மகாவாக்கியம்
மகாவாக்கியங்கள் என்பன உபநிடதங்களில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ள உயருண்மை கொண்ட நான்கு சொற்றொடர்களைக்(வாக்கியங்களைக்) குறிப்பது ஆகும்.
ஒவ்வொரு மகாவாக்கியமும் அது சார்ந்த வேதத்தின் பிழிவாக, சாரமாக கருதப்படுகிறது.
நான்கு மகாவாக்கியங்களும் முறையே நான்கு வேதங்களில் இருந்து பெறப்பட்டவை.
இந்து மதத்தின் அனைத்து தத்துவங்களையும் உண்மைகளையும் தம்முள் அடக்கியவையாக இவ்வாக்கியங்களை கருதப்படுகின்றனர்.
அந்த மகாவாக்கியங்கள் பின்வருமாறு:
1. பிரக்ஞானம் பிரம்ம - "பிரக்ஞையே(அறிவுணர்வே) பிரம்மன்" (ரிக் வேதத்தின் ஐதரேய உபநிடதம்])
2. அயம் ஆத்மா பிரம்ம - "இந்த ஆத்மா பிரம்மன்"(அதர்வண வேதத்தின்மாண்டூக்ய உபநிடதம்)
3. தத் த்வம் அஸி - "அது(பிரம்மம்) நீ" (சாம வேதத்தின் சந்தோக்ய உபநிடதம்)
4. அஹம் பிரம்மாஸ்மி - "நான் பிரம்மன்" (யஜுர் வேதத்தின்பிருஹதாரண்யக உபநிடதம்)
மேலே கூறப்பட்டுள்ள பிரம்மன்,பிற்காலத்தின் படைப்பின் கடவுளாக கருதப்படும் நான்முக பிரம்மனை குறிப்பது அல்ல.
இது ஒட்டுமொத்த படைப்பின் ஆதாரமாக வேதங்களில் குறிப்பிடப்படும் 'பிரம்மனை' குறிக்கிறது.
இந்த நான்கு மகாவாக்கியங்களும் ஆத்மனுக்கும் பிரம்மனுக்கும் உள்ள உள்ளுறவைக் குறிக்கிறது.
பிரம்மன் படைப்பின் அடிப்படை தத்துவம், பிரம்மனிடமிருந்து அனைத்தும் தோன்றியது.
அதே சமயம் ஆத்மன் அனைத்து உயிர்களிடத்தும் அறியப்படும் தான் என்ற தத்துவத்தின் மூலாதார உருவகம்.
ஆத்மன் அழிவற்றது அதே போல் பிரம்மனும் அழிவற்றது.
யோகத்தின் மூலமாகவும் தியானத்தின் மூலமாகவும் ஒருவர் ஆத்மனும் பிரம்மனும் ஒன்று என்பதை அறிய இயலும்.
காஞ்சி பராமாச்சாரியர் தன்னுடைய புத்கத்தில் இவ்வாறு குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்:சன்யாசத்துக்குள் ஒருவர் நுழையும் போது அவருக்கு இந்த நான்கு மகாவாக்கியங்களும் கற்றுத்தரப்படுகின்றன.
பிற வாக்கியங்கள் உபநிடதங்களில் குறிப்பிடப்படும் வேறு சில முக்கியமான வாக்கியங்கள்:
சர்வம் கல்விதம் பிரம்ம - அனைத்து அறிவும் பிரம்மன் (சந்தோக்ய உபநிடதம்)
நேஹ நானாஸ்தி கிஞ்சின - வேறெங்கும் எதுவும் இல்லை(சந்தோக்ய உபநிடதம்)
தத்துவமசி என்ற மகாவாக்கியம்.
இந்து சமய வேத நூல்களில் வேதாந்தப்பொருள்களை விளக்குவதற்காகவே தொகுக்கப்பட்டிருக்கும் பிரிவுகள் உபநிடதங்கள் எனப்படும்.
அவைகளில் வேதத்திற்கொன்றாக நான்கு மகாவாக்கியங்கள் போற்றப்படுகின்றன.
சாமவேதத்திய மகாவாக்கியம் தத்-துவம்-அஸி.(तत् त्वम् असि அல்லது तत्त्वमसि) தத் : அது (அப்பரம் பொருள்), துவம் : நீ(யாக), அஸி : உளாய், அல்லது 'நீ அதுவாக உளாய்' என்றும் சொல்லலாம்.
இம்மகாவாக்கியத்திலுள்ள சொற்களின் பொருள் இவ்வளவு எளிதாக இருப்பினும், வாக்கியத்தின் உட்கருத்தைப்பற்றி வெவ்வேறு வேதாந்தப்பிரிவினரின் கொள்கைகள் கணிசமாக மாறுபடுகின்றன.
சாந்தோக்ய உபநிடதத்தில் ஆறாவது அத்தியாயத்தில் உத்தாலக ஆருணி என்ற மகரிஷி பன்னிரண்டு வயதுள்ள மகன் சுவேதகேதுவை குருகுலத்திற்கு அனுப்பி வேதசாத்திரங்களெல்லாம் கற்று வரும்படிச் சொல்கிறார்.
பன்னிரண்டாண்டுகள் குருகுலத்தில் படித்துவிட்டுத் திரும்பும் வாலிபனிடம் "எதனால் கேள்விக் கெட்டாதது கேட்கப் பட்டதாயும், நினைவுக் கெட்டாதது நினைக்கப் பட்டதாயும், அறிவுக் கெட்டாதது அறியப் பட்டதாயும் ஆகுமோ அவ்வுபதேசத்தை குருவிடம் தெரிந்துகொண்டாயா?"என்று கேட்கிறார்.
இதைத்தொடர்ந்து தானே அவனுக்கு அந்த பரம்பொருளை ஒன்பது எடுத்துக் காட்டுகளால் விளக்கி, முடிந்தமுடிவாக இதே மகாவாக்கியத்தை ஒன்பது முறையும் சொல்கிறார்.
"எப்படி எல்லா ஆறுகளும் எல்லாத் திசையிலிருந்தும் கடலையே அடைந்து, கடலாகவே ஆகிவிடுகின்றனவோ, மற்றும் அவை அந்நிலையில் 'நான் இது'என்று எங்ஙனம் அறியமாட்டாவோ அங்ஙனமே பிராணிகளெல்லாம் பரம்பொருளிலிருந்து தோன்றினோம் என உணரவில்லை.
எது அணுமாத்திரமான சூட்சுமப்பொருளோ அதையே ஆன்மாவாய்க் கொண்டது.
இது எல்லாம். அதுவே ஆன்மா.அதுவே நீயாக உளாய்"
"ஆலம்பழம் ஒன்றைப்பிளந்தால் அணுவடிவான விதைகள் காணப்படுகின்றன. அவ்விதைகளில் ஒன்றைப் பிளந்தால் ஒன்றும் காணப்படுவதில்லை. ஆனால் காணப்படாத அந்த சூட்சுமப் பொருளிலிருந்தே பெரிய ஆலமரம் உண்டாகி நிற்கிறது.
எது அணுமாத்திரமான சூட்சுமப்பொருளோ அதையே ஆன்மாவாய்க் கொண்டது.
இது எல்லாம். அதுவே ஆன்மா. அதுவே நீயாக உளாய்"
"உப்பை நீரில் போட்டு வைத்து அது கரைந்தபின், நீரில் போட்ட உப்பைக்கொண்டு வருவது எளிதல்ல. ஆனால் நீரில் மேல்பாகத்தையோ நடுப்பாகத்தையோ அடிப்பாகத்தையோ உண்டுபார்த்தால் அது உப்பாகவேயிருப்பது தெரியும்.
அதேபோல் முக்காலமும் சத்தான பொருளை நீ காணவில்லை எனினும் அது எங்கும் இருக்கவே இருக்கிறது.
அணுமாத்திரமான் அந்த சூட்சுமப்பொருள் எதுவோ அதையே ஆன்மாவாய்க் கொண்டது.
இது எல்லாம். அதுவே ஆன்மா. அதுவே நீயாக உளாய்""
ஒருவனை கண்ணைக்கட்டி காந்தாரதேசத்தில் ஒரு காட்டில் கொண்டுபோய்விட்டு பிறகு அவன் கண்ணைத் திறந்து நீ வீட்டுக்குப்போ என்று சொன்னால் அவனால் எப்படிப் போகமுடியும்?
அச்சமயம் ஒரு அயல் மனிதன் வந்து அவனுக்கு பாதை காட்டி அவனுடைய வீட்டுக்குப்போக வழி சொல்லிக் கொடுத்தால் எப்படியோ அப்படித்தான் ஒரு குரு நமக்கெல்லாம் இச்சம்சாரக் காட்டிலிருந்து மீள வழி காட்டுகிறார்.
அந்தப்பாதையில் சென்று ஞானோதயம் பெற்று அப்பரம்பொருளுடன் ஒன்று படலாம்.
அணுமாத்திரமான் அந்த சூட்சுமப்பொருள் எதுவோ அதையே ஆன்மாவாய்க் கொண்டது.
இது எல்லாம். அதுவே ஆன்மா. அதுவே நீயாக உளாய்"
Tat Tvam Asi ( तत् त्वम् असि or तत्त्वमसि),
A Sanskrit sentence, translated variously as "That thou art," "Thou art that," "You are that," or "That you are," is one of the Mahāvākyas in Vedantic Sanatana Dharma. It originally occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad. The meaning of this saying is that the Self - in its original, pure, primordial state - is wholly or partially identifiable or identical with the Ultimate Reality that is the ground and origin of all phenomena.
Major Vedantic schools offer different interpretations of the phrase:
- Advaita - absolute equality of 'tat', the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, and 'tvam', the Self, Jiva.
- Shuddhadvaita - oneness in "essence" between 'tat' and individual self; but 'tat' is the whole and self is a part.
- Vishishtadvaita - identity of individual self as a part of the whole which is 'tat', Brahman.
- Dvaitadvaita - equal non-difference and difference between the individual self as a part of the whole which is 'tat'.
- Dvaita†† of Madhvacharya - “Sa atmaa-tat tvam asi” in Sanskrit is actually “Sa atma-atat tvam asi” or “Atman, thou art not that”. In refutation of Mayavada (Mayavada sata dushani), text 6, 'tat tvam asi" is translated as "you are a servant of the Supreme (Vishnu)"
- Acintya Bheda Abheda - inconceivable oneness and difference between individual self as a part of the whole which is 'tat'.
Tat tvam asi
Tat tvam asi is the Mahāvākya The Advaita school of Shankara assigns a fundamental importance to this Mahāvākya.This is actually a statement meted out by Sage Aruni to Shvetaketu, his son. It says literally 'That thou are'. In other words that Brahman which is the common Reality behind everything in the cosmos is the same as the essential Divinity, namely the Atman, within you. It is this identity which is the grand finale of Upanishadic teaching, according to Advaita. The realisation of this arises only by an intuitive experience and is totally different from any objective experience. It cannot be inferred from some other bit of knowledge. To comprehend the meaning an analysis of the three words in the pronouncement is needed.
Who is this 'Thou'?'Thou' stands for the inherent substratum in each one of us without which our very existence is out of question. Certainly it is not the body, mind, the senses, or anything that we call ours. It is the innermost Self, stripped of all egoistic tendencies. It is Ātman.
The entity indicated by the word 'That' according to the notation used in the Vedas, is Brahman, the transcendent Reality which is beyond everything that is finite, everything that is conceived or thought about. You cannot give a full analogy to it and that is why the Vedas say words cannot describe it. It cannot even be imagined because when there is nothing else other than Brahman it has to be beyond space and time. We can imagine space without earth,water, fire and air. But it is next to impossible to imagine something outside space. Space is the most subtle of the five elemental fundamentals. As we proceed from the grossest to the subtle, that is, from earth to water, to fire, to air, and to space the negation of each grosser matter is possible to be imagined within the framework of the more subtle one. But once we reach the fifth one, namely space or Ākāsha, the negation of that and the conception of something beyond, where even the space is merged into something more subtle, is not for the finite mind. The Vedas therefore declare the existence of this entity and call it 'sat' (existence), also known as Brahman.
Tat tvam asi is the Mahāvākya The Advaita school of Shankara assigns a fundamental importance to this Mahāvākya.This is actually a statement meted out by Sage Aruni to Shvetaketu, his son. It says literally 'That thou are'. In other words that Brahman which is the common Reality behind everything in the cosmos is the same as the essential Divinity, namely the Atman, within you. It is this identity which is the grand finale of Upanishadic teaching, according to Advaita. The realisation of this arises only by an intuitive experience and is totally different from any objective experience. It cannot be inferred from some other bit of knowledge. To comprehend the meaning an analysis of the three words in the pronouncement is needed.
Who is this 'Thou'?'Thou' stands for the inherent substratum in each one of us without which our very existence is out of question. Certainly it is not the body, mind, the senses, or anything that we call ours. It is the innermost Self, stripped of all egoistic tendencies. It is Ātman.
The entity indicated by the word 'That' according to the notation used in the Vedas, is Brahman, the transcendent Reality which is beyond everything that is finite, everything that is conceived or thought about. You cannot give a full analogy to it and that is why the Vedas say words cannot describe it. It cannot even be imagined because when there is nothing else other than Brahman it has to be beyond space and time. We can imagine space without earth,water, fire and air. But it is next to impossible to imagine something outside space. Space is the most subtle of the five elemental fundamentals. As we proceed from the grossest to the subtle, that is, from earth to water, to fire, to air, and to space the negation of each grosser matter is possible to be imagined within the framework of the more subtle one. But once we reach the fifth one, namely space or Ākāsha, the negation of that and the conception of something beyond, where even the space is merged into something more subtle, is not for the finite mind. The Vedas therefore declare the existence of this entity and call it 'sat' (existence), also known as Brahman.
That and This The Ātman or the innermost core of our self seems to have an individuality of its own. So, in saying that it is the same as the unqualified Brahman in the Infinite Cosmos, we seem to be identifying two things: one that is unlimited and unconditioned, and one that is limited and conditioned. Whenever someone says, for instance, that the person B whom you are meeting just now is the same as the person A whom you saw twenty years ago at such and such a place, what is actually meant is not the identity of the dresses of the two personalities of A and B, nor of the features (those of B may be totally different from A), but of the essential person behind the names. So whenever such an identity is talked about we have to throw away certain aspects which are temporarily distinctive or indicative in both and cling on only to those essentials without which they are not what they are. B and A may have distinct professions, may have different names, may have different attitudes towards you or towards a certain issue, or may have an additional identity, exemplified by, say, having different passports—but still they are the same, is what is being asserted by the statement 'B is the same as A'.
Brahman minus its Māyā and Ātman minus its avidyā are identical
In the same way, when Brahman and Atman are identified by this Mahāvākya, we have to discard those inessential qualities that are only indicative (and therefore extraneous), choosing only to explore what commonality or essentiality there is in them that is being identified. Brahman is the primordial Cause of this Universe. But this is a predication of Brahman and so is extraneous to the identity about which we are speaking. The Self, or Ātman, appears to be limited by an individuality which keeps it under the spell of ignorance; this is extraneous to the essentiality of the Ātman. So what is being identified is Brahman, minus its feature of being the Cause of this Universe and Ātman minus its limitations of ignorance-cum-delusion. That these two are the same is the content of the statement 'Tat tvam asi'. The cosmic Māyā is what makes Brahman the cause of this Universe. The individual avidyā (ignorance) is what makes the Ātman circumscribed and delimited. So the Mahāvākya says that Brahman minus its Māyā and Atman minus its avidyā are identical.
Tat Tvam Asi
Brahman minus its Māyā and Ātman minus its avidyā are identical
In the same way, when Brahman and Atman are identified by this Mahāvākya, we have to discard those inessential qualities that are only indicative (and therefore extraneous), choosing only to explore what commonality or essentiality there is in them that is being identified. Brahman is the primordial Cause of this Universe. But this is a predication of Brahman and so is extraneous to the identity about which we are speaking. The Self, or Ātman, appears to be limited by an individuality which keeps it under the spell of ignorance; this is extraneous to the essentiality of the Ātman. So what is being identified is Brahman, minus its feature of being the Cause of this Universe and Ātman minus its limitations of ignorance-cum-delusion. That these two are the same is the content of the statement 'Tat tvam asi'. The cosmic Māyā is what makes Brahman the cause of this Universe. The individual avidyā (ignorance) is what makes the Ātman circumscribed and delimited. So the Mahāvākya says that Brahman minus its Māyā and Atman minus its avidyā are identical.
Enlightenment reveals the true nature of reality. How is it treated in three important Indian systems: Samkhya-Yoga, early Buddhism, and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.
Enlightenment has different names in the various systems -- kaivalya, nirvana, moksha, etc. -- and is described in different ways, but the similarities among them are great. Perhaps the most significant is the agreement that enlightenment is intellectually incomprehensible; it cannot be understood or attained through conceptual knowledge, because it escapes all categories of thought. Hence Indian philosophy points beyond itself to a realization which transcends philosophy. Samkhya-Yoga is dualistic, early Buddhism may be considered pluralistic, and Advaita Vedanta is monistic.
Samkhya-
Sāmkhya is apparently dualist. Sage Kapila is considered as the founder of the Samkhya school, but there is no evidence to prove that the texts attributed to him. Samkhya does not mention the existence of God or any other exterior influence, which is taken by many modern critics to be a denial of existence of God. Sāmkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two realities: Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (phenomenal realm of matter). They are the experiencer and the experienced
Jiva is that state of Puruṣa in which Puruṣa lies bonded to Prakriti through the glue of desire, and end of this bondage is Moksha. Samkhya does not describe what happens after Moksha and does not mention anything about Ishwara or God, because after liberation there is no essential distinction of individual and universal Puruṣa
Samkhya Yoga may emphasize the isolation from the natural world which kaivalya (aloofness) brings because it is based upon the dualism of a purusha (pure consciousness) which realizes its distinction from prakrti (everything else). Samkhya-Yoga is dualistic because they postulate two basic substances: purusha (pure unchanging consciousness) and prakrti,( the natural world which encompasses everything else) prakrti includes all mental as well as all physical phenomena. The purusha is reduced to a pure "Seer" which actually does nothing, although its presence is necessary. In our usual deluded condition we are not able to distinguish between them. Pure consciousness mistakenly identifies with its reflections; so I cling to "my" mental panorama and "my" body and its possessions. The purusha is not even able to realize the distinction between itself and prakrti; it is actually the buddhi (the most rarified mental part of prakrti) that realizes the distinction, whereupon the purusha is established in its own nature as solitary and independent, indifferently observing the natural world.
Samkhya is a metaphysical system, Yoga deals with the yogic path which one follows in order to attain kaivalya. It is significant that there is nothing within the eight limbs of yoga practice which is antithetical to Vedanta; in fact, the Yogic path actually seems to fit an Advaitic metaphysics better than a Samkhya one. In samadhi, the eighth and highest limb, the mind loses ego-awareness and becomes one with the object of meditation, but this non-dualistic experience is only "as it were" in Yoga, since the ultimate goal of the yogic system is the discrimination of pure consciousness from all those objects it identifies with. But this experience accords very well with the Advaitic aim of "realizing the whole universe as the Self
Sankhya does not believe in an Ishvara (God). Sankhya does not disbelieve in an Ishvara (God) either. Sankhya says that Ishvara is asiddha, ie. the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved.
Buddhist philosophy The nature of nirvana is perhaps the greatest problem, probably because Buddha himself refused to speculate on it. His attitude was, in effect: If you want to know what nirvana is like, then attain it. But clearly nirvana does not involve the isolation of a pure consciousness, because there is no such thing in early Buddhism. The unique feature of Buddhism is that there is no self at all, and never was; there are only five skandhas, "heaps" of elements, which constantly interact. It is significant that the skandhas do not constitute a self; the sense of a self is merely an illusion created by their interaction. The Buddha emphasized that one should not identify anything as the self.
The Theravadin Abhidharmists analyzed reality into a set of separate dharmas ("elements" ),whose interaction creates the illusion of a self and of external objects. Nirvana for them seems to have been the cessation of cooperation among these various dharmas, leading to their quiescent isolation from each other. Since consciousness is conditioned, a result of their interaction, this would seem to be the cessation of consciousness as well.
Mahayanists accepted the theory of dharmas, but not their objective reality; in themselves the elements are unreal because they are relative (shunya, "empty"). There is a higher, absolute truth (paramartha), about which one can say nothing (according to the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna) but which comes close to the pure consciousness of Vedanta (according to the Yogacara "Mind-only" school).
Shankara's Advaita (nondual) Vedanta is generally regarded as having best developed and systematized the main strand of Upanishadic thought, which stresses the identity of Atman and Brahman. Brahman is an infinite, self-luminous (self-aware) consciousness that transcends the subject-object duality. Unqualified and all-inclusive, perhaps its most significant feature is that it is "One without a second," for there is nothing outside it. Hence Atman -- the true Self, what each of us really is -- is one with this Brahman. Tat tvam asi: "That thou art." This is "All-Selfness": "...there is nothing else but the Self." "To realize the whole universe as the Self is the means of getting rid of bondage." "To the seer, all things have verily become the Self."
So the Atman should not be understood as a distinct self that merges with Brahman. To realize Atman is to realize Brahman because they are really the same thing; in fact, the two words are used interchangeably in some Upanishads. One may state, in answer to the Buddhists, that a consciousness, a self, is needed to organize experience, but that turns out to have been Brahman itself, when Brahman is realized -- that is to say, when Brahman realizes its own true nature. The world of multiplicity and change is maya, illusion. There is nothing but the all-inclusive Self: Atman should be rejected as superfluous, because it suggests another entity apart from Brahman. One should not multiply entities beyond necessity.
Shankara says, moksha, liberation, is the realization that I am, and always have been, Brahman; my individual ego-consciousness is destroyed, but not the pure, non-dual consciousness which it was always just a reflection of. It must be emphasized that one does not attain or merge with this Brahman; one merely realizes that one has always been Brahman. Shankara uses the analogy of the space within a closed jar: that space has always been one with all space; there is but the illusion of separateness. This point -- that really there is nothing to attain -- is especially significant because the same is true for Yoga and Buddhism. In Buddhism, there never was a self; it was always just an illusion
Differences
The similarities between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta have been much noticed; they are so great that some commentators conceive of the two as different stages of the same system. Curiously, both Shankara and his predecessor Gaudapada were accused of being crypto-Buddhists, while on the other side, Theravadins criticized Mahayana for being a degeneration back into Hinduism.
Yet there is undeniably a serious difference between early Buddhism and Vedanta: the first says there is no self and the other says everything is the self; there is apparently no consciousness in nirvana, but everything is consciousness in moksha. The fact that these systems are so diametrically opposed here, that one is the mirror image of the other, is suggestive. They are both extreme positions, trying to resolve the relation between the self and the non-self by conflating the one into the other. The not-self of Buddhism swallows the self; the self of Advaita swallows the not-self. But do they amount to the same thing?
Does enlightenment involve shrinking to nothing, or expanding to encompass everything?
Early Buddhism may be seen to emphasize the nothing, the extensionless point which shrinks to nonexistence; Shankara emphasizes the unique world which remains. But they are describing the same phenomenon.
It has already been stated that all forms of the spiritual path, including of course Samkhya-Yoga, Buddhism, and Advaita, involve complete non-attachment. One should not identify with any physical or mental phenomenon; in other words, one learns to relax and "let go" of literally everything. In doing so, the sense of self "shrinks to an extensionless point" and when that abruptly disappears -- which is enlightenment -- "what remains is the reality co-ordinate with it." On the one side nothing, not even the extensionless point, is left -- this is the Buddhist void, the complete absence of a self. On the other side remains -- everything, the whole world, but a transformed one since it now encompasses awareness within itself; this is the non-dual Brahman of Vedanta.
Early Buddhism claims that consciousness is nothing more than all those things that are experienced; Shankara insists that all those things are consciousness. Buddhism says there is no self, there is only the world (dharmas), Shankara says the world is the Self. To say that there is no self, or that everything is the self, would also then be equally correct -- or false, depending on how one looks at it. Both descriptions amount to the same thing; what is clear in each case is that there is no longer a duality between an object which is observed and a consciousness which observes it; or between the external world and the self which confronts it.
But why is there nothing corresponding to "Brahman" in Buddhism? Early Buddhism refers not to the One but to a plurality of separate dharmas, which is ontologically lopsided: the self has been analyzed away, but the reality of the world as objective has been left unchanged. Later Buddhism corrected this by making the dharmas relative, hence unreal -- they are shunya, empty in themselves. In Mahayana Buddhism shunyata, "emptiness," not only refers to the absence of a self but also becomes the most fundamental characteristic of all reality; in function shunyata is the category which corresponds most closely to the Vedantic concept of Brahman. But can shunyata be reconciled with the One without a second?
For example, it makes no sense to ask whether the universe exists or not; we know how to inquire whether a particular thing in the universe exists, but what criterion could we use to determine whether the universe itself exists? Because the universe, by definition, is not part of a larger structure from which it can be distinguished, so the universe cannot meaningfully be said to exist. In a similar way, because Brahman is One without a second, it cannot be experienced as One.Brahman encompasses all, hence it is empty, shunya. By definition, then, Brahman is also necessarily infinite in the original sense of "not-bounded" (by anything else), as a sphere would be to an ant crawling on it.
So there are two paradoxes: to shrink to nothing is to become everything, and to experience everything as One is again equivalent to nothing -- although a different sense of nothing. It seems to me that these two points are critical in providing a common ground where the two opposed systems meet. Buddhism and Vedanta may be seen as describing the same phenomenon from different perspectives. From their different perspectives, different metaphysical systems are derived. But we may still wonder why they opt for different perspectives. Why did Shankara prefer to speak of the One and the Buddha of nothingness?
Shankara tries to describe reality from outside, as it were, because that is the only perspective from which it can be understood as One. And this of course is what philosophy tries to do: to look upon the whole of reality objectively and comprehend its structure, as if the philosophizing intellect were itself outside that whole.
But the Buddha realized that we cannot get outside of reality and describe it as an object; our efforts as well as our viewpoints are inevitably contained within that whole. Thinking and its conclusions are events in and of the nondual world, although they are carried on as if they were outside, an independent and fixed measure.
we might say that there is only One Mind which encompasses all, but we must realize that phenomenologically there is no such thing, because such a One Mind could not be aware of itself as a self-contained mind in the sense that each of us is aware of his own mind.
What does this imply about how attaining nirvana/moksha would be experienced?
The difference between the Buddhist nirvana and the Vedantic moksha is one of perspective. The Vedantic explanation -- that of merging into the One-is a more objective philosophical view. The Buddhist interpretation is more accurately a phenomenological description. But in each case the actual experience is the same.
Shankara ends up defining substance so narrowly that it ceases to have any meaning. Nothing can be predicated of Nirguna Brahman, and it can only be approached through the via negativa of neti, neti: "not this, not this..." Although Shankara would deny it, Brahman ends up as a completely empty ground, a Nothing from which all things arise as its ever-changing appearance.
In a similar fashion, the early Buddhist elimination of all substance gives the dharma-attributes nothing in which to inhere. As the result of a necessary dialectic Mahayana Buddhism ended up hypostasizing shunyata, the emptiness which is the true nature of all things (and which the later Bhutatathata schools saw as the creative source from which all things arise).
There is still a difference of emphasis. The Nirguna Brahman of Advaita cannot be characterized, but Saguna Brahman is most essentially pure cit, nondual consciousness; whereas Buddhism speaks of nirvana as realizing the emptiness of everything. It is significant that the Atman of Vedanta is not self-conscious in the Cartesian sense: "...He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is...no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him." "By what could one know the Knower?" "You cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge." (Brhadaranyaka Upan., III: 7.23; II: 4.14; III: 4.2) Shankara explains: "That which is unknown can be made known and requires proof, but not the self [the knower]. If it be granted that the self requires proof, then who will be the knower [because the self becomes one of the knowables, and without a knower there can be no application of proof]? It is settled that the knower is the self." (Atmajnanopadesa-vidhi, IV, 10)
But such a self that can never be experienced, because by definition it is the experiencer, can be described just as well as shunya, empty -- not however a nihilistic emptiness (Shankara's mistaken criticism of Madhyamika) but a shunyata which will be cherished as the Buddhanature essence of all being.
In Vishishtadvaita
According to Advaita, there are 3 orders of reality:
1. paramarthika satyam (absolute reality) 2. vyavaharika satyam (empirical reality) 3. pratibhasika satyam (subjective reality)
"I salute that Govinda who is the extreme limit of happiness, Who is pretty, cause of causes, primeval, without beginning and a form of time, Who danced again and again on the head of serpent Kaliya in the river Yamuna, Who is black in colour, ever present in time and destroys the evil effects of Kali, And who is the cause of the march of time from the past to the future." -Adi Sankara Bhagwat Pada
The key to the correct interpretation of the full text is whether the statement - "Aham BrahmAsmi" is a simple grammatical sentence - in which Aham is a first person pronoun, Brahma is the entity which is the main subject of the Upanishath (what ever it may be interpreted as) and Asmi - is a verb, indicating the status of Aham. The Upanishath has itself offered the following clues to indicate its purpose :
Aham Brahma Asmi
The key to the correct interpretation of the full text is whether the statement - "Aham BrahmAsmi" is a simple grammatical sentence - in which Aham is a first person pronoun, Brahma is the entity which is the main subject of the Upanishad (what ever it may be interpreted as) and Asmi - is a verb, indicating the status of Aham. The Upanishad has itself offered the following clues to indicate its purpose :
The expression Aham in this case must therefore refer to the realisation of the Advaitha consciousness - Aham (Soul) is totally identical with Brahman
If we look at the statement at the outset its understood as "I am Brahman". Usually the meaning for "aham" according to the present day dictionary is "I". But the etimological meaning or the meaning of Aham according to the vedic days was "something without which u cant exist " . Similarly "Ham" means "something without which u exist" .We may leave ur friends, food , relatives, samsara etc but u can never leave urself and thats " Myself " . We can only be Aham for ourself thats it..similarly i can be Aham for myself..neither can i be Aham for anyone nor anyone can be Aham for me..But Brahman or the supreme godhead is the only independent reality whos Aham for everyone and hence Aham and Asmi are nothing but his secret name......he's understood himself that i am Aham for eveyone...... godhead being omnipresent he's poorna even when he's in u, he's poorna even when he's out of u and where ever he is his purnathe is anadi & thats the reason his purnathe is "Nirapeksha". So when u worship u need to worship to realize the bimba roopi paramatma in u & by being in u he has given to the eligibility to use the term "I"..So Aham and Asmi are his own secret names.
Ayam Atma Brahma
Atharva Veda proclaims 'ayam atma brahma' this holy axiom of Atharva Veda means that "this soul is God". It implies that the individual self, in its untarnished inner most purity and originality is the unaffected non-participant witness to the activities of the body mind- complex.
The concept of Ayam Atma Brahman is explained as Atman and Brahman being the same. A Mahavakya in Hinduism, this saying protrays the idea that individual self is one and the same with absolute.
The concept of Ayam Atma Brahman is explained with the wave and ocean, Clay and pot or Gold and Ornament. The waves and ocean is not considered as separated entity, similarly Atma and Brahman is the same.
Atman refers to tthat pure, perfect, eternal spark of consiciousness that is the deepest, central core of human being,. While, Brahman refers to the oneness of the real and unreal universe. It is like saying that atman is a wave and the Brahman is the ocean. The insight of Ayam atma brahma is that the wave and the ocean are one and the same.
It is like standing at the beach, looking out at both the wave and the ocean and declaring that the wave of the ocean is one. The person trying to understand this Mahavakya is observing from witnessing stance who is not related to either Atma or Brahma.
To attain the real meaning of Ayam Atma brahma, sit quietly and reflect on the inner core of his real being ,such as by placing his attention in the space between the breasts at the axact heart centre.Do not visualize anything. but allow the awareness to touch the feeling aspect of the centre of existence. Or if prefered, visualize a tiny spark of light that represents the eternal essence of your own self, the atman, on holding this attention for a few seconds or minutes, one can realise the maning of Ayam atma Brahman
Asi - Are
Aham Asmi - I Am
Asti - is
Note : This is only a scribbling note. These are purely my understanding. These may or may not be the correct one. This is not to hurt anybody's feeling.
Objections to the Advaita interpretation
The proclamation of Śankaracarya 'Tat Tvam Asi' is correct that both Ātmā and Paramātmā are sat-cit-ānanda, meaning qualitative unity of the Soul and God. However Ātmā, being localized Paramātmā consequently has localized consciousness. Paramātma, being the reservoir of Ātmā is situated within every heart is burning for me badly sentenceTherefore 'Tat Tvam Asi' falls short to understand that the Soul is not equal to the Absolute Truth in all respects. For example, as a single drop of water has the same qualities as an ocean of water, so has our consciousness the qualities of God's consciousness but is proportionally subordinate. Furthermore, if Ātmā and Paramātmā were indeed one and the same, it would be possible for any ordinary person to claim omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in equivalence to God. Scientifically we know this to be false. Shankara however does not claim the person is God, but that the person is unreal, so no contradictions with science.According to Advaita, there are 3 orders of reality:
1. paramarthika satyam (absolute reality) 2. vyavaharika satyam (empirical reality) 3. pratibhasika satyam (subjective reality)
"I salute that Govinda who is the extreme limit of happiness, Who is pretty, cause of causes, primeval, without beginning and a form of time, Who danced again and again on the head of serpent Kaliya in the river Yamuna, Who is black in colour, ever present in time and destroys the evil effects of Kali, And who is the cause of the march of time from the past to the future." -Adi Sankara Bhagwat Pada
Ramanuja on the Mahavakya
In the expression 'Blue Lotus' for example, the two attributes of 'blueness' and 'lotus nature' both inhere in a common substratum without losing their individuality. Such subsistence of many attributes in a common substratum is the correct apposition (samānādhikaranya), rather than the mere apposition as propounded by the advaita school. Direct meanings of the expressions should be taken, simultaneously fulfilling the conditions of Samānādhikaranya.Meaning of the Mahavakya
The mighty Iswara, who is the indweller in the cosmic Body is also the indweller in every Jiva. Every Jiva individually is the body of Isvara, just as the Cosmos as a whole is. The 'Tat' of the statement refers to Iswara who resides in the Cosmic Body and the 'Tvam' refers to the same Iswara who indwells the Jiva and has got the Jiva as the body. All the bodies, the Cosmic and the individual, are held in adjectival relationship (aprthak-siddhi) in the one Isvara. Tat Tvam Asi declares that oneness of IsvaraThe key to the correct interpretation of the full text is whether the statement - "Aham BrahmAsmi" is a simple grammatical sentence - in which Aham is a first person pronoun, Brahma is the entity which is the main subject of the Upanishath (what ever it may be interpreted as) and Asmi - is a verb, indicating the status of Aham. The Upanishath has itself offered the following clues to indicate its purpose :
Aham Brahma Asmi
The key to the correct interpretation of the full text is whether the statement - "Aham BrahmAsmi" is a simple grammatical sentence - in which Aham is a first person pronoun, Brahma is the entity which is the main subject of the Upanishad (what ever it may be interpreted as) and Asmi - is a verb, indicating the status of Aham. The Upanishad has itself offered the following clues to indicate its purpose :
The expression Aham in this case must therefore refer to the realisation of the Advaitha consciousness - Aham (Soul) is totally identical with Brahman
If we look at the statement at the outset its understood as "I am Brahman". Usually the meaning for "aham" according to the present day dictionary is "I". But the etimological meaning or the meaning of Aham according to the vedic days was "something without which u cant exist " . Similarly "Ham" means "something without which u exist" .We may leave ur friends, food , relatives, samsara etc but u can never leave urself and thats " Myself " . We can only be Aham for ourself thats it..similarly i can be Aham for myself..neither can i be Aham for anyone nor anyone can be Aham for me..But Brahman or the supreme godhead is the only independent reality whos Aham for everyone and hence Aham and Asmi are nothing but his secret name......he's understood himself that i am Aham for eveyone...... godhead being omnipresent he's poorna even when he's in u, he's poorna even when he's out of u and where ever he is his purnathe is anadi & thats the reason his purnathe is "Nirapeksha". So when u worship u need to worship to realize the bimba roopi paramatma in u & by being in u he has given to the eligibility to use the term "I"..So Aham and Asmi are his own secret names.
Ayam Atma Brahma
Atharva Veda proclaims 'ayam atma brahma' this holy axiom of Atharva Veda means that "this soul is God". It implies that the individual self, in its untarnished inner most purity and originality is the unaffected non-participant witness to the activities of the body mind- complex.
The concept of Ayam Atma Brahman is explained as Atman and Brahman being the same. A Mahavakya in Hinduism, this saying protrays the idea that individual self is one and the same with absolute.
The concept of Ayam Atma Brahman is explained with the wave and ocean, Clay and pot or Gold and Ornament. The waves and ocean is not considered as separated entity, similarly Atma and Brahman is the same.
Atman refers to tthat pure, perfect, eternal spark of consiciousness that is the deepest, central core of human being,. While, Brahman refers to the oneness of the real and unreal universe. It is like saying that atman is a wave and the Brahman is the ocean. The insight of Ayam atma brahma is that the wave and the ocean are one and the same.
It is like standing at the beach, looking out at both the wave and the ocean and declaring that the wave of the ocean is one. The person trying to understand this Mahavakya is observing from witnessing stance who is not related to either Atma or Brahma.
To attain the real meaning of Ayam Atma brahma, sit quietly and reflect on the inner core of his real being ,such as by placing his attention in the space between the breasts at the axact heart centre.Do not visualize anything. but allow the awareness to touch the feeling aspect of the centre of existence. Or if prefered, visualize a tiny spark of light that represents the eternal essence of your own self, the atman, on holding this attention for a few seconds or minutes, one can realise the maning of Ayam atma Brahman
Asi - Are
Aham Asmi - I Am
Asti - is
Note : This is only a scribbling note. These are purely my understanding. These may or may not be the correct one. This is not to hurt anybody's feeling.
No comments:
Post a Comment