Guest guest Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 Madam Namaste: Mahavakya by definition is that vaakyam which teaches the identity of jiva and Brahman. They are not just the four mentioned by your friend. They are many many in number occurring all over the Vedanta. Example: Sa Yaschaayam Purushe, Yascha asau Aditye, Sa Ekah ocurring in the Taittiriya Upanishad is one such. It would be intersting to note that Adi Shankara has not coined that name. Nowhere in His Bhashyams is this found. This was pointed out by a Dvaita Pontiff in a foreword to one of the books that mutt published. When i sought to find out the truth of it, a learned Friend told me it was a fact and pointed out the usage of the term mahavakya in one prakaranagrantha: Aparokshanubhuti, if i am right, by Shankara. The learned members are requested to say something about this. Pranams subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 It would be intersting to note that Adi Shankara has not coined that name. Nowhere in His Bhashyams is this found. This was pointed out by a Dvaita Pontiff in a foreword to one of the books that mutt published. When i sought to find out the truth of it, a learned Friend told me it was a fact and pointed out the usage of the term mahavakya in one prakaranagrantha: Aparokshanubhuti, if i am right, by Shankara. praNAms Subbhu prabhuji Hare krishna Yes, shankara does not explicitly label anything as *upanishad mahAvAkya* in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya....though he uses the word *mahAvAkya* in the sUtra bhAshya ( sunder prabhuji any help in this regard?? in first adhyAya, third pAda somewhere he uses this word ) , context is grammar not an advocation of jIva-brahma identity. Here mahAvAkya means *whole sentence* as against *avAntara vAkya* (upa vAkya or sub sentence). Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > > It would be intersting to note that Adi Shankara has not coined that name. > Nowhere in His Bhashyams is this found. This was pointed out by a Dvaita > Pontiff in a foreword to one of the books that mutt published. When i > sought to find out the truth of it, a learned Friend told me it was a fact > and pointed out the usage of the term mahavakya in one prakaranagrantha: > Aparokshanubhuti, if i am right, by Shankara. > Yes, shankara does not explicitly label anything as *upanishad mahAvAkya* > in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya....though he uses the word *mahAvAkya* in > the sUtra bhAshya Namaste, The word mahAvAkya occurs in shuka-rahasya, tejobindu, and tripAd-vibhUti-mahA-narayana upanishads. Sri Shankara consistently used the words shruti and smriti to refer to upanishadic quotations, and left little doubt about which ones indicated the ultimate. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Hari OM! Dear Durgaji A Mahavakya is described as any statement which proves the relationship between the Jivatma and Paramatma. > So in the case of Sivoham, cannot be said as Mahavakyam. > > It is like that the president of the country, when he is in house he is a > house > holder, when he is in the office of the President he is the president. > > In this case Sankaracharya says himself to be the President the Shiva, > > But when the same president is meditating he knows that he is Brahman! > > Soham Asmi, Aham Brahmasmi. So President is compared to the Saguna Brahman > which is visible. Which is having a form a quality. a position in the > creation > where as Brahman is Nirguna Nirakara, Paramaatma the Pure Consciousness. > > Actually, Body, Mind, Intellect wise we cannot say as You and me are the > same > > because all these equipements differs, in each and everyone it is unique. > > But only in the level of Consiousness we can say "You are me" or "I am > YOU" > > There is a story happened, When Alexander conquered India, his Guru > Socrates > told him to get a Saint from India, Alexander tempted lot of saints to > come > with him but invain, finally in a place, which is a small village a saint > was meditating under the Banyan Tree, Alexander thought the saint will > respect > him by getting up, but saint was continuing his mediation, with a smile, > After some time Alexander got really furious and taken the sword and said > if you are not opening your eyes I will cut off your head! > > The Saint laughed very loudly, and said if you cut off my head I wil see > that > through YOU and enjoy the rolling of my head!---Here the saint is > identifying > himself with the Pure Consciousness. > > And continuing the story, Alexander asked him what can I do for you, the > saint > replied Please move because you are blocking the sunlight! > With Love & OM! -- Krishna Prasad .. Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it, consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary, sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit. We Must - Swami Chinmayanada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...> wrote: > > Hari OM! > > Dear Durgaji > A Mahavakya is described as any statement which proves the relationship > between > the Jivatma and Paramatma. Namaste, This discourse on Mahavakya, by Sw. Dayananda Sarasvati of Arsha Vidya Gurukula, is also a succinct summary: http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/Mahavakya.pdf Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2005 Report Share Posted December 26, 2005 Namaste, This discourse on Mahavakya, by Sw. Dayananda Sarasvati of Arsha Vidya Gurukula, is also a succinct summary: http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/Mahavakya.pdf praNAms Hare Krishna Sri Sunder prabhuji had forwarded this link some days back. Today only I could able to read this article...I humbly request the prabhuji-s who follow swamiji's teachings closely to clarify the following : Swamiji : That which has no being of its own, which has its being or basis in something else, and is not separate from the place where it has its being (adhistAna-ananya) is mithyË. In other words, every product is mithyË. It is not separate from the material of which it is made. And satyam is the reality (sadvastu) in which all things have their being, otherwise called Brahman. bhaskar : swamiji talking here about adhishtAnaM (substratum) !!? I vaguely remember, during discussion, when I mentioned the word *substratum (adhishtAnaM) *, some prabhuji (I forgot that prabhuji's name) , by quoting Sri Dayananda, has said, "swamiji burst into laugh and declared where is the question of adhishtAna & adhyasta?? when gold is chain & chain is gold etc. etc. " but here swamiji explicitly talking about adhistAnaM by clearly distinguishing it from nAma & rUpa!! Interestingly he quotes gold-chain analogy here too!! I dont know in which context swamiji laughs at *adhishtAnaM* & in which context he upholds it!!...kindly clarify it. Swamiji : When you project a snake upon a rope, you project something that is not there at all. This is one kind of superimposition (adhyËsa), a projection of something unpleasant or offensive (asobhana-adhyËsa). bhaskar : Swamiji here interprets superimposition as *adhyAsa* instead of adhyArOpa...as far as my knowledge goes adhyAsa is *misunderstanding* & adhyArOpa is " because of this misunderstanding* I see one thing for another...in swamiji-s rope -snake analogy, misunderstanding of rope is *adhyAsa* (it is subjective defect pertains to mind) and due to this adhyAsa (ignorance) we *see* snake in place of rope...snake is adhyArOpita, which is objectively superimposed on rope...Here *feeling* the presence of snake is adhyArOpa and *seeing* the snake on rope is *adhyArOpita*...shankara uses adhyAsa & avidyA alternatively...but I dont think same thing he does with respect to *adhyAsa* & *adhyArOpa*...kindly clarify. Swamiji : Brahman is satyam, real, the formless reality. To be Isvara, to create this mithyË world there must be something with that Brahman. But Brahman 'plus something' doesn't exist at all. Brahman is satyam, and any 'plus' is dependent upon Brahman. When we talk of Isvara we understand that there must be something in Brahman which has this great power to create, and that the power itself is something that is superimposed (kalpita). This power of mAyA (mAyA-shakti) is a superimposed power (kalpita-shakti). That mAyA is also mithyA, in terms of its reality. bhaskar : This is what exactly the status of Ishwara in advaita!!...shankara also says explicitly the same thing in sUtra bhAshya...Ishwara & his mAya shakti such as omnipotence, omniscience etc. etc. holds water only in vyavahAra & kEvala avidyA kalpita... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.