & kAryatva. ajAyamAno bahudA vijAyate

due to avidyA.

 

Warm regards, Hari om

 

Humble praNAms

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

> advaitin, "savithri_devaraj"

> <savithri_devaraj> wrote:

> > The essense of Shuddha shAnkara advaita is - Atman (brahman)

> > is the only reality, everything else has only borrowed

> > reality or pUrNatvam.

> >

> > Savithri

 

 

It just struck me that the above "Shuddha shAnkara advaita" statement

could, with some slight re-wording, become Dvaita!!

 

Dvaita says: "Brahman is the only independent existence, and

everything else has only dependent existence."

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan