pUrNamadah pUrNamidam -Peace Chant !

[Guest guest]

Dear ALL ,

 

Join me in offering our humble thanks to Shri Madathil Rajendran

Nairji for initiating a lively discussion on the

verse "Purnamidam .... .... " . I have never seen such scholarly

debates in any of the i belong to. There was never a

dull moment. There was poetry, drama, logic, and even mathematics at

some point and i have never seen such full participation and such a

variety of presentations by so many devout members.

 

It is customary to begin and conclude any discussion on upanishads

with the Peace Chant.

 

Om Santih Santih Santih

'0m! Peace, Peace, Peace'.

 

Why is the peace chant repeated three times?

 

as per Swammi Krishnananda of Divine Life Society ...

 

"We always recite this peace chant three times, indicating that there

should be peace in the three realms, or in three ways, or freedom

from the three sources of trouble. We have three principal kinds of

trouble, and all these three are to cease and peace is to prevail. We

have trouble from within; trouble from without; and trouble from

above. This threefold problem is known as Tapatraya. If there is a

heavy flood, or there is an earthquake, a thunderbolt, or a

destruction of this kind caused by factors beyond human range, such

catastrophe is referred to as supernatural - Adhidaivika-Tapa. When

troubles come from outside, as those from animals, reptiles, wicked

persons, etc., they are known as Adhibhautika-Tapa. When troubles

come from inside, such as illness, sorrow born of mental confusion,

and the like, they go by the name, Adhyatmika-Tapa. They merely

appear to be three, from outside. There is a threefold appearance of

a single problem, and it cannot be solved by any amount of

intellectual logic, because it is ingrained in the very being of the

individual. May the Vidya, the Wisdom of the Upanishad bring peace by

causing the cessation of this threefold sorrow. May there be Peace

everywhere. "

 

AUM Shanti! Shanti! Shantihi!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Advaitins:

>

> This is just to formally conclude the April 04 topic "pUrNamadah

> pUrNamidam revisited".

>

> Actually, I delayed this this long in the fond hope of delivering a

> detailed conclusive post. However, in the circumstances I am now

in,

> I don't think I will be able to do that, much so against the hope

> expressed by our dear Sunderji of receiving a detailed concluding

> summary from me.

>

> I am indeed very grateful to all those who shared with us their

> profound and invaluable insights on the topic. I am not mentioning

> names for fear of giving out a long list.

>

> To recapitulate, although the discussion digressed into several

posts

> on mathematical infinity, thanks to the advice eminently rendered

by

> our elders, we got down to the essentials very soon.

>

> The pertinent question heatedly debated was if this jagat (idam) is

> actually pUrNam. While several members including me advocated that

> the jagat is really pUrNam and Brahman (adah – THAT) misunderstood,

> there was disagreement expressed by several other members that the

> pUrNatwam of jagat mentioned in the verse is either conditional or

> totally unsubstantiated. Those who advocated this view profusely

> quoted from the shruti, other teachers and Sankara's own texts to

> support their view point and emphatically concluded that the jagat

> cannot be Brahman misunderstood and it has only transitory validity

> like the snake on the rope. They also demanded to look at the

> question from the AdyAropa apavAda and avastAtraya angles strictly

> based on prastAnatraya and Sankara bhAshyAs.

>

> As the initiator of the discussion, based on the interpretations of

> the verse by traditionalists like Sw. Dayanandaji, whose analysis

we

> could fortunately include in our files sections, I remain fully

> convinced that the verse really means what it says, i.e. pUrNamidam

> or the world is indeed Fullness or Brahman. The reason for this

> conviction is the understanding that the rope-snake analogy is not

> given for us to decide the reality or unreality of the snake but to

> arrive at the truth of the rope. In my humble opinion, the fact

that

> the rope is the snake (and, therefore, Brahman is the world) is the

> point to be understood and emphasized. The other examples

mentioned

> in shruti like ocean and waves, clay and pots, gold and gold

> ornaments, cotton and cloth, post on the ghost etc. all seem to

> stress this point.

>

> The opposing view brilliantly and forcefully concluded that the

world

> is anirvacanIya and therefore can be easily discounted to

appreciate

> the one and only unchanging reality that remains behind and

sustains

> this mAyA – the world born out of ignorance.

>

> Well, at times, I myself had doubts if, in fact, both sides were

> expressing the same truth. The difference of opinion seemed to be

> another snake (error) on a basic point of agreement born out of the

> mAyA of linguistic nuances! Such is the subtlety of the topic.

>

> Despite the opposing views, it has really been a wonderful debate.

> Although the heat of it all seemed to produce some unfortunate

> strains in its course, I should say, the Members did have enough

> thoughts and material to ponder and reach their own conclusions.

> Isn't that a debate all for?

>

> Once again, as the impartial initiator, may I say a big THANK YOU

to

> all participants and look forward to their fullest cooperation in

the

> discussions planned for the future?

>

> May I also say that, although the topic is formally closed, there

is

> still room for Members to express their further comments to enrich

> our understanding? PUrNamadah never ends. How can it when it is

> endless and beginningless?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair