aham brahmasmi --why so confusion ?

[kalyan]

In this post wherever I used atma please refer to it as 'I'/Soul, paramaatma(Supreme) refers to Sri Maha Vishnu

aham brahmasmi---says 'I am brahman' yes but in a relative sense....This should be said by a Jiva/atma when he has realized the complete dependence of Jiva/atma to the supreme Brahman Sri Maha Vishnu....Jiva's original swabhavam is complete paratantra(dependence on bhagavan alone) ....

The main thing ofcourse is Sri Krushna/nArAyaNa/ Maha Vishnu being the atma of the atma('I' ) so just as we say a name for example 'Siva' , this name we are referring to the physical body and as well as the atma('I'), ... 'Siva' word should go and directly refer to 'atma' (I) because we are the 'atma/jIva/soul' and without atma, the physical body is well dead, so it controls the body, without it the body cannot sustain and whatever we do with the physical body should and benefits the atma(I) alone. Hence the word atma. But the actual atma is paramaatma or the inner soul for whom the Jiva/the physical body become the shareera (body).

Relative to paramaatma, the atma and the physical body becomes for example the physical body of Maha Vishnu. So whatever atma/we do should benefit Maha Vishnu and he/it being the inner controller of the atma, without it atma cannot occupy a body and do things as it does because it is Maha Vishnu who places us into a body to do things and gives us energy (Shakti) to do things, Jiva has only knowledge as its attribute and the form also, it has no energy. So just as atma/body relation, the atma/paramaatma relation is same. so one could easily say 'I am Brahma' after knowing this relation just as we attribute the name 'Siva' to the physical body and as well as 'atma' and because of the main fact that the main atma is paramaatma only.. So when one says aham brahmasmi he is declaring complete subservience of atma to paramaatma and he is beyond recognizing the atma because it is the paramaatma who is the actual one doing all the stuff.

if it is clear thoughts?

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa
adiyen Ramanuja daasa

 

[Valjean]

From an Advaita Vedantic standpoint I disagree -- I think.
It is a statement of absolute Unity. Brahma and Jiva are merged and indistinguishable, like a drop of water in the ocean. I am Brahman -- not in a dependent or relative sense, but in an absolute sense.

 

[kalyan]

From an Advaita Vedantic standpoint I disagree -- I think.
It is a statement of absolute Unity. Brahma and Jiva are merged and indistinguishable, like a drop of water in the ocean. I am Brahman -- not in a dependent or relative sense, but in an absolute sense.

I was explaining from a vedic standpoint as what vedas actually say which helps to get rid of karmic bondage which binds us to this world..jiva brahma unity argument was started by advaita but that is not what Vedas which are the supreme authority and which existed from time immemorial say! So advaitic concept i cannot take it seriously

 

[Ekanta]

The problem with dvaita theology is that you have to explain away 10.000 statements where atman = brahman...

 

[kalyan]

The problem with dvaita theology is that you have to explain away 10.000 statements where atman = brahman...

there are no statements in vedam saying atman is brahman, atman is brahman is absolutely absurd. Those people saying atman equal brahman instead of getting out from the cycles of samsara are more likely to accrue more Karma

There is a sentence in vedam as follows....

dva suparna sayuja sakhaya samanam vriksham parishasvajate |
tayoranyah pippalam svadvattyanashnannanyo abhicaka****i

It clearly distinguishes Jiva from paramaatma and Says Jiva and Brahma(Maha Vishnu) stays on the same tree and one eats the fruits and always cries and one does not eat anything and always shines..........The fruits are the fruits of Karma....

The same was said by Sri Krushna in BhagawadGita 4th chapter in 'namani karmaani limpanthi'


adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa
adiyen Ramanuja daasa

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Buddhi-yukto jahātīha, ubhe sukṛta-duṣkṛte;
tasmād yogāya yujyasva, yogaḥ karmasu kauśalam." BG 2.50

Krishna said: Acting wisely (a person) rids him/herself of both good and bad actions here. Therefore strive for yoga, yoga is art in all work.
Krishna said the same in many other verses.

 

[Chakra]

The problem with dvaita theology is that you have to explain away 10.000 statements where atman = brahman...

Well, @तत्त्वप्रह्व will address this with more detail, but I have never seen someone say that there are more Abheda Shrutis than Bheda Shrutis. The verses that advocate difference clearly outnumber the verses that advocate non-dualism, but there's no problem with that. I don't know about Advaitins, but Vishistadvaitins can explain both of them pretty easily without resorting to word jugglery and favoring certain verses.

 

[kalyan]

"Buddhi-yukto jahātīha, ubhe sukṛta-duṣkṛte;
tasmād yogāya yujyasva, yogaḥ karmasu kauśalam." BG 2.50

Krishna said: Acting wisely (a person) rids him/herself of both good and bad actions. Therefore strive for yoga, yoga is art in all work.
Krishna said the same in many other verses.

Nishkaama karma is yoga/ Karma Yoga which when supported by Good Buddhi which should project the distinction between atma and body, this is offtopic though

 

[Ekanta]

there are no statements in vedam saying atman is brahman, atman is brahman is absolutely absurd.

Try Mandukya Upanishad second verse...
"All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters."
But I know, shruti is absurd right?

On a side note: When referring to shruti, I should have made it more clear (although for me it was obvious). I meant the upanishads, which are the final explanation.

 

[kalyan]

Try Mandukya Upanishad second verse...
"All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters."
But I know, shruti is absurd right?

On a side note: When referring to shruti, I should have made it more clear (although for me it was obvious). I meant the upanishads, which are the final explanation.

Please post the exact sanskrit verse not the translations copied from internet..what do you mean 4 quarters...Mandukyam never claimed jiva paramaatma ekatvam ...It gave clear information of how paramaatma manifests himself in 3 states in jagrat dasa as taijasa and so on...These advaitic wrong interpretations of Vedam which are mostly from nobodies of the internet should not be referred or quoted at all....There are some idiots who even try to attach self this self that to BhagawadGita which is essence of Vedas and when it is clear that Sri Krushna is supreme Brahma they run after self stuff

 

[Ekanta]

Well, I have as much interest in discussion with as I would with a stone, so I leave it here.
Just a reminder... calling people idiots might be against the forum rules.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

These advaitic wrong interpretations of Vedam which are mostly from nobodies of the internet should not be referred or quoted at all....There are some idiots who even try to attach self this self that to BhagawadGita which is essence of Vedas and when it is clear that Sri Krushna is supreme Brahma they run after self stuff

The idiots you are referring to are Shankara, Vachaspathi Mishra, Madhusudhana Saraswati, et al.

Is this the teaching of Chinna Jeeyar Swamy - that anyone who does not share his views is an idiot? Or is this something you decided all by yourself?

Either way, you are claiming to be his disciple and consequently, your posts reflect poorly on him and his scholarship.

 

[atanu]

if it is clear thoughts?

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa
adiyen Ramanuja daasa

Shri Krishna in Gita says "aham atma". Have you attained yoga with that atma? Please tell us after you gain that union.

Your Swamiji might have taught you dvaita for some particular reason. Why you want to impose that on others, similar as fundamentalist Muslims or Christians do? It is no surprise that every kind of dualist believes their own mental picture to be the only correct picture. But sat is beyond mind.

aham ātmā guḍākeśa
sarva-bhūtāśaya-sthitaḥ
aham ādiś ca madhyaḿ ca
bhūtānām anta eva ca

 

[kalyan]

Shri Krishna in Gita says "aham atma". Have you attained yoga with that atma? Please tell us after you gain that union.

Your Swamiji might have taught you dvaita for some particular reason. Why you want to impose that on others, similar as fundamentalist Muslims or Christians do? It is no surprise that every kind of dualist believes their own mental picture to be the only correct picture. But sat is beyond mind.

aham ātmā guḍākeśa
sarva-bhūtāśaya-sthitaḥ
aham ādiś ca madhyaḿ ca
bhūtānām anta eva ca

Sorry to say but your interpretation is wrong and am not saying this in arrogance but to just put out the fact.

'aham atma' Sri Krushna says in relation to the Arjuna jIva(atma), 'I' is never the body by the vaidika acharyas, it is the atma/jIva....So what Sri Krushna said is that he is the 'atma' of all the jIvas, the same is said in the 15th chapter on when Krushna is telling where he resides. But why go till 15th, when Krushna says in second that he, Purusha(jIvas) and Prakriti(nature) are eternal!

If you observe the second sentence of the sloka, Krushna says 'Sarva bhoota asaya sthitah' , Bhootam is that which exists so everything in the world is a bhootam, and the next word comes 'asaya' which gives away the entire meaning, sarva bhoota asaya place is the jIva and he is situated there as the atma....(Insentient objects also has the atma/jIva but the doors of indriyas are closed and hence they don't appear like the chetanas)

 

[atanu]

Sorry to say but your interpretation is wrong and am not saying this in arrogance but to just put out the fact.

'aham atma' Sri Krushna says in relation to the Arjuna jIva(atma), 'I' is never the body by the vaidika acharyas, it is the atma/jIva....So what Sri Krushna said is that he is the 'atma' of all the jIvas, the same is said in the 15th chapter on when Krushna is telling where he resides. But why go till 15th, when Krushna says in second that he, Purusha(jIvas) and Prakriti(nature) are eternal!

If you observe the second sentence of the sloka, Krushna says 'Sarva bhoota asaya sthitah' , Bhootam is that which exists so everything in the world is a bhootam, and the next word comes 'asaya' which gives away the entire meaning, sarva bhoota asaya place is the jIva and he is situated there as the atma....(Insentient objects also has the atma/jIva but the doors of indriyas are closed and hence they don't appear like the chetanas)

Yes. So realise the atma, as is the teaching of all scripture. Once one realises, experientially or even mentally, the following, one grasps advaita.

aham ādiś ca madhyaḿ ca
bhūtānām anta eva ca

 

[kalyan]

Yes. So realise the atma, as is the teaching of all scripture. Once one realises, experientially or even mentally, the following, one grasps advaita.

aham ādiś ca madhyaḿ ca
bhūtānām anta eva ca

think you missed the point but thats ok.advaita is jiva brahma ekatva vaada and that is not what was mentioned in BG...You guys should not try to TWIST BhagawadGita essence of vedas where Krushna clearly mentions multiple times about Purusha and Prakriti, Kshetram and Kshetrajna, Shareera atma and atttibutes of atma and he alone is Purushothama..

Can you give the meaning of verse you posted. It has very deep meanings and is related to previous verse..Either way advaita or not you have to do service to the feet of Sri Krushna the supreme Brahma(as even mentioned by Shankara) is what all matters.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Try this.
BG 4.14-15 "Actions do not taint Me, nor have I a desire for the fruits of actions. He who knows Me thus is not bound by actions.
Having known this, the ancient seekers after freedom also performed actions; therefore, do thou perform actions as did the ancients in days of yore."

When Lord Krishna says "Me", he means the Atman not the conventional me.

 

[Kirran]

In the BG, Krishna speaks as the Atman, the Paramatma. One's views on whether the Paramatma and the jivatmanm are one and the same will colour your understanding of his words therein.

 

[kalyan]

Aham brahmaasmi is the phrase said by a liberated or the mukta jIva when Srimannarayana asks 'kosi' when a mukta jIva reaches vaikuntam it is said in scriptures...the explanation i have given in op ia perfect if I did not make it confusing. That level of maturity is only attained by liberated atma.

If I have to make it more clear one needs to understand what atma is...It has 3 attributes mainly..ok I will make a separate post on this...we are the atma but should not be called as atma as per vedic description of ATMA...Because we the atma are not controlling the heart beat...Sri Krushna says he is the one, he is responsible even for remembrance forgetfulness and knowledge and he is the one who is situated in a place called HRUDAYAM along with jIva..Making complicated HRUDAYAM IS ALSO Called DAHARA AKASAM...There Krushna resides controlling us..He is also in the waking state with Ganesha face making us ahow the world...So he is the actual atma as per vaidik definition of atma..

 

[kalyan]

Try this.
BG 4.14-15 "Actions do not taint Me, nor have I a desire for the fruits of actions. He who knows Me thus is not bound by actions.
Having known this, the ancient seekers after freedom also performed actions; therefore, do thou perform actions as did the ancients in days of yore."

When Lord Krishna says "Me", he means the Atman not the conventional me.

If your point is atman is paramatman then again

First u guys need to understand basic 2 concepts.
1. Atma sakshatkaram or attaining self.
2. Bhagawad Sakshatlaram or attaining Krushna or Maha Vishnu.

Krushna multiple multiple times said in BG atma sakshatkaram is highly dangerous root when one desires for atma only..These people wont reach god and doea not get Moksha but similar to Muktas they attain kaivalyam a permanent place where he sees himself and enjoys.. ( kvachit konena tisthathi is the exact same thing said by Upanishads)

REFER From BhagawadGita 2nd chapter itself.
1. PURUSHA, Prakriti and I are eternal
2. THE First 6 chapters are called atma shatkam and they talk about attaining atma
3. 7th chapter again Krushna divides people into 4 ...artha jijnasi artharthi jnani
Jijnasi desires for his atma but jnani Krushna says desires him alone...CRYSTAL CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN ATMA and him here.
4. In 8th chapter KRUSHNA gives guidelines as what people should do to attain
Atma sakshatkaram( knowing abt visarga kriya and all)
Bhagawad Sakshatkaram

Complete distinction again and multiple other places...No 1 can even think abt atma paramaatma equalness unless some1 proojects it out of nowhere...That clear BG is....Ithink anyone would be this clear if they hear BG from a suitable vaidika acharya these wrong confusions do not come at all.