Peace Invocation(Prayer):Isopanishad Invocation (Prayer)
ॐ पूर्ण मदः पूर्ण मिदं पूर्णात पूर्ण मुदचत्ये,
पूर्णस्य पूर्ण मादाये पूर्ण मेवावशिश्यते॥
om purnam adah purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate
purnasya purnam adaya,purnam evavasishyate (Isha Upanisad: Invocation Prayer)
This is an innocuous looking verse for which someone once said: "Let all the Upanisads disappear from the face of the earth - I don’t mind so long as this one verse remains." In Isavasyopanisad, the text begins with this SantipAta payer : "OmpUrNamadah pUrNamidaM..." :
" That is whole; this is whole; From that whole this whole came;
From that whole, this whole removed, What remains is whole."
Idam, This;PurNam, the single noun in the verse, is a beautiful Sanskrit word which means completely filled - a filledness of which is wholeness itself, absolute fullness lacking nothing whatsoever. Adah, which means ’that’, and idam, which means ’this’, are two pronouns each of which, at the same time, refers to the single noun, pUrNam; PUrNam adah - completeness is that, PUrNam idam - completeness is this.
Adah, that, refers to something which is remote , not available for direct knowledge. Adah, refers to a jnEyavastu,a thing to be known, but remains to be known upon destruction of the remoteness.
Idam, this, refers to something not remote but present, here and now, immediately available for perception, something directly known or knowable. Traditionally, however, idam has come to have a much broader meaning. Idam indicates all driSya, all seen or known things. All adah, called ’that’ become ’this’ as soon as their thatness, their remoteness in time, place or knowledge is destroyed. It is in this sense that the SantipAta "pUrNamadah." uses idam.
The first verse of IshAvAsyOpaniSad, following the SantipATa makes clear that idam is used in the traditional sense of all driSya, all known or knowable things:. IshAvAsyaidam sarvam yat kinca jagatyAm jagat ;. all this, whatsoever, changing in this changing world...
So when the verse says pUrNam idam, "completeness is this", what is being said is that all that one knows or is able to know is pUrNam, which means completeness, absolute fullness, wholeness.. If pUrNam is total fullness which leaves nothing out, then ’this’ cannot be used to describe pUrNam because ’this’ leaves something out. What? The subject. ’This’ leaves out aham, I, the subject.
Adah, That
Since idam, this, has been used in its traditional sense of all knowable objects, here or there, presently known or unknown, the only meaning left for ’that’ is to indicate the subject. Idam, this, stands for everything available for objectification. What is not available for objectification? The objectifier - the subject. The subject, aham,I, is the only thing not available for objectification. So, the real meaning of adah, that, as used here in contrast to idam,this, is aham, I. If that is so, how can adah, that, mean aham, I? Am I remote? I am certainly not remote in terms of time or place. I am always here right now. But perhaps I may be remote in terms of knowledge. If in fact I do not know the true nature of myself I could be a jnEyavastu, a to-be-known, in terms of knowledge. Because it is only through the revelation of shruti (scripture functioning as means of knowledge) that I can gain knowledge of my true nature, it can be said that, in general ,the truth of aham is remote in terms of knowledge - something that is yet to be known.
’That’ so used as ’I" means AtmA, the content of truth of the first person singular, a jnEya-vastu, a to-be-known, in terms of knowledge.When that knowledge is gained, I will recognize that I, AtmA, am identical with limitless Brahman - all pervasive, formless and considered the cause of the world of formful objects.
PUrNam adah - completeness is I, the subject AtmA, whose truth is Brahman, formless, limitlessness, considered creation’s cause; PUrNam idam - completeness is all objects, all things known or knowable, all formful effects, comprising creation.pUrNam, completeness, brooks no exclusion whatsoever. The nature of pUrNam is wholeness, completeness,limitlessness.
There cannot be pUrNam plus something or pUrNam minus something. It is not possible to add or to take away from limitlessness. The nature of pUrnam being what is, ’that’ pUrNam must include ’this’ pUrNam; ’this’ pUrNam must include ’that’ pUrNam.Therefore, when it is said that aham, I, am pUrnam and idam, this,is pUrNam, what is really being said is that there is only pUrNam.
Aham, I, and idam, this, traditionally represent the two basic categories into one or the other of which everything fits. There is no third category. So if aham and idam, represent everything and each is pUrNam , then everything is pUrNam. Aham, I is pUrNam which includes the world. Idam this, is pUrNam which include me. The seeming differences of aham and idam are swallowed by pUrnam - that limitless fullness which shruti (scripture) calls Brahman.
However, my every day experience is that I am a distinct entity separate and different from idam jagat, ( this world of objects )which I perceive. My experience is that I see myself as not the same at all as idam, this. When I hold a rose in my hand and look at it, I, aham, am one thing and idam, this rose I see, is quite another. In no way is it my experience that I and the rose are the same. We seem quite distinct and separate. Because shruti tells me that I, aham, and the rose, idam, both are limitless fullness, pUrNam. Furthermore, it is not my experience that either I or the rose are, in any measure, pUrNam, completeness - limitless fullness. I seem to me to be totally apUrNah, unfull, incomplete, inadequate, limited in all sides by my fellow beings, by the elements of nature, by the lacks and deficiencies of my own body and mind. My place and space are very small; time forever crowds me; sorrow dogs my path. I can find no limitless fullness in me. No more does there seem to belimitless fullness in this rose even now wilting in my hand, pressed by time, relinquishing its space; even in its prime smaller and less sturdy than the sunflowers growing outside my window. It is my constant experience that I, aham, and all I perceive, idam, are ceaselessly mutually limiting one another. Thus, PurNam, completeness, absolute fullness, must necessarily be formless. PurNam cannot have a form because it has to include everything. Any kind of form means some kind of boundary; any kind of boundary means that something is left out - something is on the other side of the boundary. Absolute completeness requires formlessness. Sastra (scripture) reveals that what is limitless and formless is Brahman, the cause of creation, the content of aham, I. Therefore, given the nature of Brahman by shruti, I can see that pUrNam is another way for shruti to say Brahman. Brahman and pUrnam have to be identical; there can only be one limitlessness and that One is formelss pUrNam Brahman.Thus, the verse is telling me that everything is pUrNam. PurNam has to be limitless, formless Brahman.
Vedaprakasha
http://www.ethicalvaluesinishopanisad.blogspot.com/
ॐ पूर्ण मदः पूर्ण मिदं पूर्णात पूर्ण मुदचत्ये,
पूर्णस्य पूर्ण मादाये पूर्ण मेवावशिश्यते॥
om purnam adah purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate
purnasya purnam adaya,purnam evavasishyate (Isha Upanisad: Invocation Prayer)
This is an innocuous looking verse for which someone once said: "Let all the Upanisads disappear from the face of the earth - I don’t mind so long as this one verse remains." In Isavasyopanisad, the text begins with this SantipAta payer : "OmpUrNamadah pUrNamidaM..." :
" That is whole; this is whole; From that whole this whole came;
From that whole, this whole removed, What remains is whole."
Idam, This;PurNam, the single noun in the verse, is a beautiful Sanskrit word which means completely filled - a filledness of which is wholeness itself, absolute fullness lacking nothing whatsoever. Adah, which means ’that’, and idam, which means ’this’, are two pronouns each of which, at the same time, refers to the single noun, pUrNam; PUrNam adah - completeness is that, PUrNam idam - completeness is this.
Adah, that, refers to something which is remote , not available for direct knowledge. Adah, refers to a jnEyavastu,a thing to be known, but remains to be known upon destruction of the remoteness.
Idam, this, refers to something not remote but present, here and now, immediately available for perception, something directly known or knowable. Traditionally, however, idam has come to have a much broader meaning. Idam indicates all driSya, all seen or known things. All adah, called ’that’ become ’this’ as soon as their thatness, their remoteness in time, place or knowledge is destroyed. It is in this sense that the SantipAta "pUrNamadah." uses idam.
The first verse of IshAvAsyOpaniSad, following the SantipATa makes clear that idam is used in the traditional sense of all driSya, all known or knowable things:. IshAvAsyaidam sarvam yat kinca jagatyAm jagat ;. all this, whatsoever, changing in this changing world...
So when the verse says pUrNam idam, "completeness is this", what is being said is that all that one knows or is able to know is pUrNam, which means completeness, absolute fullness, wholeness.. If pUrNam is total fullness which leaves nothing out, then ’this’ cannot be used to describe pUrNam because ’this’ leaves something out. What? The subject. ’This’ leaves out aham, I, the subject.
Adah, That
Since idam, this, has been used in its traditional sense of all knowable objects, here or there, presently known or unknown, the only meaning left for ’that’ is to indicate the subject. Idam, this, stands for everything available for objectification. What is not available for objectification? The objectifier - the subject. The subject, aham,I, is the only thing not available for objectification. So, the real meaning of adah, that, as used here in contrast to idam,this, is aham, I. If that is so, how can adah, that, mean aham, I? Am I remote? I am certainly not remote in terms of time or place. I am always here right now. But perhaps I may be remote in terms of knowledge. If in fact I do not know the true nature of myself I could be a jnEyavastu, a to-be-known, in terms of knowledge. Because it is only through the revelation of shruti (scripture functioning as means of knowledge) that I can gain knowledge of my true nature, it can be said that, in general ,the truth of aham is remote in terms of knowledge - something that is yet to be known.
’That’ so used as ’I" means AtmA, the content of truth of the first person singular, a jnEya-vastu, a to-be-known, in terms of knowledge.When that knowledge is gained, I will recognize that I, AtmA, am identical with limitless Brahman - all pervasive, formless and considered the cause of the world of formful objects.
PUrNam adah - completeness is I, the subject AtmA, whose truth is Brahman, formless, limitlessness, considered creation’s cause; PUrNam idam - completeness is all objects, all things known or knowable, all formful effects, comprising creation.pUrNam, completeness, brooks no exclusion whatsoever. The nature of pUrNam is wholeness, completeness,limitlessness.
There cannot be pUrNam plus something or pUrNam minus something. It is not possible to add or to take away from limitlessness. The nature of pUrnam being what is, ’that’ pUrNam must include ’this’ pUrNam; ’this’ pUrNam must include ’that’ pUrNam.Therefore, when it is said that aham, I, am pUrnam and idam, this,is pUrNam, what is really being said is that there is only pUrNam.
Aham, I, and idam, this, traditionally represent the two basic categories into one or the other of which everything fits. There is no third category. So if aham and idam, represent everything and each is pUrNam , then everything is pUrNam. Aham, I is pUrNam which includes the world. Idam this, is pUrNam which include me. The seeming differences of aham and idam are swallowed by pUrnam - that limitless fullness which shruti (scripture) calls Brahman.
However, my every day experience is that I am a distinct entity separate and different from idam jagat, ( this world of objects )which I perceive. My experience is that I see myself as not the same at all as idam, this. When I hold a rose in my hand and look at it, I, aham, am one thing and idam, this rose I see, is quite another. In no way is it my experience that I and the rose are the same. We seem quite distinct and separate. Because shruti tells me that I, aham, and the rose, idam, both are limitless fullness, pUrNam. Furthermore, it is not my experience that either I or the rose are, in any measure, pUrNam, completeness - limitless fullness. I seem to me to be totally apUrNah, unfull, incomplete, inadequate, limited in all sides by my fellow beings, by the elements of nature, by the lacks and deficiencies of my own body and mind. My place and space are very small; time forever crowds me; sorrow dogs my path. I can find no limitless fullness in me. No more does there seem to belimitless fullness in this rose even now wilting in my hand, pressed by time, relinquishing its space; even in its prime smaller and less sturdy than the sunflowers growing outside my window. It is my constant experience that I, aham, and all I perceive, idam, are ceaselessly mutually limiting one another. Thus, PurNam, completeness, absolute fullness, must necessarily be formless. PurNam cannot have a form because it has to include everything. Any kind of form means some kind of boundary; any kind of boundary means that something is left out - something is on the other side of the boundary. Absolute completeness requires formlessness. Sastra (scripture) reveals that what is limitless and formless is Brahman, the cause of creation, the content of aham, I. Therefore, given the nature of Brahman by shruti, I can see that pUrNam is another way for shruti to say Brahman. Brahman and pUrnam have to be identical; there can only be one limitlessness and that One is formelss pUrNam Brahman.Thus, the verse is telling me that everything is pUrNam. PurNam has to be limitless, formless Brahman.
Vedaprakasha
http://www.ethicalvaluesinishopanisad.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment