pUrNamidaM - concluding remarks

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Well, after an elapse of more than 2 months, even after several rounds of

deliberations, the issue *pUrNamidaM* still oscillating in the minds of

advaitins without finding a stable & consistent meaning. Sri Madathil

Nair prabhuji has gracefully concluded this thread by saying pUrNamidaM is

indeed jagat. He has taken Sri Dayananda saraswathi's comments & other

learned members' scholarly opinion to arrive this conclusion. But, with

all due respect to all those who say pUrNamidaM is representing jagat

pUrNatva, I would like to state that, there are some members who still

opposing this conclusion by strictly adhering to the following :

 

(a) shankara bhAshya,

 

(b) detailed analysis of avasthAtraya from sAkshi view point &

 

© adhyArOpa apavAda prakriya - the methodology adopted by advaita

sampradAyavAdin-s.

 

As said several times before, shankara never ever mentioned even a single

time the word *jagat* while commenting on this mantra & he makes it very

clear without any ambiguity in his introduction that this whole of khila

kAnda (5th adhyAya) of bruhadAraNyaka is for upAsana after describing

nirguNa parabrahman in previous 4 chapters ( Pls. refer shankara's

introductory remarks on khila kAnda). And his stand on mAya, its

appearance & its anirvachanIyatva is quite clear in his prasthAna trayi

bhAshya-s, giving us no room whatsoever to say pUrNa=jagat.

 

Further, a detailed study of avasthAtraya from sAkshi view point

(pUrNAnubhava drushti) would reveal the fact that *the world* what we are

holding very close to our chest as pUrNa is changing its colour from one

state to another & completely absent in deep sleep state. An uninterrupted

continuity of existence without change is the real test of reality or

pUrNatva. The jagat does not pass through this acid test of reality.

Hence GaudapAda says in kArika *whatever has no existence before and after

does not exist even now. The reality/parabrahman/pUrNam is beyond time

(kAlAthIta), beyond space (dEshAthIta) & it is beyond the notions of cause

& effect (kAraNa & kArya) so says shruti.

 

Anyway, all the above has been said with appropriate quotes from shankara

umpteen times in this list by myself, Sri Stig prabhuji, sAvithri mAtAji

etc., now it has become a stale point without much consideration from my

fellow advaitins :-)) Interesting point here is, despite all these

efforts, our learned members still holding bhartruprapancha's dvaitAdvaita

view & saying brahman is pUrNa & jagat is also pUrna & this is what

shankara's advaita etc. (no need to mention shankara categorically refuted

this view in his commentary) without giving an iota of reference from

shankara bhAshya & heavily depending on their intelligence.

 

With this I'd like to conclude that this jagat is not pUrNa & pUrNamidam is

not about jagat according to shankara. As said earlier, this is not for

any further arguments, it is my understanding based on shankara

bhAshya...that's it!!

 

Sri Ranjeet Sankar prabhuji, off the list, communicated me his stand on

pUrNamidam, with his permission, I am sharing his mesg. with the list. He

just said the following about idaM :

 

If you forward it, just mention one additional line that 'idam' definitely

doesn't mean the jagat for Sri Sankara.

 

Here below is his complete mesg. :

 

// quote //

 

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Namaste..

 

Yesterday during my evening jogging I was thinking about the pUrNamadaH

mantra and about its various interpretations. Since this issue was not

resolved even after two months of continious debate, I decided to go

through bhagavatpAda's bhAshyam once again to see if I had gone wrong

somewhere. And when I went through the texts once again, I was astonished

to find that my understanding was indeed wrong!!

Bhaskarji, I request you to go through this mail patiently and give me

your scholarly opinion.

 

My earlier understanding on 'idam'

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

The World is pUrNam in the sense of being the same as the absolute in its

real nature. Even at the time of its manifesting as an effect connected

with mAyA (name-form) projected by ignorance, it is pUrNam in its true

nature. At the time of manifesting as an effect, it may appear as if it is

limited in nature and different from the absolute. But this is not so. It

remains unchanged, pUrNam even in that state.

 

In other words, take the rope-snake analogy. Before the (illusionary)

manifestation, rope is 'adaH'. At the time of manifestation, the rope is

'idam', while the snake is just an illusion of name and form created

through ignorance. The 'idam' only refers to the rope, the substratum at

all times. At the time of manifestation, it may appear to be limited in

nature. But the shruti say NO, it is still pUrNam. It does not refer to

the superimposed appearance. pUrNam is the substartum on which the

superimposition takes place.

 

So 'idam' refers to the substratum when the (unreal) effect called jagat

comes forth.

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

 

Bhaskarji, I will quote from His bhAshyam on this mantra and will try to

explain why my earlier view was incorrect.

My comments in [....].

 

Sri Sankara's bhAshyam on Br.Up-5-1-1:

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

beginning. It knew only Itself. Therefore It became all (Br.Up-1-4-10)' is

the explanation of this mantra.

 

[ Here, AchArya clearly says how this mantra should be understood, ie just

like Br.Up-1-4-10. If you see mantra 1-4-10, there is nothing said about

jagat (Nairji-Maniji's view) or the substratum of the jagat (my view). The

mantra only says about the individual Self and Brahman. So understanding

'idam' as jagat or the substratum of jagat is not in line with AchArya's

view. For AchArya the 'idam' stands for the Individual Self. ]

 

Sri Sankara's bhAshyam:

" 'Brahman' in that sentence is the same as 'That is infinite'; and 'This

is infinite' means, 'This (Universe) was indeed Brahman in the

beginning.' "

 

[ The words 'adah' and 'idam' are explained here. 'adah' is said to be the

unconditioned Brahman. Then in the 'idam' part, if you notice the way the

translation was done, you could clearly see a basic flaw. The words 'This

(Self) was indeed...' mysteriously changed into 'This (Universe) was

indeed...'. How is this possible? Was the translator trying to squeeze in

his own views here? In my view, AchArya was trying to show that 'idam'

means the individual Self which is exlained in Br.Up-1-4-10. However, the

translation gives out a completely different picture which is not in line

with Br.Up-1-4-10.

 

Sri Sankara's bhAshyam:

".......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.

"

 

[Here also, I believe the 'Universe' in brackets is translator's own view,

and not AchArya's. If you replace the '(Universe)' with '(Self)', the

sentence makes sense and is in line with Br.Up.1-4-10. ]

 

Sri Sankara's bhAshyam:

" Then knowing itself as the supreme, infinite Brahman, so as to feel, 'I

am that infinite Brahman', and thus taking its infinitude, ie. 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. So it has been said, 'Therefore it

became all.' "

 

[This part of the bhAshyam shows without any doubt that 'idam' stands for

the individual Self for Sri Sankara. If 'idam' was jagat or the substratum

of jagat, then AchArya would not have said "so as to feel, 'I am that

infinite Brahman' ". How can 'pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya..' be explained taking

the jagat or its substratum as 'idam'? How can the insentient jagat

'feel'? How can the substratum of the jagat 'feel'? In the vyAvahArika

level, where this mantra is positioned, only the individual sentient being

can 'feel, I am that infinite Brahman'. ]

 

So this mantra has to be understood in the same way as Br.Up-1-4-10, and

not in any other way. The 'adah' stands for Brahman and 'idam' stands for

the jIva. Now there can be an objection (from advaitins!) that since the

Self and the substratum is the same, it is not wrong to interpret 'idam'

as the substratum of the jagat also. This is not right because this mantra

is in the vyAvahArika level and in this level everything has its own

place. If the sAdhak understands that the Self in him and the jagat is the

same, meditation on this mantra resulting in the knowledge that "Therefore

it became all." is useless. Also, why should the sAdhak meditate on

something which has got nothing to do with him? So 'idam' can only mean

the jIva and nothing else.

 

This is also evident if you see the way AchArya refutes the view of

bhartRRIprapa~ncha. If 'idam' was the substratum of jagat for AchArya, he

would have refuted bhartRRIprapa~ncha's view by showing that the jagat as

an effect is not real, with the help of quotes from shruti such as

'modification, a suggestion of speech' and so forth. Finally, since His

view is very much similar to the opponent's view, he would have clearly

given out His view so that there is no confusion in the mind of the

reader. But here while refuting the opponent's view, he never takes that

stance. Instead, he just shows how the view that Brahman can be both dual

and non-dual is illogical.

 

So according to Shri Sankara, 'idam' stands for the jIva.

 

Bhaskarji, I request you to check the original sankrit bhAshyam or Shri

sureShvarAchArya's vArtika and correct me if I have stepped into

ignorance.

 

Hari Om

ranjeet

 

//unquote //

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Reference post # 23104.

 

Good to see that `self-exiled' Ranjeetji is still interested in the

proceedings of this `worldly' forum that hampers upAsana and is

participating by proxy!

 

Let me make this short. I don't need quotes to answer him.

 

1. Self is Brahman.

2. JivA is the one that feels limited and isolated and therefore

suffers.

3. JivA is, therefore, to be understood as a part of this manifest

universe. JIvAhood is a manifestation since we know its existence as

an objectification. It shouldn't therefore be equated with the Self

(that is not known or objectified) which is Brahman.

4. The quoted mantra says: "Therefore it became all". This part has

been conveniently ignored. What is this `all'? It is verily the sum

of jIvA and all that it is isolated and separated from. That sum

total is verily the universe. There is, therefore, no flaw in the

translation, whosesoever it is.

5. The conclusion that " `idam' to Sankara stands for the jIvA" and

the vehement endorsement of it is, therefore, totally

inadvaitic. 'idam' stands for the sum total (all that IT became).

 

In my opinion, the confusion results from refusal to understand that

the Self and Brahman are one and the same. We are in the unfortunate

habit of considering the so-called `individual Self' (not jIvA!) as

something other than Brahman although we repeat `Aham BrahmAsmi' ad

infinitum!

 

The exclamation mark after the word `advaitins' appearing in

parentheses has been noted. A big `thank you' for that.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________________

 

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

....................

> Sri Ranjeet Sankar prabhuji, off the list, communicated me his

stand on

> pUrNamidam, with his permission, I am sharing his mesg. with the

list. He

> just said the following about idaM :

>

> If you forward it, just mention one additional line that 'idam'

definitely

> doesn't mean the jagat for Sri Sankara.

>

> Here below is his complete mesg. :

>

> // quote //..........

> .......................

> So according to Shri Sankara, 'idam' stands for the

jIva....................

 

// unquote //

[Guest guest]

Good to see that `self-exiled' Ranjeetji is still interested in the

proceedings of this `worldly' forum that hampers upAsana and is

participating by proxy!

 

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

prabhuji, please note it is on my special request only he has agreed to

post his mesg. to the list. It is not that he is willing to *participate*

in the forum indirectly through proxy. We were discussing this topic off

the list based on *shankara bhAshya* & he clarified his stand that idam is

jIva again based on * shankara bhAshya* on bruhadAraNyaka maNtra 1-4-10.

You may not need quotes to prove that his stand is inadvaitic. But being

a true shankara siddhAnta follower, we certainly need bhagavadpAdA's quotes

to substantiate our claims prabhuji.

 

This is just for your kind information prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Granting permission to post, on request or otherwise, is

participation. Anyway, that is immaterial to the issue we are

discusing here.

 

We all need Sankara BhashyAs. But, we need correct interpretations

for them too. It is on the latter we are debating. If you or

Ranjeetji can understand the BhAshyAs directly without external help,

well and good. However, I can't. That is why I relied on external

sources in my lead post and subsequently.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

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

>

> Good to see that `self-exiled' Ranjeetji is still interested in the

> proceedings of this `worldly' forum that hampers upAsana and is

> participating by proxy!

>

> praNAm prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> prabhuji, please note it is on my special request only he has

agreed to

> post his mesg. to the list. It is not that he is willing to

*participate*

> in the forum indirectly through proxy. We were discussing this

topic off

> the list based on *shankara bhAshya* & he clarified his stand that

idam is

> jIva again based on * shankara bhAshya* on bruhadAraNyaka maNtra 1-

4-10.

> You may not need quotes to prove that his stand is inadvaitic. But

being

> a true shankara siddhAnta follower, we certainly need

bhagavadpAdA's quotes

> to substantiate our claims prabhuji.

>

> This is just for your kind information prabhuji.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

We all need Sankara BhashyAs. But, we need correct interpretations

for them too. It is on the latter we are debating.

 

bhaskar:

 

Thats really very nice to hear prabhuji. Yes, to determine shankara

siddhAnta we_need_shankara_bhAshya &

interpretations_from_bonafide_shankara_sampradAya followers. Based on

these two we can build-up our understanding.

 

If you or Ranjeetji can understand the BhAshyAs directly without external

help,

well and good.

 

bhaskar:

 

No prabhuji I never said I am directly understanding shankara bhAshya

through some printed & translation versions. I've been telling whatever

little knowledge I've in advaita is prasAdam of my parama guruji sri

sachidAnandEndra Saraswati swamiji & personal upadEsha from his direct

desciples.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

However, I can't. That is why I relied on external sources in my lead post

and subsequently.

 

bhaskar:

 

Relying on external sources is OK I am not denying it. But those sources &

understanding of it should be adequately backed by original quotes from

shankara is it not prabhuji?? This is what I've been insisting in this list

& that is what miserably lacking in our discussion on shankara siddhAnta.

prabhuji, dont you think plainly saying *I dont need quotes* is a brave

assertion, when discussing shankara siddhAnta??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to share my thoughts on this subject:

 

 

Rope and Snake both have a name and form. One is real (let us

assume), and the other is illusory.

 

The thoughts of either the rope, or the snake - from the standpoint

of JivaBrahman - are entirely dependant on the object. Thoughts do

not arise with out a sustaining object.

 

For example I can think of a Railway station, or I can think of Eifel

Tower - they are all objects and existing in my universe. Say

someone told me that the Railway Station is always occupied with

Pickpockets. Then the moment I enter in to that Railwaystation I

keep constantly checking my pockets with deep suspicion.

 

The object called Railway station, in its pure form, never gave me

trouble. The thought about the object Railway Station started giving

me trouble once I started superimposing another thought of

pickpocketing with Railwaystation.

 

Before continuing further my points so far are:

 

1. Each and every thought require an object. (eg. you say you are

angry... I will ask - angry on "whom"?. you say you want... I will

ask "what" do you want?!...) with out object there is no question of

thought...

 

2. Every thought that arises in me is getting superimposed with my

own inner ideas towards it. I never think of any object with out

superimposing something towards it. (eg. I am told an object is

called Rope, I am also told an object which looks like rope but has

life in it is snake.. Both rope and snake came in to my cognition

only after I started knowing them)

 

 

CONTINUING FURTHER:

 

3. When it comes to vyavaharika level you have to show a

distinction. We are told that there are great realized masters

livingin Himalayas, but why do we get to know only those who come out

in public and speak?! It is because of the communication. In order

to communicate we use structured language. So for Shankara to

point "Idam" as Jeeva is, in my opinion, purely for communication.

 

4. Brahman before knowing the Rope or Snake - is just the knower

(with out any thing known yet). That is Adah. Brahman after knowing

the Rope and Snake (eventhough *both* are of nature illusion) has

become "idam".

 

Who is knowing? - Brahman (adah)

What is known? - Brahman alone is known [idam]

 

Because of the illusory nature of objects - yad drusyam tat nasyam -

what ever is visible is bound to become invisible.

 

Who ever is knowing - will know that - what ever he is knowing is

nothing but himself - what ever is appearing is nothing but his own

creation.

 

Knower alone is real (Brahman) and all objects (including Krishna as

well as Kamsa) are nothing but the knower. With out the knower

nothing exists, when he (knower/brahman) exists everything else

esists. With out him nothing is known, with him everything is

known.

 

 

Regards,

Madhava

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskarji.

>

> Granting permission to post, on request or otherwise, is

> participation. Anyway, that is immaterial to the issue we are

> discusing here.

>

> We all need Sankara BhashyAs. But, we need correct interpretations

> for them too. It is on the latter we are debating. If you or

> Ranjeetji can understand the BhAshyAs directly without external

help,

> well and good. However, I can't. That is why I relied on external

> sources in my lead post and subsequently.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________

>

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

> >

> > Good to see that `self-exiled' Ranjeetji is still interested in

the

> > proceedings of this `worldly' forum that hampers upAsana and is

> > participating by proxy!

> >

> > praNAm prabhuji

> > Hare Krishna

> >

> > prabhuji, please note it is on my special request only he has

> agreed to

> > post his mesg. to the list. It is not that he is willing to

> *participate*

> > in the forum indirectly through proxy. We were discussing this

> topic off

> > the list based on *shankara bhAshya* & he clarified his stand

that

> idam is

> > jIva again based on * shankara bhAshya* on bruhadAraNyaka maNtra

1-

> 4-10.

> > You may not need quotes to prove that his stand is inadvaitic.

But

> being

> > a true shankara siddhAnta follower, we certainly need

> bhagavadpAdA's quotes

> > to substantiate our claims prabhuji.

> >

> > This is just for your kind information prabhuji.

> >

> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> > bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

About the difference of opinion between us two, we already mutually

agreed to disagree. So, let us leave it there.

 

The external sources I relied on claim to represent Sankara's

teachings like the ones you claim to follow. To me, they are most

satisfying.

 

As for Ranjeetji, his later understanding is something that occurred

on reflection on a translation while jogging (as he himself has

admitted). I should, therefore, believe that it is his personal

explanation. It is to refute such explanation that I said I don't

need any quotes (not to refute any Sankara siddhA) because, to me,

it appeared basically inadvaitic for the reasons listed in my

previous post.

 

I do not know the teacher with whose translation Ranjeetji believes

there is flaw. Since that translation has been referred to by him,

I should imagine that the translator is of some standing and,

therefore, at a level much above me at least.

 

All said and done, may I humbly point out that Ranjeetji's new

understanding appears to be still different from what you have been

maintaining. Well, if at all I am right, that is something you both

have to sort out directly.

 

Once again, thanks for your contributions. I respect your viewpoint.

 

PraNAms

 

Madathil Nair

 

_________________________

 

In advaitin, Bhaskarji said:

>

> Relying on external sources is OK I am not denying it. But those

sources &

> understanding of it should be adequately backed by original quotes

from

> shankara is it not prabhuji?? This is what I've been insisting in

this list

> & that is what miserably lacking in our discussion on shankara

siddhAnta.

> prabhuji, dont you think plainly saying *I dont need quotes* is a

brave

> assertion, when discussing shankara siddhAnta??

[Guest guest]

All said and done, may I humbly point out that Ranjeetji's new

understanding appears to be still different from what you have been

maintaining. Well, if at all I am right, that is something you both

have to sort out directly.

 

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes prabhuji, I do agree that his stand is something different from that of

mine & this is what we are going to discuss off the list coming days based

on shankara bhAshya & sureshwara's vArtika-s. Nevertheless, right now, I

should admit that he has a point here, since shankara himself equated jIva

with brahman at various places in his works. While commenting on tattu

samanvayAt sUtra shankara says the individual self / jIva after the dawn of

intution will become that Atman free from the evils of sin etc. ..Apart

from this, those famous sayings already there i.e. jIvO brahmaiva na

paraH, ahaM brahmAsmi etc. to support his claim. Anyway I am still

searching where shankara says jagat brahmaiva na paraH :-))

 

Yes, as far as pUrNamidam thread in this list is concerned, we both agree

to disagree & agreed to discontinue the discussion....but still I feel

there is an ample scope of further discussion with Sri Ranjeet prabhuji,

since he too holding shankara bhAshya & quoting shankara bhAshya to justify

his stand. As you said, we will try to sort out this difference directly

off the list.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar