Allegations Made Against H.H. Narayana Maharaja

[Guest guest]

On 28 Sep 1999, Sergei Schmalz wrote:

> [Vijay Pai wrote:]

> > commentary? Note that it is _not_ sufficient to show his comments on the

> > "oM pUrNam" verse, since that verse also appears in a different context in

> > another Upanishad (bRhadAranyaka).

 

> The verse "om purnam ..." is not really a regular verse of one or

> another Upanisad, as common verses are. It is a santi-mantra, which is

> chanted at the beginning and at the end of each Upanisad belonging to Sukla

> Yajur Veda (e.g. Isa Upanisad belongs to Sukla Yajur Veda). Therefore the

> meaning of verse "om purnam ..." MUST be the SAME everywhere. The context of

> another Upanisad (as You write here about Brhad-Aranyaka Upanisad) is, in

> this regard, the same.

 

The above is incorrect. While "oM pUrNam..." is indeed the zAnti-mantra for

the bRhadAranyaka, it also appears within the text of that upaNiSad. Namely,

it is the first half of the sole verse in the 1st brAhmaNa of the 5th chapter

(5.1.1) of the kAnva recension (the recension given in Radhakrishnan's

book _The Principal Upanishads_). I don't know if the verse also appears in

the mAdhyandina-zruti.

 

Also, the other chapters and brAhmaNas do not start this way, so it is not

just a zAnti-mantra repeated several times. Here is the full verse:

 

5.1.1

 

pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam pUrNAt pUrNam udacyate

pUrNasya pUrNam AdAya pUrNam evAvaziSyate

oM kham brahma kham purANam vAyuraM kham

iti ha smAha kauravyAyaNi-putraH

vedo'yam brAhmaNA viduH

vedainena yad veditavyam

 

It is in this context (not the zAnti-mantra) that Srila Prabhupada describes

the verse as referring to the avatAras of the Lord.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay