[Prev][Next][Index]
Re:Aham Brahmasmi - 2of 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.
Manishji writes:
>Both these Upanisadic aphorisms seemingly imply that everyone is brahman
>and therefore apparently support the advaita theory.
Advaita does not say everyone is Brahman. All it says is Brahman alone is.
In fact it is unfortunate that since the time of Sri Ramanuja the term
mayavada is used by critics to designate the Advaita philosophy. If at all
one wants to characterize the essence of Advaita philosophy it should be
rightly called as Brahamavada rather than mayavada. Maya is only a tool
used to explain why advaita appears to be dvaita.
So Manishji to start with according to Advaita there is no everyone - there
is only one and it is Brahman. The word Brahman comes from Brih dathu.
Forgetting the interpretations and connotational meanings the word meaning
of Brahman is that which is the bigness. (A noun made out of the adjective
the big.) Essentially it is the infiniteness. In infinity there are no
parts, even mathematically.
Furthermore, there can only be one infiniteness. If there are more than
one, one limits the other and neither one is infinite. Hence the
scriptural declaration is indeed mathematically precise:
Ekameva Adviteeyam Brahma.
Before we take up the aphorism -Aham Brahmasmi - there is another
mahavakya, aphorism, that defines what -that Brahman is- It is Pragyanam
Brahma - That is consciousness is Brahman. That is the chit aspect of
Brahman.
Now, Aham Brahmasimi does not mean everyone is Brahman. Then we end up too
many infinetenesses which is by definition absurd. And all your arguments
(or so-called fighting) is based on this absurd understanding of what
Advaita says.
Then according to advaita what does Aham Brahmasmi imply?
The consciousness entity- I - that claims - Aham - is the same as the
infinite consciousness, Brahman.
The following example makes the concept clear. Like a room space claiming
Aham Akashasmi- that knowledge can come to the room space if it identifies
that space in me is the same as the all pervading akasha. Although we do
divide our house space into different rooms for vyavaharika or
transactional purposes, in truth, Akasha cannot be divided. But this room
is different from that room - its shape, its utility, its arrangement, the
furniture it holds and its beauty are different from those of the next
room. Yet from Akasha point the divisions between the rooms ( vijaati,
sajaati and swagata Bhedas -essentially all differences) are superficial.
Like Krishna (in B.G. Ch. 9), Akasha can also declare:
Mayatata midam sarvam jagadavyakta murthina|
mastani sarvabhutani na chaham teswavastitah||
I pervade all buildings in an unmanifested form {akash (that which
provides avakasha is akasha) cannot have form}; all buildings and rooms
exists in me but I do not dwell in them in the sense that their sufferings
and stinkiness or glories do not belong to me! I am ever immaculate,
indivisible and all pervading space. In fact, Krishna uses the space
analogy to get a point across - see B.G Ch 13- 32.
Even when the room stinks, the space can never get polluted. It is
immaculately pure and of course attributeless. This room and that room and
the divider in between them are all in space. Threr is no space, where
space is not there! By the by, this is not my example. In his Atma Bhodha
text Sri Sankaracharya in fact gives this example to illustrate the point:
YathAkAsO Hrushikesho
Nanopadhigato vibhuhu:|
Tadbhedat Bhinnavadbhati
Tannase kevalobhavet||
In its essential nature there are no two or multiple spaces even though
rooms and buildings are multitudes. When one room realizes that its
essential nature is the same as the infinite space in and through, that
does not necessarily follow that all rooms have realized. This is just one
analogy but clarifies the misunderstanding of advaita.
But, let us first understand more what Advaita says before we can argue
whether it is right or wrong. Tat twam asi is the teaching or instruction
to the sadhak, and Aham Brahmasmi is the knowledge of the experience, i.e.
it is not a statement that can be intellectually comprehended. This
should be clear in our minds before we discuss further.
In the next part the attributes of Brahman are discussed.
*******************
