Series by Chittaranjanji - Ranjeet Shankar Essay/Purnamidam...

[Guest guest]

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

>

> While on the subject, I'd like to draw your kind attention to the

Ranjeet

> prabhuji's mail dtd. 17th June'04 on pUrNamidam mantra, the subject

> heading is sha~Nkara-smRRiti .. wherein Ranjeet prabhuji elaborately

> discussed the topic *jagan mithyatva* in shankara siddhAnta.

 

Namaste,

 

Ranjeetji had posted this essay on June 17th, and the

Moderators had requested to delay it until Nairji returned, and

Chittarajnaji completed the series. With both conditions fulfilled,

Moderators wish to thank Ranjeetji for his patience, and we are

pleased to post the essay now, with Bhaskarji's reference serving us

well as a reminder.

 

List Moderators

 

 

 

|| OM shrI gurubhyo namaH hariH OM ||

 

gururbrahmA gururvviShNuH gururddevo maheshvaraH

guruH sAkShAt paraM brahma tasmai shrI gurave namaH ||

sadAshiva samAraMbhAM sha~NkarAchArya maddhyamAM

asmadAchArya paryantAM vande guruparamparA ||

 

A Commentary of shri sha~Nkara's bhAshyam on the 'pUrNamadaH' mantra

----

Introduction

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

The commentary presented below is an attempt to understand shri

sha~Nkara's

stance on the pUrNamadaH mantra. This mantra appears in bRRIhadAraNyaka

upaniShat verse 5-1-1 and shri sha~Nkara has given out a readable but

terse

interpretation of the same in his bRRIhadAraNyaka bhAshyam. While going

through His work, we will come to understand that He had selected every

single word with the utmost care so as to bring out what He had in mind.

There is no doubt that a superficial reading of His bhAshyam would

certainly

give out different views on His stance. Various interpretations on this

mantra can be found even within the advaitic circles. This work is not

meant

for ridiculing any of those interpretations or the great souls who had

come

forth with those interpretations. The main purpose of this work is only to

try to understand the mantra as explained by shri sha~Nkara.

The text from the bRRIhadAraNyaka bhAshyam is from the English translation

by swAmi mAdavandanda. However, the translator's own views which he

had put

in brackets, have been removed. The rest of the texts are from swAmi

gambhIrAnanda's translation works. Also, the view of

bhartRRIprapa~ncha and

shri sha~Nkara's rebuttals of the same is not included extensively in this

work. The same style of writing as shri sha~Nkara had followed in His

bhAshyam-s has been followed here, i.e. opponent's views are presented as

objections followed by replies/clarifications. This will be useful for the

reader for following the course of argument clearly. I request the

reader to

go through the entire work patiently and give valuable corrections and

feedback. I thank shri bhAskar prabhuji for his valuable suggestions and

also for his help in finding out the relevant quotes from shruti and

sha~NkarabhAshyam.

Rather than seeing this work as drawing a line between right and wrong

interpretations, readers are requested to see it as a call to return

to the

traditional teachings of shri sha~NkarabhagavatpAda.

 

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

 

OM | pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM pUrNAtpUrNamudachyate |

pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamevAvashiShyate ||

 

Translation:

OM. That is infinite; this is infinite; the infinite proceeds from the

infinite.

Taking the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as the infinite alone.

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" The supplement to the upaniShat is being introduced with the words,

'That

is infinite', etc. That brahman which is immediate and direct, the

Self that

is within all, unconditioned, beyond hunger etc., and is described as 'Not

this, not this', and the realization of which is the sole means of

immortality, has been presented in the last four chapters. Now certain

meditations, not mentioned before, of that same Self as conditioned and

coming within the scope of words, their meanings, and so on - meditations

that do not clash with rites, lead to great prosperity, and take one

through

a gradual process of liberation, have to be mentioned; hence the present

chapter. It is also the intention of the shruti to enjoin the

meditation on

OM as forming a part of all other meditations, and the practice of

self-control, charity and compassion. "

 

Commentary:

The passage above is the introduction which shri sha~Nkara gives to khilA

kAnda of bRRIhadAraNyaka upaniShat. How this introduction is related

to the

pUrNamadaH-mantra is not given in this portion. shri sha~Nkara

explains this

only after the detailed explanation of the pUrNamadaH-mantra. We believe

that our explanation is also appropriate at that stage. So we will

leave it

as such for the moment and continue with His bhAShyam.

 

Objection:

Is this a genuine reason or a lame excuse for skipping this part?

Don't you

have anything to say about the relationship between the various

meditations

in the khilA kAnda and this mantra? Why don't you give out your own

opinion?

 

Reply:

No. We don't have anything to say on this matter. Even if we had an

opinion,

this is not the platform to express it. This commentary is only an

exegesis

to the masterpiece work of shri sha~NkarabhagavatpAda. The purpose of this

work is not to gain currency for our own views anywhere. Our main

objective

is to plant a seed of inspiration in the minds of the followers of advaita

so that they take up the original teachings of the great shri Adi

sha~Nkara

himself. So we will only try to elucidate the meaning of His words to the

best of our ability so that everyone will be benefited from His teachings.

 

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" That is infinite(pUrNamadaH), not limited by anything, i.e.,

all-pervading.The suffix 'kta' in the word 'pUrNa' has a subjective

force.'That'(adaH) is a pronoun denoting something remote; it means the

supreme brahman. It is complete, all-pervading like the ether, without a

break, and unconditioned. "

 

 

Commentary:

In vedAnta, words such as 'adaH', 'tat' etc, denotes the supreme brahman.

The most famous example for 'tat' is the mahAvyAkA - 'tat tvam asi'.

Brahman

is not something which can be captured by words.

 

shruti tells us,

Ta.Up-2-4-1:

' yato vAcho nivartante | aprApya manasA saha || '

[ Words along with mind turn back, failing to reach that. ]

 

 

Ke.Up-1-3:

' na tatra chakShurgachChati na vAggachChati no manaH |

na vidmo na vijAnImo yathaitadanushiShthAt || '

[ The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know (brahman

to be such and such); hence, we are not aware of any process of

interacting

about it. ]

 

 

Even then, the ancient sages through the vedic mantra-s, have tried their

best to convey the subtle teachings about reality which they had

experienced. Even using words like 'tat' or 'adaH' is just a

compromise from

the part of the sages so as to help the seeker to get a glimpse of that

supreme truth. Brahman can only be expressed as 'Not this, not this'.

 

In this regard, we have the bRRIhadAraNyaka shruti,

' athAta AdeshaH - neti neti , na hyetasmAditi netyanyatparamasti ' -

Br.Up-2-3-6

[Now therefore the description: 'Not this, not this'. Because there is no

other and more appropriate description than this 'Not this'.]

 

In His bhAshyam for this mantra, shri sha~Nkara says,

" brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed

on It,

in such terms as 'Knowledge, Bliss, brahman', and 'Pure Intelligence',

'brahman', and 'Atman'. When, however, we wish to describe Its true

nature,

free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an utter

impossibility. Then, there is only one way left, viz to describe It as

'Not

this, not this', by eliminating all possible specifications of It that

have

been known. "

 

So 'adah' in this mantra is to be understood as denoting the supreme

brahman, unconditioned, all-pervading and homogenous like a lump of salt.

 

Objection:

How can 'adaH' denote something which is all-pervading and unconditioned?

'That'(adaH) can only be expressed when there is something which is

different from 'adaH', say 'This'(idam). If you say that brahman is

all-pervading, then it will also be present in 'idam'. In that case,

how is

'adaH' different from 'idam' that you can express it as such? Also, if

'adaH' denotes something remote, then that 'adaH' which is at the

moment at

some remote place is not present at the place from which it is expressed.

This will run against your view that brahman is all-pervading. There

is one

more flaw in your statement. How can something which is present in some

place at some point of time be unconditioned? It is in fact limited by

time

and space when it is expressed as 'adaH'. For example, when we say 'A

pot is

there at the corner of the room', the pot is limited by space(the

corner of

the room) and time(the moment at which it is present). Also, by using the

word 'adaH', you are objectifying brahman. So any way you look at it, your

views are wrong and they in fact defy logic!

 

Reply:

We have already said that it is difficult to express brahman with words.

There are many words in the veda-s which try to objectify brahman. Brahman

is spoken of as 'Pure Intelligence' (Br.Up-2-4-12), 'Truth', 'Knowledge',

'Bliss' (Ta.Up-2-1-1, Br.Up-3-9-28) and so forth in many places. If your

kind of logic is applied to these verses, then the whole veda-s will

become

a collection of absurdities. We also said that brahman can only be

expressed

as 'Not this, not this'. In this mantra, Brahman is denoted by 'That'

(adaH)

because relatively it is a goal for the seeker. It is like saying,

'Hey, the

brahman which you are seeking, the all-pervading reality, 'THAT' is

infinite

in nature!'. The dry logic applied to empirical objects should not be

applied to the vedic mantra-s.

 

Commenting on Br.Su-2-1-6, shri sha~Nkara says,

" Empty logic cannot find any scope here; for logic conforming to the

upaniShat-s is alone resorted to here as a subsidiary means to helping

realization. "

 

Again in Br.Su.Bh-2-1-11, He says,

" For this reason, one should not on the strength of mere logic challenge

something that has to be known from the veda-s. For reasoning, that has no

vedic foundation and which springs from the mere imagination of persons,

lacks conclusiveness. For man's conjecture has no limits. "

 

 

Objection:

But you give contradictory statements. How can you say that 'adaH' is

supreme brahman and in the same breath continue that it is something

remote?

You yourself say that brahman is the Self within all. How can something

which is within all be remote also? Don't you see the contradiction? For

example, one may sit on top of Mount kailAs and say 'kAshI is there.'

Sitting on top of kailAs, will he ever say 'Mount kailAs is there.'? So

either accept 'adaH' as something other than brahman or accept that

brahman

is not the Self within all.

 

Reply:

No. We don't accept any of these. Even though brahman is the Self within

all, it is not known as such, in its true nature, to the ignorant. The

ignorant thinks that brahman is something which is far away from him.

Haven't you heard people saying that the whole spiritual path is a

'journey'?

 

Haven't you heard the shruti,

' kShurasya dhArA nishitA duratyayA

durgaM pathastatkavayo vadanti || ' - Ka.Up-1-3-14

[ The wise ones describe that path to be as impassable as a razor's edge,

which when sharpened, is difficult to tread on.]

 

 

Objection:

Do you mean to say that this mantra is only for the ignorant?

 

Reply:

Yes. In fact all the mantra-s are so. All empirical and vedic activities

have an ignorant as the locus of cognition. Without the notion of being a

subject capable of action and experience, there cannot be any commencement

of any kind of action in any spheres (Bh.Su.Bh-intro). This notion of

being

a subject itself stems from ignorance of the true nature of the Self which

is indeed actionless, pure and without any parts. The veda-s are

veda-s only

for the ignorant. For the one who has known the Truth, the veda-s serve no

purpose.

 

In this regard, we have the shruti,

' atra pitApitA bhavati , mAtAmAtA , lokA alokAH , devA adevAH , vedA

avedAH

| ' - Br.Up-4-3-22

[ In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no

worlds,

the gods no gods, the veda-s no veda-s. ]

 

We even have the smRRIti ,

' yAvAnartha udapAne sarvataH saMplutodake |

tAvAnsarveShu vedeShu brAhmaNasya vijAnataH || ' - Gita-2-46

[ A brahmaNa with realization has that much utility in all the veda-s as a

man has in a well when there is a flood all around. ]

 

 

Objection:

So what about the RRIShi-s to whom the veda-s are revealed and who

gave the

veda-s to the world? According to your theory, either they are ignorant

masses preaching the veda-s to the world, or they are insane since

they are

preaching something which they themselves consider useless! If you

stick to

your views, you will have to accept either of these two, both of which are

equally absurd.

 

Reply:

Not so. It is true that the veda-s are in the realm of ignorance. Also

it is

true that they are of no use to the realized soul. But even after

realization, the realized soul will continue all the actions which he was

doing so far (before the rise of knowledge), just like a wheel set in

motion

by a potter will continue to rotate till the momentum is there. Even

though

he doesn't have anything to do with the actions or the results of actions,

he will continue as if engaged in action for the welfare of the world.

This

is the only logical way of seeing it in the empirical sense, or else it

would be that at the time of realization the physical body also will fall.

This will mean that realization is death! Also, if this is not

admitted how

will you explain the existence of a 'brahmaniShThan'? So this mantra

positioned in the empirical sense admits a kind of duality in order to

teach

us the ultimate truth of non-duality. We will be seeing how this is so in

more detail below.

 

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" So also is this (idaM) conditioned brahman, manifesting through name and

form and coming within the scope of relativity, infinite (pUrNam) or

all-pervading indeed in its real form as the supreme Self, not in its

differentiated form circumscribed by the limiting adjuncts. This

differentiated brahman, the effect (pUrNam), proceeds or

emanates(udachyate)

from the infinite (pUrNAt), or brahman as cause."

 

 

Commentary:

It is said, 'idam is pUrNam'. What is this 'idam'? We will explain

this now.

 

Objection:

How is this possible? How can two infinite-s co-exist? How can two

different

things be all-pervading at the same time? You said that 'adaH' is

infinite.

Now you say 'idam' is also infinite. Since the two are different as 'adaH'

and 'idam', they should be mutually absent in each other. If they are

mutually absent in each other, they are not all-pervading.

 

Reply:

What if we were to say that the same thing is said as 'adaH' and 'idam'

here? Won't that answer your objection?

 

Objection:

No. That too is impossible. They cannot be the same since you yourself

have

said that 'adaH' is unconditioned brahman and 'idam' is conditioned

brahman.

Are you going to change your stance now? Also, the mantra speaks of a

cause-effect relationship between 'adaH' and 'idam'. How can the cause and

effect be the same? Suppose, a lump of clay is molded into a pot. Now the

lump of clay is not present anymore. Only the pot remains. If you

break that

pot into pieces, the pot is absent and the pieces remains. So how can you

prove that the cause and the effect co-exist? So if at all 'adaH' means

brahman, 'idam'-the effect coming out of it would be something

different and

not the same. Also, how can you explain brahman to be the cause of

something

if you hold on your view that brahman is changeless?

 

Reply:

We are not going to change our stance. In fact, we will show why our

view is

the correct one. The difference in 'adaH' and 'idam' which you talk

of, can

only occur if the effect is taken as real in the absolute sense. We do not

say that. Neither do we say the changeless brahman gets into a

cause-effect

relation. The effect spoken of here is only a modification of name, a

suggestion of speech. It is just an illusion of name and form, which

is mAyA

born out of ignorance. Brahman doesn't undergo any change whatsoever. Only

the names and forms change. The differentiation is unreal. Even in the

example you quoted, the clay remains as such in all the states, in

whichever

mould you treat it. It is the same in the lump, pot, vessel or the pieces.

It is changeless. This is the case with brahman also. It remains

unchanged.

 

Haven't you heard the shruti from chAndogya,

' yathA somyaikena mRRItpiNDena sarvaM mRRInmayaM vij~nAta{\m+}

syAdvAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mRRIttiketyeva satyam || ' -

Ch.Up-6-1-4

 

[ O good looking one, as by knowing a lump of clay, all things made of

clay

become known: All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name

only. Clay as such is the reality. ]

 

Referring to this mantra, shri sha~Nkara says in Br.Su.Bh-2-1-14,

" A modification, e.g. a pot, plate, or jar, etc. originates from speech

alone that makes it current by announcing. 'It exists'. But speaking from

the standpoint of the basic substance, no modification exists as such. It

has existence only in name and it is unreal. As clay alone it is real. "

 

 

Objection:

By saying this, you are throwing away all the veda-s out of the window!

Brahman as the cause of the world is being explained in various ways

in the

veda-s. Are you saying that veda-s are teaching false doctrines, that they

are mere books which explain some illusion tricks?

 

Reply:

If the creation theories explained in the veda-s were indeed about a

creation in the real sense, why would they be teaching us different

things?

Why don't they teach a single theory of creation?

 

Objection:

You too teach the creation theories in the veda-s. So you are also subject

to the same error!

 

Reply:

No. There is a difference. It is true that we objected to your view that

there is some real creation in this world. Then, according to your view,

only one theory will be right and the others will be wrong. We do not say

that. We say that there is no real creation taking place here.On the other

hand, we do not set aside the creation theories as useless either. We

maintain that those texts have a specific purpose of proclaiming the unity

and sole reality of the cause, which is brahman.

 

shri sha~Nkara, commenting on Br.Up-1-4-7 says,

" The passages delineating the projection of the universe and the entrance

of the Self into it as well as its continuance and dissolution, serve only

as aids to the realization of the Self, for this is described in the

shruti

as the highest end of man. [....] Besides, since duality has been

repudiated, the passages delineating the manifestation etc. of the

universe

can have the sole aim of helping the realization of the unity of the

Self. "

 

On Br.Su-1-4-14, He comments,

" Besides, we can understand that when the upaniShat speaks of the

forms of

manifestation etc. in extenso, the intention is to declare the

non-difference of the effect from the cause, with the help of such

illustrations as clay. "

 

On Ga.Ka-3-23, He comments,

" All talks of creation, in the primary or secondary sense, relate only to

creation through ignorance, and not to creation in reality. "

 

On Ga.Ka-1-17, He comments,

" The upaniShat texts about origination, maintenance and dissolution

of the

world is to establish unity. [....] They are really concerned with

communicating the unity and sole reality of the Self. "

 

 

But if we maintain that creation is unreal, it would confuse the minds of

those seekers who believe what they perceive. Let them think of it

like that

for the moment. But there will be a time when discrimination of the

unborn,

non-dual Self will arise of its own accord in the hearts of earnest

students

of the upaniShaT-s. These texts are taught with this spirit and not

with the

idea that it is the final truth (Ga.Ka.Bh-4-42). So brahman which is one,

without a second, pure and without parts, all-pervading like ether is

spoken

of as 'adaH', 'idam' etc., for the sole purpose of helping the earnest

seeker by giving him some pointers, directions to attain the final human

goal.

 

Objection:

If effect is unreal, it cannot be infinite (pUrNam). But the mantra

clearly

says so. So, all that you have said so far stands contradicted.

 

Reply:

Not so. We didn't say that the effect is unreal in the absolute sense. The

effect is in fact real as being the material cause itself, but unreal

as an

effect, a real modification. When knowledge about the rope is not present,

we see a snake. Is the snake real? No.

 

On Ga.Ka-1-17, shri sha~Nkara comments,

" If one is to be awakened by negating the phenomenal world, how can there

be non-duality as long as the phenomenal world persists? The answer is :

Such indeed would be the case if the world of plurality had existence. But

being superimposed like a snake on a rope, it does not exist. "

 

But at the time of manifesting as the illusionary snake, it is

non-different

from the substratum on which it appears. It is indeterminable either as

being the rope itself or as being anything different from it. Similar

is the

case discussed here. Since the effect is real as being the cause itself,

there is no harm in saying that the effect is infinite. Here, we are

attributing 'infinitude' not to the imaginary appearance of the

effect, but

to the reality of the illusion, the substratum on which the illusion takes

place. That is why Shri sha~Nkara explicitly states that 'idam', the

conditioned brahman, *in its real form as the supreme Self* is

infinite(pUrNam), and *not in its differentiated form circumscribed by the

limiting adjuncts* (na upAdhiparichchhinnena visheShAtmanA). If we say

that

the conditioned brahman in its nature as being an effect is

infinite(pUrNam), then only will your objections stand. But we do not say

so.

 

Objection:

If you are saying that creation is unreal, an illusion set up by

ignorance,

we do not agree. We say that 'idam' is the effect, the

universe(jagat), and

it is infinite(pUrNam). If we say 'jagat' is limited, it means our senses

have inferred what all they can infer and there is nothing beyond to be

known or inferred. That would not hold because everyday our sensual

perception, both microscopically and macroscopically, is increasing

and more

and more things are added to the 'idam'. Thus 'idam' has also to be

infinite.

 

Reply:

Has the 'infinitude' that we are discussing here anything to do with the

senses or our inference with the senses? No. The inferred knowledge of

anything in this universe is relative. For example, we may see Devadatta

standing in a distance, which another person with a defective

eye-sight may

not see. Does this make Devadatta infinite? Does this make anything

infinite, for that matter? Your logic will make infinitude a relative

term.

This is not correct. What we are discussing here is about brahman, the one

without a second, the all-pervading reality which is pUrNam. Inferrence by

the senses has nothing to do with it being infinite or not.

 

On Br.Su-2-1-6, shri sha~Nkara comments,

" For this Entity is not an object of perception, It being devoid of form

etc. And It is not subject to inference, being devoid of all grounds of

inference etc. But like the religious acts, this entity is known from the

scriptures alone. In support of this occurs the upaniShat text, 'This idea

about brahman is not to be induced by (independent) logic. O dearest one,

when imparted by some (knower of brahman) who is other than the logician,

this idea becomes conducive to realization (Ka.Up-1-2-9).' "

 

 

Objection:

But your view is too illogical. Let us say for a moment that 'jagat'

(idam)

is limited. The 'idam' has for its substratum the 'adaH' and this

forms the

latter half of line one of this mantra (pUrNAt pUrNamudacyate). That is,

from an infinite substratum, the limited 'jagat' arose. If the 'jagat' is

limited and the substratum is infinite, there have to be a series of

finite

'idam'-s arising. Such cannot be the case as 'idam' can also be one and

infinite.

 

Reply:

Isn't this what we observe? The 'jagat' is indeed different for everyone.

This is also seen in the rope-snake analogy. The illusion of the snake

doesn't rise for everyone alike. One sees it as a snake, while another

sees

a stream of water, and yet another sees a wedge in the ground. If the

effect, the multifarious plurality per se is taken as real, then this is

also what we see in the clay-pot analogy. Clay as the cause become not

just

the pot. It may become a pot, jar, spoons, or any other vessel in any

shape!

Moreover, your objection itself is not correct. You started off with the

assumption that 'jagat(idam) is limited'. This is not our statement.

Yes, we

say that 'jagat' is limited. But we do not say that 'idam' is limited or

that 'jagat' is 'idam'. That in fact is your own view. So your basic

assumption, the foundation on which your later statements were build is

itself wrong. It is a sort of combination of a part of our view

('jagat' is

limited) and a part of your view ('jagat' is 'idam')!

 

 

Objection:

But haven't you heard the shruti 'sarvaM khalvidam brahma'? It says that

this universe is indeed brahman. So the 'idam' in the 'pUrNamadaH' mantra

denotes the universe.

 

Reply:

We do not deny the shruti. But tell us how this will substantiate your

view.

This shruti means everything 'here' is brahman. When it says so, it is

referring to brahman, which is the Self within all. This mantra

doesn't say

that the jagat per se, the unreal modification, is indeed real in any

sense.

This is also the case when shruti says that the Absolute is in the right,

left, above, below, everywhere (Mu.Up-2-2-11).

 

We do agree that in the absolute sense, the names and forms are also

nothing

but brahman which is One, without a second. And if you want to see this

particular mantra ('sarvaM khalvidam brahma') in that sense, so be it. But

then, can it be related to the 'pUrNamadaH' mantra which is positioned at

the vyAvahArika level? No. And if you are bold enough to do it, then the

objections which would stand against you would also be infinite in number!

You won't even be able to justify the usage of the words 'adaH' and

'idam'.

Then, what to think of further objections? So your view is wrong.

 

So if 'idam' which is 'pUrNam' is interpreted as the effect, the world of

plurality per se, then we will be running against the vedic texts

proclaiming the sole reality of brahman. On the other hand, if you say

that

it is not so since the mantra is communicating in the absolute level, then

you will be charged with the error of objectifying the same thing as

'adaH'

and 'idam'.

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" 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.

"

 

Commentary:

 

Objection:

Look, your teacher himself is saying contradictory to what you were

vehemently advocating so far! He says that brahman 'emanates as an

effect',

and then says that it 'emanates as the infinite'. Isn't he agreeing to our

view here that the effect is infinite? Do we need to say anything more

now?

 

Reply:

No. You are terribly mistaken. His above statement, in fact, supplements

what we had said so far. How? If the effect per se is real, then it will

have to give up its true nature, that of infinitude. But here, since the

effect is unreal, just a modification, an illusionary play of name and

form,

it retains its original stature of being infinite. Brahman, the changeless

reality doesn't undergo any real transformation at all. It is the same as

the rope on which the illusion of snake rises and subsides. The

superimposition doesn't affect the substratum. It retains its infinitude

throughout the illusionary play.

 

Shri sha~Nkara while commenting on Br.Su-1-4-6 says,

" The thing (substratum) itself is not affected in any way by the

existence,

continuance, or elimination of ignorance. For instance, somebody

mistaking a

piece of rope lying in deep darkness to be a snake may run away from it,

shaking with fear, and some one else may tell him, 'Do not be afraid; this

is not a snake, but simply a rope.' Then on hearing this, the former gives

up the fear of the snake as well as his shaking and retreat. But neither

during the continuance of the idea of the snake, nor when it leaves,

is the

thing itself affected in any way. "

 

Objection:

Your view is not in line with the way the mantra is presented. How can

'adaH' and 'idam' both represent the same thing? We agree that 'adaH'

stands

for the supreme brahman. Then, isn't it redundant to say that 'idam'

is also

brahman? 'idam' has to mean something else which is different from the

supreme brahman in the prima facie view. To say 'That is a pot' and

'This is

a pot', the entities which are denoted by 'that' and 'this' should be seen

as different by the hearer. Only then will the knowledge of their unity be

of any use. So your view crumbles when subjected to logic.

 

Then, what is this 'idam' which is seen as something different from

brahman?

We will explain. It is the Universe (jagat). Everyone falls prey to

the play

of mAyA and thinks 'I am different from the universe'. Under the spell of

mAyA, they think of a demarcation between inside and outside. They take

everything that is perceived by them to be something different from

themselves. To correct this false notion, the mantra says that brahman and

the universe is infinite. Since two infinites cannot co-exist, it is

understood that it is the same, the seer and the seen is one, without a

second.

 

Reply:

Didn't we say that 'adaH' and 'idam' represent the unconditioned and the

conditioned brahman respectively?

 

Objection:

But you also said that both are same.

 

Reply:

Yes, we did. But that is only when we refer to the substratum of all, the

homogenous pure consciousness. We said so against the objection that there

cannot be two infinites. The conclusion which we arrive at is also that

'adaH' and 'idam' are the same. This mantra is actually trying to educate

the seeker that his Self is nothing other than brahman itself.

 

Objection:

Now you say that 'idam' means the Self within us, the jIvAtma. But

even now,

our objection stands. Since 'adaH' is brahman, there is no need for

bringing

in 'idam', the jIvAtma. Why? Because we already know that jIvAtma is

nothing

but brahman. Haven't you heard the mahAvAkya, 'ahaM brahmAsmi'?

 

Reply:

The ignorant one, not knowing the true nature of the Self, thinks that

brahman and his Self are separate. And 'adaH' and 'idam' position brahman

and the Self as two different entities which is the normal view of the

ignorant. So by positioning brahman and his Self as two different entities

with the words 'adaH' and 'idam' initially, the mantra finally proclaims

that they are verily the same. If the ultimate truth that the jIvAtma and

brahman are one and the same is known to everyone, what is the use of

veda-s? Thus, your objection, even though logically correct, doesn't stand

against our view.

 

Objection:

If that is so, then aren't we saying the same thing? You say that 'idam'

stands for jIvAtma while we say that it stands for the universe. Both the

notions of jIvAtma and the universe are in the realm of ignorance.

Finally,

we both conclude that everything is brahman. So your view is the same as

ours, but only under a slightly different guise.

 

Reply:

Not so. There is a difference. For you, 'idam' means the universe, the

effect as such, with all its plurality. And you reach the final conclusion

that everything is brahman, just by relying on the meaning of the words in

the mantra. In this process, you knowingly or unknowingly turn your back

against such shruti texts which teach us 'modification of names', 'a

suggestion of speech' etc. But we do not do so. When we say that 'idam'

denotes jIvAtma, we are actually referring to the jIvAtma *in its real

form

as the supreme Self*, and *not in its differentiated form circumscribed by

the limiting adjuncts*. By saying so, we adhere to the true vedic

tradition

taught by shri sha~NkarabhagavatpAda.

 

In other words,

In your case, you say, 'Rope is black; snake is black; so both are

same and

there is only a rope'.

In our case, we say, 'Rope is black; snake in its true nature as the

rope is

black; there is only a rope.'

 

Just like the 'blackness' in this example, you arrive at the final

conclusion with just the aid of the word 'pUrNam'. Our view, on the other

hand, is in line with other shruti texts and we don't arrive at the final

conclusion just with the aid of the word 'pUrNam'. Now you might say that

the mantra can be interpreted in both the ways. No, we don't agree to that

either. It is tantamount to say that the sun is both bright and dark!

 

Objection:

What if we say that 'idam' denotes the substratum of the universe (jagat)?

Why can't we interpret the mantra as follows? The 'adaH' (supreme

unconditioned brahman) is infinite. So is 'idam' (the universe) in its

real

form as the supreme Self (the substratum), and not in its differentiated

form as the effect. What is wrong in this view?

 

Reply:

If you say so, you will find it difficult to explain the rest of the

portion

of the mantra. We will show you why it is so. What possible good will come

to us if we come to know that the substratum of the universe is indeed

brahman? Nothing. Does that knowledge relate to us in any way? No.

Then how

does this mantra help us? If we understand the right meaning of this

mantra,

we see that it teaches us the highest philosophy in vedAnta with the

minimum

possible words. We will explain this with the help of

sha~NkarabhAShyam, our

guiding light.

 

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" 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 remains as the unconditioned Brahman

alone, without interior or exterior, the homogeneous Pure Intelligence. "

 

 

 

Commentary:

Realizing one's own true nature to be non-different from the Absolute

is the

final human goal. This is exactly what the mantra is trying to teach

us. It

teaches us that we are verily brahman, the all-pervading reality,

homogenous, without interior or exterior, and not the transmigrating

individual soul. The individual through the contact of limiting adjuncts

believes that it is limited and is bound by the cycle of deaths and

births.

But the truth is that it never loses its true nature of being

'pUrNam'. All

this is just an illusion of name and form born out of ignorance. When it

attains perfect unity with its own true nature by removing through

knowledge

its apparent otherness (the notion of being an individual transmigrating

Self) that is created by ignorance through the contact of limiting

adjuncts,

the elements (body and senses), it remains as the unconditioned infinite

brahman alone. Why does shri sha~Nkara say "'apparent otherness"? Why does

shri sha~Nkara say 'it remains as the infinite alone'? This is because

brahman has not undergone any real modification in the first place.

There is

really no separate entity called jIvAtma. The notion of being a jIvAtma is

itself unreal which is born of ignorance. The knowledge of the true nature

of one's own Self as brahman eradicates this ignorance and that is the

state

of liberation.

 

On Br.Su-1-3-19, shri sha~Nkara comments,

" The individuality of an individual persists as long as, like the

elimination of the idea of a man superimposed on a stump of a tree, he

does

not eradicate ignorance expressing itself as the world of duality and does

not know the Self as 'I am brahman' - the Self that has no change and is

eternal and a witness by nature. But when the individual is roused

from the

assemblage of body, senses, mind and intellect by the upaniShat which

makes

him understand, 'You are not the transmigratory being. What are you then?

That which is truth - the Self of the nature of pure Consciousness - that

thou art', then he realizes the Self that has no change and is eternal

and a

witness by nature, and then that very individual rises above its identity

with the body and the rest to become the Self Itself - unchanging,

eternal,

and a witness by nature. "

 

Now we will see how shri sha~Nkara brings in other shruti texts and shows

beyond any doubt as to what 'adaH' and 'idam' really is.

 

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" 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. "

 

 

Commentary:

shri sha~Nkara brings in mantra 1-4-10 from the same upaniShat in order to

show that this interpretation doesn't contradict and in fact supplements

other shruti texts.

 

 

Br.Up-1-4-10:

brahma vA idamagra AsIt , tadAtmAnamevAvet , ahaM brahmAsmIti |

tasmAttatsarvamabhavat ;

[ This (Self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself

as 'I

am brahman'. Therefore It became all. ]

 

Commentary:

We are not going into the detailed commentary of this mantra at the

moment.

We will just quote the relevant portions from shri sha~Nkara's

commentary on

both the mantra-s so that readers can easily see how the two are related.

Interested readers are encouraged to go through the original commentary of

shri sha~NkarabhagavatpAda, wherein several objections of other

schools are

raised and dealt with in an extensive way. We assure you that it will be a

worthwhile read.

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-5-1-1):

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

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-1-4-10):

" ..the word 'brahman' refers to that brahman which projected the universe

and entered into it. "

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-5-1-1):

".. and 'This is infinite' means, 'This (Self) was indeed Brahman in the

beginning.' "

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-1-4-10):

" 'This', the brahman that is perceived as being in this body, was

indeed -

the word is emphatic - brahman, and all, in the beginning, even before

realisation. "

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-5-1-1):

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

whatever is

there is here ' (Ka.Up-2-1-10).

 

[Note: In swAmi mAdavandanda's translation, the reference of this mantra

quoted from kathA upaniShat is given as Ka.Up-4-10. It is probably a

printing mistake. We are not reproducing the entire sha~NkarabhAshyam for

this mantra here. We encourage the reader to go through the bhAshyam given

by shri sha~Nkara. He gives the definition for 'here' as follows: " What

indeed is 'here' - that entity which, being associated with limiting

adjuncts, viz the body and the senses (i.e. existing here in the

individual), appears to the ignorant to be possessed of worldly

attributes;

". By quoting this mantra, shi sha~Nkara shows us once again what 'idam'

really stands for.]

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-5-1-1):

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

again is '

this infinite ' - 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.

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-1-4-10):

But owing to ignorance it superimposes on itself the notion that it is not

brahman, and that it is not all, and consequently thinks, through mistakes

that it is an agent, possessed of activity, the experiencer of its fruits,

happy or miserable, and transmigrating. But really it is brahman,

different

from all the foregoing and is all. "

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-5-1-1):

" 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. So it has been said, 'Therefore It

became

all'. "

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam(Br.Up-1-4-10):

" But somehow awakened by a merciful teacher who told it that it was not

subject to transmigration, 'It knew only Itself', its own natural

Self, that

is, which is free from differentiations superimposed by ignorance.

[.........] How did It know Itself? As 'I am brahman, the Self that is the

seer of sight'. 'brahman' is That which is immediate and direct, the Self

that is within all, beyond hunger and the like, described as 'Not

this, not

this', neither gross nor subtle, and so on. 'I am, as you (the teacher)

said, That and no other, not the transmigrating Self.' Therefore, from

knowing thus, It, brahman, became all. Since by the cessation of the

superimposed notion of not being brahman, its effect, the notion of not

being all, was also gone, therefore It became all. Hence men are justified

in thinking that through the knowledge of brahman they would become all. "

 

 

Objection:

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 saying that 'idam' stands

for the

universe. So our interpretation is also correct.

 

Reply:

No. Your view is wrong. By putting forth this view, you forget the context

of the mantra. The 'idam' in 'pUrNamadaH' mantra is not connected with the

'all' in 'Therefore It became all'. It is only connected with the

'who' that

finally gets identified with the 'all'. Your view is equivalent to putting

the chariot in front of the horse!

 

If you still insist that 'idam' stands for the universe, then be

specific as

to what you mean by 'universe'. Is it the world of plurality as such,

or the

substratum of the world of plurality? If it is the world of plurality as

such, then you will have to explain how brahman can be both One, without a

second, and also multifarious at the same time. Also, if you admit

plurality

in brahman, then brahman will be with parts and thereby you will be

contradicting the shruti passages which describe brahman as Pure

Intelligence, homogenous, without a break, devoid of differences as

prior or

posterior, interior or exterior, including the external and internal,

neither gross nor minute, not short etc. So rather than accepting your

view,

it is better to abandon all the upaniShat-s!

 

On the other hand, if 'idam' for you is the substratum of the

universe, then

we agree that it is a non-dual view. But even then you have drifted miles

away from shri sha~Nkara's interpretation since He brings in Br.Up-1-4-10

and Ka.Up-2-1-10 which are not in line with your interpretation. There

is a

mention of rise of knowledge in Br.Up-1-4-10. Also, there is mention of a

Teacher imparting this knowledge. All this will stand contradicted if we

take anything other than the jIvAtma for 'idam'. To say that the Teacher

imparts knowledge to the substratum of the universe, or that knowledge

rises

in the substratum are all nonsensical.

 

Now you might say that 'adaH' stands for the jIvAtma which is brahman and

'idam' stands for the universe. This view is also not in line with shri

sha~Nkara's teaching. According to shri sha~Nkara, the unity of the

Self and

brahman (jIvabrahmaikyam) is what the 'pUrNamadaH' mantra teaches us. But

your view is taking this (jIvabrahmaikyam) as a already known fact and you

use it to prove something else, that the Self and the universe is the

same.

Also, if we go by your view, then the quoted mantra would have been " It

knew THAT as 'THAT is brahman' ". But the mantra clearly says, 'It knew

Itself as 'I am brahman' ''. So your view, even though non-dual in itself,

is not in line with the traditional teaching of shri sha~Nkara. If you

still

say that your view is in line with the traditional advaitic interpretation

as taught by shri sha~NkarabhagavatpAda, then you might as well find the

footprints of birds in the sky, pull the sky with your clenched hands,

bath

in the water from a mirage and live in a palace in the clouds!

 

The true nature of the jIvAtma is that of brahman and all. But owing to

ignorance, it has the notion of not being brahman and all. When this

ignorance is removed by knowledge of brahman, the effect, i.e. the

notion of

not being all is destroyed. Therefore, it is said that the men who realize

their Self as the supreme infinite brahman, the all-pervading reality,

become identified with all. So 'idam' is the jIvAtma, the one who gets

identified with 'all' when knowledge dawns, and not anything else. This is

in line with other shruti texts and also with shri sha~Nkara's

bhAshyam-s on

the same.

 

 

Doubt:

shri sha~Nkara in His introduction to khilA kAnda said that this kAnda is

concerned with meditations. So is this mantra also for meditation? Or does

it have any other purpose?

 

 

sha~NkarabhAShyam:

" brahman, which is the theme of all the upaniShat-s, is described

once more

in this mantra to introduce what follows; for certain aids, to be

presently

mentioned, viz. OM, self-restraint, charity and compassion, have to be

enjoined as steps to the knowledge of brahman - aids, that occurring

in this

supplementary portion, form part of all meditations. "

 

 

Commentary:

No, this mantra is not part of the section on meditation. In the last four

chapters, brahman which is the theme of all the upaniShat-s was presented.

Now the 'pUrNamadaH' mantra is positioned as the starting mantra of the

section on mediations so as to introduce the subject matter (brahman) of

meditations in the mantra-s that follows. The meditations start only from

the mantra on OM, and not before that. The 'pUrNamadaH' mantra is a

description of that brahman, all-pervading like ether, homogenous like a

lump of salt, without exterior or interior, unborn, without parts,

unlimited, unconditioned and infinite. Praying that our minds be directed

towards that Supreme brahman, we chant in unison...

 

OM | pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM pUrNAtpUrNamudachyate |

pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamevAvashiShyate ||

 

|| OM shAntiH shAntiH shAntiH ||

 

 

Thus ends the commentary written by an ardent devotee of shri

sha~NkarabhagavatpAda, the jagatguru, who out of sheer love for the

whole of

mankind, dived into the infinite depths of the ocean of Knowledge

called the

veda-s and brought us the priceless pearls in the form of His bhAshyam-s.

 

... hara hara sha~Nkara jaya jaya sha~Nkara ..

 

 

 

Hari Om

 

bhagavatpAdadAsan

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I have printed out this essay which runs to about 24 pages.

Naturally, therefore, I need some time to seriously study the same.

 

In the meanwhile, can somebody enlighten me on the following:

 

1. Who is the commentator here known as an ardent devotee of Sankara

and signing off at the end as bhagavadpadadasan?

 

2. Who is the translator?

 

3. It is mentioned that "the view of bhartRRIprapancha and Shri

Sankara's rebuttals of the same is not included *extensively* in this

work". To what extent it has been included and has it been

highlighted?

 

4. Am I to take that Sankara's own words are only those which have

been captioned Sankarabhashyam? Who is the translator of the same?

 

5. I believe Sw. Ghambhiranandaji's part in this essay relate only

to the interpretation of Upanishadic statements? Am I right in

assuming so?

 

I will be back on the List with my views after a couple of days of

serious study. In the meanwhile, the author's clarifications to the

questions above will be much appreciated.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

2. advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins>

wrote:

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

>

> >

> > While on the subject, I'd like to draw your kind attention to the

> Ranjeet

> > prabhuji's mail dtd. 17th June'04 on pUrNamidam mantra, the

subject

> > heading is sha~Nkara-smRRiti .. wherein Ranjeet prabhuji

elaborately

> > discussed the topic *jagan mithyatva* in shankara siddhAnta.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Ranjeetji had posted this essay on June 17th, and the

> Moderators had requested to delay it until Nairji returned, and

> Chittarajnaji completed the series. With both conditions fulfilled,

> Moderators wish to thank Ranjeetji for his patience, and we are

> pleased to post the essay now, with Bhaskarji's reference serving us

> well as a reminder.

>

> List Moderators

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

 

Namaste

 

My replies in .

 

> In the meanwhile, can somebody enlighten me on the following:

>

> 1. Who is the commentator here known as an ardent devotee of Sankara

> and signing off at the end as bhagavadpadadasan?

 

[i am the commentator.]

 

> 2. Who is the translator?

 

[The text from the bRRIhadAraNyaka bhAshyam is from the English translation

by swAmi mAdavandanda. The rest of the texts are from swAmi gambhIrAnanda's

translation works.]

 

> 3. It is mentioned that "the view of bhartRRIprapancha and Shri

> Sankara's rebuttals of the same is not included *extensively* in this

> work". To what extent it has been included and has it been

> highlighted?

 

[in swAmi mAdavananda's translation, the rebuttal of bhartRRIprapancha's

view runs to 3-4 pages. I didnt write the commentary on those portions. In

my essay I had only made a passing reference to Shri sha~Nkara's rebuttals,

viz. 'impossibility of brahman being both one and multiflarious at the same

time' and 'impossibility of brahman having any parts'.]

> 4. Am I to take that Sankara's own words are only those which have

> been captioned Sankarabhashyam? Who is the translator of the same?

 

[Yes. Only the texts captioned 'sha~NkarabhAshyam' are shri sha~Nkara's

words. Translations by swAmi mAdavandanda and swAmi gambhIrAnanda.]

>

> 5. I believe Sw. Ghambhiranandaji's part in this essay relate only

> to the interpretation of Upanishadic statements? Am I right in

> assuming so?

 

[Texts from sha~NkarabhAshyam-s other than that of bRRIhadAraNyaka are from

swAmi gambhIrAnanda's translation works.]

>

> I will be back on the List with my views after a couple of days of

> serious study. In the meanwhile, the author's clarifications to the

> questions above will be much appreciated.

 

Nairji, I am sorry I won't be available at the moment to answer any of your

objections/suggestions. I am leaving for India next week and will be there

for 2 months. I will be able to reply to your posts only when I get back to

Muscat. I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

Hari Om

ranjeet

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

 

Whenever you have the time, please reconcile your commentary (the

gist of your essay) with the Advaitic tenets that (1) words are

eternal, and (2) that words are eternally connected to objects.

 

Also, in the light of your essay, please explain Shankara's

commentary in the Brhdaranyaka Upanishad that I had quoted in Part

VII wherein all things are said by the Acharya to be eternal.

 

Reconciliation of Shankara's Advaita should not leave out key parts

of the bhashya, or leave out the key doctrinal tenets of Advaita

unresolved.

 

Also please explain how the effect that is pre-existent in Brahman

(which you say is true), and the effect that is seen differentiated

(that you say is false), come to have the same name 'effect', say for

example, cow. What commonality have these two that they have a common

name. Ranjeetji, if you examine the bhashya carefully, you will find

that the unreal is not the name or form but the bewitching power of

names to seemingly differentiate the form from its substative ground.

 

You ask in your essay: What do we attain by talking of substance? I

would only answer that the truth is to be sought for its own purpose

and not for any attainment. Truth is its own attainment, because

Truth is our own nature which, sadly and mysteriously, lies

concealed.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Dear Nairji,

>

> Namaste

>

> My replies in .

>

>

> > In the meanwhile, can somebody enlighten me on the following:

> >

> > 1. Who is the commentator here known as an ardent devotee of

Sankara

> > and signing off at the end as bhagavadpadadasan?

>

> [i am the commentator.]

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I have carefully studied Shri Ranjeet's rather lengthy commentary and

thank him for placing together a number of valuable quotes that point

towards the Truth.

 

However, I am really very sad that he has misinterpreted the contents

of my off-List personal mails and placed them into the objector's

mouth to conclude in a very contrived manner that the idam of the

pUrNamadah verse is the jIvAtmA and has nothing to do with the

universe.

 

It may be recalled here that his last stance on the List when the

pUrNamadah discussion was going on was that the idam represented

jIvA. When the word jIvA is mentioned, the meaning that it

immediately connotes is the deluded samsArin who considers himself

separate from the experienced world, whereas jIvAtman is jIvA's real

nature and not different from paramAtman or Brahman in strict

advaitic sense. I did point this out to him in one of my personal

mails and I notice with gratification that he has now changed his

stance to idam being jIvAtman. Well, no serious objection in that

regard as jIvAtman is Brahman and is the seed from/in which samsAra

sprouts/abides.

 

The universe naturally comprises the sum total of jIvA and the world

experienced by him, i.e. it is not the experienced world alone. In

the contrived commentary, the universe is made out to be the latter

and not the sum total. That then is its weakest point. The universe

is not the `seen' alone but the sum total of the `seer and seen'.

The `seer' is an integral part of the universe. How can I talk about

the universe if it excludes me?

 

Now, please look at this objection mentioned by him:

 

"Now you say that `idam' means the Self within us, the jIvAtma. But

even now our objection stands. Since `adaH' is Brahman, there is no

need for bringing in idam, the jIvAtma. Why? Because we already

know that jIvAtma is nothing but Brahman. Haven't you heard the

mahavakya, `ahaM brahmAsmi'?'

 

Contrast this with the following excerpts from my personal mail to

Shri Ranjeet:

 

"In Vedanta, many believe that jIvAtma and paramAtma

are different - an uncalled for segregation that leads

to unnecessary confusion. Atman is one without a

second. It, therefore, cannot brook a lesser or

higher level! That is why the mahAvakya directly

equates aham and brahman in Aham BrahmAsmi.

 

Please check any good dictionary (e.g. MW). There is

the meaning of idam sarvam or idam vishwam mentioned

for idam. If adah (That) is brahman, then there is no

need for the verse (from the point of view of the

'subtraction' it suggests in its latter half) to

repeat that jIvAtma (which is Brahman again)is 'idam'

(This)."

 

Shri Ranjeet has placed me in the objector's shoes!

 

This objection is then answered that it is for the ignorant one's

convenience and understanding that adah and idam position Brahman and

the Self as two different entities!

 

OK. I am prepared to accept this view if the following question is

satisfactorily answered:

 

The verse begins `pUrNamadah pUrNamidam'. Why can't it

begin `pUrNamadah pUrnamaham'? It is simpler that way as it rhymes

well (adah and aham). Why use the word `idam' which has resulted in

all this hairsplitting?

 

The only reason I find is that by the term `idam', the verse wants us

to pay attention to idam sarvam or idam vishvam which from my point

of view and as accepted by most of the commentators that I have read

is the universe – the universe that includes the experiencing me

(aham) as its integral part. I therefore have no other alternative

but to stand by this meaning and defend it too as an advaitin.

 

Shri Ranjeet asks as the commentator: What possible good will come

to us if we come to know that the substratum of the universe is

indeed is Brahman? Can some advaitin please answer him? What a

question to ask?

 

A reading of Sankara bhAshyam of the verse quoted in the commentary,

which incidentally constitutes only a small percentage of the entire

text, doesn't reveal anything contrary to what I have understood and

elaborated. I have no disagreements with the other upanishidic

quotes in the commentary as they are all true in their original

context. I have never said that jIvAtman is not Brahman and need not

be reminded of this advaitic Truth through such elaborate quotes. I

do however object to their place in the commentary as a means to

support a contrived meaning (that idam means jIvAtma in the verse

under discussion).

 

I have nothing more to say.

 

Permit me to conclude by quoting relevant excerpts of my personal

mail to Shri Ranjeet as they are no more personal by his having

placed me in the silly objector's shoes:

 

QUOTE

 

Sat, 5 Jun 2004 01:31:48 -0700 (PDT)

"Madathil Nair" <madathilnair

Re: Hi Nairji..

"Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalmirage

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

Dear Ranjeet,

 

Also, please read my post today at Advaitin in reply

to Prof. VK's quote of Sata ShlOki stanza 3. Please

also read DakshiNAmUrti StOtram (again by Sankara).

 

In Vedanta, many believe that jIvAtma and paramAtma

are different - an uncalled for segregation that leads

to unnecessary confusion. Atman is one without a

second. It, therefore, cannot brook a lesser or

higher level! That is why the mahAvakya directly

equates aham and brahman in Aham BrahmAsmi.

 

Please check any good dictionary (e.g. MW). There is

the meaning of idam sarvam or idam vishwam mentioned

for idam. If adah (That) is brahman, then there is no

need for the verse (from the point of view of the

'subtraction' it suggests in its latter half) to

repeat that jIvAtma (which is Brahman again)is 'idam'

(This).

 

So, idam in the verse certanly denotes something else

(idam vishwam or idam sarvam - that comprises the

limited jIva and its experience of a world of duality

separate from it, where the feeling (or delusion

rather) of separation is the error that generates

miTyAtwam). Thus, the statement "jagat miTyA".

 

Ultimately, by concluding that both (That and This)

are pUrNam, the verse establishes the sameness of

both. The miTyAtwam of appearances (snake) is now seen

through. That is when he exclaims in surprise "jIvo

brahmaiva nAparAh". For the jIvA, who says so, the

hithertofore 'experienced' world no more is separate

from him. The world resolves into his being and his

realization that he is verily brahman (or jIvAtman).

It is, therefore, not the jagat that is removed but

only the miTyAtwam of it, which is a misapprehension

like the snake on the rope.

 

Like the erstwhile snake was the rope, the erstwhile

duality encompassing the limited jIvA (not jIvAtma)

and the world experienced by him is understood as

brahman.

 

JIvAtma is the seed from which the samsArA tree

sprouts and in which it abides when the projection

ends. The cause and effect are the same. (Ref:

DakshiNAmUrti StOtra and BSB I-2-14 onwards). Effect

being the sum total of jIvA and the experienced world,

in final analysis it is jIvAtmA, the cAUse. If effect

is 'idam', then it is to be realized as jIvAtma. That

is why I said, Sw. ChidAnandapuriji is right.

 

Further, granted that brahman is indivisible, each

apparent object experienced is also understood as

verily brahman. That is the sarvAtmakatwam (all this

is verily Atman)implied in stanza 3 of Sata ShlOki.

 

This can also be arrived at from the Consciousness

angle. In my experiencing the world, I am conscious

of duality. Each experiencing is consciousness.

Consciousness is the single common denominator in all

experiences. When the variables are removed from all

experiences which can be reduced to simple equations

like I am conscious of the Sun = Sun consciousness, I

am conscious of the Moon = Moon consciousness) etc.,

what remains equated at the bottom is I and

consciousness (I am Consciousness). The basis for

this world is simply the simple equation (I =

Consciousness). That Consciousness in all single

'consciousnesses' is the essential bottom from which

we can't go any farther. That is the advaitic Truth.

It is by an error that the multiplicity of seeming

'consciousnesses' (which is the world and the feeling

that I am separate from it) appears. Remove the error

(the snake), I (the rope) shines forth.

 

Hope I am clear, although I would have liked to write

at length if I had the required time in hand. In

fact, I remember having posted on this Consciousness

topic in detail at Advaitin when we took up the first

few verses of BG Ch. 9 last year.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

--- Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalmirage wrote:

> Dear Nairji,

>

> Glad to see your message.

>

> I must confess that I have never heard of this

> demarcation between jIva and

> jIvAtma. I had jIvAtma in mind when I had send that

> mail to Bhaskarji.

> Anyway, I will go through some of works of shri

> sha~Nkara wherein he has

> touched the jIva-topic.

>

> Hari Om

> ranjeet

>

>

> -

> "Madathil Nair" <madathilnair

> "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalmirage

> Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:10 PM

> Re: Hi Nairji..

>

>

> > Dear Ranjeet,

> >

> > You need not apologize. There haven't been any

> > sparks. I only said it was good to see you

> > participate despite your vow to abdicate List

> satsangh

> > to facilitate upAsana.

> >

> > I have difficulty agreeing with Bhaskarji's

> viewpoint.

> > But I respect it. I respect yours too.

> >

> > Sw. Chidanatapuriji is right. He is equating idam

> > with jIvatma (Atman) and not jIvA. JIvA is the

> > limited, miserable one who feels himself separate

> and

> > alone. jivAtma is Atman and thus Brahman.

> JIvAtman is

> > the the one in whom the projected world (seen)

> subside

> > and abide. Hence, jIvatman at all times

> represenst

> > the sum total of the seer and seen. Seer and seen

> > together constitute the universe. Hence, the

> sum

> > total (the universe, which encompasses the seer

> (jIvA)

> > and the seen) is jIvatma and, therefore, Brahman.

> >

> > Contrary to this, Bhaskarji maintains that all

> this

> > universe (jIvA (seer) plus all that is seen by

> him)is

> > a figment of imagination. That is like negating

> one's

> > own Self. That is the basic disagreement. I am

> sure

> > neither Sw. Chidantapuri nor you would endorse

> that

> > view.

> >

> > I can accept idam is jIvAtma (not jIvA) if

> understood

> > from this angle.

> >

> > Hope I am clear. I am typing this in a hurry and

> > there may be mistakes.

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

 

UNQUOTE

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins> wrote:

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

>

> >

> > While on the subject, I'd like to draw your kind attention to the

> Ranjeet

> > prabhuji's mail dtd. 17th June'04 on pUrNamidam mantra, the

subject

> > heading is sha~Nkara-smRRiti .. wherein Ranjeet prabhuji

elaborately

> > discussed the topic *jagan mithyatva* in shankara siddhAnta.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Ranjeetji had posted this essay on June 17th, and the

> Moderators had requested to delay it until Nairji returned, and

> Chittarajnaji completed the series. With both conditions fulfilled,

> Moderators wish to thank Ranjeetji for his patience, and we are

> pleased to post the essay now, with Bhaskarji's reference serving us

> well as a reminder.

>

> List Moderators

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji and Nairji,

 

When I get the time I will definitely reply to your posts to the best of my

understanding and ability.

That I think will be after 2 months. I am very sorry for the inevitable

delay.

 

...hara hara sha~Nkara jaya jaya sha~Nkara..

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

> Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

>

> Whenever you have the time, please reconcile your commentary (the

> gist of your essay) with the Advaitic tenets that (1) words are

> eternal, and (2) that words are eternally connected to objects.

>