[Prev][Next][Index]
Re:Aham Brahmasmi - 8 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.
Manishji writes:
> aham brahmasmi is always true but the spirit is all one!
> Now this is completly absurd. It is beyond doubt that the self in me
> is different than the self in Vidya and the self in so and so.
You say it is beyond doubt - beyond of whose doubts? It is the mind that
doubts.
Advaita does not say that self in you is different from the self in me or
in Vidya. According to Advaita there is only one. That is Brahman.
What is different between you, Vidya and I are the manovritiies that is
mental notions or ahankaras that we are different individuals since each
one of our subtle bodies are different and identifying with these
differences we claim our differences are real. These difference are all
part of Prakriti aspect what advaita calls maya too. Krishna declares:
Bhumiraponalovayuhu kham mano bhuddirevacha|
ahankaramiteeyam me bhinna prakriti rashtadha||
Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism - this is my
eight fold divided prakriti. - In one stroke He covers both the grosser
and the subtler aspects and declares that all is my prakriti. -
Prakarshyena kriti is prakriti - my special doing. But my true nature is
higher than this, and the Lord further declares that:
Apareyamitastvanyam prakritim viddi ve param|
Jeevabhutam mahabaho yayedam dharyate jagat||
This is inferior prakriti and different from these eightfold divisions is
my higher prakriti, which is the very life element by which this world is
upheld.
When you realize your true nature you can also declare that this body this
identification with groser and subtle bodies - mano budhi and ahankar are
my lower prakriti but my true nature is Aham Brahmasmi.
I am a bangle or ring or necklace who says that - it is the gold in the
bangle or in the ring that identifies that I am a bangle or necklace or
ring when it identifies with the upadhies. There is no question of
attaining something that you are not. If liberation is something you are
going to get then there is equal possibility that you can lose it too.
Then what good is that Moksha.
If bangle is going to gain gold then it can lose that gold. But it is gold
all the time even when the bangle does no know that it is gold. It can do
all the japa it wants ÒAham Swarnasmi - Aham Swarnasmi etc. - nothing
happens. It can do all the karma it wants- jump up and down etc. - It can
chant all the time it wants : Hare Swarna Hare Swarna, Swarna Swarna Hare
Hare etc. All the bhakti, karma or dhyana etc. cannot bring gold into the
bangle. It has to recognize or realize that, what it has been searching
for, that it is searching with. There is only one gold (Au) in all the
gold ornaments.
Manishji writes:
>If we are all just one self, than how can one attains liberation and
> not all at the same time?
When bangle realizes that I am gold its pursuit is fulfilled. That does
not mean that ring has realized. Ring may think it is still a ring and not
the gold even when the bangle comes and teaches the swarnageeta that Oh
ring! Your notion that you are only a ring etc. is your delusion because of
intense identification with the name (ring) and form (concentric circular
body of some I.D and O.D.) That is only your lower nature. That you are
only the ring is delusion due to maya. Realize your true nature. Your
higher nature is that you are that pure gold(Au)-the very life element of
all the gold ornaments that supports all the gold Jagat. Ring of course
will not believe it. It says I believe in the achintya Bheda-Abheda tatwa.
You are a bangle, I am ring and the other fellow is a necklace. How can
we all be one. It is against our day to day experiences. Bangle is
different from ring, ring is different from necklace and the Bheda is real.
Differences are more important than the unity. How can we be all
pervading gold. That is mayavada. That is blasphemy. Only the Bhagavan is
gold, and says so in the SwarnaGeeta.
Manishji, you gave some cat-lion example to show the importance of the
Bheda aspect. What advaita talks about is that the difference belongs to
the lower nature or to the upadhies. True knowledge is that, in and
through the differences, there is the unity that is the underlying
substratum, and your true nature is that. Differences are superficial and
for the transactional purposes or what is called vyavaharika satya - but in
and through the differences is the unifying factor that supports the whole
thing as gold in the gold ornaments, even thought ring is different from
bangle and necklace, all are gold is the knowledge. This does not mean you
ware necklace or bangle around the finger etc. So in your example,
advaitic cats have no problem. They know that even though the life in lion
and the life in me are the same, I better save this cat body from that lion
body. What adaita says is absolutely scientific too. How?
Science has progressed to the degree now that we all know that all mater
consists of the fundamental particles - electrons, protons and neutrons
etc. The table is different from a chair, which is different from the food
I am going to take, which is different from the garbage next door. But
yet scientist knows that all are nothing but the same fundamental matter -
electrons, protons and neutrons in different proportions. This knowledge
does not make him eat garbage instead of food. Advaita is to see the unity
among the diversity. That knowledge does not negate the names and forms,
and their temporal utility. In and through the names and forms,
realization is the realization of that substratum that pervades everything.
That is why advaita clearly points about the vyavaharika satya and
satyasya satya.
In the Yogavashita there is a story - The teacher is Vashista and the
student is Sri Rama. After hearing that the world is like a dream
(samsarah swapna tulyohi ragadweshadi sankulah-from Atmabhodha) Rama gets a
doubt, how can this which appears to be so real is like a dream. He wants
to test Vashista. One day as Vashista was coming, he sends a mad elephant
to chase Vashista and obviously like your cat Vashista runs away to save
himself. Rama confronts his teacher and ask why is he running away since
the elephant that was chasing him is not real and only a dream elephant.
Vashista smiled and said Oh Rama! why do you think that running away was
real. Even that is a part of the dream too. Then only Rama realized
that vyavaharika satyam or the lower prakriti and the higher prakriti
aspects. I heard people criticizing advaita - saying that How can I be
Brahman. If I am Brahman how come I am suffering. It is like asking if it
is rope how come I am seeing a snake. That is my question too - since it
is rope why are you seeing as a snake? Obviously because of the lack of
proper vision, I am unable to see the truth as the truth; and untruth or
the Bheda becomes more important than the Abheda. How can I be crying
sitting in an air-conditioned room in a comfortable sofa watching some show
on the tube?
Hence Any suffering is from the point of upadhies - body, mind and
intellect and the identification with the upadhies - that is the ego - I am
this and that etc. When Aham Brahmasmi that realization has come, where is
the suffering. Brahma means infinite and Ekameva adviteeyam Brahman when
there is only one and it is anantam there is no one else to fear or no
other limitation to suffer from.. That is why anantameva anandaha.
Have you realized that no one suffers in deep sleep state. Because there
is no identification with the subtle body (mind and intellect or the
thought world) in the deep sleep state. Because there are no thoughts
there is no concept of space and time too. There is none other than you.
That is why J. Krishnamutry says Òfear comes from the secondÓ because when
there are two, one limits the other, and none can stand any limitations.
Politics starts when there are two and since each one is limited and is
afraid of the other. When there are three this confusion gets confirmed.
In your Bedha-Abheda, Abheda has to be the truth and Bheda is only for
transactional purposes, like the scientist knowing fully well that all are
assemblage of the fundamental particles. If you give importance to Bhedha
you are going to suffer because Bhedha confirms duality and when there is a
duality there is a limitation and fear etc automatically follow.
Manishji says:
>All I have done here is shown that aham brahmasmi is contrary to adavita
>(including brahmavad and mayavad).
No you have not. What you have shown is that you have not understood what
advaita says. Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong in the advaita
logic. What is wrong is only your understanding of what advaita says.
Manishji says:
>acintya bheda-abheda tattva on the other hand begins with "bheda" difference
>and ends with "abheda" nondifference and thus puts more emphaisis on the
> difference.
I do not understand achinta Bheda-Abheda tatwa for me to argue scholarly
with you about that philosophy. Therefore I recognize that there is more
to it than what is presented in your article. But what you presented I am
going to argue that is absolutely illogical. So my criticism is not about
that philosophy per se but the statement you have made in the note and your
interpretation of the aphorisms and the Geeta sloka you presented. Of
course I am eager to learn the basis of the achintya Bheda-Abheda
philosophy, if you discuss it without making wrong statements about the
other philosophies that you do not know.
Manishji says:
>Consider the case of cats and Lions (Big Cats!) Now both cats and lions
>belong to the same biological family, so there is oneness but they are also
>different (no explanation needed for that!)
>Consider the fate of 4 cats that go in a place which has some lions/tigers,
>one that thinks it is same as the lions, one that thinks it is more similar
>to lion than it is different, one that thinks it is just different, and last
>that thinks it similar but the there is difference and that is more important.
>The last two will be most secure since they know about the difference, the
>second ones is more likely to get into trouble and the first one is in for
>some big trouble Now this is only a metaphor, however I believe there is some >similarity it has with us, in the sense of our subordinate position to the Supreme >even though we are qualitatively one with it (aham brahmasmi/aham sat-cit->ananda).
>This metaphor also explains why I believe dvaita (which only speaks of
>difference and thus is incomplete) is still valid although advaita, which
>speaks only of the oneness is wrong.
I already refuted your metaphor about the lions and the cats. What advaita
says is not lion is the same as the cat. It is like saying the bangle is
the same as the ring. Bangle is the bangle and the ring is the ring. The
life sustaining factor in the bangle and the ring and that which pervades
both of them is the same. The differences belong to upadhies just as the
differences among different rooms belong to the space conditioned by
different rooms. Just because I have knowledge that space in the dining
room is not different from the space in the bathroom, what I do in the bath
room is different from what I do in the dining room. Therefore Advaitic
cats will try to save from lions and advaitic lions will hunt for the cats.
It is like Sri Krishna killing the Kamsa or Shishupala even though He
declares that He pervades the entire universe and all jeevas are his amsas,
and he is the life sustaining force even in Kamsa and Shishupala and
knowing fully well
Ninam chindanti sastrani Ninam dahati pavakah, Nachinam kledayantopi
nashoshayatimarutaha| and declaring that, Samoham sarvabhuteshu
namedweshvosti na priyah|
So do not try to misinterpret advaita with your examples.
Manishji says:
>For those who only know of the bheda, the Lord will impart them intelligence
>to make their knowledge, but those who only think/know of the oneness, ie.
>think themselves to be the Lord or deny the existence of a seperate Supreme
>on the basis of the superficial understanding of aham brahmasmi, well the
>lions are hungry and the cats are there :-))
>Lord Krishna explicitly says in the Bhagavad Gita that "those who are
>completly devoted to Me, I destroy their ignorance with the shining lamp
>of knowledge, dweling in their hearts as the supersoul (paramatma)".
>So, the dvaitans are safe but the advaitans are most certainly on the wrong
>track. They have to deal with all the troubles themselves and progress is
>slow and even questionable, given the limited knowledge and strength of an
>infinitestimal individual jivatma.
You talk about the Krishna saving you and not the advaitin. It is like the
ring saying to the bangle who has realized that it is indeed nothing but
that all pervading Gold, that Oh bangle, you will never be saved because
the Lord Gold says in that those ornaments who are completely devoted to me
I destroy their ignorance -But what is that ignorance that he destroys? I
am not a ring and but a gold? That is exactly what Bangle has already
realized by contemplation on the sruties declaration as tat twam asi that I
am that all pervading gold in all gold ornaments!
More in the next part.
****************
