[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Aham Brahmasmi - 6 of 10
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Aham Brahmasmi - 6 of 10
-
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
-
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:25:31 -0500
-
Followup-To: alt.hindu
-
From usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil Fri Feb 17 12: 17:46 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 writes:
>I was eternal, but not any more! there is a logical contridiction. Well,
>several questions can be raised and explanations put forward, so I will
>analyse some of those too (btw that Lord Krishna also tells is the Bhagavad
>Gita about the eternal nature of the soul - 'jiva bhuta sanatanah')
1. In Advaitic teaching there is no individual jeevaatmas the way you
think. - you quote half of the stanza as Jeevabhuta sanatanah and draw a
meaning out of it that jeevas are sanatanah.
Let us examine the whole sloka, which is from B.G. Ch. 15. -
Mamaivamsho jeevaloke jeevabhutah sanatanah|
ManahsasthanIdriyani prakrtistani karshati||
Mama = my, Eva = even or alone, amsah = portion, Jeevaloke = in the world
of life, jeevabhutah = having become a soul, sanatanah=eternal,
manahsasthani = with the mind as the sixth, indriyani = the (five) sense
organs, Prakritistani = abiding in the prakriti, karshati = draws (to
itself)
Sanatanah does not belong to Jevas but to himself. Krishna identifying
himself with that totality which is sanatana speaks:
An eternal portion of myself alone or a portion of myself alone which is
eternal having become a jeeva (jeeva bhuta : bhu (bhav) is the root -
bhavati is becoming - bhuta is became - see any good sanskrit-english
dictionary), because of prakriti ( or abiding in prakriti) draws (it self)
the five senses and the mind as the sixth. So What Krishna talks about the
eternal nature is not of the individual souls that you speak of, but that
eternity is about him as Brahman.
In fact He follows the argument further in the chapter and says that He is
in fact responsible as Vaiswanara, the microcosmic entity, the life in the
individual and causes the physiological functions to operate including the
Prana - apana etc. - the pancha pranas - and contribute to digestion of
four types of food etc.
Aham vaiswanarobhutwa praninam dehamasritah|
Pranapana samyuktah pachamyannam chaturvidham||
The point in question and the sloka can be understood easily with the space
analogy. It is like space declaring, that a portion of myself became the
space in the various rooms or compartments (rooms and compartments are not
eternal)- In reality, space is not divisible and I have already discussed
that. So is Brahman. In fact this sloka emphasizes that He is inside me
and outside me since these so called jeevas are nothing but His amsha
alone.
Antah bahirsch tat sarvam vyapta Narayanastitaha|
Just as you may jump into conclusion that since jeevas are amshas and not
the total, (Vishistadvaita emphasizes this aspect), I have provided the
room space and outer space analogy in the beginning itself. There are no
two spaces (there is only one space all the time) all the division appears
to be from the point of transactions and convenience at least in the space
example- This in advaita called vyavaharika satyam. There are no two Au
(gold) it is Ekameva adviteeyam swarnam. The same gold can declare it is
my amsha that became the bangle, ring, necklace etc. (Jeevabhuta) and
provides their supports and their existence and survival. The divisions
are superficial and for utility and for transactions purposes as explained
using space and rooms as an example.
Manishji says:
>(liberation) as tought in advaita, the individual sprit merges >with the
>Impersonal Brahman, becomes one. Here is trouble.
>1. aham brahmasmi is true at all time and space but not for every individual
> jivatma, i.e. it only becomes true after the individual soul merges
>with the brahman.
>But that is not true, because that only means that brahman is brahman
>the jivatmas are not, rather they become brahman after merging into
>brahman. Obviously this is completly devoid of any logic.
>How can something become "eternal" (sat)?
You are wrong again. Aham Brahmasmi is true all the time whether what you
call individual has realized or not. There is no question of individual
soul merging with the Brahman. It is saying that bangle has to merge with
the gold and till then it is not gold! Even if the bangle does not know it
is gold and suffers as a consequence of that lack of knowledge, it was gold
all the time. Since your conclusion is not correct, your statement that
is based on your incorrect conclusion is obviously wrong. Yes your
statements are devoid of logic and not advaitic philosophy that I
understand.
Just as the ornaments do not become gold when they realize, because they
are gold all the time, whether they realize or not, jeevas do not become
Brahman when they realize. They were Brahman all the time even when they
are not realized. There are no two golds. Similarly, there are no two
Brahmans. Nothing else has happened. The notion that I am jeeva is gone
once my identification with the upadhies that I am only this body, I am
only this mind or I am only this intellect is gone, and I now realize that
I am that consciousness. That is why in advaitic concept the jeevas are
not eternal. When I have realized my true natrue is not the ego that
identifies with the names and forms but that I am that chaitanya which is
also sat and ananda, my search is complete. No more jeeva bhavana for me.
It is similar to the ornament having a notion that I am only a bangle or
ring or necklace. It does not have to become something to become gold. It
was gold even when it does not know that it was gold and feels that it is
only the limited bangle different from the ring.
Manishji writes:
>Eternity (sat) by definition requires that there be no begining to begin
> with, i.e. that thing must always be.
Manishiji your statement related to eternity is true and applies only to
Brahman which alone is all the time. Ekameva adviteeyam Brahma.
Manishji writes:
>2. aham brahmasmi is true for all beings but not at all time and space. ie.
>they become brahman after liberation.
> But this is just another way of saying what was said in (1) and the
same
>contridictions apply. In fact, another one joins in, Veda by definition
>means knowledge and how can it be knowledge if it is not true at all
time
>and space?
Your second set of arguments are not different from the your first as you
yourself recognize and is also based on the same incorrect understanding of
advaita.
Your statement --starting from.... In fact ....Veda by definition etc.
...does not seem to have any logical connection with its previous
statement. Be it so. Vedas as we know of as ÒKnowledge of .... something
or the other including knowledge of Brahman - and all these knowledges are
considered as apara vidya. See Mundakopanishad - What is paravidya which
is eternal is that Brahman itself. This is essentially the chit aspect of
Brahman. It is not 'knowledge of'..any more. It is knowledge itself. Of
course Brahman alone is and is eternal, all knowledge etc. These are again
not attributes as I have already pointed out.
>3. aham brahmasmi is always true but the concept of self, be it body or soul,
> are both false/illusory.
> But this is only the Buddhist philosophy which is seriously flawed and
>not supported by Vedanta, some of the flwas in this theory are:
3. I am not going to argue about your understanding of Buddhistic
philosophy since I do not know Budddistic philosophy. Based on your
statements I get the feeling that yours too is a half-baked knowledge from
hearsay than through understanding of it to see if that is really different
or the same as what advaita says. Most of the criticisms including
branding Sri Bhagawan Sankaracharya as ÒPrachanna BouddhaÓ a disguised
Budhist that I have seen in the some advaitic criticisms is based on their
incomplete understanding of the principle of advaita. I do not know
whether they understand Buddism or not, but definitely they do not
understand what advaita is, based on their statements. Some of these are
more circular arguments than what you have in your comments!
Manishji writes:
>If there is no real self, than what is it that reincarnates or takes
> rebirth and thus causes suffering? If that non-material self is also
>illusory, than how can it is carried over from one body to the another?
For Answers to these see the next part.
*********************
