[Advaita-l] Explanation needed regarding the Mahavakya "aham Brahmasmi"
shashwata.unimas at gmail.com
Sat Apr 15 12:52:30 EDT 2017
In that particular statement - "I" is not an object. What ever you impose
on the subject is false. Let it be a name - "BrahmaN" or an attribute,
since non-qualified Brahman has no name to begin with, imposing one means
ignorance . Here you are imposing Tatastha LakshaNa on Svarupa LakshaNa
(which is "I"; as the speaker is the subject himself, who is unable to get
rid of the his own self). The example which you used is not correct since
you are just equating two objects and the example itself opposes the
statement (As "I" or "Brahman" are opposite of the material world). To
extend it further- subject can not be equated with an object as the notion
of equating itself means defiling the subject "I". In the MahAvAkya "I" is
not replaceable by anything whether that definite thing is a name or
another object. Here the subject is being objectified by a name (name is
the tatasha lakshNa for the svarUpa Brahman "I"). and by that very
definition the word "Brahma" here, is an adjective.
The same question (which I have asked) was asked in a seminar by Swami
Vedatattvanandaji to BrahmaNa Kula Ratna Vedmurti Krishnamurti Sastrigal.
Both of them were unable to answer the question. Except that both of them
fully accepted the fact that it ("BrahmaN") was an adjective.
Best Regards and Pranam,
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:04 AM, कुवँर बिपिन चौहान via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Best WIshes
> 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
> > > is- the word "Brahma" which is contained in the sentence, is it a noun
> > > 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
> > the son of Kuntī, whereby he realized himself to be 'I am Kaunteya.'
> > 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.
> > 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
> > jiva dies, he does not lose anything; he remains as Brahman as ever
> > 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
> > 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
> > That is what is called in the above verse ‘samsarga’ i.e. mutual
> > 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
> > sentence ‘Thou art That’ (‘Tat tvam asi’), neither of the two
> > mentioned above is applicable to it. We therefore accept the meanings
> > indirectly expressed by the words ‘Thou’ and ‘That’ as absolutely
> > identical, aikya, akhaṇḍārthatā.
> > regards
> > subbu
> > >
> > > 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/
> > 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