About the verbs in the Mahavakyas
Partha Desikan
All the Vedantacharyas, in particular the founders of the Advaita , Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita doctrines, namely Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva relied totally on the three prasthanas, namely the Upanishads, Brahmasutra and the Bhagavadgita and wrote bhashyas on them to convey the import of Vedanta to their followers.
The four famous mahavakyas from the Upanishads have been found by the Acharyavaras to say something significant about the relationship of Brahman to the Jivatmas.
Please allow me to look at these vakyas now through my untutored eyes.
The mahavakyas are, as every Medhavi knows
- Prajnanam brahma (Aitareya U. adhyaya 3, khanda 1, mantra 3)
- Aham brahmaasmi (Brihadaranyaka U. adhyaya 1, brahmana 4, mantra 10)
- Tattvamasi (Chandogya U. adhyaya 6, khanda 8, mantra 7)
- Ayam atma brahma (Mandukya U. khanda 1, mantra 1-2; also brihadaranyaka U. adhyaya 2, brahmana 5, mantra 19.
Their contexts and the interpretations of the three Acharyas are also very well known. I do not need to repeat them. Let me look at the texts from the angle of a curious child and see whether I get a new slant.
It is interesting to me that no verb words have been used in the first and the fourth mahavakyas. The second one has the first person singular verb asmi suiting the subject aham and the third has the second person singular verb asi, suiting the subject tvam. The other pronoun Tat obviously is not the subject of asi, just as the noun brahma is not the subject of asmi.
The vakyas are not brahma aham/madadvitiyam asti or tat tvam/tvadadvitiyam asti. Since by aham and tvam, the upanishadic revelations obviously refer to a human soul, call it Jivatma, this kind of selectivity in the choice of verbs suggests what the vakyas really mean.
The vakyas can mean that a Jivatma is brahman. They can not mean that brahman is a Jivatma. It is this subtle difference that differentiates the non-different.
In chapter 4 of the Bhagavadgita, Sri Krishna informs Arjuna that both of them have had several janmas. Yet while the former voluntarily took the Janmas, the other had to go through the Janmas. Krishna knew his identity all along in every avatara, which he chooses to call janma. Arjuna had no possibility of such memory in his janmas.
When the Aitareya equates prajnanam with brahma, there is no need for a verb. No number or gender is relevant. No present or past is binding. The equation applies even before all creation.
When the first ever evidence of creation in the infinitesimal initial note of pranava appeared, it is a sound, a nama beyond the rupa or svabhava of Brahman. There was nothing else. Mandukya should have no difficulty in equating it totally with its immediate predecessor, namely brahman. No verb is called for. Ayam atma (pranava) brahma indeed!
Similarly in the Brihadaranyaka description of a Devatatma, Indra, with his own leela, and therfore to be understood as brahman, voluntarily takes on myriad forms which should all be understood as brahman only. There is complete equivalence and a verb will be superfluous. In the Krishnarjunasamvada we mentioned, Krishna's leela binds the Jiva and makes it go through several janmas. Krishna's leela also gives Krishna the freedom to come down again and again as an avatara, not just any blind janma!
The Jiva too is ‘free' to do sadhana and pursue different margas to really free itself and attain mukti.
Because the non different are subtly different except before creation, and glaringly so in forms during the baddha stage of the Jivas, all Acharyas understood the significance of devotion of Jivas to the parama soul which is never really away from any Jiva, significance also of unconditional surrender to it, apart from pure, sublime seeking, in meditative, contemplative quest of truth. The founder of Advaita suggests singing of Gita and Vishnusahasranama, meditation on any rupa of Hari, staying in the company of saintly people and giving away material assets to the needy. Those Acharyas who recognize Hari as the advitiya parama soul, naturally also suggest bhakti and sharanagati to Hari and service to humanity seeing Narayana in all his sentient creation.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by tnsethumadhavan, 2011-08-21 03:46:47
You have stated that “The vakyas can mean that a Jivatma is brahman. They can not mean that brahman is a Jivatma. It is this subtle difference that differentiates the non-different”.
The Mahavakyas can be analyzed through the following four alternatives: Whether they mean 1. Jivatma is Brahman or 2. Brahman is Jivatma or 3. Jivatma is not Brahman and 4. Brahman is not Jivatma. While the entire Vedanta revolves around three points viz., Jiva, Jagat and Jagadeesvara (Brahman), the thrust is to make the man (Jiva) understand that his real status is Brahman and not the body. With this end in view the core idea behind all the Mahavakyas is to drive at the concept that Jiva in fact is Brahman. Prajnanam brahma , Aham brahmaasmi, Tattvamasi, Ayam atma brahma and Sarvam khalv idam Brahma broadly mean one and the same thing. That is, ‘Jiva or Jagat is Brahman’ and not the other three alternatives which I mentioned above.
This is abundantly made clear by Sankara through his well known statement “Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah”. The relevant words from this statement for our purpose are jivo brahmaiva naparah which mean that every jiva or the apparent limited and finite entity is basically the infinite and limitless Brahman, and nothing else. As the aim of Acharyas is to enlighten the ignorant people the emphasis is on the man (Jiva) and the Mahavakyas purpose is to hammer out the point that Jiva is Brahman.
Having said that, the advaita and vaishnava schools of thougt have a slightly different views on interpreting the word Brahman where the concepts of saguna and nirguna and other details creep in.
You have also stated that “The founder of Advaita suggests singing of Gita and Vishnusahasranama, meditation on any rupa of Hari, staying in the company of saintly people and giving away material assets to the needy and also suggests bhakti and sharanagati to Hari and service to humanity seeing Narayana in all his sentient creation”. While all this is completely true, the bed-rock of Sankara’s philosophy is his stress on Jnana Yoga or Nivritti Marga or renunciation to attain liberation or Moksha.
With warm regards
Sethumadhavan
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-12-21 21:20:07
Thank you.
Do bear with a 10+ day delay in responding to your kind comment. After the planned holiday, I went through an unplanned somewhat painful hiatus helped along by a virus.
The manner of my looking at the verbs or their absence in the mahavakyas cannot be given the dignified description of an insight. To me it shows that no small detail was left to chance whenever the para principle decided to reveal any aspect of itself to its chosen creation.
The Upanishads or any significant part of them such as the mahavakyas are not required for the parama but only for its significant creation, namely the Jivas. If Acharyas who are the highest form of Jivas, can interpret the subtle hierarchy either as no difference or as difference of a subtle kind, I have no hassles, whatsoever. Again if the veil between the seeker and total perception is described in several ways including as Vishnumaya and Krishna's leela, I have no problems again. What can go on that is not the sankalpa of the Parama?
Regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2009-12-02 08:00:11
It is interesting to me that no verb words have been used in the first and the fourth mahavakyas. The second one has the first person singular verb asmi suiting the subject aham and the third has the second person singular verb asi, suiting the subject tvam. The other pronoun Tat obviously is not the subject of asi, just as the noun brahma is not the subject of asmi.
The vakyas are not brahma aham/madadvitiyam asti or tat tvam/tvadadvitiyam asti. Since by aham and tvam, the upanishadic revelations obviously refer to a human soul, call it Jivatma, this kind of selectivity in the choice of verbs suggests what the vakyas really mean.
The vakyas can mean that a Jivatma is brahman. They can not mean that brahman is a Jivatma. It is this subtle difference that differentiates the non-different.
and
When the first ever evidence of creation in the infinitesimal initial note of pranava appeared, it is a sound, a nama beyond the rupa or svabhava of Brahman. There was nothing else. Mandukya should have no difficulty in equating it totally with its immediate predecessor, namely brahman. No verb is called for. Ayam atma (pranava) brahma indeed!
If I understood your article correctly, you are saying that the Mahavakyas suggest that Jivatma is Brahman, bound, right?
And that every entity in this universe is a form of Brahman. So what is the implication of this insight?
And what is the position of the three schools wrt Leela? Advaita doesn't subscribe to the Leela theory, if I'm not mistaken. The Advaitic Nirguna Brahman is self-conscious, self-illuminated joy beyond Nama Rupa.
Please clarify....
Warm Regards,
Dwai
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
You are very right in your understanding of the different darshanas.
As you would have seen in my reply to Dwai, I have no hassles about the great Acharyas differing in the difference or the absence of difference between Jivas and Brahman
I am only pointing out that the Brahman may have intended even the verbs in the mahavakyas to have a special significance, which to me includes the possibility of Jiva being postulated as equal to Brahman. If Brahman has to be postulated as equal to Jivas, we may need to look beyond the Mahavakyas, beyond Sri Krishna's statements in the Gita, etc.
Warm regards. Partha.