Namaste Anandaji.

Many million thanks for your post 22396 which brilliantly and
successfully attempts a new interpretation of the pUrNamadah...
prayer.

Just this small doubt occurred to me when I read it. There of course
is a difference between phusis and tekne. But, as the unmitigated
protagonists of fullness, are we not bound to include all tekne under
phusis? Weren't all that we term artificial conceived in our minds
and created by us? How could then they be external or extra-phusis?
In fact, this is the opinion aired and shared by many a Western
thinker in the last century. The nuclear bomb is thus fullness as
also the olive branch and the doves of peace. Am I not right, Sir?

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair
_____________________________

--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:
>
> For the ancient Greeks, 'phusis' or 'nature' was understood in
> distinction from 'tekne' or 'technique' and 'artifice'. The
difference
> here is that nature functions from within, expressing its own
> underlying principles of growth and organization. This is quite
> different from our technological use of artificial instruments.
>
> A technical instrument is essentially partial. It is constructed and
> operated from without, by limited persons who have devised it for
> their use. As it is used, it is driven artificially from outside,
> expressing a motivation and an organization that has been imposed
from
> somewhere else or from someone else.
>
> But nature is not driven in this way, devised and motivated from
> outside. As nature functions, its happenings take place
spontaneously,
> acting of their own accord, so as to express an order and a meaning
> and a harmony that we can somehow recognize and understand. Our
> recognition and our understanding comes by reflecting back into our
> own experience, thus going down into an underlying nature that is
> shared by differing appearances.