amith vikram
10 July 2010, 04:27 AM
What does the phrase aham brahmasmi actually mean? if it is true that i am god,then why cant i create a world or etc.,why do i suffer if i am god?
Brahman is present to every man and is the universal fact of life. If any logical proof were necessary, Samkara points to the inability of the mind to rest in the realtive, i.e. the impossibility
of accounting for experience except on the hypothesis of Brahman.
In his account of causality Samkara makes the causal nature the svabhava, or the samanya or the universal, while the effect is regarded as a condition, avastha, or visesa (particular).
There are in the world many samanyas with their visesas -- both conscious and unconscious. All these samanyas in their graduated series are included and comprehended in one great
samanya, i.e. in Brahman's nature as a mass of intelligence. To understand the nature of this universal reality is to know all the particulars involved in it.
To say that Brahman is reality is to say that it is different from the phenomenal, the spatial, the temporal and the sensible. Brahman is what is assumed as foundational, though it is in no
sense substance. It is not in any point of space, though it may be said to be everywhere, since all things imply and depend on it. Since it is not a thing, it cannot have spatial relations to
anything else, and is therefore nowhere. It is not a cause, for that would be to introduce time relations. Its nature is inexpressible, for when we say anything of it we make it into a
particular thing. We may speak about it, though we cannot describe it adequately or have any logical knowledge of it. If the finite man can comprehend Brahman, then either our
understanding must be infinite or Brahman finite.
Every word employed to denote a thing denotes that thing as associated with a certain genus, or act, or quality, or mode of relation. Brahman has no genus, possesses no qualities, does
not act, and is related to nothing else. It is devoid of anything of a like kind or of a different kind, and has no internal variety.Brahman has nothing similar to it, nothing different from it,
and no internal differentiation, since all these are empirical distinctions. As it is opposed to all empirical existence, it is given to us as the negative of everything that is positively known.
Samkara declines to characterize it even as one except in the sense of secondless, but calls it non-dual, advaitam. It is the "wholly other," but not non-being. Though the words used are
negative, what is meant is intensely positive. A negation is only an affirmation of absence. It is non-being, since it is not the being which we attribute to the world of experience. It does
not follow that it is pure nothing, since the negative has its meaning only in relation to the positive. The Upanisads as well as Samkara, deny of Brahman both being and non-being of the
type with which we are familiar in the world of experience. We can at best say what Brahman is not, and not what it is. It transcends the opposition of permanence and change, whole
and part, relative and absolute, finite and infinite, which are all based on the oppositions of experience. The finite is always passing beyond itself, but there is nothing which the infinite
can pass into. If it did so, it would no longer be infinite. If we call it infinite, it is not to be equated with a mere negation of the finite. We cannot understand the nature of Brahman until
we let go the formal and the finite. Since the personality cannot be realized except under the limiting condition of a non-ego, the absolute is not a person. If we use the term personality
in a different sense, in which it does not demand any dependence on another, then it is an illegitimate use.
When the Absolute is said to be Nirguna, this only means that it is trans-empirical, since gunas are products of prakrti and the Absolute is superior to it. The gunas qualify the objective as
such, and God is not an object. The objects come and go, but the real persists as the permanent in the midst of all changes. So it transcends the gunas or phenomenal being. The
Absolute is not on that account to be regarded as mere blank. So the Upanisad says "nirguno guni."
It can only be negatively described as the other of its own otherness. It is sat (real), meaning that it is not asat (unreal). It is cit (consciousness), meaning that it is not acit
(unconsciousness). It is ananda (bliss), meaning that it is not of the nature of pain (duhkha-svarupa). It is real, having authentic being. It never fails to be, since it depends on nothing to
preserve it in being. It does not take in anything from outside itself, for then being would include non-being. There is no first or last in it. It does not unfold, express, develop, manifest,
grow and change, for it is self-identical throughout. It cannot be regarded as a whole including parts, for it is uniform in nature (ekarasa). It is real and yet devoid of the nature of the
world. Such a being cannot of course be physical, and quantitative and fragmentary. The everlasting being devoid of any deficiency is of the nature of consciousness, cit. Such a fullness
of authentic being and ideality perforce is free delight, ananda. All human bliss is a phase of the bliss of Brahman. It is highest truth, perfect being and fullest freedom.
Atman and Brahman have the same characteristics of being, consciousness, all-pervadingness and bliss. Atman is Brahman. The purely subjective is also the purely objective. Brahman
seems to be mere abstract being, even as Atman seems to be mere abstract subjectivity to the eyes of intellect. When we strip the Absolute of all its veils, we find that it is being refined
away, evaporated into almost nothing. How can we assume this residuum, this nonentity, to be the supreme reality of the world? "Is Brahman then non-being? No, since even imagined
things must have something to stand upon." If anything exits, Brahman must be real. It is our human conception of Brahman that seems to be empty and not Brahman in itself, which is
the fullest reality.
While Brahman is devoid of attributes, still those of being, consciousness and bliss may be said to be its essential features (svarupa-lakshanas), while those of creatorship, etc., are
accidental ones (tatastha-lakshanas). Samkara knows that even the definition of Brahman as saccidananda or sat-cit-ananda (reality-consciousness-bliss) is imperfect though it
expresses the reality in the best way possible. The power of the human mind is great enough to recognize its own limitations. Brahmanubhava (divine experience) gives the highest insight
into Brahman, and he who has it answers every question of the nature of Brahman by silence or negative marks. Vidya gives the highest positive conceptual account of Brahman by
equating it with the attributes of being, consciousness and bliss, which are self-sufficient. Avidya, or lower knowledge, applies attributes which imply relation, such as creatorship and
rulership of the universe. These are thus two views of the ultimate, higher and lower. Where, by discarding the differences of name, form, and the like, ascribed by Avidya, Brahman is
indicated by negative expressions, as not gross, etc., it is the higher (param). But where, on the contrary, exactly the reality is described, for purposes of worship, as distinguished by
some difference or other, it is lower (aparam).
Brahman cast through the moulds of logic is Isvara. It is not the highest reality, since it has no meaning for the highest experience where existence and content are no longer separated.
Yet it is the best image of the truth possible under our present conditions of knowledge.But Brahman cannot be both determinate (saguna) and indeterminate (nirguna). A reality that has
two sides or can be experienced in two ways is not the highest reality. The sides are dissolved the moment we touch the fountain of being. We catch aspects of the Absolute when we
look at it from outside. In itself the Absolute is without sides, without forms, and without any element of duality or gunas. These characters of form and personality have meaning in the
world of Vidya, or experience. In the supreme Brahman there is a natural dissolution of all relativities. It is not a system or a whole which can be achieved by an endless process of
reconciling opposites. The infinite is not an object constructed by philosophy; it is an ever-present fact. Samkara is opposed to all attempts to think the Absolute. The moment we think
it, it becomes a part of the world of experience.
Thus Brahman has no equal. Similarly when the great Upanisadic truth “aham Brahmasmi” is pronounced it refers to “there is divinity in me” in relation to atman or divine element
(signifying Divinity or God) in the person, and not that “I am Brahman or God” or “I am divine”. Furthermore, since Brahman remains same in whole or 'parts', all “jivas” in creation have
same spark of divinity, no more or no less, implying everyone equal in front of God.
Source: Dr Subhash sharma
note: this is a sample article from my upcoming project E-Nirvana. for more info about E-Nirvana,please pm me.
Brahman is present to every man and is the universal fact of life. If any logical proof were necessary, Samkara points to the inability of the mind to rest in the realtive, i.e. the impossibility
of accounting for experience except on the hypothesis of Brahman.
In his account of causality Samkara makes the causal nature the svabhava, or the samanya or the universal, while the effect is regarded as a condition, avastha, or visesa (particular).
There are in the world many samanyas with their visesas -- both conscious and unconscious. All these samanyas in their graduated series are included and comprehended in one great
samanya, i.e. in Brahman's nature as a mass of intelligence. To understand the nature of this universal reality is to know all the particulars involved in it.
To say that Brahman is reality is to say that it is different from the phenomenal, the spatial, the temporal and the sensible. Brahman is what is assumed as foundational, though it is in no
sense substance. It is not in any point of space, though it may be said to be everywhere, since all things imply and depend on it. Since it is not a thing, it cannot have spatial relations to
anything else, and is therefore nowhere. It is not a cause, for that would be to introduce time relations. Its nature is inexpressible, for when we say anything of it we make it into a
particular thing. We may speak about it, though we cannot describe it adequately or have any logical knowledge of it. If the finite man can comprehend Brahman, then either our
understanding must be infinite or Brahman finite.
Every word employed to denote a thing denotes that thing as associated with a certain genus, or act, or quality, or mode of relation. Brahman has no genus, possesses no qualities, does
not act, and is related to nothing else. It is devoid of anything of a like kind or of a different kind, and has no internal variety.Brahman has nothing similar to it, nothing different from it,
and no internal differentiation, since all these are empirical distinctions. As it is opposed to all empirical existence, it is given to us as the negative of everything that is positively known.
Samkara declines to characterize it even as one except in the sense of secondless, but calls it non-dual, advaitam. It is the "wholly other," but not non-being. Though the words used are
negative, what is meant is intensely positive. A negation is only an affirmation of absence. It is non-being, since it is not the being which we attribute to the world of experience. It does
not follow that it is pure nothing, since the negative has its meaning only in relation to the positive. The Upanisads as well as Samkara, deny of Brahman both being and non-being of the
type with which we are familiar in the world of experience. We can at best say what Brahman is not, and not what it is. It transcends the opposition of permanence and change, whole
and part, relative and absolute, finite and infinite, which are all based on the oppositions of experience. The finite is always passing beyond itself, but there is nothing which the infinite
can pass into. If it did so, it would no longer be infinite. If we call it infinite, it is not to be equated with a mere negation of the finite. We cannot understand the nature of Brahman until
we let go the formal and the finite. Since the personality cannot be realized except under the limiting condition of a non-ego, the absolute is not a person. If we use the term personality
in a different sense, in which it does not demand any dependence on another, then it is an illegitimate use.
When the Absolute is said to be Nirguna, this only means that it is trans-empirical, since gunas are products of prakrti and the Absolute is superior to it. The gunas qualify the objective as
such, and God is not an object. The objects come and go, but the real persists as the permanent in the midst of all changes. So it transcends the gunas or phenomenal being. The
Absolute is not on that account to be regarded as mere blank. So the Upanisad says "nirguno guni."
It can only be negatively described as the other of its own otherness. It is sat (real), meaning that it is not asat (unreal). It is cit (consciousness), meaning that it is not acit
(unconsciousness). It is ananda (bliss), meaning that it is not of the nature of pain (duhkha-svarupa). It is real, having authentic being. It never fails to be, since it depends on nothing to
preserve it in being. It does not take in anything from outside itself, for then being would include non-being. There is no first or last in it. It does not unfold, express, develop, manifest,
grow and change, for it is self-identical throughout. It cannot be regarded as a whole including parts, for it is uniform in nature (ekarasa). It is real and yet devoid of the nature of the
world. Such a being cannot of course be physical, and quantitative and fragmentary. The everlasting being devoid of any deficiency is of the nature of consciousness, cit. Such a fullness
of authentic being and ideality perforce is free delight, ananda. All human bliss is a phase of the bliss of Brahman. It is highest truth, perfect being and fullest freedom.
Atman and Brahman have the same characteristics of being, consciousness, all-pervadingness and bliss. Atman is Brahman. The purely subjective is also the purely objective. Brahman
seems to be mere abstract being, even as Atman seems to be mere abstract subjectivity to the eyes of intellect. When we strip the Absolute of all its veils, we find that it is being refined
away, evaporated into almost nothing. How can we assume this residuum, this nonentity, to be the supreme reality of the world? "Is Brahman then non-being? No, since even imagined
things must have something to stand upon." If anything exits, Brahman must be real. It is our human conception of Brahman that seems to be empty and not Brahman in itself, which is
the fullest reality.
While Brahman is devoid of attributes, still those of being, consciousness and bliss may be said to be its essential features (svarupa-lakshanas), while those of creatorship, etc., are
accidental ones (tatastha-lakshanas). Samkara knows that even the definition of Brahman as saccidananda or sat-cit-ananda (reality-consciousness-bliss) is imperfect though it
expresses the reality in the best way possible. The power of the human mind is great enough to recognize its own limitations. Brahmanubhava (divine experience) gives the highest insight
into Brahman, and he who has it answers every question of the nature of Brahman by silence or negative marks. Vidya gives the highest positive conceptual account of Brahman by
equating it with the attributes of being, consciousness and bliss, which are self-sufficient. Avidya, or lower knowledge, applies attributes which imply relation, such as creatorship and
rulership of the universe. These are thus two views of the ultimate, higher and lower. Where, by discarding the differences of name, form, and the like, ascribed by Avidya, Brahman is
indicated by negative expressions, as not gross, etc., it is the higher (param). But where, on the contrary, exactly the reality is described, for purposes of worship, as distinguished by
some difference or other, it is lower (aparam).
Brahman cast through the moulds of logic is Isvara. It is not the highest reality, since it has no meaning for the highest experience where existence and content are no longer separated.
Yet it is the best image of the truth possible under our present conditions of knowledge.But Brahman cannot be both determinate (saguna) and indeterminate (nirguna). A reality that has
two sides or can be experienced in two ways is not the highest reality. The sides are dissolved the moment we touch the fountain of being. We catch aspects of the Absolute when we
look at it from outside. In itself the Absolute is without sides, without forms, and without any element of duality or gunas. These characters of form and personality have meaning in the
world of Vidya, or experience. In the supreme Brahman there is a natural dissolution of all relativities. It is not a system or a whole which can be achieved by an endless process of
reconciling opposites. The infinite is not an object constructed by philosophy; it is an ever-present fact. Samkara is opposed to all attempts to think the Absolute. The moment we think
it, it becomes a part of the world of experience.
Thus Brahman has no equal. Similarly when the great Upanisadic truth “aham Brahmasmi” is pronounced it refers to “there is divinity in me” in relation to atman or divine element
(signifying Divinity or God) in the person, and not that “I am Brahman or God” or “I am divine”. Furthermore, since Brahman remains same in whole or 'parts', all “jivas” in creation have
same spark of divinity, no more or no less, implying everyone equal in front of God.
Source: Dr Subhash sharma
note: this is a sample article from my upcoming project E-Nirvana. for more info about E-Nirvana,please pm me.