Atman & brahman - why two words?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This is in response to Shyam-ji's post titled "the pure form of

atman". It generated some thoughts in my mind, which I am setting

forth below.

 

On 29/09/06, Shyam <shyam_md > wrote:

 

Quote

---

> Let us take the example of a flower.

> What do you see? a flower.

> What do you really see? Brahman.

> Then what is flower - it is a namaroopa - name and

> form.

> Is it for a nanosecond different from Brahman? no.

> In order to see its "Brahmanness" in an unalloyed,pure

> and pristine, do i need to remove the corolla, the

> corona, the pistils, the stamen, etc etc one by one

> because they are not letting me see the Brahmanness in

> the flower.

> Of course not. The flower IS Brahman in its pure form.

> It is only in understanding that we say flower is

> Brahman plus "flower" namaroopa. In reality there is

> no "plus". There is no "flower" other then Brahman.

> In fact there is only Brahman.

 

[.......]

 

> The Atman can NEVER be objectified. It can never be

> perceived. It can never be inferred. It is not a "mass

> of consciousness" It is the Subject, the Witness, the

> Self. This has to be known or realized.

>

----------

Unquote

 

**Nice post, Shyam-ji. But I must point out that the very word 'atman'

means "self". It is the subject or witness by *definition*. So your

last para above is only an expansion of the definition.

 

The contribution of Advaita-Vedanta is not merely to say that the

atman is the pure subject. Rather, it is to point out that subject &

object are not-two. Pl note that the very concept of subject is

meaningless without an object, and vice-versa. There can be no seer

without the seen, and vice-versa.

 

So we have the equation atman = brahman, or 'tat tvam asi'.

 

We notice here that the sadhaka starts off with two words - atman &

brahman (or tat & tvam). Why are there two words? Why bring in two

words and then go through all the botheration of asserting their

identity?

 

Because prima facie, they mean different things.

 

The atman is the subject, the self, the seer. The sadhaka, through

neti-neti, says that the atman is not the body, not the mind, not the

intellect, and so forth (the panchakosha prakriya you mentioned in

your post). The body, mind, etc can all be objectified. But the atman

is the pure subject that cannot be objectified. So the body, mind, etc

are all objects and the atman is different from them.

 

On the other hand, the sadhaka also hears "sarvam khalvidam brahma".

So the flower (an object) is brahman, the table (an object) is

brahman, the computer (an object) is brahman.

 

Even the greedy politician (also an object of my perception) is

brahman! Everything that the sadhaka perceives is brahman. All objects

are brahman.

 

But the matter doesn't end there. Earlier, the sadhaka concluded that

the body, mind, etc are objects and hence not the atman. But all

objects are brahman. Just as the flower is brahman, so also the body

is brahman, the mind is brahman and the intellect is also brahman.

 

So far so good. All objects are brahman. As you said, the sadhaka does

not have to remove the corolla, the stamen, etc to see the

"brahmanness" of the flower. The flower IS brahman. This is a very

important point. It illustrates the very *opposite* of the panchakosha

prakriya. The sadhaka does not say - "the petals are not brahman",

"the stamen is not brahman", etc. In fact he says just the opposite.

The petals are brahman, the stamen is brahman and the whole flower is

also brahman

 

Likewise, the body, mind & intellect are also brahman.

 

So now we have a clear separation. The atman is the pure subject that

can never be objectified. However, all objects are brahman. No object,

even for a nanosecond, is apart from brahman.

 

At this stage the sadhaka may think - "so there are several atman-s

(one for each jiva) that are pure witnesses; and everything else is

brahman." Rings a bell? Think of some of the other darsana-s!

 

As an aside, note that the the presence of multiple atman-s does not

necessarily mean that they are objects of each others' perception. An

atman can only perceive the body, mind, etc that are associated with

other atman-s. So each atman remains a pure subject.

 

Note also that at this stage the ego is already dead. The ego dies

when the sadhaka realizes that the atman is not the body, not the

mind, etc. The ego is the misidentification of the atman with objects,

and when this misidentification ends, the ego dies.

 

But Advaita Vedanta does not end here. It goes on to say, atman = brahman..

 

"Wait a minute!!", exclaims the sadhaka, "Just now you said that the

atman is not the body, not the mind, not the intellect. Then you said

that the body, mind & intellect are all brahman. And now you say that

atman and brahman are identical. You are driving me crazy!!"

 

For a moment the sadhaka pulls his hair in sheer frustration! And

then...it dawns...

 

Yes, atman & brahman are not-two. Just as all objects are brahman, the

subject is also brahman. In fact, atman/brahman is the substratum on

which the duality of subject/object arises. atman/brahman is the

transcendence of all dualities. And obviously, since atman = brahman,

there are no multiple atman-s!

 

The interesting thing here is that the meanings of the terms atman &

brahman evolve as the sadhana progresses, until a stage is reached

where all thoughts, concepts & words are transcended. Then comes the

silence of the substratum.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

 

PS: A request to members - if there are any errors/gaps in the above

argument, please feel free to correct them.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Krishnamurthy-ji,

 

> advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

> But Advaita Vedanta does not end here. It goes on to say, atman

= . brahman.

>

> "Wait a minute!!", exclaims the sadhaka, "Just now you said that

the

> atman is not the body, not the mind, not the intellect. Then you

said

> that the body, mind & intellect are all brahman. And now you say

that

> atman and brahman are identical. You are driving me crazy!!"

>

> For a moment the sadhaka pulls his hair in sheer frustration!

>

 

Great analysis Krishnamurthy-ji!. You have brought up a very good

point about the dilemma of the Sadhaka and the danger of mixing up

the process of "Atma-anAtma vichara" (Sadhana) with "sarvatma bhava"

(Sadhyam - the Goal).

 

The confusion will not arise if the proper process and sequence is

understood. As Sri Ramana says below, "FIRST one has to *see*

(realize) the self within, THEN one will be able to *see* the Self

(Atman) in everything." It is important to note that Sri Ramana

repeats this same message 3 times in 3 consecutive sentences! May

be, just may be He is trying to emphasise something here :-)

 

Before people jump up and say "Is this Sankara Advaita?" and "you

are only quoting from a dialogue" etc etc, let me emphsise that the

same process can be clearly discerned from Lord Krishna's words and

Sankara's commentary on the Gita verses 25-29. In these verses the

process of "seeing the self within" leading to "seeing the self in

everything" is explained through Yoga sadhana. I will try to post

this later. (today is Saturday and family chores beckon me. Lots of

Navarathri engagements even here in Sacramento)

 

 

// quote

18-4-46 Afternoon

Mr. Nanavati of Bombay asked Bhagavan, "In the fifth

stanza of Arunachala Pancharatna reference is made to seeing

`Your form in everything'. What is the form referred to?"

 

Bhagavan said, "The stanza says that one should completely

surrender one's mind, turn it inwards and see `you' the Self

within and then see the Self in `you' in everything.

 

It is only after seeing the Self within that one will be able to see

the Self in everything.

 

[Note: Isn't Sri Ramana pointing to seeing 'tvam' first and

then 'tat'?]

 

One must first realise there is nothing but the

Self and that he is that Self , and then only he can see everything

as the form of the Self.

 

That is the meaning of saying, `See the Self in everything and

everything in the Self', as is stated in the

Gita and other books.

 

It is the same truth that is taught in stanza

4 of the Reality in Forty Verses. If you have the idea that you

are something with form, that you are limited by this body, and

that being within this body you have to see through these eyes,

God and the world also will appear to you as form. If you realise

you are without form, that you are unlimited, that you alone

exist, that you are the eye, the infinite eye, what is there to be

seen apart from the infinite eye?

 

Apart from the eye, there is

nothing to be seen. There must be a seer for an object to be

seen, and there must be space, time, etc. But if the Self alone

exists, it is both seer and seen, and above seeing or being seen."

// un quote

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

praNAms Ramesh Krishnamurthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Due to Dasara holidays I am replying to your mail after one week...hope you

wont mind :-))

 

RK prabhuji :

 

Pl note that the very concept of subject is meaningless without an object,

and vice-versa. There can be no seer

without the seen, and vice-versa.

 

bhaskar :

 

as a matter of fact, according to shankara's bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya, there

is no harm to the seer at any point of time & it is not dependent on

seen...where is the object in your deep sleep?? do you negate the existence

of ever witnessing seer in that state then??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar