[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: aham brahmasmi - Revised and Enlarged!
-
Subject: Re: aham brahmasmi - Revised and Enlarged!
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:43:48 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Mon Feb 13 15: 34:17 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
-
References: <3hj6ee$ceq@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
In article #2228, pontus.mattsson%nesterc@nesterc.neste.fi (pontus mattsson) wrote:
|> In article <3guaia$goi@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
|> says:
|> >Where are all the advaitans gone??
|>
|> I believe most true advaitans would answer something like "we are not elswhere"
If they realize what it means to be somewhere, they should say "we are nowhere".
|> >Both these Upanisadic aphorisms seemingly imply that everyone is brahman
|>
|> I think it is an understatement to call anything from the Upanishads an
|> aphorism. After all, they _are_ the Himalayas of human thought, the absolute
|> Crest-Jewel.
as per The Oxford dictionary,
"aphorism" means 'short pithy maxim' where "pithy" means 'condensed and forcible'
and "maxim" means 'general truth of science or experience'.
I dont see how calling them Upanisadic aphorism is an understatement, also this
term is used by advaitans as well on this very forum.
OTOH, your calling them "the Himalayas of human thought" is rather derogatory.
|> I can not follow the line of reasoning in your posting, so I have to cite
|> myself.
Which part you did not understand. The purpose of my post was to analyse "aham
brahmasmi" and go beyond what appears to be its direct meaning (read translation).
I used the attributes of Brahman (sat, cit, ananda) to explain what it means to be
Brahman (like). Anyways, I'll be more than happy to further explain any part that
you still don't understand.
|> From the Kaivalyopanishad, part of Atharva-Veda, translation by Swami
|> Madhavananda:
|>
|> "16.
|> That which is Supreme Brahman, the soul of all,
|> the great support of the universe, subtler than the
|> subtle, and eternal - that is thyself, and thou art That."
|>
|> 17.
|> "That which manifests the phenomena, such
|> as the states of wakefulness, dream and profound sleep,
|> I am that Brahman" - realising thus one is liberated from all bonds.
|>
|> 18.
|> What constitute the enjoyable, the enjoyer, and
|> the enjoyment, in the three abodes - different from them
|> all I am, the Witness, the Pure Consiousness, the Eternal
|> Good .
This is totally useless because as I already said, my post was to explain what
it means to be Brahman by nature, i.e. I was addressing the translation that you
have provided here. Your giving that which I already addressed doesn't make sense.
|> IHMO anyoneself reading this art That.
|>
|> The "method" to experience this is "Who am I?" . A method that
|> itself will disappear and become ever non-existent once it has fulfilled
|> its task, since there can be no path or method to become That which you are.
yes, and along the same lines, since you are what you are, there is no reason
why you would become something that you are not.
We are jivatmas (spirit souls) and the nature of the soul is "brahman" and the
inquiry "who am I" leads to the realization of that nature. BUT, that is eaxctly
where the fallacy and shallowness of advaita becomes evident.
Why is our nature brahman? Ask that question and you will go beyond the apparent
oneness and realize your cause, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krishna,
who is para Brahman, from whom you get your eternal nature. IF you want, I will
forward you a copy of my post on "tat tvam asi" where I deal with this more
elaborately.
|> Pontus
|>
|>
|> PS. the above is of course not my own thinking. Mainly borrowed form
|> Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
|>
|> OM NAMO BHAGAVATE MATA MEERA
Is this MATA MEERA the great devotee (of Krishna) Meera bai?
If yes than I'm surprised that you are subscribing to the advaita philosophy
while glorifying a devotee of God.
If not than she must be some pretender who has cunningly assumed the name of
the devotee of the Lord and is misguiding people.
and btw, Bhagavan means God and Ramana Maharshi is/was NOT God either. You seem
to be following crooks.
Om namo bhagvate vasudevaya
