[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Atmaa : Do I have one ?
In article <4f0v5b$t00@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>doubt "I-ness" is meaningless. And it is this "I"
>that we have labelled as AtmA. The root is in: "Atma".
>The other thing that I want to point is that do not take
>the pot analogy (as given by Kabir) too far.
What is Kabir's pot analogy -- I'm sure the readers are
familiar with Sankara's but may not be with Kabir's.
>There is an
>assumption that AtmA and ParAtmA (super AtmA) are both
>boundless. Both infinities. Perhaps, one infinity being
>of a higher order than the other one. And so, when you
>take one infinity from the other, it is still an infinity.
>The IsaUpanishad in its very first verse says something
>strikingly similar. And that verse has mathematical as
>well as spiritual implications. The verse goes on something
>like:
>om, pOrnamidam, pOrnamidasya ...
om purnam adah purnamidam
purnat purnam udacyate
purnasya purnamadaya
purnam evavasisyate
However, note that purnam does _not_ (in and of itself) mean infinite;
it means complete [if it were infinite, presumably the verse would be
om anantam adah anantamidam, or something along those lines.]. That
Complete Supreme Godhead is such that any number of completely
self-sufficient units can emanate, yet the Complete Supreme Godhead
still remains the same. Therefore, we can conclude that the Godhead is
both infinite and complete; you can only infer completeness regarding
the phenomenal emanations.
>I wish someone could reproduce the exact verse.
>Nachiketa Tiwari
-- Vijay
