7

In the Uttara Gita Chapter 1, Sloka 35 describes the Atma as

ऊर्ध्वशून्यमधःशून्यं मध्यशून्यं यदात्मकम् । सर्वशून्यं स आत्मेति समाधिस्थस्य लक्षणम् ॥

When (one perceives) the Atma is perceived as Nothing Upwards, Nothing down, Nothing in between and nothing everywhere, he is established in Samadhi with the Atma.

Now, the Uttara Gita sloka 37 (and 38) describes the Atma as

ऊर्ध्वपूर्णमधःपूर्णं मध्यपूर्णं यदात्मकम् ॥ सर्वपूर्णं स आत्मेति समाधिस्थस्य लक्षणम् ।

When (one perceives) the Atma is perceived as complete (full) Upwards, complete (full) down, complete (full) in between and complete (full), everywhere, he is established in Samadhi with the Atma.

Do these slokas (in the context established in the text) contradict each other?

Also, is this the Shunya Vada of Buddhism. If yes, then is Uttara Gita an interpolated text or is Shunya Vada recognized by Vedanta?

  • Very good Qn. Strongly related: What is Fullness and Emptyness (void) according to the Vedas? – iammilind Jan 21 '18 at 10:51
  • @iammilind - Thank you. Just read through the link. I have not heard of Shunyavada in Hindu texts till now. This mention in Uttara Gita whose source cannot be accurately traced is somewhat puzzling. – Vishwanath N Jan 21 '18 at 11:01
  • 1
    they are not contradictory. also shunya vada of buddhism is wrongly interpreted by many. you may want to read the following link. he explains the difference very well - archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophyACriticalSurvey – Swami Vishwananda Jan 21 '18 at 11:27
  • 1
    Amazing, thank you @AnuragSingh! The Uttara Gita however mentions voidness as the truth and fullness as something that's unreal but prescribed for those who cannot conceive voidness. This is clear from Arjuna's question on Uttara Gita 1. 39.Thats where this seems to be even more puzzling. – Vishwanath N Jan 23 '18 at 17:22
  • 2
    Voidness is void of physical matter. Upwards and downwards, etc., are spatial dimensions not spirit.The verses are trying to convey an idea, don't try to interpret them literally. Metaphors work one way, not two. If I say a man is like a tiger, you know that I don't mean he's physically a tiger. Likewise, I don't mean that a tiger is the same as a man. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 25 '18 at 12:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .