Brihadaranyaka and Isha Upanishads,

**In sanskrit,**

purnam adah purnam idam

purnat purnam udacyate

purnasya purnam adaya

purnam evavashishyate

**literally,**

The full, that; the full, this.

From the full, the full arises.

Of the full, the full taken back,

the full alone remains.

**in context,**

That is all. This is all.

All arises out of all.

Of all, when all is taken in,

what remains is only all.

**what exactly this means is,**

That (Brahman) is infinite, this (universe) too is infinite. The infinite

(universe) emanates from the infinite (Brahman). Assimilating

the infinitude of the infinite (universe), the infinite (Brahman) alone

is left.

*Ramakrishna Math’s publication, The Brhadaranyaka Upanisad,*

**or**

That (The invisible) is the Infinite, This (the visible) too is the Infinite. From the Infinite, the visible universe of infinite extension has come out. The

Infinite remains the same, even though the infinite universe has come

out of it.

*Swami Sarvananda, in Isavasyopanisad,*

**or**

**Translation:**

That is full; this is full. The full comes out of the full. Taking the full

from the full the full itself remains.

**Commentary:**

Brahman is both transcendent and immanent.

The birth or the creation of the universe does not in any manner

affect the integrity of Brahman.

*S. Radhakrishnan, in The Principal Upanishads,*

**or**

The Whole is all That. The Whole is all This. The Whole was born

of the Whole. Taking the Whole from the Whole, what remains is

the Whole.

*Swami Sivananda, in The Principal Upanishads,*

**or**

That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take

perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect.

*Shree Purohit Swami and W.B. Yeats, in The Ten Principal Upanishads,*

**or**

That world out there, this self in here,

each is reality, complete:

from which arises everything,

to which all things return again,

in which all seeming things consist;

which stays the same, unchanged, complete.

**my reference for all these interpretations being -**

http://advaita.org.uk/discourses/downloads/interpretingtheupanishads.pdf

http://advaita.org.uk/discourses/downloads/interpretingtheupanishads.pdf

## 2 comments:

in a vague way this sounds like ashes to ashes, dust to dust...

My interpretation (not very different I guess)

You can add seven to infinity,

You can remove seven from infinity,

But infinity remains constant,

Without any visible difference...

*seven ofcourse is not important

yes, infact this is how i was introduced to this shloka! in a maths class!

when we were explained in a high school maths class that finite plus/minus infinite is the same, we were told this 'thoerem' is also mentioned in a shlok.

another point mentioned by our teacher was - in roman numerals two is II (one beside another one, therefore one is seprate from

anotherone) where as in devnagri and now 'arabic' numerals two is 2 (1 just twisted in a different shape)as far as theories go, i liked his quite a lot :)

Post a Comment