[Prev][Next][Index]
Re:Aham Brahmasmi-1of 10
These series of articles are in response to the so-called repeated
challenges posed by Sri Manish Tandan with his article on "Aham Brahmasmi"
that was published in the net couple of weeks ago. The division into parts
is only to fit into my mail-server. The text is organized mostly in the
sequence of his comments. I welcome your comments on the contents. Enjoy
the articles if you can. - Hari Om! Sadananda.
Part I
Manish Tandan writes:
>aham brahmasmi - I am brahman
>tat tvam asi - you are the absolute (tat/brahman)/ Thou art That
>Both these Upanisadic aphorisms seemingly imply that everyone is brahman
>and therefore apparently support the advaita theory.
>Well, I know valiancy is to go beat the enemy in their house, so that is
>what I will do here (by beating here I only mean defeat their philosophy, not
>any physical or verbal abuse).
He wants to beat the enemy in the enemy grounds. I think before one enters
the enemy grounds one should understand first the arguments of the enemy.
Otherwise the so-called fight becomes a meaningless fight.
There are three parts in his article entitled Aham Brahmasmi. In the first
part he gives his understanding of what Advaita says, and in the second
part he refutes that these interpretations of advaita are illogical, and in
the third part he provides how Bheda-Abheda explains the same aphorisms
without the so-called logical absurdities.
In sequence the second part of his criticism of advaita is squarely based
on the first part that is on his understanding or rather, what I consider,
on his misunderstanding of what Advaita says. If he understands what
advaita says correctly, the absurdities of his own arguments in the second
part will become self evident, and hopefully the basis of the third part
will disappear! He can walkout the so-called enemy ground gracefully as a
friend!
It is difficult for me to educate him what advaita is, and eradicate his
misunderstandings of advaita by this note unless he has an open mind, which
I doubt, since he is in the mood of fighting not learning. I will put
forth my arguments so that the public do not get misled by his
misunderstandings. So I am going to take each of his statements in the
first part, and perhaps clarify what advaita really says in comparison to
what he thinks it says. I presume that his misunderstanding of advaita is
not due to his fault, since many of the so called ISKCON ÒAS IT IS booksÓ
contains the same ignorance of Advaita what they call mayavada, and I find
this misunderstanding pervades in almost all ISKCON propaganda books
(either by design or default) and this includes many of the articles
including many of the scanned postings of Krishna Susarla that we have seen
in the net.
Manishji writes:
>what Shisha Rao and Vidya did, i.e. falsly claim that Gaudia follow
>both dvaita and acintya bheda-abheda tattva and hence they are >wrong. This as I said before is based either upon incomplete >knowledge of Lord Chaitanya's teachings and/or a desire to deride >them somehow even if that takes a little
>concocted presentation of facts.
In the articles Manishji criticizes Shisha Raoji and Vidyaji for making
comments without understanding Bheda-Abheda concepts. Unfortunately, the
criticisms that he levels against Vidyaji applies to him too as he
criticises advaita with incomplete knowledge, as you will see shortly.
First I am going to make myself clear the purpose of my article. I am not
going to fight with Manishji or any one else on Advaita or Vishistadvaita.
Advaita does not need any defense from me or in fact from anyone else. It
withstood the test of time for centuries only because it is based on
Sruties, logic and experience. For those who are interested, there is a
beautiful book by Nisargadatta Maharaj entitled ÒI am thatÓ. I never
heard of him before, and but the book is so contemplative and enthralling.
I gather he was a pawnvala in Bombay who was never exposed to vedantic
intricate logic, but had full faith in his teacher who taught him Òtat twam
asiÓ. That faith was sufficient for him to go beyond. Of course Bhagawan
Ramana Maharshi is the famous example who even before he was exposed to any
scriptural knowledge had the experience of that state.
These mahatmas could only confirm that the scriptural declarations are
indeed true. That is why I said sruiti, logic and experience. Because
according to Advaita, Jeevan Mukti is possible, that is, one can get mukti
while living. In fact, liberation is possible only now and here which are
the only true entities in the flowing time and space. With the
developments in modern understanding of matter and space through quantum
mechanics and relativity theories, I think advaita is more soundly based
on logic than any one of the vedantic interpretations that I know. Of
course, sruties come before the logic,and experience as pramana. But I
maintain each and every statement of sruties is perfectly logical although
the experience itself is beyond logic. In fact, advaita appealed to me
only because of its logic.
Many of the statements that Manishji makes are not new, and have been put
forth since the time of Sri Adi Sankara. Sri Bhagawan Ramanuja has
exhaustively addressed many of them in his Sri Bhasya particularly on
Avidya concept - as seven onslaughts on Avidya. Vedanta DesikaÕs work as
Sata Dhushana- hundred defects in Advaita- is another example. There was a
response to this book by an advaitic scholar as Sata Bhushana - indicating
that what are so-called defects are indeed ornaments of the Advaita
Philosophy. These point-counter points and the extent of tarka sastra that
went in the analysis are really mind boggling. I am amazed how analytical
our seers were. Reading of these makes us humble. All these criticisms
and counter criticisms in fact can help a sadhak who is search of the
truth, provided he has an open mind to inquire by himself what is right
logically and experientially. Manishji wants a challenge from anyone to
prove that he is wrong. We do not gain any thing by that. Other than
exposing the ignorance of a person (in case if he is wrong! and of course
he would neither recognize nor acknowledge even if he is wrong, since he
wants to fight not to learn!)
My general advice to all readers in the net, if at all, is simple. What
ISKCON group provides pages and pages of scanned text (some body must have
a lot of free time and free scanner) has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The statements about Advaita or mayavada are either out of context or
based on their incomplete understanding or to put it correctly on their
misunderstanding. So far I have not found any of their articles without
some wrong criticism of advaita. Based on the reading of these articles it
appears to me, the strength of their philosophy depends not on its
intrinsic strength but their repeated misinterpretation of advaita. So my
advice to everyone is to discard all their comments on what they call
mayavada, but with an open mind study their concepts of what Bheda-Abheda
philosophy says, and use your own intelligence to decide if that is the
right philosophy for you or not. There is nothing sacred or as it is about
their interpretations. If we disagree with them, they think we are all
doing it because of the influence of Kaliyuga. The fact of the matter is
Kaliyuga includes ISKCON group and their interpretations too along with
those of us who do not completely subscribe to their interpretations. Do
not misunderstand me that I am against ISKCON group or any other group. I
respect them for what they are; they are the devotees of the Lord too, and
they are sadhaks in search of the truth and I strongly believe that they
too are trying to evolve in their own way. Only my objection is to their
vehement criticism of others who do not agree with them, and more so when
their criticism of other philosophies is based on either misinformation or
misunderstanding.
I was hoping that some knowledgeable person who knows advaita thoroughly
would respond to ManishjiÕs articles. Since nothing was forth coming, I
am taking it on myself to respond since I didn't want the readers to get
misled by his misunderstandings. If some scholars of advaita find my
arguments are not in tune with advaita, I will be very happy to learn.
What I am going to write is what I understand. In a way, I am thankful to
Manishji for writing whatever he believes in, and giving me an opportunity
to clarify some of the concepts of advaita that he presented. I am fully
aware that ISKCON group will jump on me with all the flames for what I
have written. That is understandable. That does not bother me since I
sincerely respect them individually for what they are. My objection is
only to their approach of criticism of others. I will be very happy to
learn about the Bheda-Abheda philosophy on its own merit if they do not
make incorrect statements about what advaita says, which is not necessory
to explain their philosophy.
Before I take up my response to Manishji article, I want to clarify one
more thing. There are no advaitic sadhaks or seekers now or any time. That
is contradiction in terms. A sadhak implies sadhana which implies that
seeker is different from the sought. Hence there is a duality. Because he
is trying to seek as if it is somewhere, scriptures guide him saying that
Tat twam asi. What you are seeking ÔthatÕ is indeed your own true nature Ô
twamÕ. J. Krishnamurthy who was not exposed to any Vedantic teaching -
declares in his address, while abolishing the clout around him, saying that
Òtruth is a pathless landÓ. Path is required only when it is far away from
me. If the truth is myself then there cannot be any path.
In the very sadhana, the seeker and the sought must merge into one.
ISKCON group have been making wrong statements that Sankaracharya had
become wise in his later years and hence wrote ÒBhajagovindamÓ implying
that, the worship to Govinda is the ultimate path. First, that was not the
last thing he wrote. He wrote Atma Bhodha and Vivekachudamani and other
innumerable prakarana granthas afterwards. Second, not only on Govinda, he
wrote on every god or goddesses that we are familiar with- Most beautiful
poetry came out of his pen. Third, Bhagawan Sankara is fully aware that
every sadhana involves dwaita, and bhakti, karma and gyana are the yogas to
purify the mind which is required in order to see the truth as the truth.
So advaita philosophy recognizes that bhakti, karma and gyana yogas are
important vehicles for a sadhak.
Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi who emphasized the inquiry into the self ÒWho am
I?Ó says in his Upadesha Sara:
Eswararpitam necchayakritam|
Chitta sodhakam muktisadhakam||
Meaning Na icchaya kritam karma, Eswararpitam karma Chittasodhakam bhavati.
Tat karma Mukti sahakari bhavati.
Hence advaitic philosophy is all inclusive. It recognizes the role of the
sadhana -Bhakti, karma and Gyana as the means for neutralizing the raga and
dweshas, the likes and dislikes, which cloud our understanding. Hence
ISKCON statements about Sankaracharya in his later years had discarded his
advaita philosophy and started preaching Govinda bhajana as the means and
the end of all, while his followers are holding to the wrong philosophy, is
baseless and absurd. Even in Bhajagovindam he talks about the greatness of
Satsangh and how it can purify the mind and how one can attain Jevan Mukta
state, that is liberation while living.
Satsangatwe nissangatwam; nissangatwe nirmohatwam
nirmohatwe nischala tatwam and nischala tatwe Jeevan Muktihi||
Mukti in the advaitic concept is not a sevakÕs status; a status of an
eternal servant; that to me is going from one prison to the other, from
that with iron shackles to that with golden shackles. Mukti is not going
somewhere, reaching somewhere, doing something etc., it is the realization
that I am not the upadhies; the body, mind and intellect and the ahankara,
but I am that I am seeking that sat, chit, ananda that the scriptures talk
about.
Now I will address statement by statement of Manishji with the hope to
clarify the misunderstanding about advaita concepts.
This is done in Part 2.
*********
