Is the mahAvAkya the only means of attaining Self-knowledge?

[Guest guest]

Is the mahAvAkya the only means of attaining Self-knowledge?

 

shravaNam, mananam and nididhyAsanam is the means laid down in the br. up. for attaining Self-knowledge. shravaNam means hearing the upanishads from a teacher. Shri Shankara says in his bhAShya on br, sutra, I. iii. 34-38 that according to the dharma shAstras any one not belonging to the three castes, brAhmaNa, kShatriya and vaishya is not entitled to study the vedas. According to him, therefore, shravaNam, which means study of the upanishads, which are part of the vedas, is not possible for all. (I am stating this only as Shri Shankara’s view, for the purpose of showing that according to Shri Shankara, the mahAvAkya is not available to all, and so, if that is the only means of Self-knowledge, only a small percentage of human beings would be entitled to it. Please do not take this as meaning that I am propagating this view and do not make this a subject of controversy. I am dealing with the matter from a purely theoretical point of view. I am not saying anything against anyone studying the upanishads. In fact I welcome it. I earnestly pray that none should be offended by this).  

 

Shankara further says at the end of the bhAShya on B.S. I.iii.38 that those who are not entitled to study the vedas are also entitled to get Self-knowledge by the study of the purANas, etc. The prakana granthas also serve the same purpose.

 

Thus the mahAvAkya is not the only means of attaining Self-knowledge even according to Shri Shankara himself.

 

 

In this context the following passages from the article ‘The Sage of Kanchi’ by T.M.P. Mahadevan are relevant.

 

“Adverting to the purpose for which he had come to India, Mr. Brunton asked if the Acharya would recommend anyone who could serve as his spiritual preceptor, or if the Acharya himself would be his guide. “I am at the head of a public institution”, said the Acharya, “a man whose time no longer belongs to himself. My activities demand almost all my time. How can I take personal pupils? You must find a master who devotes his time to them”.

 

“It was as directed by the Acharya that Mr. Brunton went to Tiruvannamalai and found the Master he had been in quest of, in Sri Ramana Maharshi. ------ The Acharya himself had asked him not to leave South India before he had met the Maharshi”. 

 

It is seen from the above that the Paramacharya did not tell Brunton that he was not entitled to Self-knowledge. Being a strict follower of the Dharma shAstras, he could not go against them. It also appears that he must have approved of Ramana Maharshi’s method of imparting knowledge.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Shankara further says at the end of the bhAShya on B.S. I.iii.38 that those who are not entitled to study the vedas are also entitled to get Self-knowledge by the study of the purANas, etc. The prakana granthas also serve the same purpose.

 Thus the mahAvAkya is not the only means of attaining Self-knowledge even according to Shri Shankara himself.

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, shankara says in apashudrAdhikaraNa that non-dvija-s like vidhura, dhramavyAdha etc. have attained the ultimate through itihAsa & purANa...All the four varNAshrami-s are entitle to get mOksha through the jnAna of smruti & purANa texts...shankara elsewhere also says even those who donot belong to any Ashrama (anAshrami-s) would also eligible to get Atma jnAna. shankara gives examples of raikva, vAchaknavi, nagna (naked) yOgi saMvarta etc.

However, the question here is whether dvija-s who have the obligation to study veda-s and strive for the realization through this means as per the injunctions of dharma, can opt for some other easy means by approaching smruti & purANa texts by ignoring the shruti or skipping the vedAdhyayana ?? I dont think shankara endorse this easy method anywhere for the dvija-s...For them (dvija-s) shAstra is the ONLY means which is appropriately followed by intuition in brahma jignAsa...Because according to shankara, the knowledge of brahman has to culminate in ultimate intuition...Anyway, one should not think that knowledge of brahman AND intuition of ultimate are two different events in the path of brahma jnAna.

So, IMHO, for dvija-s, the shruti (not only mAhAvAkya-s) is the ONLY means of attaining Self-knowledge. There is no other way to go!! (nAnya panthA vidyateyanAya)

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

Is the mahAvAkya the only means of attaining Self-knowledge?

---------------------- 

 

Shree Sastriji raised an interesting question. As Sastriji outlined we are not

discussing a topic of controversy but possible outlook at the problem.

 

This is my understanding of what is required for self-realization. Bhaskarji do

not ask me for Shankara bhaashaya quotations but this is my understanding and as

peter says - for whatever it is worth.

 

This also explains to some extent, although not directly, why the two layer of

ignorance was discussed in the reference quoted by Dennis. Clearly there cannot

be any divisions in the ignorance, but in terms of full and complete knowledge

what requires freedom from limitations involves two aspects as I see - This as I

find can also be expressed in the form as Shree Krishna presents:

 

1) sarvabhuutastham aatmaanam - 2) sarvabhuutanica aatmani or

 

1) yo maam pasyati sarvatra - 2) sarvanca mayi pasyati

 

Both are from 6th Ch. of Gita.

 

Of course, others can provide different explanations-but that two aspects are

separately mentioned by Krishna is undeniable.

 

The first says I am the self in all and the second says all are in myself or who

sees me everywhere and everything in me.

 

In a way I agree with Prof. VK in terms of the spirit of the usage of neti neti

not necessarily that there is a duality in the ignorance per se or each neti

refers to each of the layers of ignorance but in terms of application to jiiva

and jagat since the third factor Iswara comes into picture with jagat as jagat

kaaraNam. As I understand, Prof VK is only presenting the sprit of the usage of

the double neti -as I see it his interpretation is quite reasonable, even if

Shankara did not interpret that way.

 

To illustrate, let us take a case of one who understands that I am not this -

since I am existent consciousness by contemplating on who am I, not necessarily

following completely Bhagavaan Ramana's instructions which may involve clear

understanding of who that I am is, but asking someone just to find out who I am

is since I am the subject cannot be the object, this. For that I do not need any

scripture to tell me that I am existent and I am conscious and I cannot be this

which is an object. One can arrive at I am existence-consciousness. I can

perhaps deduce that I am the essence of all as the existence-consciousness.

 

But does that lead to the next step - All are in ME, the second parts of

Krishna's statements.

 

I do not need to know the mahaavaakya per sec but I should have some knowledge

of the essence of the mahaavaakya and have that faith in that essential meaning.

I am that I am is not only the pure-existence consciousness that is the essence

in all but there is nothing left , other than me since everything is in Me

alone. That is, the mithyaatma aspect of the jagat has to be also understood.

 

The questions Shree Sastriji posed is mahaavaakya necessary?

I would say not the vaakya per sec in its verbal form but the essence of what it

says is required - That involves that the world is mithyaa. It is the

understanding that is emphasized for moksha - irrespective - birth or religion

that one follows.

 

As I am studying deeply the sat darshaNan, I can clearly see that the text is

soaked with the essence of mahaavaakya.

 

I would like to bring another aspect here just for consideration, not that I

for this - Bhagavaan Raamaanuja also differentiates two knowledge(s)-

the knowledge of one's own self - according to him, that is emphasized in the

early chapters of Gita which involves knowledge of jiivaatma, but that gives

only little bit of ananda and not moksha. He provides the scriptural

justification too. Moksha requires the second knowledge - the knowledge of

Iswara or paramaatma and that involves understanding of the SheSha SheShii

bhaava that is I am dependent on Him - which is talked about in the 7th chapter

on. He also says the knowledge of the second includes the first since He is the

antaryaamin of all. But the point is there is a difference in the knowledge of

the self and the knowledge of paramaatma.

 

Hence the advaita s 1) Brahman satyam 2) jagat mithyaa and 3) jiiva

brahma eva na aparaH.

 

If the mithyaatma aspect of the jagat is understood in the 'who am I' enquiry

then that is all it takes - where the mahaavaakya is embedded in that

understanding.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda