Where's Atma Who's not Brahma?

[shivsomashekhar]

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

Unfortunately, none of these texts have universal acceptance. The Paingala, etc., were clearly created after the time of Shankara. Though it mentions the 4 Mahavakyas explicitly, he never quotes from this Upanishad, which means it did not exist during his time. Rather, it was created after his time to describe his Advaita doctrine. Neither is this Upanishad quoted by other Vedanta schools. Again, the Maha-vakyas are an advaitic concept and this is not under dispute.

The first clear references to Upanishad names comes from Shankara. No records are traceable before his time. He used about a dozen Upanishads (these are the only universally accepted Upanishads). Ramanuja who came later used a bigger number of Upanishads. Madhva who came after Ramanuja uses an even bigger number of Upanishads. So, the later the Scholar, the more the number of Upanishads. By the time the Muktika was composed, the number had grown to 108 (including itself).

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

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

Its not about sanskrit Aup ji, in plains terms:
a) Supposition of nirviśeṣatva of brahman makes it cumbersome to explain and understand several śrutis including the one above which clearly says - tadātmānam eva avet 'aham brahma asmi iti because it leads to kartṛkarma-virodha.
Now consider two propositions:
b-1) Do the so-called 'mahavakyas (these are also referred to as supposedly advaita-para meaning those that only convey advaita)' directly convey 'aikya'? If so, then no exegetical treatment will be required.
b-2) Are they interpreted to convey 'aikya' based on exegetical treatment (for eg, like the lakṣaṇa described in great detail by HLK)? If so, the exegesis is open to critical analysis because they are not svataḥ-pramāṇa (self-validating)

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.

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.

Thus these two are contradictory so the direct meaning is not possible. So another technique is used, which is known by 'Lakshana-Vrutti'.

Now as HLK has strenuously proved, proposition b-2) is unarguably correct. Which means to claim these śrutis convey 'aikya' is wrong, instead what can be claimed is 'advaitic interpretation of these śrutis convey aikya'.
The evaluation of exegesis used by different schools and their tenability is perhaps a different discussion. For purpose of this one, i think it suffices to say that by themselves these śrutis don't convey aikya and require exegetical treatment to do so, and HLK has driven this point home.

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

frequently mentions 'Aham Brahmasmi' or 'You are that' like Mahavakya-s.

1) The fact is, the amount of śrutis that are disregarded as 'atatattvāvādaka' far exceed the amount of texts accepted by the māyāvāda/advaita school.
2) [Am assuming you've studied them] Where exactly and how many times has Śri Śaṁkara used the term 'mahavakya' in the prasthānas?
3) Also isn't māyāvāda based on principal upaniṣads? Why relegate to quoting from others, most of whose authenticity is dubious.

If you wear yellow glass you'll see yellow. That's inevitable. That's just simple !

Passion for chosen school of thought is admirable, but that doesn't qualify for scholarship in either the chosen one or others. By using lakṣaṇa on both terms, the māyāvādins would be, by your 'yellow glass' analogy, wearing not one but two at a time!

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.

So why should one presuppose ignorance in brahman? Isn't it because of another presupposition of nirviśeṣatva. Brahman being satyasaṁkalpa doesn't need māyā to remain one or become many. Nor by becoming many will each of those be any less compete (pūrṇamidam...).

If Brahman can not be under ignorance then why would Purusha assimilate with Prakruti.

That's another presupposition.

'Adhyatma Vidya' is born out of Maya, just as Ignorance is.

Okay, I give you scriptural supports.

From prasthānas, if you will.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

If so, the exegesis is open to critical analysis because they are not svataḥ-pramāṇa (self-validating).

In my so-professed scientific view, that is not 'svataha-pramita' (I suppose I have used the correct word - (Self-validated)). And I consider the existence of 'aikya' dependent on what science finds in future. If science shows otherwise, I will modify my views. But I suppose during my life-time, any such thing is not going to happen.

I think it suffices to say that by themselves these śrutis don't convey aikya and require exegetical treatment to do so, and HLK has driven this point home.

The very first verse of the first hymn of the first book of RigVeda denies 'aikya' (Agnimiḷe purohitam ..). You see, the deities are comfortable with both the views, of 'aikya' as well as 'dvaita'.

 

[Stormcry]

a) Supposition of nirviśeṣatva of brahman makes it cumbersome to explain and understand several śrutis including the one above which clearly says - tadātmānam eva avet 'aham brahma asmi iti because it leads to kartṛkarma-virodha.

Kindly explain what's 'Kartrkarma-Virodh'.

This sentence appears in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad when the sage, in the context of meditation on the Self, in reply to the query – What did that Brahman know by which It became all? - states:-

"ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्, तदात्मनामेवावेत्, अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति | तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्; तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्, तदषीर्णाम् तथा मनुष्याणाम्,..."
"This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning; It knew only Itself as, "I am Brahman". Therefore It became all; and whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men…” - (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.10)

For Brahman which is Nirvishesha, without knowing/assuming itself as something, as it were, creation/manifestation of world is not possible. In Nirvishesha Brahman, there's not even the feeling of 'I am Brahman'. When it thought 'I am brahman', 'I' manifests that is the root cause of Maya and that 'I' is manifesting in numerable Jiva-s as if it is really divided and appearing as 'Sat' and as it were, creation of world happened though it is without a second, thinking now let me become many.In Vishnu Purana, Sage Parashara called the world as 'Upachara'. He said creation of world in Nirguna Brahman is just impossible.

Now consider two propositions:
b-1) Do the so-called 'mahavakyas (these are also referred to as supposedly advaita-para meaning those that only convey advaita)' directly convey 'aikya'? If so, then no exegetical treatment will be required.

You're not comprehending the essence. The very cause of exegetical treatment is the असि word. The statement directly conveys 'Aikya'. That's why it'd should be explained properly not roughly. The word असि has no exegetical treatment. If there were no असि word, the treatment, that you are objecting, would not be required. There would be controversies on assuming the meaning of 'Tat' and 'Twam' words but not 'Asi' word which directly conveys Oneness.

b-2) Are they interpreted to convey 'aikya' based on exegetical treatment (for eg, like the lakṣaṇa described in great detail by HLK)? If so, the exegesis is open to critical analysis because they are not svataḥ-pramāṇa (self-validating)

The one who has enough logic sense would say that they convey Aikya directly. The two things 'Tat' and 'twam' are directly connected by 'Asi', how it wouldn't be direct?

Now as HLK has strenuously proved, proposition b-2) is unarguably correct. Which means to claim these śrutis convey 'aikya' is wrong, instead what can be claimed is 'advaitic interpretation of these śrutis convey aikya'.

This is called playing with words. It is like saying You and Man are different when the statement [You are man] is made. Saying it doesn't mean oneness would be the height of absurdity, really.

The evaluation of exegesis used by different schools and their tenability is perhaps a different discussion. For purpose of this one, i think it suffices to say that by themselves these śrutis don't convey aikya and require exegetical treatment to do so, and HLK has driven this point home.

The word 'Asi' is of great importance and this word itself shows there's unity. So there's no room for any gimmick. Mahavakya-s perfectly refute Ramanuja and Madhavacharya's philosophy. Their explainations are quite illogical. Non-sectarian people (Western world) understand it. That's why they highly praise Adi shanakra for his scholarship and excellency in the Logic.

1) The fact is, the amount of śrutis that are disregarded as 'atatattvāvādaka' far exceed the amount of texts accepted by the māyāvāda/advaita school.

Traditionally not just 10-12 upanishada-s are regarded as authentic.

2) [Am assuming you've studied them] Where exactly and how many times has Śri Śaṁkara used the term 'mahavakya' in the prasthānas?

Many times he mentioned 'Tat Twam Asi' like texts in his bhashya. That's suffice to say they are of great importance as it conveys the essence of Veda. So they're Mahavakya. 'Mahavakya' is supported by many Upanishada-s as well. 'Paingala Upanishada is one of them, that was cited by Bhagavan Shankara in Brahma-Sutra Bhashya.

3) Also isn't māyāvāda based on principal upaniṣads? Why relegate to quoting from others, most of whose authenticity is dubious.

Who said they are solely principal Upanishada-s. There are numerous upanishada-s which are not commented but they are authentic.

By using lakṣaṇa on both terms, the māyāvādins would be, by your 'yellow glass' analogy, wearing not one but two at a time!

If someone is saying 'Asi' doesn't convey Aikya, I'd say he's blind itself. No common sense, no scholarship !

So why should one presuppose ignorance in brahman? Isn't it because of another presupposition of nirviśeṣatva. Brahman being satyasaṁkalpa doesn't need māyā to remain one or become many. Nor by becoming many will each of those be any less compete (pūrṇamidam...).
That's another presupposition.

There's no presupposition. Everything is flawlessly considered/supported by scriptural supports.

From prasthānas, if you will.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Upanishada-s प्रस्थान are not enough ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dear friend, HLK, kindly do not use the word 'absurd' in your posts. What seems absurd to me, may be very precious to others (myself being an atheist advaitist). We all have our personal views. I have no objection to the rest of your post, you are entitled to it.

 

[Chakra]

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

As an aside, it should be noted that his opponent "Subramanian V" aka Subbu aka adbhutam is also guilty of making offensive remarks. I feel that Mohan-ji's language was a result of all this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I did not go into all details. If Subbu did that, then he too is at fault. And greater fault to have started it. In 'Vyavaharika', even Sankara accepted duality.