[Prev][Next][Index]
Re:aham Brahmasmi - 3 of 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.
Manish Tandon says:
>Whenever a reference is made to brahman, inherent is the reference to its
>attributes, i.e. sat, cit, and ananda.
>So, aham bramasmi is analogous to saying, "aham sat-cit-ananda"
The next point I want to clarify is according to advaita - sat, chit, and
ananda are not attributes of Brahman. Brahman being infiniteness, by
definition there cannot be any attributes because of the following reasons:
The word attribute - guna in samskrit - is that which qualifies the noun
- that is it is an adjective. Noun refers to an object. And the
adjectives are qualifiers to the noun or the object in question. But
Brahman is not an object. Because:
a) When we say it is an object, it is automatically different from the
subject. Since object is different from the subject, by mutual exclusion
each limits the other, and obviously Brahman cannot be Brahman
(infiniteness) any more.
b) Object in vedantic tradition is that which can be thought of. That
makes Brahman intellectually comprehensible. Limited intellect cannot
comprehend the infinite.
c) Gunas, as we know, are measurable by intellect. They are the properties
of prakriti - tanmatras (matra means measure). Even the so-called abstract
gunas such as sweetness of sugar is still a measurable as we say nutrasweet
is sweeter than sugar etc. In samskrit, these are referred to as taratama
bhedhas (tara is comparitive and tama is the superlative).
d) Hence scripture defines Brahman as nirguna - without attributes. From
Bhakti point since Lord is out there, He becomes sakala kalyana guna
Asraya, because He is the Lord, and otherwise He cannot be the Lord!
Bhagavan Sri Ramanuja interprets nirguna as that He does not have bad
gunas, but He is the embodiment of ananta kalyana gunas. Of course, from
Bhakti point, any statement of His glories is less than the fact. That is
why you cannot really glorify Him since any glorification only falls short
of the truth. He being infinite any description of Him, of course falls
short. He is more than what all you can say. That is why we cannot
flatter Him nor He can be flattered, because He is too full to be
flattered. Any thing we say will be an understatement. All one can say
that He has infinite gunas (ananta kalyana guna). As much as the infinite
cannot be comprehended so are the infinite gunas too.
Advaita understands that too. Any statement of description of the Lord is
the statement by an intellect to describe the indescribable. That is why I
find all arguments about the nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are
meaningless arguments, because both are not saying any thing different to
argue about, only difference is one from gyana point and the other is from
Bhakti point.
Not only I have problem in describing the Lord, because He is ananta, I
have similar problem in describing, the subject, Aham too. Because any
description of the subject is not valid, since any description is
objectification that can be negated. I am not an object. I am the subject,
Aham. I can negate any and every ÒthingÓ but I cannot negate myself because
I am the very subject that is doing the negation. If at all, I can
describe myself as, I am that which cannot be objectified. That is a
negative definition to indicate a positive factor. (by negation process)
That is why Sir Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi says for a sadhak to Òanalyze the
analystÓ to find out who they are. This very process of analysis - stops
with analyzer and the analyzed or in J. KrishnamurtyÕs words the observer
and the observed become one in the state of meditation, that is when all
the subject-object duality ceases-that is the a-dwaita state. That is why
the philosophy is known as advaita since it negates the experience of
dvaita.
e)To be mathematically precise, gunas are necessary but not necessarily
sufficient qualifications, qualifying the noun. Like the sweetness in
sugar. Sugar must be sweet - necessary qualification. Sweet need not be
sugar, it can be Equal. That is sweetness is not sufficient qualification
to define sugar. The only necessary and sufficient qualification for
sugar is that it is C12H22O11. But in describing that I am not saying
anything about the gunas of sugar. Sugar is C12H22O11, and C12H22O11 is
sugar, and there are no two ways about it. In the case of Sat, chit,
ananda - the three are all necessary and sufficient if you still insist on
calling them as ÔgunasÕ - What is implied is that sat is chit, chit is
ananda and ananda is Brahman. That is why Sruti says anantameva anandaha
-with eva the sufficiency is specified. Infiniteness alone(eva) is ananda.
What is implied is that all the three are the same indicating different
points of view of Brahman. In simple terms, one can say that they are
equivalent ÒdefinitionsÓ or expressions of Brahman. Just as Brahman cannot
be Òthought ofÓ so are sat - chit- ananda. These are not things that can
be comprehended.
In fact Bhagavan Ramana starts his SAT DARSHAN book with a prayer saying
that:
Sat pratyayaha kinnu vihaya santam
hrudyesha chintarahito hrudakhyaha |
katham smaramastamameyamekam
tasyasmritih tatra dhrudaiva nishta ||
Without the principle of existence can there be knowledge of existence.
(what he means is that sat and chit are one and the same since one cannot
exist without the other)
In the heart of my personality free from thoughts is this principal of
existence - that when I say Aham - I am existence.
How can I think of it which is free from the thoughts and not available for
thoughts?
Only way is to abide firmly in itself or in myself.
There is no mayavada here. It is a simple statement of facts of what is my
true nature. or His inquiry - Who am I?
2. Yes. Aham Brahmasmi is not a statement based on logic or analysis but
confirmation of an experience- because the very word analysis implies that
it is an intellectual vritti or effort. Instead it is a statement of
experience beyond the intellect and that the intellect being limited cannot
comprehend the infiniteness. Because it is not something that can be
comprehended. See Kenopanishad. What some people call transcendental
experience. Transcending what? - the time and space.
Rest in the next.
****************
