[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Aham Brahmasmi - 4 0f 10
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Aham Brahmasmi - 4 0f 10
-
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
-
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:18:39 -0500
-
Followup-To: alt.hindu
-
From usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil Fri Feb 17 12: 08:49 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Code 6323
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 says:
> sat means eternity, ie. no beginning and no end,
3. Next, Sat means existence - not nityam or eternity- eternity only
follows upon scriptural declaration : Trikala Abhaditam Satyam -That which
exists in three periods of time alone is the truth - Krishna in fact
declares in B.G. Ch. 2, that
Na(a)sato vidyate bhavo nAbhavo vidyate satah|
Ubayorapi drushtontah twanyahs tattwadarshibhihi||
That which does not exist (asat) can never be (exist), and that which
exists can never cease to be. Only the knower of the truth knows the
difference between these two.
Therefore, sat can never cease to be - analogous to conservation of matter
and energy principle - that which is not there can never be and that which
is, can never cease to exist.
4. In the very word Aham - I am - sat and chit both imply automatically.
What is that aham - my true nature, I will address shortly.
Coming back to sat, chit and ananda aspect, no pramana is necessary for me
to know that I exist i.e I am sat, and I am consciousness i.e. I am chit.
Neither Sruti nor smriti is needed for me to know that I am sat and chit.
No one can deny his existence! Because he has to be there even to deny
that. Which imply that they exist, and since they are able to recognize
that fact implies that they are conscious too. That is chit.
Let me give a simple example to illustrate this fact.
Manishji, if you are in a pitch dark room and when someone calls you and
asks if you are there, you cannot say,- it is so dark that I cannot see any
thing and I do not know if I am here or not - because your existence is not
based on any perceptions - or perceptions are not pramana for your
existence. Similarly, you cannot even say that I am able to hear you
therefore I must be here somewhere- because you do not need logic or
inference to prove your existence. Whole universe can deny your existence,
but you know you are there. You do not need some experience to prove your
existence. In fact since you exist as conscious entity, all experiences
are possible. Hence, you do not need any pramana (according to our vedic
scholars there are six pramanas starting from pratyaksha, anumana, sabda,
upamana, artapatti and anupalabdi - and sabda pramana is the sastra
pramana)-and none of them are needed to prove that you exist and that you
are consciousness.
I do not need sastras to tell me that I exist and that I am a conscious
entity. Because I exist and am conscious, sastras have a validity for me.
If I say I exist, automatically implies that I am conscious. If I say I am
conscious automatically it implies that I exist. These are me and not
separate attributes of me. Hence that I am sat and chit. That I am sat
and I am chit are not attributes either for me, and for the Lord or Brahman
either since He exists (sat) and of course He is the conscious intelligence
(Pragyanam Brahma) behind the creation, that is He is chit.
Manishji, I do not know if you are familiar with the old testament- when
Moses approaches the Lord on the Mount in the burning bush - Oh Lord! What
should I say who you are. - the Lord replies - ÒI am that I amÓ This is
beautifully depicted in the movie - Ten commandments. He does not say I am
the Lord of Abraham or I am Krishna, Narayana, Siva or this or that. He
identifies as I am that I am. i.e. I am the existence and the consciousness
- that is the Sat and Chit aspects of the Lord.
Then, what is the scripture as pramana for, if I already know that I am sat
and chit?
For that you need to read the next part!
*********************
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.
While discussing the sat, cht and ananda aspect, I mentioned that I donot
need any pramana to know that I am sat and chit.
What is the scripture as pramana for, if I already know that I am sat and
chit - is the question that I posed.
Only to point out to me that I am ananda too.
Why do I need to know that?
- Because that is what I am searching for all the time.
Nobody is searching for sat and chit. Because they are already sat and
chit, they are able to search for something else! In fact, everybody is
searching for happiness. All pursuits in life from birth to death has been
classified under two categories - pravrutti and nivrutti - trying to
acquire things I like and getting rid of things I dislike. - Why I am
doing that far? - So that I can be happy. So bottom line in all our
pursuits is the pursuit for happiness. Whether one is a believer or
non-believer, Krishna devotee or Siva devotee, yogi or bhogi, everyone is
longing for happiness and searching for it. Why do I want even Moksha for?
I want Moksha because I want to be free from all my inadequacies so that I
am absolutely happy with no more wishing and wanting mind. So everybody is
looking for ananda.
Vedanta says that everybody is looking for Ananda in the wrong place -
that is by acquiring or fulfilling and aggrandizing sensuous objects,
emotional cravings and intellectual pursuits. Because -Vedanta says
ananda is not out there.
a) Ananda is not an object to acquire and
b) Ananda is not in any object that is acquired.
In the Tat twam asi declaration, Vedanta declares that what we are
searching for -that (tat), that Ananda is twam asi - you are. That is -I
am already that ananda that I am searching for. Hence Aham Brahmasmi
implies that not only I am sat and chit which I know, sruties declare I am
ananda too. Because anantameva ananda, that is infiniteness alone is
ananda, that is Brahman alone is ananda. Aham Brahmasmi is the statement
of experience that implies that not only I am sat and chit, I am ananda
too. By implication, I am infiniteness too. Since the Lord is infiniteness,
I am infiniteness; and there cannot be two infiniteness even mathematically
as they mutually limit each other making neither one infinite, Aham
Brahmasmi follows. Even though it is experiencable (finite words fail
here) and is beyond the limited intellect and hence beyond logic, the
scriptural statement per se is perfectly logical. That is the statement is
logical, although the experience is beyond the realm of logic or beyond the
realm of intellect - what is called transcendental experience.
Now how can we prove that I am ananda and infiniteness alone is ananda and
therefore Aham Brahmasmi. Have patience. I will do that in the end.
Before I do that, let me address a few relevant questions.
If I am ananda, then why should I feel sorrowful. If I am infinite why do I
feel I am finite? These are not two different questions but only posed
differently.
Let me illustrate how this can happen -
Sitting comfortably in a lazyboyÕs chair in an air-conditioned room, after
a delicious dinner, I started watching a very tragic movie. Suddenly I
started to cry unable to withstand the suffering of the hero and heroin,
who are desperately running away to save themselves from the bad guys, in a
hot sun, in the forest, in the movie. It is the hero and heroin that are
undergoing the suffering and not me. I am sitting comfortably in an
air-conditioned room on a lazyboy' chair. In principle, there is no need
for me to cry. I have everything I need. Still tears are flowing from my
eyes.
Why am I crying? My identification with the roles are so intense that I
forgot who I am and suffer the consequences of this identification. At the
outset the logic sounds ridiculous. How can I, a rational intellect, and
a degree to prove that, who very well know that I am not in the forest in
the hot sun, and am comfortable in all respects in a fully air-conditioned
room can cry watching an interplay of light and dark shades on the tube.
But logic or no logic, the happening is a fact, is it not?
Similarly, my identification with my body, mind and intellect- the upadhies
- are so intense that their limitations I take it as my limitations and
suffer the consequence of that identification. Intellectually I can even
appreciate the logic that I am dwandwateetaha-beyond the pairs of opposites
(Seetoshna - cold and heat at the body level; sukhaduhka - pleasure and
pain at the mental level; and manapamana - praise and insults at the
intellectual level); but when somebody calls me stupid, I immediately jump
up and down. Because the upadhies are limited, and becuase of the
identification with the upadhies, I feel I am sorrowful and a finite
limited being. That is why self-realization is not an intellectual
appreciation of what I am, but realization of my true nature, what Sri
Ramana calls as Drudaiva nishta.
Manishji says:
>Now, since aham brahmasmi (and consequently "aham sat-cit-ananda") is a Vedic >aphorism, it must be true for all beings at all time and space. So if I say aham brahmasmi >and Vidya also says so, we both must be true and yes it sounds right, but not for long. >Enter "aham sat-cit-ananda", I am sat (by "I" here I am refering to my soul) and all other >are also sat. Still sounds good, yes we are all eternal, enter the concept of moksha
Coming back to your statements - If you realize (not just saying) Aham
Brahmasmi and Vidya also realizes Aham Brahmasmi - does not that mean that
there are two Brahmans.
No Sir. Let me illustrate this with another example of Sri Sankara from
Atma Bhodha.
......vyaktayo vividhasarva
hatake katakadi vat||
Explaining the creation aspect he says - the varieties of pluralities are
like hatake katakadi vat - meaning just as the variety of ornaments out of
gold. Suppose a bangle feels I am a limited bangle that I am searching for
that Lord because of which I am what I am, and without which I do not exist
- that upadana karana - that gold (Au),- {and the very search of the gold
by a bangle implies the dwaita} - and when it realizes its true nature -
it realizes the gold (Au) in me is the same Au that pervades all the gold
ornaments independent of names and forms. I am the same gold in the
nugget, in the gold bar, in the coin, in the ring etc. It was gold before
it was shaped into bangle, it is gold even when it is in the form that
people call it a bangle, it will be gold even when the bangle is melted and
made into something else. Gold it was, gold it is and gold it will be.
Trikala Abadhitam Satyam - what you call nityam and satyam -
When the bangle realizes that I am that Brahman, gold, does that mean the
ring has realized too? These confusions or Avidya that I am limited bangle
or ring or necklaces do not belong to gold. It belongs to the names and
forms who think that they are the names and forms, which of course are
limited. So just because you have realized that you are Brahman, does not
mean that Vidya has realized or I have realized etc. although everyone of
us are that Brahman all the time Just as every gold ornament has been gold
all the time whether each or everyone realized that they are gold or not.
If these concepts are understood properly, then you realize that the
so-called logical contradictions that you have noted are due to your
incorrect understanding of the advaitic concepts and not that there are
contradictions in the advaitic logic.
Now some more points of clarification about your understanding of advaita
in the next part!
*****************
