[Prev][Next][Index]
Aham Brahmasmi 2
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
>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:
This is a very weak argument. There are numerous references in the SAstra
to the Supreme as having qualities. Further more, you have already refered
in your previous post that Brahman was a noun, therefore you are very
nicely defeating yourself.
Lets look what you said in the previous post:
>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.)
Thanks for mentioning that it is a noun, now I don't have to defeat your
previous statement, you did it for me.
Further acknowledgement should be made for the fact that nirguNa is an
adjective, and it qualifies a noun, that noun being Brahman. Therefore
Brahman definietley possesses qualities, as nirguNa _is_ an adjective, and
Brahman _is_ a noun. Since Brahman is qualified (by an adjective) and
since Brahman is unlimited, therefore Brahman must be unlimitedly
qualified.
>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.
What is the source of the illusion that covers Brahman? Is it caused by
Brahman, or was it caused by some other sorce, or is it plain
non-existent? If it is caused by Brahman, then Brahman must contain
illusion, which will be duality. If illusion is caus ed by an outside
source, then there are two bRhats. If it is non-existent, then Brahman can
not be covered by something that does not exist.
>b) Object in vedantic tradition is that which can be thought of. That
>makes Brahman intellectually comprehensible. Limited intellect cannot
>comprehend the infinite.
Through the material mind and intelligent we cannot understand it, because
it is beyond the mind, but with the cit it can be understood: prajNanam
brahma.
Let us see what the Sruti says on this matter:
eSho 'Nur AtmA cetasA veditavya:
(muNDaka UpaniShad)
Any comments on that? If you have none I can give some for you.
>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).
What about those qualities which are unmeasureable? Surely you have read
the descriptions of Brahman being the greatest, the Supreme, the eternal,
the largest, the smallest, the closest the farthest, he has unlimited
hands, eyes, legs, etc. His face is co vered by His hiranyamaya. There are
plenty of descriptions of Brahman.
>d) Hence scripture defines Brahman as nirguna - without attributes. From
The very state of nirguna is itself a quality, a quality free from
qualities. It is just as much an adjective as guNa, and Brahman is just as
much noun as jagat.
>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.
Agreed.
>Advaita understands that too.
Nope, that isn't SArIraka-bhAshya.
>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.
The difference is that the advaitis (at least the real ones) say the
saguNa brahman is brahman covered by illusion in the mode of goodness,
hence you have "avatAra". This is nonsense.
>Not only I have problem in describing the Lord, because He is ananta, I
Even Ananta-sesa has problem describing the Lord. With unlimited heads,
SrI antana-SeSha is constantly chanting the glories of the Lord, and still
He finds Himself unable to fully glorify the Lord. How can BhagavAn be
without qaulities?
>objectification that can be negated. I am not an object. I am the subject,
And I am the adjective, and my cousin is the verb, and.. But we should
note that I adjective is in the third case plural, where as my cousin verb
is in the past tense dual. Understand?
>That is why Sir Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi says for a sadhak to Ranalyze the
>analystS to find out who they are.
But of course we should remember that there are no such things as
sAdhakas, because we are what we seek.
>This very process of analysis - stops
>with analyzer and the analyzed or in J. KrishnamurtyUs words the observer
All indicating duality, analysis, analyzed, analyzer, ooops were all the
same! :)
>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
I hope someone mentions how to negate the meditation, as I don't want to
be stuck in that duality either.
> That is why
>the philosophy is known as advaita since it negates the experience of
>dvaita.
What was the cause of the state of dvaita in the first place? The answer
to this will blow apart any advaita-vAda, no matter what school they
belong to. (Uhh, it is Brahman covered by illusion. Ooops, no it is
transformation of Brahman. No, actually the j iva is himslef ISvara.)
>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)
With out money to pay the rent, there can exist no apartment for me,
therefore the money and the apartment is the same.
This is speculation.
>There is no mayavada here. It is a simple statement of facts of what is my
>true nature. or His inquiry - Who am I?
You gave no "facts" of what your true nature is, you just gave a few
speculations as this equals that and is impossible without this and the
verb is the root of the non objective noun clause. Neither logic,
perception, nor Sruti.
>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.
Please comment on the Sruti I quoted previously. The intellect cannot
comprehend, that is true, but the cita can comprehend.
>What some people call transcendental experience. Transcending what? - the time and space.
Which both are matter, therefore transcendetal means free from material
contamination.
