I am inspired to take this post following Anand's critical review of "Aham Brahmaasmi" or "I am Brahman". He beautifully draws interesting parallels in mathematics for the mahavakya. I concur with his views and I want to put it in my way of understanding.
The statement "I am Brahman" is different from the statements like "I am a man" or "I am a woman". These are clear statements because all of us know what "man" or "woman" means. But the very word "Brahman" for most of us mean different things and the statement "I am Brahman" cannot stand alone without substantiating what "Brahman" means. So the truth of the statement lies in saying
S1 : I am Brahman
S2 : Brahman is so and so...
This is analogous to the following scenario. Consider statement T1,
T1 : The following statement is true.
This is a true statement, in the sense that it has a truth value to it. Now, I introduce another statement.
T2 : The preceding statement is false.
Consider T1 and T2. Now, what happens to the truth of the statement T1 ? Is T1 true or false ? We can see T1 is no longer true. Thus, the validity of the statement T1 is not just restricted to T1 but lies on what statements that follow T1. If we say "I am Brahman" and say "Brahman is so and so" then the validity of the statement "I am Brahman" lies on the attributes of Brahman like "Brahman is so and so" rather than the word "Brahman" itself. Or in other words, "Brahman" is inseparable from his attributes for a consistent valid statement "Aham Brahmaasmi".
The statement "I am Brahman" is different from the statements like "I am a man" or "I am a woman". These are clear statements because all of us know what "man" or "woman" means. But the very word "Brahman" for most of us mean different things and the statement "I am Brahman" cannot stand alone without substantiating what "Brahman" means. So the truth of the statement lies in saying
S1 : I am Brahman
S2 : Brahman is so and so...
This is analogous to the following scenario. Consider statement T1,
T1 : The following statement is true.
This is a true statement, in the sense that it has a truth value to it. Now, I introduce another statement.
T2 : The preceding statement is false.
Consider T1 and T2. Now, what happens to the truth of the statement T1 ? Is T1 true or false ? We can see T1 is no longer true. Thus, the validity of the statement T1 is not just restricted to T1 but lies on what statements that follow T1. If we say "I am Brahman" and say "Brahman is so and so" then the validity of the statement "I am Brahman" lies on the attributes of Brahman like "Brahman is so and so" rather than the word "Brahman" itself. Or in other words, "Brahman" is inseparable from his attributes for a consistent valid statement "Aham Brahmaasmi".
9 comments:
DEAR KASTHURI
Thanks for the reference. btw you have said the magic word in your post...attribute
after my next post (dedicated to lord KRISHNA whose jayanthi falls on the 27th of this month) I hope to post my views on Brahman with respect to the SAGUNA /NIRGUNA debate in vedanta.
as for my comment in your previous post I did not use the term secondary to mean inferior, I concur with your use of the term and what I meant was that lord Krishna had stated categorically that true Jnaana was primary and the knower the perfect one , not the vedic scholar who has erudition but not the understanding that all this is Vasudeva.
I am really glad that Goedel's theorem seems to have a pivotal role to play in the consolidation of vedantic knowledge.
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
kasthuri
Aavani Avittam aacha :)
unga email id enna
you can mail me at tellganesh@gmail.com
Hmm.. would things be simpler if I were to establish the declarations first before assignment?
Brahman_structure = array(c1,c2,c3);
x = Brahman_structure; (instanceof).
I seem to understand what you are saying....but is your ananlogy w.r.t s1/s2 and t1/t2 the same - i dont think so :-)
Ganesh,
Pillayar Chathurthi anniki aagum :-)
@Ganesh,
Why did i not see you at the temple today ? :P
@ Anand : Gotcha what you were saying. Awaiting on the Saguna/Nirguna post.
@ Ganesh : Thanks for the mention in your post.
@ tt_giant : You are right buddy, I guess the Vedas proceed in declaring the attributes of Brahman than giving statements about Brahman first. We can see this in Purusha Suktam where the seers first describe the creation and then finally in the end say who the Purusha is -"hreeshca te lakshmeeshca patnyau |"
@ arvind : Sorry, I don't quite get what you are saying. Can you let me know in more detail ? Thanks.
Srini,,
Nice lil complementary post..:)
Aptly resounding the explanation given by Anand from a different perspective..
"Brahman" is inseparable from his attributes for a consistent valid statement "Aham Brahmaasmi"
Guess the same kind of argument can be applied to TAt tvam asi
Also , please check out the following taken from
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/cgi-bin/kbase/Tat_Tvam_Asi#Arguments_amp_Counter_arguments_in_this_Context
I seem 2 find some relation..:)
When two (or more) words denote the same object by denoting the object through the each of the different qualities of the object, then those words are called "Equally denoting words in all aspects" otherwise called in Sanskrit as "SAmAnAdhikaranyam". We can understand this concept by an example as follows: Consider the Sanskrit words "Swethaha Samudrotbhavaha Shankaha mama vastuhu" All these three words denotes an object that is mine. It is a "conch shell - Shankaha". The term "Swethaha" denotes the conch shell by its quality "Whiteness". The term "Samudrotbhavaha" denotes the same object by its quality of being born from the sea. It is not necessary that those objects which are white should be born from sea and the vice- versa - still here in this group of words, the words end up to convey the same object by denoting it by its different qualities/attributes. Thus is the concept of SAmAnAdhikaranyam explained.
@ krishna : Thanks you so much. You have explained "SAmAnAdhikaranyam" beautifully. Keep us illumining like this. Thanks for the link, I'll go through it.
This statement has been surrounded by a lot of unclear issues also. In Ramanuja's philosophy, even though Jivatma and Paramatma can be the same, it is not up to the Jivatma to say so but only the Paramatma can say it. It is akin to a GM putting an arm around the Deputy GM and saying he and I are one and the same whereas the DGM, who is just a notch below the GM cannot do and say so. That is the essential difference between Advaita and Visishtadvaita.
Post a Comment