Question about Aham Brahmasmi

[Guest guest]

Namaste, I have a simple question. It is often said, perhaps loosely,

that you are Brahman or that Advaita is about inseparability of atman

and Brahman. The shareer, manas, buddhi and ahamkar belong to Prakruti

or Shakti and the life force(consciousness) is called Purusha or

Siva . Is it accurate to say that " I am Brahman " or is it more

accurate to say that there is no such thing as you and me - all

existence is Brahman. Hence there is no question of I am Brahman -

there is only Brahman that exists. However, prakruti has endowed me

with an Ahamkar and as long as I live, I cannot get rid of this

Ahamkar. As far as I know, even a Jnani knows that he is currently in

this mind, body complex but was never born and will never die. It

seems like the Ahamkar itself is trying to get rid of the Ahamkar -

who is trying to get rid of what ? Just some random musings.

 

regards,

Shailendra

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shailendra:

 

Your understanding is quite justifiable with the framework expressed in

your posting. A number of different ways one can understand the

Mahavakya - Aham Brahmasmi. The statement, Aham Brahmasmi is to

redirect our focus from body-mind-intellect (object) to Atman

(Subject). The answer to the question, " Who am I/ " depends on how

the " I " is identified. The True (Real) 'I' is Brahman and the unreal

(illusionary) 'i' is Ahamkar (Ego). The real 'I' is eternal, changeless

and it is self-existent (means that it doesn't require external support

for its existence. " The unreal 'i' is transient, ever-changing and it

is illusory (doesn't really exist!).

 

The distinction between real and unreal is beautifully explained in

Bhagavad Gita verse # 16:

 

Naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate satah;

Ubhayorapi drishto'ntastwanayos tattwadarshibhih.

 

The unreal has no being; there is no non-being of the Real; the truth

about both has been seen by the knowers of the Truth

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " bhatnagar_shailendra "

<bhatnagar_shailendra wrote:

>

> Namaste, I have a simple question. It is often said, perhaps loosely,

> that you are Brahman or that Advaita is about inseparability of atman

> and Brahman. The shareer, manas, buddhi and ahamkar belong to

Prakruti

> or Shakti and the life force(consciousness) is called Purusha or

> Siva .

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Shailendra:

>

> Your understanding is quite justifiable with the framework expressed in

> your posting. A number of different ways one can understand the

> Mahavakya - Aham Brahmasmi. The statement, Aham Brahmasmi is to

> redirect our focus from body-mind-intellect (object) to Atman

> (Subject). The answer to the question, " Who am I/ " depends on how

> the " I " is identified. The True (Real) 'I' is Brahman and the unreal

> (illusionary) 'i' is Ahamkar (Ego). The real 'I' is eternal, changeless

> and it is self-existent (means that it doesn't require external support

> for its existence. " The unreal 'i' is transient, ever-changing and it

> is illusory (doesn't really exist!).

>

> The distinction between real and unreal is beautifully explained in

> Bhagavad Gita verse # 16:

>

> Naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate satah;

> Ubhayorapi drishto'ntastwanayos tattwadarshibhih.

>

> The unreal has no being; there is no non-being of the Real; the truth

> about both has been seen by the knowers of the Truth

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

Namaste,Ramji,

 

'Being' is mind and mind is unreal. Anything that can be positively

described is mind, and part of Saguna concept. That is why I use Nir

Guna a lot for it doesn't decribe it negates/neti neti. Negates all

the hare's horns, and anything else that the mind produces.

Advaita isn't about all being one in illusion, that is just a step.

A-Dvaita is that there is no way of describing any duality therefore

no Saguna concept,or Devas, Avatar or whatever ultimately.

Even when the sages talk of sat-cit- ananda they are not talking of

Nir Guna for the description is positive a quality as Ramana would

say. Before this creation, and as we know pralayas and mahapralayas

make many endless creations, there was Saguna Brahaman with all

subsumed into itself in potentiality but there was still 'mind' there

to enable the new creation. Nir Guna can only be beyond all this

indicating it never happened at all. ..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shailendraji,

 

I think that is a wonderful question and I am sure that there are a

lot of ways to answer. Here is one.

 

In the scriptures, we find statements such as " Brahman alone exists "

and statements such as " I am Brahman. " These are not the only ones, we

also find statements such as " All this is Brahman " (which is somewhat

different). The immidiate meaning of these statements are very

different from each other (especially the first in comparison with the

other two). If you randomly tell some people in the street " You are

Brahman " and " Brahman alone exists " they will understand the two

statements as having a very different meaning.

 

The trick, as it were, is that the implied meaning (lakshyartha) of

both statements is one and the same. Their immidiate meanings are

different, but what is meant by the scriptures, when they use these

sentences, are exactly the same.

 

In saying " I am Brahman, " we have to understand the meaning of all

three words. In this case, " I " does not refer to the upadhis (as you

correctly point out), but to the changeless aspect of the individual.

" Brahman " basically means that which is " big, " that is infinite. The

word " is " establishes that the changless aspect of the individual is

that which is infinite. A sentence such as " Brahman alone exists "

establishes that the infinite does not co-exist with anything, either

inside it or outside it. From this point of view, there is no

contradiction between the statements and in fact they mean exactly the

same thing.

 

" It seems like the Ahamkar itself is trying to get rid of the Ahamkar

- who is trying to get rid of what ? "

 

I think to talk of " getting rid of the ahamkara is already somewhat

problematic or at least ambigious. " Getting rid " is an action and this

action presupposes the notion that " I am a doer. " Ramana Maharshi says

something to the effect that only self-enquiry leads to liberation

because it is the only means that require the retention of the ego.

The idea is that it is the only means where " doership " itself is

questioned.

 

But self-enquiry shouldn't give the idea of some special practice,

some special kind of meditation, that we choose to do and then go

ahead and do. It just happens automatically, when the words of the

scripture, correctly ascertained, are present. This is not a matter of

choice because if the words are there, and the implied meanings known,

then they have their effect no matter what. This is just like when a

sound is there and the ear is working, you just hear - there is no

choice involved.

 

Please correct me where I am wrong, and I would also like to see how

other members respond to this wonderful question.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

It seems that your reference to " Saguna Concept " is just a reference

very close to the Vyavaharika Sathya (relative reality). Sankara's

advaita philosophy describes the distinction between 'vyavaharika and

Paramarthika' levels of realities. Before we recognize our True

Reality (Paramarthika Sathya) we do need cross the boundaries of

Vyavaharika Sathya.

 

Please note that the moment that we 'write,' 'speak' or discuss using

words, our reference point is vyavaharika Sathya. Sankara's advaita

philosophy has another reference point called the Paramarthika Sathya

(Absolute Reality) which you seem to refer as " Nirguna Concept. " All

quotations and definitions from Sankara or Ramana also fall into the

Vyavaharika level of realtiy only!

 

When use the words to describe " Nirguna " such as your statements

below, they belong to Vyvaharika Sathya.

 

" That is why I use Nirguna a lot for it doesn't describe it

negates/neti neti. Negates all hte hare's horns, and anything else

that the mind produces. "

 

As one of the moderators of the list and more importantly as one your

friend, I want to offer the following additional observations. Please

forgive me if you find my comments as blunt or harsh. I am sorry to

say that most of what you have written here doesn't relate to the

specific question posed by Sri Shilendra. You have been repeating the

same or similar such 'slogans' in all your replies that appear in the

list. This doesn't help either you or me or anyone in the list to get

new insights on the issues that we discuss. The purpose of all of us

to join this list is to remove our ignorance on the subject matter of

advaita.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

>

> 'Being' is mind and mind is unreal. Anything that can be positively

> described is mind, and part of Saguna concept. That is why I use Nir

> Guna a lot for it doesn't decribe it negates/neti neti. Negates all

> the hare's horns, and anything else that the mind produces.

> Advaita isn't about all being one in illusion, that is just a step.

> A-Dvaita is that there is no way of describing any duality therefore

> no Saguna concept,or Devas, Avatar or whatever ultimately.

> Even when the sages talk of sat-cit- ananda they are not talking of

> Nir Guna for the description is positive a quality as Ramana would

> say. Before this creation, and as we know pralayas and mahapralayas

> make many endless creations, there was Saguna Brahaman with all

> subsumed into itself in potentiality but there was still 'mind'

there

> to enable the new creation. Nir Guna can only be beyond all this

> indicating it never happened at all. ..Tony.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Tony:

>

> It seems that your reference to " Saguna Concept " is just a reference

> very close to the Vyavaharika Sathya (relative reality). Sankara's

> advaita philosophy describes the distinction between 'vyavaharika and

> Paramarthika' levels of realities. Before we recognize our True

> Reality (Paramarthika Sathya) we do need cross the boundaries of

> Vyavaharika Sathya.

>

> Please note that the moment that we 'write,' 'speak' or discuss using

> words, our reference point is vyavaharika Sathya. Sankara's advaita

> philosophy has another reference point called the Paramarthika Sathya

> (Absolute Reality) which you seem to refer as " Nirguna Concept. " All

> quotations and definitions from Sankara or Ramana also fall into the

> Vyavaharika level of realtiy only!

>

> When use the words to describe " Nirguna " such as your statements

> below, they belong to Vyvaharika Sathya.

>

> " That is why I use Nirguna a lot for it doesn't describe it

> negates/neti neti. Negates all hte hare's horns, and anything else

> that the mind produces. "

>

> As one of the moderators of the list and more importantly as one your

> friend, I want to offer the following additional observations. Please

> forgive me if you find my comments as blunt or harsh. I am sorry to

> say that most of what you have written here doesn't relate to the

> specific question posed by Sri Shilendra. You have been repeating the

> same or similar such 'slogans' in all your replies that appear in the

> list. This doesn't help either you or me or anyone in the list to get

> new insights on the issues that we discuss. The purpose of all of us

> to join this list is to remove our ignorance on the subject matter of

> advaita.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

 

Namaste Ramji,

 

Thank you for the education, I didn't fully appreciate that. I arrived

where I am at with only two concepts Saguna and Nir guna. They are not

really slogans, just my lack of language, and probably a deliberate

attempt to keep it all before my mind.Apples and oranges I suppose.

The only insight that I have to offer is the one I just did about pre

creation still being Saguna. For it seemed to me that some posters are

really not into A-dvaita or non dualism, and hold on to the corner of

the envelope.....Regards Tony

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

Please note that as one of the moderator, I am obligated to make my

observations with respect to your posts. Sri Peter in his post # 35727

has also made a similar observation regarding your posts with the

repetition of the same point again and again.

 

May I request you to go back and read your posts in the archives with

the #s 35694, 35671, 35669, 35666, 35652, 35642? You have made your

insight several years back and also in the above mentioned posts. Most

of the list members know where you stand with respect to nirguna and

saguna.

 

I just request you not to inject the same insight while replying a

post. The most effective way of communicating the 'nirguna concept of

Brahman' is to become a silent observer like Bhagawan Sri Ramana.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Ramji,

>

> Thank you for the education, I didn't fully appreciate that. I arrived

> where I am at with only two concepts Saguna and Nir guna. They are not

> really slogans, just my lack of language, and probably a deliberate

> attempt to keep it all before my mind.Apples and oranges I suppose.

> The only insight that I have to offer is the one I just did about pre

> creation still being Saguna. For it seemed to me that some posters are

> really not into A-dvaita or non dualism, and hold on to the corner of

> the envelope.....Regards >

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Tony:

>

> Please note that as one of the moderator, I am obligated to make my

> observations with respect to your posts. Sri Peter in his post # 35727

> has also made a similar observation regarding your posts with the

> repetition of the same point again and again.

>

> May I request you to go back and read your posts in the archives with

> the #s 35694, 35671, 35669, 35666, 35652, 35642? You have made your

> insight several years back and also in the above mentioned posts. Most

> of the list members know where you stand with respect to nirguna and

> saguna.

>

> I just request you not to inject the same insight while replying a

> post. The most effective way of communicating the 'nirguna concept of

> Brahman' is to become a silent observer like Bhagawan Sri Ramana.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

> advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

 

Namaste Ramji,

 

Yes guilty as charged! No what I was referring to was that I

considered that many Sages were talking of Saguna in arrested

potentiality during pralaya, and confusing that with the Nir Guna

concept, or their followers were rather...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Yes guilty as charged! No what I was referring to was that I

considered that many Sages were talking of Saguna in arrested

potentiality during pralaya, and confusing that with the Nir Guna

concept, or their followers were rather...Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

I am sorry to state that you are just making an accusation without

providing any evidence whatsoever? Who are the " many sages " that you

referring to and where and when did they talk or write? In what

context did they state or say and can you please provide the exact

quotation? I do expect you to reply with concrete evidence.

 

This statement from Gandhiji is quite useful for all of us who try to

interpret any scripture or the words of the sages - " At times, I

used to think that there are inconsistencies in Bhagavad Gita, later,

after contemplation, I was able to recognize that Gita is always

right! The apparent inconsistencies were only due to my ignorance and

misunderstanding of what Gita actually states!! "

 

In the book, " The message of Gita, " Gandhiji further emphasize the

importance of faith and devotion while reading the words of sages: A

prayerful study and experience are essential for a correct

interpretation of the scriptures. Those who would interpret the

scriptures must have the spiritual discipline. They must practice the

yamas and niyamas - the eternal guides of conduct. A superficial

practice there of is useless. Those who are lacking in bhakti,

lacking in faith, are ill-equipped to interpret the scriptures. The

learned may draw an elaborately learned interpretation out of them,

but that will not be the true interpretation. Only the experienced

will arrive at the true interpretation of the scriptures. A humble

student will simply say: " It is the limitation of my own intellect

that I cannot resolve this inconsistency. I might be able to do so in

the time to come. " That is how he/she will plead with himself and

with others.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> No what I was referring to was that I

> considered that many Sages were talking of Saguna in arrested

> potentiality during pralaya, and confusing that with the Nir Guna

> concept, or their followers were rather...Tony.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Tony:

>

> I am sorry to state that you are just making an accusation without

> providing any evidence whatsoever? Who are the " many sages " that you

> referring to and where and when did they talk or write? In what

> context did they state or say and can you please provide the exact

> quotation? I do expect you to reply with concrete evidence.

>

> This statement from Gandhiji is quite useful for all of us who try to

> interpret any scripture or the words of the sages - " At times, I

> used to think that there are inconsistencies in Bhagavad Gita, later,

> after contemplation, I was able to recognize that Gita is always

> right! The apparent inconsistencies were only due to my ignorance and

> misunderstanding of what Gita actually states!! "

>

> In the book, " The message of Gita, " Gandhiji further emphasize the

> importance of faith and devotion while reading the words of sages: A

> prayerful study and experience are essential for a correct

> interpretation of the scriptures. Those who would interpret the

> scriptures must have the spiritual discipline. They must practice the

> yamas and niyamas - the eternal guides of conduct. A superficial

> practice there of is useless. Those who are lacking in bhakti,

> lacking in faith, are ill-equipped to interpret the scriptures. The

> learned may draw an elaborately learned interpretation out of them,

> but that will not be the true interpretation. Only the experienced

> will arrive at the true interpretation of the scriptures. A humble

> student will simply say: " It is the limitation of my own intellect

> that I cannot resolve this inconsistency. I might be able to do so in

> the time to come. " That is how he/she will plead with himself and

> with others.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

Namaste,Ramji,

 

I went through my Bhakti stage.

However the point I'm making is that even in the Rig it does ask the

question in the creation hymn. Does Brahman know or does he not?

My point is that as the mind or Saguna potentially exists in the

Pralaya, this is what the Sages are referring to, when they talk of

Brahman. The Nir Guna isn't mentioned really for the mind or Saguna

has no gunas either whilst it is in pralaya...like prakriti. There is

no beginning to Pralayas but there is an end to it for the Mukta.

As you are well versed, perhaps there is a reference to this situation

in Sankara or somebody else, or was it too obtuse to teach to people

that may not understand it?...Regards Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tonyji,

 

I think that a position such as " I think the traditional position is

wrong because... " followed by arguments based on logic and scripture

are extremely fruitful and allows us to learn a great deal (take the

discussions about Swami Satchidanandendra's teachings for instance).

But when your positions contradict the traditional position, and you

have neither scriptural nor logical reasons, but just reasons based on

some privileged understanding you claim have about what " the Sages "

implied (but did not say), it is not possible to carry out a

discussion. Knowing that fully, why do you actually keep posting? This

is not a rhetorical question - I am really curious about what drives

you to keep pressing your opinion.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> some privileged understanding you claim have about what " the Sages "

> implied (but did not say), it is not possible to carry out a

> discussion. Knowing that fully, why do you actually keep posting? This

> is not a rhetorical question - I am really curious about what drives

> you to keep pressing your opinion.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

 

Namaste Rishiji,

 

Who knows what drives anybody? Prarabda karma probably.

CREATION HYMN from the RIG VEDA

 

Translation by V. V. Raman, University of Rochester

 

Not even nothing existed then

No air yet, nor a heaven.

Who encased and kept it where?

Was water in the darkness there?

Neither deathlessness nor decay

No, nor the rhythm of night and day:

The self-existent, with breath sans air:

That, and that alone was there.

Darkness was in darkness found

Like light-less water all around.

One emerged, with nothing on

It was from heat that this was born.

Into it, Desire, its way did find:

The primordial seed born of mind.

Sages know deep in the heart:

What exists is kin to what does not.

Across the void the cord was thrown,

The place of every thing was known.

Seed-sowers and powers now came by,

Impulse below and force on high.

Who really knows, and who can swear,

How creation came, when or where!

Even gods came after creation's day,

Who really knows, who can truly say

When and how did creation start?

Did He do it? Or did He not?

 

Only He, up there, knows, maybe;

Or perhaps, not even He.

 

I interpret the last couple of lines, as relevant to my point that

when the Sages talked of Sat-Cit-Ananda before creation, they were in

fact talking of Saguna Brahman concept, in potentiality like

prakriti.Therefore Saguna 'knows' and Nir guna concept doesn't 'know'.

As I previously stated there is no beginning to Saguna, but there is

an end for it never happened.

I don't have the references here but I do remember quotes from Sages

saying that it all disappears of dropping the body and

realisation/Moksha..........Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane@> wrote:

>

> some privileged understanding you claim have about what " the Sages "

> implied (but did not say), it is not possible to carry out a

> discussion. Knowing that fully, why do you actually keep posting? This

> is not a rhetorical question - I am really curious about what drives

> you to keep pressing your opinion.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

 

Namaste Rishiji,

 

Who knows what drives anybody? Prarabda karma probably.

CREATION HYMN from the RIG VEDA

 

Translation by V. V. Raman, University of Rochester

 

Not even nothing existed then

No air yet, nor a heaven.

Who encased and kept it where?

Was water in the darkness there?

Neither deathlessness nor decay

No, nor the rhythm of night and day:

The self-existent, with breath sans air:

That, and that alone was there.

Darkness was in darkness found

Like light-less water all around.

One emerged, with nothing on

It was from heat that this was born.

Into it, Desire, its way did find:

The primordial seed born of mind.

Sages know deep in the heart:

What exists is kin to what does not.

Across the void the cord was thrown,

The place of every thing was known.

Seed-sowers and powers now came by,

Impulse below and force on high.

Who really knows, and who can swear,

How creation came, when or where!

Even gods came after creation's day,

Who really knows, who can truly say

When and how did creation start?

Did He do it? Or did He not?

 

Only He, up there, knows, maybe;

Or perhaps, not even He.

 

I interpret the last couple of lines, as relevant to my point that

when the Sages talked of Sat-Cit-Ananda before creation, they were in

fact talking of Saguna Brahman concept, in potentiality like

prakriti.Therefore Saguna 'knows' and Nir guna concept doesn't 'know'.

As I previously stated there is no beginning to Saguna, but there is

an end for it never happened.

I don't have the references here but I do remember quotes from Sages

saying that it all disappears of dropping the body and

realisation/Moksha..........Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitajnana , " Richard Clarke " <richard wrote:

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> Nameste.

>

> I thought in your answer you may have missed an opportunity to

examine your

> own vasanas when you said, " Who knows what drives anybody? "

>

> I have found in practice to inquire why I have some pattern of repeated

> expression to be fruitful. Each vasana is a misdirected search for

> happiness, based on an assumption of identity that is not true.

Uprooting

> these vasana is a key to practice; and brings more freedom, etc.

>

> I have also come to see that looking within to verify what the sages and

> rishis teach is what deepens my practice. While the Truth is

reasonable (is

> what the ancient teachers taught, and what modern teachers teach,

and what

> can be verified within), no amount of thinking about the Truth beings

> Self-Realization. Sages say 'Self effort is needed. " Needed by

whom? the

> seekers of Truth. For those who stand as Truth, no effort is needed (or

> possible). What kind of effort? To find the Truth within, to know

that it is

> the Self, their only identity, the only identity, the only reality.

>

> Not two,

> Richard

 

Namaste Richard,

 

I think my statement on prarabda includes my vasanas. Two that seem to

drive me now.1.A search for the truth and 2. To try and use Advaita to

participate in the discussion. I think on the advaita site there are

too many 'religious' people who worship sankara as an incarnation of

siva etc. It is not really Advaita it is a partial, so they don't like

to engage outside their superstitions. A pity for sankar only taught

the superstitons as he knew that's what they wantes...a full cup

cannot understand a full kettle.........regards Tony.