[Advaita-l] Explanation needed regarding the Mahavakya "aham Brahmasmi"
कुवँर बिपिन चौहान
bipinchauhan7 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 15 02:04:25 EDT 2017
On 15 April 2017 at 08:45, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Shashwata Shastri via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > To all the learned members of group-
> > It has been a long time since I posted a question.
> > Above mentioned statement reveals the highest truth of Vedas. My question
> > is- the word "Brahma" which is contained in the sentence, is it a noun or
> > an adjective?
> Dear Sir,
> The reply given by Shri Shriram is quite in order. The Masters of Advaita
> have given examples such as: Karna knew himself to be Rādheya (son of
> Rādha, his foster mother). Later in life it was revealed to him that he was
> the son of Kuntī, whereby he realized himself to be 'I am Kaunteya.' Here,
> taking the worldly standpoint, it would appear, and correctly too to some
> extent, that Kaunteyatva is an adjective to 'I', like manushyatva,
> brāhmaṇatva, etc. In the worldly sense we take the 'I' to be a jiva, a
> person, and then add the various adjectives, attributes.
> However, in the 'aham brahma asmi' such is not the case. The 'I' is Pure
> Consciousness. And 'Brahman' is also attributeless pure consciousness. The
> identity is of this nature.
> One more reason why there is no attribute imposition here is: In the
> pāramārthika state only Brahman is there. The jiva realizes himself as
> Brahman and the jivatva goes. So, Brahman alone is there. When the realized
> jiva dies, he does not lose anything; he remains as Brahman as ever before,
> even when he was ignorant.
> There is what is called 'akhanḍārthatā' in knowing the meaning of 'aham
> brahma asmi'. It is not any relationship like attribute-noun. This is
> explained by a verse in the ‘Vākyavṛtti’ of Shankaracharya:
> संसर्गो वा विशिष्टो वा वाक्यार्थो नात्र सम्मतः |
> अखण्डैकरसत्वेन वाक्यार्थो विदुषां मतः . || 23 ||
> What is meant by a sentence is not accepted either to be connected with
> (samsarga) or qualified by (viśiṣṭa) anything else. The meaning of the
> sentence, according to the wise, is an indivisible Being consisting of
> Bliss only.
> In the sentence ‘the lotus is blue’, the words ‘louts’ and ‘blue’ are in
> the same predicaments. Hence the word ‘lotus’ is qualified by the word
> ‘blue.’ The sentence, therefore, means that it is a blue lotus – not white,
> yellow or of any other color. Again, the word ‘blue’ is qualified by the
> word ‘lotus’ i.e. the blueness does not belong to a piece of cloth or
> anything else. In this way the words ‘lotus’ and’blue’ qualify each other.
> That is what is called in the above verse ‘samsarga’ i.e. mutual connection
> or mutual qualification.
> Again, the same sentence may be construed to mean a lotus having the
> qualification of blueness and not vice-versa. This is what has been
> described in the above verse as ‘viśiṣṭa’ or ‘qualified’.
> Even though the words ‘Thou’ and ‘That’ are in the same predicament in the
> sentence ‘Thou art That’ (‘Tat tvam asi’), neither of the two constructions
> mentioned above is applicable to it. We therefore accept the meanings
> indirectly expressed by the words ‘Thou’ and ‘That’ as absolutely
> identical, aikya, akhaṇḍārthatā.
> > Best Regards and Pranam,
> > Shashwata Chowdhury
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list