pUrNamadah pUrNamidam revisited (April 04 topic) - An epilogue

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The following is excerpted from "How to recognize the method of

Vedanta" (pp 34-35)by Sw. Satchidanandendra Saraswatiji published by

Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holensrsipur, Hassan Dist., Karnataka,

India (1995) and gifted to me by none other than our own Shri

Bhaskarji.

 

It one stroke, it proves that (1) the Universe is verily Brahman

misunderstood, (2) the idam of pUrNamidam is the idam sarvam viSvam

and (3) Swamiji didn't consider this world to be a `figment of

imagination' as made out here by those who derive inspiration from

him.

 

 

QUOTE

 

Thus in the ChAndOgya, after positing Being or Brahman as the cause

of Fire, Water and Earth – the primordial elements which produce the

world – Uddalaka concludes:

 

"Through the off-shoot of food (the Earth), my dear son, seek out the

root Water, through the off-shoot of Water, my dear son, seek out the

root Fire, and through the off-shoot of Fire, my dear son, seek out

the Real. All these creatures, my dear son, have Sat (Being or

Brahman) for their source, the Sat for their abode, the Sat for their

dissolving goal." (Ch. 6-8-4). That is to say, there is nothing

that is not born from Brahman, that does not subsist in Brahman, that

is not finally dissolved in It. So then the substance of all things

created is Brahman only. Accordingly, Uddalaka in this Upanishad,

reiterates this one statement at every step of his

teaching "AitadAtmyam Idam Sarvam Tat Satyam Sa AtmA Tat Twamisi

SwetaketO". That is why too he illustrates what he means by citing

clay etc., where he emphasizes that the material cause such as clay

alone is real while its effect is unreal, its name being a mere play

of words – vAcArambhaNam. That what is meant to be proved is

the `unreality' of the so-called effect as distinct from the cause or

rather the `sole reality' of the cause as the `substance' of its

effects, is evident from texts like the one already quoted from the

ChAndOgya.

 

yadagne rOhitam rUpam tejasastadrUpam yacCuklam tadapAm yatkriSNam

tadannasyApAgAdagneragnitvam vAcArambhaNam vikArO nAmadheyam trINi

rUpANItyeva satyam (Ch. 6-4-1)

 

It is clear that fire, product of the original non-tripartite bhUtAs

after being mentally resolved into the original factors is here

stated to become `no fire' (ApAgAt agneragnitvam), modification

being only a name arising from words, and the three colours alone

being real. Accordingly, Sankara explains "Before the dawn of the

discriminating knowledge of the three colours, you entertained the

notion that it was fire; that notion of fire as well as the name

fire, has now gone away." We thus see that the narration of creation

was intended only to show that *the world as an effect is merely a

name `constructed by speech' and that essentially is nothing other

than Brahman*. This interpretation is quite in consonance with

BadarAyaNA's Sutra: "It is not other than the cause, as can be seen

from the texts like the one teaching ArambhaNa, the construction (of

the effect) by speech" (VS 2-1-14).

 

Of course, Sankara never meant to say that pots and other

modifications of clay are not there when we see and use them for

practical purposes, or that our senses deceive us when they report

that there are such objective existences. But nobody would venture

to assert that these so-called modifications are distinct from clay

and have reality of their own apart from that of clay of which they

are different forms. From this point of view, then, *the world we

see is no `baseless illusion' for it has for its basis the original

Being (Sat) or Brahman with which it is essentially one (AitadAtmyam

Idam Sarvam)*. And we shall never be doing injustice to the

*essential reality* of the world when we declare with Angiras of the

Mundaka:

 

*"All this spread out before us, behind, to the right and to the

left, above and below, is but the immortal Brahman, all this universe

is the Supreme Brahman". Mu.2-2-1*

 

As Sankara sums up, "The notion of non-Brahman is merely avidyA just

like the notion of a serpent in a rope, Brahman alone being the

Highest Reality. Such is the teaching of the VEdAs."

 

UNQUOTE

 

(Asterisks mine to lay stress. Words within quotation marks are in

italics in the original)

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

praNAms to Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Earlier, I said pUrNamidam is a closed chapter for me, but now,

*selective quotes* of Sri Nair prabhuji, from the works of my beloved

master Sri Swamiji, forcing me to jump into the thread once again for a

short while.

 

MN prabhuji :

 

The following is excerpted from "How to recognize the method of

Vedanta" (pp 34-35)by Sw. Satchidanandendra Saraswatiji published by

Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holensrsipur,

 

bhaskar :

 

I'm not able to understand prabhuji, what makes you to take such a big

leap ( from page No. 1 to 33) to justify your claim that swamiji is also

upholding your pUrNamidaM interpretation. I believe before quoting page 34

you must have read the first 33 pages, wherein swamiji dealt with the

difficulties in recognising the authentic method adopted by shruti texts in

advocating atmaikatva vAda. Perhaps, you might have read swamiji's

detailed explanation of adhyArOpa apavAda, an unique method adopted by

shruti-s & shankara's emphazisation to follow this method in understanding

shruti purports (pls. refer swamji's quotes from gIta bhAshya & shankara's

commentary on these verses..page 27-28?? ). No need to mention, it is

in this light we have to understand shankara bhAshya. prabhuji, the

chAndOgya & mundaka shruti quotes which you've conveninently picked from

swamiji's book is just the refutation of kArya's independent existence from

kAraNa like sAnkhya theory. So, the context here is refutation of duality

in kAraNa - kArya ( cause & effect ) in creation. It does not anyway mean

that kArya which is nAma rUpAtmaka is ultimate reality & on par with

kAraNAtIta parabrahman. Moreover, I failed to understand how pUrNamadaH

mantra comes into picture here in an entirely different context. Shruti

adopts various methods to teach us the pramANAtIta nirguNa, niravayava

parabrahma svarUpa, the kAraNa-kArna prakriya is one of those. Please

note when shruti says yetad jnEyam nitya mEvAtma saMstham, narAyaNam

mahAjnEyam etc. shruti's intention is not to propagate the objectivity of

brahman, it simply trying to convey parabrahman is also jnEya vastu since

we are cognising the objective world & holding its reality as ultimate.

Shruti's final verdict is quite clear that parabrahman is not pramEya vastu

like nAmarUpAtmaka jagat & these sentences should be understood

contextually holding mUla siddhAnta as the basic premise.

 

Finally, what you've quoted can be accepted from the vyAvahArika, loukika

drushti or jnAni's bhAdita drushti of jagat. But from shAstra drushti

based on sAkshi view point, jagat satyatya is mere avidyA kalpita mithyA

jnAna.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

(3) Swamiji didn't consider this world to be a `figment of

imagination' as made out here by those who derive inspiration from

him.

 

bhaskar :

 

BTW, I've not said this prabhuji, I said prakruti is avidyA kalpita mAya

based on shankara's sUtra bhAshya *avidyAkalipita nAma rUpe* etc. in

2-1-14. Please see shankara bhAshya for further details.

 

Moreover, inspite of repeated reminders :-)) about avastha traya & its

validity in determining jagat satyatva, it has been conveniently sidelined

....this deliberate omission is really surprising.

 

More on jagat kArya & brahman kAraNatva later based on shankara's sUtra

bhAshya, kArika & kArikA bhAshya & swamiji's elucidation on these works.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain,

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

My comments are in parantheses .

> I'm not able to understand prabhuji, what makes you to take such a

big

> leap ( from page No. 1 to 33) to justify your claim that swamiji is

also

> upholding your pUrNamidaM interpretation.

 

[i couldn't have quoted the whole book. Could I? Only the relevant

passages matter. In those passages, Swamiji has categorically stood

with Angiras of Mundaka.]

> I believe before quoting page 34

> you must have read the first 33 pages, wherein swamiji dealt with

the

> difficulties in recognising the authentic method adopted by shruti

texts in

> advocating atmaikatva vAda. Perhaps, you might have read swamiji's

> detailed explanation of adhyArOpa apavAda, an unique method adopted

by

> shruti-s & shankara's emphazisation to follow this method in

understanding

> shruti purports (pls. refer swamji's quotes from gIta bhAshya &

shankara's

> commentary on these verses..page 27-28?? ).

 

[i read the whole book several times. Swamiji has given brilliant

guidance all through. (I recommend the book to all our dear Members

here. He is a great teacher to not you alone but all aspiring

advaitins!) That doesn't mean that he didn't say what I quoted

relevantly from him.]

 

No need to mention, it is

> in this light we have to understand shankara bhAshya. prabhuji, the

> chAndOgya & mundaka shruti quotes which you've conveninently picked

from

> swamiji's book is just the refutation of kArya's independent

existence from

> kAraNa like sAnkhya theory. So, the context here is refutation of

duality

> in kAraNa - kArya ( cause & effect ) in creation. It does not

anyway mean

> that kArya which is nAma rUpAtmaka is ultimate reality & on par with

> kAraNAtIta parabrahman.

 

[Yes. It is the refutation of the effect's independent existence

apart from the cause. That is why the mudpots from mud example is

used. Cloth from cotton is another example. Swamiji's conclusion

that the effect (universe) is essentially Brahman is relevant to us

here and to the pUrNamidam discussion. If you are not satisfied and

want Sankara himself with the word jagat, which you claim he has

never mentioned anywhere, please consider this:

 

ghatakundyAdikam sarvam

mrittikAmAtramEva ca

trdvadbrahma jagatsarvam

Iti vEdAntadindimah

(Pots, mudwall etc. are in essence nothing but the mud in which they

have been shaped! So too, the entire world of phenomenal objects is

nothing but the Supreme Brahman.)

(Ref: Verse # 17 of Sankara's Brahma JnAnAvali)

 

Will you say that too is irrelevant to pUrNamidam!? Or, will you say

the authorship of Brahma JnAnAvali is doubtful!?]

 

>Moreover, I failed to understand how pUrNamadaH

> mantra comes into picture here in an entirely different context.

Shruti

> adopts various methods to teach us the pramANAtIta nirguNa,

niravayava

> parabrahma svarUpa, the kAraNa-kArna prakriya is one of those.

Please

> note when shruti says yetad jnEyam nitya mEvAtma saMstham, narAyaNam

> mahAjnEyam etc. shruti's intention is not to propagate the

objectivity of

> brahman, it simply trying to convey parabrahman is also jnEya vastu

since

> we are cognising the objective world & holding its reality as

ultimate.

> Shruti's final verdict is quite clear that parabrahman is not

pramEya vastu

> like nAmarUpAtmaka jagat & these sentences should be understood

> contextually holding mUla siddhAnta as the basic premise.

 

[There can't be anything called pUrNAtita! Because Fullness has no

beyonds. PUrNaM is Brahman. You can't go beyond that! Shruti tells me

that I am that Brahman and the world that I see too is. There is

nothing other than Brahman - not even an illusion - not to speak of

the anityavastUs you are so very much bothered about. Understanding

this unity and knowing that I am that Unity (Fullness)and all the

things that I see really abide in me and spring froth from me is

advaita. (That takes us to your avastAtraya!). NityAnitya viveka

consists in understanding the transcience of what is seen and

assimilating it into our essential Fullness - which is nityA. If

that nityA is Fullness, then there is no scope for parts. My feeling

that I am a part and the things I see are parts is, therefore, the

basic error - adhyAsa. Advaita means to correct that error. It

doesn't ask us to close our eyes and simply repeat that "I am the

apramEya vastu, to hell with all that I see around me".]

>

> Finally, what you've quoted can be accepted from the vyAvahArika,

loukika

> drushti or jnAni's bhAdita drushti of jagat. But from shAstra

drushti

> based on sAkshi view point, jagat satyatya is mere avidyA kalpita

mithyA

> jnAna.

 

[i am discussing with people in the vyAvahArika. Swamiji too was!

JnAni has no drushti - not to speak of a bhAdita drushti. When I am

all, what do I need a drushti for!?]

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> (3) Swamiji didn't consider this world to be a `figment of

> imagination' as made out here by those who derive inspiration from

> him.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> BTW, I've not said this prabhuji, I said prakruti is avidyA kalpita

mAya

> based on shankara's sUtra bhAshya *avidyAkalipita nAma rUpe* etc. in

> 2-1-14. Please see shankara bhAshya for further details.

 

[You used that expression. Please re-read your posts.]

>

> Moreover, inspite of repeated reminders :-)) about avastha traya &

its

> validity in determining jagat satyatva, it has been conveniently

sidelined

> ...this deliberate omission is really surprising.

>

> More on jagat kArya & brahman kAraNatva later based on shankara's

sUtra

> bhAshya, kArika & kArikA bhAshya & swamiji's elucidation on these

works.

 

[My quotes of Swamiji are very clear and speak for themselves. If you

say that he said something to the contrary somewhere else, you are

only accusing him of holding two different opinions. I haven't read

those other works of Swamiji. Although I would love to do so, I

don't quite know where to get them. Perhaps, you can help me access

them when I am in Bangalore next month. Yes, avastAtraya establishes

the anitya nature of what is experienced. I had quoted from

Sankara's DakshiNAmUrti stOtram before where he likens this samsAra

that we experience to a tree sprouting forth from the seed, where the

seed is the cause and the tree the effect. That the seed is

essentially the tree, like mud or cotton is essentially pots or

cloth, is the point to be understood here. Similarly, tuRIyA is the

substratum that pervades and sustains the three avastAs like gold

sustains and pervades gold ornaments. You won't say gold ornaments

are not gold. Will you? The three avastAs are therefore

vAcArambhaNam and essentially turIya. If not, we would be

constructing a parallel independent reality in avastAtraya. That

simply cannot be advaita. Is that enough on the avastAtraya front?]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

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

> Namaste Bhaskarji.

>

> praNAms Sri Madathil Nair Prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

 

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

An epilogue is the prerogative of the chief discussant, so

kindly do not extend the thread.

 

You had volunteered for the topic: Adhyaropavada in

Advaita Siddhanta. Please let the moderators know when you will be

ready for the presentation.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly pardon me for stretching this thread too long causing digression

from the month's main topic mAya in vEda-s. Henceforth, I'd refrain myself

from posting on this thread.

 

prabhuji, adhyArOpApavAda prakriya can be taken for discussion during

sometime in the last quarter of the year.

 

To Sri Ken Knight prabhuji:

 

I'd like to know *mAya* as explained in shankara's advaita siddhAnta.

Kindly share your thoughts on this topic.

 

To Sri Nair prabhuji,

 

Kindly let me know if you are interested to continue this discussion off

the list. I'd like to continue this discussion since you are holding my

master's work to clarify your stand. That really makes our discussion very

interesting.

 

Humble praNAms

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

 

We will better meet in Bangalore - the second week of July. As I am

packing off for the holiday, I may not find the required time and

mental vigour to fathom your invaluable quotes in Sanskrit. Please

resend your telephone numbers off list. I seem to have lost the

information you gave me last year.

 

I would also like to see more of Swamiji's works. You are the best

guide in that respect. With that one book I read, Swamiji is my

master too. Please, therefore, refer to him as 'our master'.

 

Dear Sunderji, depending on the outcome of future offlist discussions

between Bhaskar Prabhuji and me, may I reserve the privilege of

sending a synopsis to the List some time later before the year end?

 

Please take care.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

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

>

> Kindly let me know if you are interested to continue this

discussion off

> the list. I'd like to continue this discussion since you are

holding my

> master's work to clarify your stand. That really makes our

discussion very

> interesting.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

 

As the chief discussant and a moderator, you would

certainly be entitled to exercise that option.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

depending on the outcome of future offlist discussions

> between Bhaskar Prabhuji and me, may I reserve the privilege of

> sending a synopsis to the List some time later before the year end?

>

> ______________________

>

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

> >

> > Kindly let me know if you are interested to continue this

> discussion off

> > the list.