pUrNamadah pUrNamidam

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The pivotal point around which the Purnamidah discussion revolves is

the meaning that is attributed to Maya. No discussion is meaningful

unless we admit that meanings have meaning. In so far as we strive to

understand the meanings of the texts that explicate the doctrine of

Advaita, we must endeavour to uncover within ourselves the meanings

of the words of these texts. What then is the meaning of Maya? It is

vital to our understanding of Advaita that we recognise that Maya is

essentially magical in character. The word itself connotes that. The

Acharya himself points this out in the Brahman Sutra Bhashya.

 

Adhyaropa apavada is a pedagogical device. Savithriji is right in

saying that it is a technique. Its realm is that of techne, not of

Truth. But what is the ramification of recognising that adhyaropa

apavada is a technique. It would be in order for us to pause at this

point and contemplate deeper on the meaning of super-imposition. If

superimposition is negated or rescinded, then there is, in the very

admission of the negation, a something that is posited as a thing to

be negated or rescinded, and thus the very assertion of non-duality

unwittingly affirms a duality. But Advaita does not admit of any

duality whatsoever. It is vital therefore to realise that the

negation is not simply a rescinding of something - no, not even of an

appearance - but that it is a dialectical process whereby negation

and affirmation are subsumed in the epiphany of illumination. And

this brings us again to the magical nature of Maya. The negation

negates nothing because there is in the process of negation

a "pulling back" (a revelation of identity) of the negated thing as

the ground of Existence. Maya is that which is and which isn't.

It "is" - because it is Brahman. It "isn't" - because it is nothing.

Negation is a dialectic wherein that which is negated has revealed

its identity with the negator in the very revelation of knowledge

leaving over a "nothing" that is magically "vaporised". The only

logical negation is the negation of nothing. It lies merely in the

realm of meaning unravelment. What indeed does the Shruti say? "When

everything has become the knower, then what shall one see and through

what?" The key phrase here is "when everything has become the

knower". If negation was to effect an effacement of the world, then

the phrase "when everything has become the knower" would be

superfluous, nay even contradictory. Therefore, that which is negated

is the absolute vacuity divested even of the appearance (the absolute

nothingness on which it apparently stands when Brahman is concealed),

and that which is affirmed is Brahman itself which has revealed that

the negated thing (the samanya of names and forms) is not other than

itself in the Truth of non-duality. The negated "nothing" is the

unreality, and the revealed truth of the world is its samanya with

the cause in which it is always pre-existent. Difference is the play

in the prism of Maya. The Truth is akhanda.

 

Maya does not have the same connotation as avidya. The word "avidya"

connotes that which confuses, deludes, and conceals. Bhaskarji is

right in saying that the "nature" of avidya, in so far as we may

speak of the nature of the non-existent, is non-perception,

misconception and doubt. Avidya is not Maya, but is the obverse side

of Maya. In the dialectic of Maya, it is that which presents the

false notion of being limited and bound.

 

Brahman remains purna in silence as well as in the swirling tornado

of this universe. There is nothing other than Brahman. Unreality is

only a magical warp of Reality. The warp lies within us - in

the "knots of our hearts".

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittranjanji.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Wht a beautiful conclusion!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madthil Nair

___________________

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Brahman remains purna in silence as well as in the swirling tornado

> of this universe. There is nothing other than Brahman. Unreality is

> only a magical warp of Reality. The warp lies within us - in

> the "knots of our hearts".

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

,

>

> The pivotal point around which the Purnamidah

> discussion revolves is

> the meaning that is attributed to Maya. No

> discussion is meaningful

> unless we admit that meanings have meaning. In so

> far as we strive to

> understand the meanings of the texts that explicate

> the doctrine of

> Advaita, we must endeavour to uncover within

> ourselves the meanings

> of the words of these texts. What then is the

> meaning of Maya?

 

Namaste Chittaranji,

This is so very well put (I look forward to your

presentation of this topic in July but wonder how you

can add to such an thorough statement as in your

posting above) because although the Real meaning of a

word is ineffable in its 'fullness', this fullness is

only known to the wise.

RgVeda I.164.

catvaári vaák párimitaa padaáni taáni vidur braahmaNaá

yé maniiSíNaH |

gúhaa triíNi níhitaa néÑgayanti turiíyaM vaacó

manuSyaaaà vadanti ||

 

‘Speech hath been measured out in four divisions, the

Brahmans who have understanding know them.

Three kept in close concealment cause no motion; of

speech, men speak only the fourth division.’

 

At the level of the fourth division a word means what

the user wants it to mean, hence it is manifest 'in

motion'. Such an anarchic state of affairs has no

effect on the substratum of the true meaning in its

fullness to which no thing can be added nor

subtracted. Neither is this anarchic state unlawful.

It is a step in 'uncovering withing ourselves.'

One person understands mAyA to mean illusion as in

'delusion' and this may help them temporarily overcome

attachment, to wanting to keep eating sugar for

example. Through the company of the wise , such a one,

may then come to experience a more subtle sweetness in

shruti. The former lust for sweetness was but a veil,

necessary in the appearance, as it were, of a journey

from the unreal to the Real; just as the more subtle

sweetness will prove to be when the transcendent

source of sweetness is realised.

Another may interpret 'mAyA' as a play, as on a stage.

Again, this is but an initial step in the appearance

of a journey from the unreal to the Real. As with

Tweedledum and Tweedledee, words mean what we want

them to mean in the world of duality which is 'within

ourselves'.

And is this not one of the delights of our apparently

individual lives? That they may come to mean what we

want them to mean while in essence they are 'That One'

desiring to become many, just like the 'Word'

manifesting as different words and interpreted

meanings ?

By the use of the intellect and the intuitive faculty

of the heart, the flashes of which burn away

superimposition, we come to such wonderfully clear

understanding of mAyA as you are presenting. The other

'divisions of speech' are hence uncovered because they

are present in all of us.

All very mysterious and magical, One appearing as many

while remaining unaffected as 'One'. One ineffable

Word appearing with many meanings, experienced

'within' our individual selves but transcending and

fulfilling all name and form in essence. Bit like mAyA

really, but that is just my temporary interpretation

and I look forward to July and your attempts to

improve on your last posting. It will be a

considerable task.

 

Many thanks

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./careermakeover

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ken-ji,

 

Thank you for your kind words Sir. Your post evokes that same feeling

of mystery within me that I felt one day when I read a book on Nyaya.

I felt that in samsara we are "bound" by the possessive hold of

words, and that "nihreyasa" is the freedom of being dispossessed when

we understand the nature of "padarthas".

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranji,

> This is so very well put (I look forward to your

> presentation of this topic in July but wonder how you

> can add to such an thorough statement as in your

> posting above) because although the Real meaning of a

> word is ineffable in its 'fullness', this fullness is

> only known to the wise.

> RgVeda I.164.

> catvaári vaák párimitaa padaáni taáni vidur braahmaNaá

> yé maniiSíNaH |

> gúhaa triíNi níhitaa néÑgayanti turiíyaM vaacó

> manuSyaaaà vadanti ||

>

> `Speech hath been measured out in four divisions, the

> Brahmans who have understanding know them.

> Three kept in close concealment cause no motion; of

> speech, men speak only the fourth division.'

>

> At the level of the fourth division a word means what

> the user wants it to mean, hence it is manifest 'in

> motion'. Such an anarchic state of affairs has no

> effect on the substratum of the true meaning in its

> fullness to which no thing can be added nor

> subtracted. Neither is this anarchic state unlawful.

> It is a step in 'uncovering withing ourselves.'

> One person understands mAyA to mean illusion as in

> 'delusion' and this may help them temporarily overcome

> attachment, to wanting to keep eating sugar for

> example. Through the company of the wise , such a one,

> may then come to experience a more subtle sweetness in

> shruti. The former lust for sweetness was but a veil,

> necessary in the appearance, as it were, of a journey

> from the unreal to the Real; just as the more subtle

> sweetness will prove to be when the transcendent

> source of sweetness is realised.

> Another may interpret 'mAyA' as a play, as on a stage.

> Again, this is but an initial step in the appearance

> of a journey from the unreal to the Real. As with

> Tweedledum and Tweedledee, words mean what we want

> them to mean in the world of duality which is 'within

> ourselves'.

> And is this not one of the delights of our apparently

> individual lives? That they may come to mean what we

> want them to mean while in essence they are 'That One'

> desiring to become many, just like the 'Word'

> manifesting as different words and interpreted

> meanings ?

> By the use of the intellect and the intuitive faculty

> of the heart, the flashes of which burn away

> superimposition, we come to such wonderfully clear

> understanding of mAyA as you are presenting. The other

> 'divisions of speech' are hence uncovered because they

> are present in all of us.

> All very mysterious and magical, One appearing as many

> while remaining unaffected as 'One'. One ineffable

> Word appearing with many meanings, experienced

> 'within' our individual selves but transcending and

> fulfilling all name and form in essence. Bit like mAyA

> really, but that is just my temporary interpretation

> and I look forward to July and your attempts to

> improve on your last posting. It will be a

> considerable task.

>

> Many thanks

>

> Ken Knight

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./careermakeover

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

Thank you. The word "Brahman" itself indicates purnam that

encompasses and swallows up the entire universe -- for the

etymological root of "Brahman" indicates growth and largeness.

Brahman cannot be conceived because it "grows larger" than what can

be seen or conceived. :-)

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Chittranjanji.

>

> Thanks a lot.

>

> Wht a beautiful conclusion!

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madthil Nair

> ___________________

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> > Brahman remains purna in silence as well as in the swirling

tornado

> > of this universe. There is nothing other than Brahman. Unreality

is

> > only a magical warp of Reality. The warp lies within us - in

> > the "knots of our hearts".