Where's Atma Who's not Brahma?

[Aupmanyav]

So which part of the universe is Maya?

What is perceived by us of the universe is 'maya'. You see the problem is with our perception, otherwise the whole of it is Brahman and nothing else of which there is none (according to my humble view ). That does not stop you from having a different view.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Just a very simple and funny question to Dvaitians or semi-dvaitians....

Where in the scripture it is written that Atma is not Brahman? I'm interested to know those verses. The meaning should be clear as like that of ' Aham Brahma asmi ' It's some kind of challenge to post such verses. After all shastra pramana is more important than beliefs. Isn't it?

A more pertinently curious question would be whether the māyāvāda-brahman which is nirviśeṣa can afford to know itself as 'i am brahman' without risking kartṛkarma-virodha . The śruti clearly mention "brahma vā idam agre āsīt | tadātmānam eva avet 'aham brahma asmi iti' and then proceeds to say whoever (gods, ṛiṣis, men) knows this attains completeness - sarvamabhavat (see Madhusūdana's attempt at reconciling this by positing that this is apara-brahma though Maṇḍana seems to support acceptance of negative attributes - अभावरूपा धर्मा नाद्वैतं निघ्नन्ति). ĀtmāSStattvamasi too, considered the other side of the same coin (one side being aham brahma asmi), in order to interpreted in favor of māyāvāda view necessarily involves recourse exegetical treatment (construction of akhaṇḍārtha) - they do not directly support māyāvāda's purport. Advaitins after sureśvarācārya have also stripped brahman of its qualities like satyam, jñānam, anantam arguing for their interpretation using atadvyāvritti in order to escape the conflict with the supposition of nirviśeṣatva of brahman. If these did directly support the thesis there would be no requirement for indulging in jahadajahallakṣaṇa, atadvyāvritti, and such. It is but the mainstream discourse over the years that have impressed upon gullible minds that these statements speak of aikya as is; what would therefore be funny is the continuing attempts to propagate contrivance by quoting portions that appear to support the thesis of aikya. Śri Śaṅkara, in simple terms says this:
सोऽयं द्विज इति वाक्यं त्यक्त्वा प्रत्यक्परोक्षदेशाद्यम् । द्विजमात्रलक्षकत्वात्कथयत्यैक्यं पदार्थयोरुभयोः ।।३६
तद्वत्तत्त्वमसीति त्यक्त्वा प्रत्यक्परोक्षतादीनि । चिद्वस्तु लक्षयित्वा बोधयति स्पष्टमसिपदेनैक्यम् ।।३७
Leaving aside even tat and tvam (from the already shortened portion of the verse), focusing on asi you have aikya.

Dvaitadvaita and Acintya Bheda Abheda.

Both have been influenced by Śri Madhva's concept of eternal dependence of jīvas on the Ultimate. Śri Nimbārka defines bheda as 'dependence of jīva on brahman' and abheda as 'lack of independent existence and functioning of jīvas'. Śri Madhva's influence on Śri Baladeva is acknowledged by Śri Baladeva himself without hesitation - see Prameyaratnāvali and Siddhāntaratna. Śri Radhadāmodara too quotes from Śri Madhva's works.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Stormcry]

So which part of the universe is Maya?

Namaste :axlyz:

Universe is Maya, Maya is universe. This universe is perceived so long there's mind. When there's destruction of mind, this world doesn't exist at all. This is why this universe is called as a dream, just like once we awake from dream, there's no dream.

Maya is an absolute void, has not a bit of existence. It is like an imagination of snake in rope. The idea of 'there's snake' or 'there's no snake' is irrelevant to the rope, in the same way, Maya is neither real nor unreal. Snake has Adhishthan/Base over rope, in the same way Maya is imagined in Brahman and is not different from Brahman.

 

[Stormcry]

@तत्त्वप्रह्व

'aham brahma asmi iti'

Namaste,

I think Bhedavadi are not fit even to hear 'Tat twam asi' or 'Aham Brahmasmi' like Mahavakya-s. Those Mahavakya-s have profound knowledge which is impossible to be understood through maligned mind- 'bheda-Pradhan'. Bhedavadi thinking on Mahavakya-s is just like powerles person talking on what is power. The meaning of those MAhavakya-s can be best understood who's Chitta-Shuddhi and sharp and subtle thinking. First one has to purify oneself through Bhakti and then meditate on those ultimate VAkya-s, that is the essence of entire Veda. There's no necessity to question over Advaitian's understanding if you don't know how they perceive 'Aikyam'. All know duality has been greatly criticized by Veda, mainly Upanishada.
There's 'Paingala' upanishada from Shukla-Yajurveda, cited by Shankaracharya in his Brahma-Sutra Bhashya. It's a conversation of Sage Paingala and Yadnyavalkya, that is throwing light on the supreme knowledge of Brahman.

III-1-2. Then Paingala said to Yajnavalkya: Set forth the explanation of the major text(s) [Maha-vakyas]. Yajnavalkya replied: Thou art That; Thou That art; Thou Brahman art; I am Brahman – One should meditate thus.


III-3. The expressed sense of the word ‘tat’ is the world-cause, marked by ‘other-ness’ (mediacy), having Being, Consciousness and Bliss as his characteristics, Maya as his adjunct and omniscience, etc., as his features. The very same with awareness mixed up with the inner sense, the object of the I-notion, is the expressed meaning of ‘tvam’. Rejecting the adjuncts of the supreme (God) and the Jiva, viz.: Maya and avidya, the indicated sense of tat and tvam is Brahman, non-different from the inner Self.


III-4. ‘Hearing’ is investigation into the import of propositions like ‘That Thou art’ and ‘I am Brahman’. Reflection is the exclusive dwelling on the content of what has been heard. Meditation is the fixing of the mind one-pointedly on the reality, made doubtless through investigation and reflection. Concentration, resembling a flame in a windless spot, is the thought (chitta) whose content is solely the object meditated, exclusive of the agent, and the act, of meditation.

III-8. The microcosm consumed in the fire of knowledge together with (its) causes is dissolved in the supreme Self. Therefore the Brahmana should concentratedly dwell on the identity (of the contents) of the terms tat and tvam. Thence, when the clouds are
dispelled as the sun (shines forth), the Self is manifested.

IV-14. Making the heart pure, contemplating the well-being (of all), one must experience supreme joy in the thought, ‘I am the supreme, the All’.

IV-15. As there is non-difference when water is poured in water, milk in milk and ghee in ghee, so is the case with the individual Self and the supreme Self.


IV-30. That supreme Status of Vishnu spread out, like an eye, in the sky, the enlightened ones always behold.


IV-31. The wise, ever vigilant and diligent in praise richly glorify That supreme Status of Vishnu.

Advaita is self-shining through Upanishada.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Shantanu]

Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Acintya Bheda Abheda.

If you then find a way of distinguishing between your thoughts and God's thoughts, which one of these three interpretations of advaita will be represented?

 

[Shantanu]

@तत्त्वप्रह्व

Namaste,

I think Bhedavadi are not fit even to hear 'Tat twam asi' or 'Aham Brahmasmi' like Mahavakya-s. Those Mahavakya-s have profound knowledge which is impossible to be understood through maligned mind- 'bheda-Pradhan'. Bhedavadi thinking on Mahavakya-s is just like powerles person talking on what is power. The meaning of those MAhavakya-s can be best understood who's Chitta-Shuddhi and sharp and subtle thinking. First one has to purify oneself through Bhakti and then meditate on those ultimate VAkya-s, that is the essence of entire Veda. There's no necessity to question over Advaitian's understanding if you don't know how they perceive 'Aikyam'. All know duality has been greatly criticized by Veda, mainly Upanishada.

First, no one should be a Bhedavadi where truth is concerned. Om means focussing on truth. The bhakti should be directed at truth alone, not God. If the bhakti to truth is perfect, then and only then God Sri Krishna might come to the gyan yogi to reveal the bheda.

Second, please tell me what you mean when you say that 'First one has to purify oneself through Bhakti'? How did you do that and how do you continue to do that if it is not through Om?

Third, meditating on the Mahavakyas is brainwashing oneself, which is not the essence of Vedanta that requires contemplation on truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'kartṛkarma-virodha':

This (tasmāt {sg n abl...} did) it (did)was (abhavat {inoculated. [1] sg. 3} bhū1) to this (world) -All (sarvam {acc. sg. n.} sarva) ..
Am Anfang war - अग्र आसीत् agra āsīt (2) - mein.yoga-vidya.de - Yoga Forum und Community

The important word is 'abhavat' (happened, became) - to this world of maya.
Otherwise there is no question of a happening, becoming, because Brahman is eternal.
Brahman does nothing, and there is no 'kartṛkarma-virodha'. What we perceive is only maya and when the veil of ignorance is removed, this simple road-block also is removed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

At the same time I would bring to your attention an Sulekha article by some Mohan Suswaram, which I find very objectionable because of the use of uncivil language for Adi Sankaracharya. I do not go by Sri Madhvacharya's view but I highly respect his scholarship and would never use such words for him. He was a Hindu with a different view point. That is perfectly acceptable. What right or decency one has to use the word 'perverted' for Sanakracharya and 'bigot' for the blogger. Actually Sulekha should have edited such words.
Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of aham brahma asmi | Sulekha Creative

 

[Acintya_Ash]

If you then find a way of distinguishing between your thoughts and God's thoughts, which one of these three interpretations of advaita will be represented?

IMO, all the three make sense and there's not much significant difference between the three

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

I think Bhedavadi are not fit even to hear 'Tat twam asi' or 'Aham Brahmasmi' like Mahavakya-s. Those Mahavakya-s have profound knowledge which is impossible to be understood through maligned mind- 'bheda-Pradhan'. Bhedavadi thinking on Mahavakya-s is just like powerles person talking on what is power.

Its ok if you are not able to explain.

III-1-2. Then Paingala said to Yajnavalkya: Set forth the explanation of the major text(s) [Maha-vakyas]. Yajnavalkya replied: Thou art That; Thou That art; Thou Brahman art; I am Brahman – One should meditate thus.


III-3. The expressed sense of the word ‘tat’ is the world-cause, marked by ‘other-ness’ (mediacy), having Being, Consciousness and Bliss as his characteristics, Maya as his adjunct and omniscience, etc., as his features. The very same with awareness mixed up with the inner sense, the object of the I-notion, is the expressed meaning of ‘tvam’. Rejecting the adjuncts of the supreme (God) and the Jiva, viz.: Maya and avidya, the indicated sense of tat and tvam is Brahman, non-different from the inner Self.


III-4. ‘Hearing’ is investigation into the import of propositions like ‘That Thou art’ and ‘I am Brahman’. Reflection is the exclusive dwelling on the content of what has been heard. Meditation is the fixing of the mind one-pointedly on the reality, made doubtless through investigation and reflection. Concentration, resembling a flame in a windless spot, is the thought (chitta) whose content is solely the object meditated, exclusive of the agent, and the act, of meditation.

III-8. The microcosm consumed in the fire of knowledge together with (its) causes is dissolved in the supreme Self. Therefore the Brahmana should concentratedly dwell on the identity (of the contents) of the terms tat and tvam. Thence, when the clouds are
dispelled as the sun (shines forth), the Self is manifested.

IV-14. Making the heart pure, contemplating the well-being (of all), one must experience supreme joy in the thought, ‘I am the supreme, the All’.

IV-15. As there is non-difference when water is poured in water, milk in milk and ghee in ghee, so is the case with the individual Self and the supreme Self.


IV-30. That supreme Status of Vishnu spread out, like an eye, in the sky, the enlightened ones always behold.


IV-31. The wise, ever vigilant and diligent in praise richly glorify That supreme Status of Vishnu.

Advaita is self-shining through Upanishada.

Elaborate, but was summarized already in two verses by Śri Śaṅkara:

सोऽयं द्विज इति वाक्यं त्यक्त्वा प्रत्यक्परोक्षदेशाद्यम् । द्विजमात्रलक्षकत्वात्कथयत्यैक्यं पदार्थयोरुभयोः ।।३६
तद्वत्तत्त्वमसीति त्यक्त्वा प्रत्यक्परोक्षतादीनि । चिद्वस्तु लक्षयित्वा बोधयति स्पष्टमसिपदेनैक्यम् ।।३७

'abhavat'

This is not the point in consideration i mentioned above.

At the same time I would bring to your attention an Sulekha article by some Mohan Suswaram, which I find very objectionable because of the use of uncivil language for Adi Sankaracharya.

Can't do much about the blogger, i myself read it only today following the link you provided. There will always be people who lack self-restraint, i choose to read what matters and ignore the rest.

What we perceive is only maya and when the veil of ignorance

There are only two (or three) ways 1) brahman itself is under ignorance 2) jīva is 3) no bandha/mokṣa presented by Gauḍapāda. 1- no support in śrutis; 2- leads to circular reasoning; 3- a fantasy that has nothing to teach to humanity making adhyātma-vidya irrelevant. That too when māyāvāda/advaita can't say whether ignorance exists or not.

So it remains that a) supposition of nirviśeṣatva of brahman posits kartṛkarma-virodha in the above śruti; b) śrutis - even those that are held to be advaita-para - do not directly convey aikya, exegetical treatment is what enables construal of aikya.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

That too when māyāvāda/advaita can't say whether ignorance exists or not.

IMHO, it does, like a magnetic field exists to an electric current.

So it remains that a) supposition of nirviśeṣatva of brahman posits kartṛkarma-virodha in the above śruti; b) śrutis - even those that are held to be advaita-para - do not directly convey aikya, exegetical treatment is what enables construal of aikya.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

I wish I knew more Sanskrit to comment on this. 'Advaita-para', now what is that?

 

[Stormcry]

Its ok if you are not able to explain.

Elaborate, but was summarized already in two verses by Śri Śaṅkara:

I think you have problem in understanding what Yajnavalkya said. He already elaborated it quite sufficiently.

सोऽयं द्विज इति वाक्यं त्यक्त्वा प्रत्यक्परोक्षदेशाद्यम् । द्विजमात्रलक्षकत्वात्कथयत्यैक्यं पदार्थयोरुभयोः ।।३६
तद्वत्तत्त्वमसीति त्यक्त्वा प्रत्यक्परोक्षतादीनि । चिद्वस्तु लक्षयित्वा बोधयति स्पष्टमसिपदेनैक्यम् ।।३७

Yes, here Adi Shankara said that the interpretation of 'Tat Twam Asi' can not be done by 'Appeared meaning technique' because of the contradiction.

The same explanation of 'Tat Twam Asi- Mahavakya is found in Rama Geeta from 'Adhyatma Ramayana' authored by Veda Vysa ji. This explanation is found in many Upanishada as well. Just we have to read and understand it and should not believe in our own fantasies.

Lord Rama is explaining how we should comprehend the meaning of unity of Atman and Paramatman. Lord Rama is the greatest in all, he is the true knower of Veda. He's Advaitian.

Text XXVI

"It is well known that according to the rules for understanding the true meaning of a given sentence, understanding the meaning of individual words is the initial means. (In the sentence “That thou art,” the words “That” and “thou” indicate the Paramatman and jivatman, respectively, and the word “art” indicates the total identity between the two.)"

The term “That” (tat), in its direct word meaning, indicates the omnipotent, omniscient, ever-free God Principle (Isvara), which has for its conditioning the Total Mind (Maya). The word “thou” (tvam) indicates, in its direct word meaning, the individual entity (ego), which is limited in its power and conditioned by a total sense of nonapprehension of Reality, indicated in the scriptural texts as spiritual ignorance (avidya).

Now then Lord Rama explains in what perception the MAhavakya can be explained.

"Rejecting the difference of nearness (Pratyak) and remoteness (Paroksha-beyond senses) and so on, between jivatman and Paramatman, one should know one’s own nature as that of pure Consciousness, arrived at through inquiry and implied by the method of implication. Thereafter, realizing one’s own true Self as Brahman, one should merge to become one with it."

Thus it says that direct meaning is not expected. Because 'Twam' is individualized ego and 'Tat' is creator behind universe, which is not perceived by senses. Thus these two are contradictory so the direct meaning is not possible. So another technique is used, which is known by 'Lakshana-Vrutti'.

There are three types of 'lakshana-Vrutti' - 'Suggestive meaning technique'.

1) Jahati
2) Ajahati
3) Jahati-Ajahati, which is also known by 'Bhaga-lakshana'

Now, Lord Rama explains which of these three is suitable for comprehending the hidden true essence of MahAavakya.

Text XXVII

"Since the suggestive meaning of the terms tat and tvam indicates their total identity, the jahati method cannot be employed. Neither can we use the ajahati method, because in the direct meaning there is total distinction between the two. Here the method of bhaga-tyaga is to be applied without fear or any misapprehension, as in the case of the sentence, “He is this man.”

First we understand what is 'Jahati' , 'Ajahati' and 'Bhaga-Lakshana'.

Jahati:
When my listener hears the statement “My house is right on the sea.” he does not conclude that the house is made up of cork and bamboo and is floating on the sea, but he subtracts the sea from under the building and understand that my house is next to the sea, but standing firmly upon its own foundation. This is an example of jahati.


Ajahati:
When any intelligent listener hears the statement “The guns marched,” he adds a soldier under every gun; this is an example of an ajahati laksana.


Bhaga-Lakshana:

“That Devadatta (as a child) is this youth” is a statement wherein a child from a given time an place and of a given size and with other qualities of childhood is shown to have become, after fourteen years, this youth. The listener has to subtract the time, the place, the size, the shape, the innocence in the child and add the new time, place, size, shape, and the mischief of the youth, retaining the person himself, in order to arrive at the perfect identity between the person in the child and the square-shouldered teenager who is now sitting right in front of him. This is an example of jaha ajaha laksana.


Sri Ramacandra is elaborately explaining to his dear brother Laksmana that to grasp the significance of the mahavakya, we have to use the method of jaha ajaha laksana, which is also called bhaga laksana. Because jiva and Isvara are in essence nothing but the one Self (ekatmakattvat), jahati laksana cannot be used.

Now, why we can not use 'Jahati' and 'Ajahati' technique.

Jiva has upadhi of Avidya and Ishwara has upadhi of pure Maya, that is pure Sattvik free from Rajas and Tamas.

The Creator (Isvara), and the limited ego (jiva). They are different in their expressions because of the difference in their equipments, ignorance (avidya) and total vasanas (Maya).


We cannot employ jaha laksana and conclude that avidya is Maya – this is not the goal of Vedanta. To pursue such a goal would be a wasteful expenditure of human energy.

Similarly, we cannot use the ajaha laksana method by merely analyzing and concluding that avidya, conditioned Consciousness, is jiva and that Maya-conditioned Consciousness is Isvara. We are not arriving at the direct apprehension of “I am Brahman.” Therefore, ajaha laksan is not an adequate method for apprehending the spiritual Essence as 'Asi' unity of two is already established.


We will have to use bhaga laksana (also called bhaga-tyaga laksana), wherein the contradictory factors/ adjuncts, such as avidya and Maya are removed, and we understand that the Self that expresses itself through these two equipments, manifesting itself as jiva and Isvara, is one and the same Essence.

This much is the import of 'Tat Twam Asi Mahavakya. I think Yajnavalkya also said the same thing.


II-3. The expressed sense of the word ‘tat’ is the world-cause, marked by ‘other-ness’ (mediacy), having Being, Consciousness and Bliss as his characteristics, Maya as his adjunct and omniscience, etc., as his features. The very same with awareness mixed up with the inner sense, the object of the I-notion, is the expressed meaning of ‘tvam’. Rejecting the adjuncts of the supreme (God) and the Jiva, viz.: Maya and avidya, the indicated sense of tat and tvam is Brahman, non-different from the inner Self.

There are only two (or three) ways 1) brahman itself is under ignorance 2) jīva is 3) no bandha/mokṣa presented by Gauḍapāda. 1- no support in śrutis; 2- leads to circular reasoning; 3- a fantasy that has nothing to teach to humanity making adhyātma-vidya irrelevant. That too when māyāvāda/advaita can't say whether ignorance exists or not.

You are really sure what you believe is not your own fantasy. Who is under ignorance this can not be concluded by mind itself. Look, if you are blind since birth you would not believe in the sun, in the same way the person who has not experienced knowledge of self and has impure mind can not perceive the thing which is beyond mind. In such case the person should seek the guru and scriptures.

1) brahman itself is under ignorance- no support in śrutis

Oh really as if you've read all Veda and Purana. It seems you've not studied even the Upanishada.

Before the creation there was only Brahman. He thought to become many. If Brahman can not be under ignorance then why would Purusha assimilate with Prakruti.

2) jīva - leads to circular reasoning

It actually leads to irrationality. If jiva is really in bondage and bondage is without beginning, then it would imply that Jiva's bound state is real without beginning. The theorem says reality exists at all times and Unreality doesn't exist at any time. So if the bondage is without beginning, then Jiva's Moksha is not ever possible. Thus, 'Jiva is in bondage' is the greatest fantasy.

3)no bandha/mokṣa presented by Gauḍapāda

For ignorant it may be fantasy but for who's well versed in scriptures and has sharp intellect , the same statement is the greatest true perception of the reality. It is supported by all scriptures- Shruti and Smruti. 'Adhyatma Vidya' is born out of Maya, just as Ignorance is. This doesn't mean it is not relevant to us. That's your own 'Kutarka-Mind'.

Okay, I give you scriptural supports.

Atma Up. II-4. Neither knowledge nor ignorance, neither the world nor aught else (is there).


II-26-27(a). Because that Yogin has become Brahman, how can Brahman be reborn ? Bondage and liberation, set up by Maya, are not real in themselves in relation to the Self, just as the appearance and disappearance of the snake are not in relation to the stirless rope.


II-27(b). Bondage and liberation may be described as real and unreal and as due to the nescience (concealment of truth).

I-31. Neither suppression nor generation, neither the bond nor the striving: neither the liberty seeking nor the liberated – this is the metaphysical truth.

Amruta-Bindu Up 10: The highest Truth is that (pure consciousness) which realises, “There is neither control of the mind, nor its coming into play”, “Neither am I bound, nor am I a worshipper, neither am I a seeker after liberation, nor one-who has attained liberation”.

In case you don't believe in Upanishada, here's Smruti support from Lord Krishna's greatest Discourse- Uddhava Gita.

Atma's NO Moksha/Bondage | ReligiousForums.com

Yet calling it a fantasy is an absolute foolishness and shows lack of understanding, I think.

 

[Shantanu]

IMO, all the three make sense and there's not much significant difference between the three

It should be noted that a relationship with God through advaita is not available to everyone so that these three terms of advaitic representation are not the general condition. God does not run every individual's life. He only guides the devotee who genuinely in his or her heart is seeking pure and pristine truth keeping all options open through what I have described as satya-advaita.

 

[Stormcry]

Brahman itself is in Ignorance -no support in śrutis

Who else is there other than Brahman to be deluded? Before the creation there was Brahman alone without a second,so logically whatever modifications/defects after creation are there, that attribute to Brahman alone. Be it Jiva, world, everything else is Brahman alone. When Brahman's accept Maya it's known by Jiva.

Paingala Upanishada describes how Brahman manifests itself in numerable entities.

I-12. The omniscient Lord, conjoined with a streak of Maya, on entering the individual bodies, and deluded by it, became the Jiva; due to self-identification with the three bodies (he) became both agent and reaper (of action’s fruits). Possessing the attributes of wakefulness, dream, deep sleep, swoon and death, like a chain of buckets (attached to a water wheel) he becomes troubled and as it were is born and dies, revolving like a potter’s wheel.


II-1. Now Paingala asked Yajnavalkya: How did the omnipotent Lord of all worlds, the author of their manifestation, sustenance and dissolution become Jiva ?

Bhagavata Purana also says the same 'Brahman becomes jiva'

भूतैर्महद्‌भिर्य इमाः पुरो विभुः
निर्माय शेते यदमूषु पूरुषः ।
भुङ्क्ते गुणान् षोडश षोडशात्मकः
सोऽलङ्कृषीष्ट भगवान् वचांसि मे ॥ २३ ॥

May the Lord Bhagavaan, who by creating material bodies from five gross principles and living in them in the form of Jiva enjoys Guna-s in the form of 16 divisions of material modes through sixteen senses [ 5 organs of action, 5 organs of knowledge, 5 Prana and 1 Mind], be pleased to decorate my statements.

Jiva is none other than Brahman, that's the absolute truth..

 

[shivsomashekhar]

@तत्त्वप्रह्व

Namaste,

I think Bhedavadi are not fit even to hear 'Tat twam asi' or 'Aham Brahmasmi' like Mahavakya-s.

There are several problems with this line of thinking.

1. First, the concept of Maha-vakyas is not from Shruti, but from Advaita. Other Vedanta traditions do not accept the idea of pulling up four lines from four Upanishads and giving them special significance as Maha-vakyas. According to them, these no lines carry no more weight than any other lines.Nowhere does any Upanishad state that these four statements carry special significance.

2. They have all interpreted these lines to comply with their own doctrines. For instance, Madhva reads Aham Brahmasmi as Aheyam Brahmasmi, According to him, 'A' (the first letter) is Vishnu and 'mi' is Laxmi, thus leading to a completely different interpretation than that of Advaita. Madhva reads tattvamasi as atattvamasi meaning "You are not that" - again completely different from the Advaita reading. Jayathirtha, who comes in the line of Madhva gave a Dvaita interpretation of tattvamasi. So either way, they are covered.

Now, we may disagree with these interpretations, but that is an entirely different matter. For this discussion, it suffices to note that these statements have been adequately interpreted and such challenges have already been addressed by Bhedavadins, hundreds of years ago.

Those Mahavakya-s have profound knowledge which is impossible to be understood through maligned mind- 'bheda-Pradhan'. Bhedavadi thinking on Mahavakya-s is just like powerles person talking on what is power. The meaning of those MAhavakya-s can be best understood who's Chitta-Shuddhi and sharp and subtle thinking. First one has to purify oneself through Bhakti and then meditate on those ultimate VAkya-s, that is the essence of entire Veda.

Once again, all of this is Advaita and not general Vedanta. Other than Advaitins, no one else considers these statements as Maha-vakyas.

All know duality has been greatly criticized by Veda, mainly Upanishada.

If it were that simple, there would only be one Vedanta tradition and not multiple. But we do have multiple traditions, which have survived for centuries, which can only mean that it is a lot more complex than simply equating Vedanta with Advaita.

 

[Stormcry]

Nowhere does any Upanishad state that these four statements carry special significance

Not true at all. Upanishada and Purana mention meditating on 'Tat Twam Asi' texts.


Paramahamsa-Parivrajaka (3)

;again recite mentally or in speech the Pranava and the vyahritis separately and utter three times three the farewell words, ‘I have renounced, I have renounced, I have renounced’ in gentle, middling and sharp tones; deeply engage in meditation on the Pranava and raise his hand saying ‘Freedom from fear to all from me, Svaha’. He shall then start for the north thinking over the meaning of great scriptural texts such as ‘The Brahman I Am’, ‘That Thou Art’ and proceed in the unclad state. This is renunciation.

Paingala III-1-2. Then Paingala said to Yajnavalkya: Set forth the explanation of the major text(s) [Maha-vakyas]. Yajnavalkya replied: Thou art That; Thou That art; Thou Brahman art; I am Brahman – One should meditate thus.

Sanyasa 2.4

Even if they renounce the world they are not entitled to instruction in the great scriptural texts (such as ‘That Thou Art’).


Kaivalya 17
“That which manifests the phenomena, such as the states of wakefulness, dream and profound sleep, I am that Brahman” – realising thus one is liberated from all bonds.


Sandilya Upanishada Ch. 2
"That is Brahman. Thou art That. Know That by wisdom. He who is the one, the shining, the giver of the power of Atman, the omniscient, the Lord of all and the inner Soul of all beings, who lives in all beings, who is hidden in all beings and the source of all beings, who is reachable only through Yoga and who creates, supports and destroys everything – He is Atman."

Thus there are such so many Upanishada which talks/mention about 'You are that' 'I am Brahman' Vedanta texts. There's no doubt, according to Upanishada, they are Mahavakya-s.

2. They have all interpreted these lines to comply with their own doctrines. For instance, Madhva reads Aham Brahmasmi as Aheyam Brahmasmi, According to him, 'A' (the first letter) is Vishnu and 'mi' is Laxmi, thus leading to a completely different interpretation than that of Advaita. Madhva reads tattvamasi as atattvamasi meaning "You are not that" - again completely different from the Advaita reading. Jayathirtha, who comes in the line of Madhva gave a Dvaita interpretation of tattvamasi. So either way, they are covered.

We can see how they are trying to defend their philosophy irrationally by getting exhausted by seeing 'I am Brahman' 'You are that' like texts.. They know that Maha-Vakya doesn't posit duality between Atma and Brahman and so it is better to not give any importance.

Other than Advaitins, no one else considers these statements as Maha-vakyas.

Why would they consider if they know that the texts do not posit duality? Ask any Bhedavadi whether they have any answer of why Upanishada frequently mentions 'Aham Brahmasmi' or 'You are that' like Mahavakya-s.

If it were that simple, there would only be one Vedanta tradition and not multiple. But we do have multiple traditions, which have survived for centuries, which can only mean that it is a lot more complex than simply equating Vedanta with Advaita.

Why there are different Vedanta traditions? The answer is Guna-s. The person under Sattvika Knowledge influence would not interpret something in the same way person under Tamasik would interpret. If you wear yellow glass you'll see yellow. That's inevitable. That's just simple !

 

[Shantanu]

Not true at all. Upanishada and Purana mention meditating on 'Tat Twam Asi' texts.


Paramahamsa-Parivrajaka (3)

;again recite mentally or in speech the Pranava and the vyahritis separately and utter three times three the farewell words, ‘I have renounced, I have renounced, I have renounced’ in gentle, middling and sharp tones; deeply engage in meditation on the Pranava and raise his hand saying ‘Freedom from fear to all from me, Svaha’. He shall then start for the north thinking over the meaning of great scriptural texts such as ‘The Brahman I Am’, ‘That Thou Art’ and proceed in the unclad state. This is renunciation.

Paingala III-1-2. Then Paingala said to Yajnavalkya: Set forth the explanation of the major text(s) [Maha-vakyas]. Yajnavalkya replied: Thou art That; Thou That art; Thou Brahman art; I am Brahman – One should meditate thus.

Sanyasa 2.4

Even if they renounce the world they are not entitled to instruction in the great scriptural texts (such as ‘That Thou Art’).


Kaivalya 17
“That which manifests the phenomena, such as the states of wakefulness, dream and profound sleep, I am that Brahman” – realising thus one is liberated from all bonds.


Sandilya Upanishada Ch. 2
"That is Brahman. Thou art That. Know That by wisdom. He who is the one, the shining, the giver of the power of Atman, the omniscient, the Lord of all and the inner Soul of all beings, who lives in all beings, who is hidden in all beings and the source of all beings, who is reachable only through Yoga and who creates, supports and destroys everything – He is Atman."

Thus there are such so many Upanishada which talks/mention about 'You are that' 'I am Brahman' Vedanta texts. There's no doubt, according to Upanishada, they are Mahavakya-s.



We can see how they are trying to defend their philosophy irrationally by getting exhausted by seeing 'I am Brahman' 'You are that' like texts.. They know that Maha-Vakya doesn't posit duality between Atma and Brahman and so it is better to not give any importance.




Why would they consider if they know that the texts do not posit duality? Ask any Bhedavadi whether they have any answer of why Upanishada frequently mentions 'Aham Brahmasmi' or 'You are that' like Mahavakya-s.




Why there are different Vedanta traditions? The answer is Guna-s. The person under Sattvika Knowledge influence would not interpret something in the same way person under Tamasik would interpret. If you wear yellow glass you'll see yellow. That's inevitable. That's just simple !

This is a very well considered documentation of the principles and origins of Brahmanism and provides much useful information.

I am particularly interested in the discussion on renunciation to see just how long ago this idea had struck the minds of sages in India. Your post raises this question. You mentioned Paramhansa Parivrajaka in relation to renunciation. Is this regarded an important text for advaita? To me renunciation is a highly sattvic attribute in a person and comes from real knowledge of reality. Truth pursuit is a highly sattvic condition for knowledge acquisition. You first indicate that the philosophy of Brahmanism was cultured with renunciation in mind. But then you contradict yourself in Sanyasa 2.4. Are you claiming to be a sanyassi yourself?

 

[Stormcry]

You mentioned Paramhansa Parivrajaka in relation to renunciation. Is this regarded an important text for advaita?

Upanishada-s is the soul of Advaita and so 'Paramhansa Upanishada'.

You first indicate that the philosophy of Brahmanism was cultured with renunciation in mind. But then you contradict yourself in Sanyasa 2.4. Are you claiming to be a sanyassi yourself?

Sorry for not posting the entire verse. Sannyasa Upanishada states about who don't have the right for renunciation.


"Now these (persons, though possessing dispassion, are not entitled to renunciation – a eunuch, a fallen man, a maimed person, women, a deaf person, a child, a dumb person, a heretic, an informer, a student (who has not completed his study), a Vaikhanasa anchorite (belonging to a Vaishnava sect), an ardent Saivite (Haradvija), a salaried teacher, a man without prepuce and one without ritual fire. Even if they renounce the world they are not entitled to instruction in the great scriptural texts (such as ‘That Thou Art’).

It means that even if they renounce all worldly things [Note that renunciation through mind is a different thing], they are not allowed for the instruction of Mahavakya-s because they can't grasp it just like how Bhedavadi can't grasp the meaning of 'Aham Brahma Asmi'. Bhedavadi/Mayavadi are not entitled for hearing Mahavakya-s.

 

[Shantanu]

What is renunciation through mind?

Upanishada-s is the soul of Advaita and so 'Paramhansa Upanishada'.




Sorry for not posting the entire verse. Sannyasa Upanishada states about who don't have the right for renunciation.


"Now these (persons, though possessing dispassion, are not entitled to renunciation – a eunuch, a fallen man, a maimed person, women, a deaf person, a child, a dumb person, a heretic, an informer, a student (who has not completed his study), a Vaikhanasa anchorite (belonging to a Vaishnava sect), an ardent Saivite (Haradvija), a salaried teacher, a man without prepuce and one without ritual fire. Even if they renounce the world they are not entitled to instruction in the great scriptural texts (such as ‘That Thou Art’).

It means that even if they renounce all worldly things [Note that renunciation through mind is a different thing], they are not allowed for the instruction of Mahavakya-s because they can't grasp it just like how Bhedavadi can't grasp the meaning of 'Aham Brahma Asmi'. Bhedavadi/Mayavadi are not entitled for hearing Mahavakya-s.

Is renunciation through mind always an effect of practicing advaita according to the scriptures?

 

[Stormcry]

Another reference of 'Tat Twam Asi' is found in 'Sarva-Sara' upanishada. "And Ananta, the Infinite, (remaining in the same manner) as (does) clay in modifications of clay, as gold in modifications of gold, as thread in fabrics of thread, the antecedent, all-pervading Consciousness, that is in all phenomena of creation beginning with the Unmanifested, is called the Infinite. And Ananda, Bliss – the essence of the consciousness of happiness, the ocean of measureless bliss, and the state of undifferentiated happiness is called Bliss. That, of which the above fourfold nature is an indication, and which is permanent in all space, time, substance, and causation, is called the Entity of “That” (Tat) Paramatman, Supreme Self, and Para-Brahman, or the Highest Brahman. Distinguished from the Entity of “Thou” (when it appears to be) possessed of attributes, as well as from the Entity of “That” (when it appears to be) possessed of attributes, that which is all-pervading like the sky, subtle, whole by itself, pure Existence, the Entity of “Art” (Asi). Self-luminous, is spoken of as the Atman; the Entity of “not-That”, also is spoken of as Atman. That which is beginningless, fruitful, open to both proof and disproof, neither real nor unreal, nor real-unreal – non-existent, when, because of the immutability of its own substratum, the cause of change is ascertained; — existent when it is not so ascertained – (thus that) which is undefinable, is called Maya.