 |
Arya Samaj
|
Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Mahavakya |
 |
|
Namaste,
I have been studying the mahavakya of the Upanishads for some time now, and I think I have come to a tentative conclusion regarding them in relationship to Traitavada. First, let me describe the problem I have been working on:
As many of you might already know, the school of Vedanta interprets certain phrases from the Upanishads (known as ‘mahavakya’ or ‘great sayings’) so as to support the main tenet of their philosophy, i.e. that God and the Soul are in reality one and the same. Now, as should be clear, this tenet is incompatible with the philosophy of Traitavada, as this teaches that God and the Soul are two different things, and that they stand in relationship to one another as pervader and pervaded respectively.
A few of the most important mahavakya are:
“ayam atma brahma” i.e. “The atman is brahman.”
“aham brahmasmi” i.e. “I am brahman.”
“tat tvam asi” i.e. “Thou art that.”
After studying them in some depth, I have formulated the following hypothesis:
The terms “brahman” and “atman” are used as descriptors of both God and the Soul depending upon the context. This is possible due to the respective relationships of the two.
For example, we can call God “atman” (literally “the pervader”), for He pervades this entire universe and all the living beings within it. However, we can also call the Soul “atman”, for it pervades the physical, subtle and causal bodies which it inhabits. Therefore, both God and the Soul can be termed “atman”, depending upon the context in which they are mentioned.
By the same token, we can call God “brahman” (literally “the lord”), for He rules over this universe and is not to be mistaken with it. However – and this is where I am taking an intuitive leap – it is also possible for us to refer to the Soul as “brahman” for the same reason, i.e. due to its being lord and master over the bodies it inhabits and the powers it possesses. Therefore, both God and the Soul are “brahman”, yet respective to their position to one another.
If this notion were correct, then we would be able to explain the mahavakya of the Upanishads rather easily.
Are there any such cases of the term “brahman” being used to refer to the Soul? Let us look at the Kena Upanishad:
| Quote: | 1. OM. Directed by whom does the mind go forth? Commanded by whom does the breath first commence? Impelled by whom is the speech that is uttered? What wise being hath harnessed the eye and the ear?
2. It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, the eye of the eye. Thus the wise renounce and, upon leaving this world, realize immortality.
(Kena Upanishad I: 1-2) |
So far, it should be apparent that the Soul is being referred to. The Soul is that which utilizes the organs and faculties such as the mind, the eye, the voice and the breath to interact with this world, and it is not to be confused with those organs and faculties themselves.
The Kena continues:
| Quote: | 4. What is not expressed by speech, yet by which speech is expressed: that, verily, you should know as brahman, and not those things which are adored.
5. What is not thought by the mind, yet by which the mind thinks: that, verily, you should know as brahman, and not those things which are adored.
6. What is not seen by the eye, yet by which the eye sees: that, verily, you should know as brahman, and not those things which are adored.
7. What is not heard by the ear, yet by which the ear hears: that, verily, you should know as brahman, and not those things which are adored.
8. What is not breathed by the breath, yet by which breath is breathed: that, verily, you should know as brahman, and not those things which are adored.
(Kena Upanishad I: 4-8) |
I can only conclude that, although it is obvious that the Soul is being discussed, it is being referred to as “brahman”, i.e. the ‘lord’. But what should that mean? Does it mean that the Soul is identical with God? I don’t think so.
I think what this passage is saying is this: The foolish adore this physical body, its organs and powers as the Self. They worry about its welfare and they weep over its demise. Yet they fail to realize that this body is inhabited by something higher and mightier – a ‘lord’ that pervades it entirely – which is not harmed when the body is harmed and does not die when the body dies. This ‘lord’, i.e. this ‘brahman’ is the Soul, as it is the master of the physical, subtle and causal bodies and is, in itself, immortal.
This view, I feel, is further supported by the following passage from the same Upanishad:
| Quote: | 4. It is known correctly when through an awakening, for then one realizes immortality. By the Self (atman) alone one receives this power. By the knowledge thereof one realizes immortality.
(Kena Upanishad II: 4) |
Now, all I have done so far is to bring us closer to the equation: ‘atman is brahman’ and ‘brahman is atman’. In this, the school of Vedanta would agree. However, I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that these two statements mean that the Soul and God are identical. What I see them indicating is that the relationship between God, the Soul and the World is directly analogous to that between the Soul and the Body with all of its attendant powers. In other words, the Soul is “atman” and “brahman” insofar as it pervades and lords over the body, just as God is “atman” and “brahman” insofar as He pervades and lords over all creation. However, the separate identities of the Soul and God respectively are not put into question. This conclusion is supported by numerous statements from the Upanishads which declare God and the Soul to be two different things, which, I might add, are ignored by the school of Vedanta.
Your thoughts and/or comments are welcome.
(I’m afraid it is a foregone conclusion that PD will not like it ( ), but I’m mostly interested in hearing the opinion of other Aryas on this matter.)
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Shishya,
You should've understood from the 'some que about samkhya' thread that I'm not here to spread the advaitic faith but I prefer a more traitavaadic explanation. My understanding of advaita is not because of translation of verses or something like that - its for many other factors. The following objections are not in support of advaita, but my view of traitavaada:
The reason I believe 'tat tvaam asi' in traitavaada means 'you are empowered by that' is because the relative context in chandogya speaks of soul as 'transformations of god' you might say. One of the examples svetaketo's father gives is - there are various copper instruments, but all these are nothing but copper. The difference is their state of form.
| Quote: | “ayam atma brahma” i.e. “The atman is brahman.”
“aham brahmasmi” i.e. “I am brahman.” |
The vakya says 'the pervasive is the lord'. The first instinct any man inculcates, is not that he is all-pervasive - but that he is the lord of his body. If it said 'ayam brahma atma' it would've made more sense.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | You should've understood from the 'some que about samkhya' thread that I'm not here to spread the advaitic faith but I prefer a more traitavaadic explanation. My understanding of advaita is not because of translation of verses or something like that - its for many other factors. |
I didn't write this as some kind of opposition to your views - I wrote it out of a genuine need to understand the mahavakya for myself. Indeed, I am trying to understand them from the perspective of Traitavada. But I'm not relying upon clever or insightful translations of the texts - the translations I provided are comparable to any of the dozen or so tranlsations on the web. Rather, I'm trying to interpret the conventional method of translation in a new way.
| You wrote: | | The reason I believe 'tat tvaam asi' in traitavaada means 'you are empowered by that' is because the relative context in chandogya speaks of soul as 'transformations of god' you might say. |
For me, the repeating phrase which preceeds the mahavakya 'tat tvam asi' is quite telling:
| Quote: | | "That most subtle part is what all beings have as Self (atman). It is truth. It is the Self (atman). That art thou, Shvetaketu." |
In the many examples brought forth by the father, I think his intent is to show that the Self (atman), though it cannot be seen or touched due to its subtelty, is the true essence of each being. His repetitive phrase 'tat tvam asi' is meant to make it clear to his son that he is neither the body nor the senses nor the mind, but the Self (atman) alone.
| You wrote: | | The vakya says 'the pervasive is the lord'. The first instinct any man inculcates, is not that he is all-pervasive - but that he is the lord of his body. If it said 'ayam brahma atma' it would've made more sense. |
I would rather say "That which pervades is lord (over that which is pervaded)", but we're close enough. And I agree, a man learns early on that he is lord over his body. But the question remains - "What is he?" If this were readily apparent, half of the Bhagavad Gita and all of the Samkhya Sutras, for example, would have been redundant. The point is to show that, 'not the eye, not the breath, not the mind, but that which pervades them all is lord over this body'.
Your post in the thread on "Some questions about Samkhya" made me reconsider the mahavakya for myself. My post above is part of the results of that reconsideration - it's not meant as an attack on your beliefs. 
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: Studies... will be active after a fortnight |
|
|
Namaste Shishya
No its just that I believe learning can take place only upon conflict of thought. Even if you say something in a friendly fashion, I prefer to pick up a debate (and this spirit i'm trying to purge - my college life needs a calmer one). I gave that thing an idea too - that the 'that thou art' means 'you are the atman'. The problem is that the examples seem to rather allude to god, because it speaks of tanmatras and others originating from 'the highest self'(or something like that - can't remember).
I think it lies in the placing of words over there, and with poor knowledge of sanskrit I cannot comment much. 'ayam atma brahma' according to my understanding makes the term brahma encompass the word atma. That is, (atman) belongs to the superset (brahma).
And... no, its not my belief - i experiment a lot, that's how i came to this difficult harmony between advaita and traitavaada..
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
Of course, I agree: debate is healthy - as long as it is of the right type. As it says in the Nyaaya Sutras, there are three activities which fall under the general heading kathaa (i.e. debate):
- Vaada (discussion) aims at ascertaining the truth.
- Jalpa (altercation) aims at gaining victory.
- Vitandaa (denegration) aims at finding faults, attacking and defaming others.
These are said to be connected with the three gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas respectively.
Of the three, Vitandaa has the least value. It is simply to argue for the sake of arguing, and does not increase intelligence, but instead fosters conflict and discord. Jalpa is of middling value. It is better than Vitandaa, for it seeks to prove something rather than just criticise everything. Yet it often sacrifices truth in order to gain victory. Vaada is of the highest value. It is the honest search for truth through open and fair discussion with others.
It is correct to condemn Vitandaa and Jalpa, especially in the context of religious discourse. But Vaada is to be encouraged as an appropriate means of discovering truth. And I think we are engaging in Vaada, so there is no problem there.
My favorite example of the father in the Chhandogya is this one:
| Quote: | 1. "Bring a banyan-fruit from that tree."
"Here it is, blessed one." "Break it open."
"I have broken it, blessed one." "What do you see there?"
"Tiny seeds, blessed one." "Now break one of them open."
"I have broken it, blessed one." "What do you see there?"
2. He said to him, "Good lad, in this subtle part - the subtle part which you do not see - rests the whole of the great banyan-tree. Good lad, have faith."
3. "This subtle part is what all beings have as Self (atman). It is truth. It is the Self (atman). And thou art that, Shvataketu."...
(Chhandogya Upanishad VI:12:1-3)
|
| You wrote: | | I think it lies in the placing of words over there, and with poor knowledge of sanskrit I cannot comment much. 'ayam atma brahma' according to my understanding makes the term brahma encompass the word atma. That is, (atman) belongs to the superset (brahma). |
The phrase simply equates the two, with "brahma" modifying the direct subject "ayam atma".
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Shishya,
Agreed. When muslims attacked hindu traditions in the orkut communities, i assorted to the first technique (vaada) while all the others preferred to adhere to the last one (vitandaa). It seems that people were underconfident, because they seemed to really like the way I quoted from scriptures and proved my point without attacking any aspect of their faith (unless it was pinpointing to the flaws in his argument as being existent in his own faith).
Anyway, back to the debate(shouldn't this be in the unused debate section then  ):
| Quote: | "As bees, dear boy, make honey by collecting the juices of many trees and reduce the juice to a unity, yet [those juices] cannot perceive any distinction there [so that any of them might know:] 'I am the juice of this tree', or 'I am the juice of that tree', [so too], my dearest boy, all these creatures [here], once they have merged [sampad] into Being do not know that they have merged into Being.
"Whatever they are in this world, whether tiger or lion, wolf or boar, worm or moth, gnat or fly, that they become again (aa-bhuu).
"This finest essence - the whole universe has it as its Self: That is the Real: That is the Self: That you are, Shvetaketu!" |
How would you explain this extract?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
Here is the translation of Prapathaka VI, Khanda IX of the Chhandogya Upanishad by Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati:
| Quote: | 1. "O dear (Shvetaketu)! The bees collect juices from flowers blooming on distant plants and trees, and then blend them into a homogenous whole called honey (madhu).
2. "And in this stock one cannot discriminate these juices as separate existences - they do not say: 'I am the juice of this tree-flower.' 'I am the juice of that tree-flower.' In the same way, O my dear Son, all these creatures, when they again merge into Being (sat) (either during a sound sleep or) after death, do not know (which individuals they were nor do they know) that they have now merged into Being (sat).
3. "Whatsoever these creatures were in this world - a lion, a wolf, a boar, a worm or a midge, a gnat or a mosquito, a big animal or a tiny insect, they are born again and again (yad yad bhavanti tadaa bhavanti) in as many numerous forms.
4. "In all these cases, there is a subtile essence (anima), each one has its essence. It is the Being (sat), it is the Self (atman), and O Shvetaketu, that thou art (tat twam asi) - (a characteristic self-ever coming and going, repeating the cycle of life and death, infintesimal, also known as the jivatman.)"
"Please, Sir, instruct me further - still more" - so spoke the son. And the father said, "Very well, my dear. (Be it so.)" |
As verse 4 states, each individual being retains its particular 'essence', i.e. 'anima', 'sat' or 'atman'. These terms can here be equated as the soul (atman) is the foundation of the being (sat) of the individual and, as such represents its essence (anima). The term 'merge' (sampad) does not denote a complete 'fusion' of the two, but instead indicates "to fall together, meet or unite with, obtain, get into, partake of" (according to Monier-Williams). Verse 2 is a reference to the ignorance of the individual bound soul, through which it fails to realize it's being uniformly pervaded by God and by which it continues in the cycle of rebirth in a form suited to its karma. If you read carefully, you will notice that it would be impossible for the term to refer to a complete 'fusion', as it is said that all souls - those last embodied as insect and beast, for example - experience this 'sampad' after death. Thus, this would not at all support the Advaitic position.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Shishya,
It is interesting that this debate again starts off the day I picked up some monistic works Is it prarabdha..
| Quote: | | Thus, this would not at all support the Advaitic position. |
I disagree here, because advaita reasons out the concept of 'transformations of copper' thing with greater ease than traitavaada. Reminds me, what about those verses?
Anyway, I'm not referring to the concept of 'everything merges into one at pralaya' concept by the way, but am simply referring to monism, of whose variants involve time as a factor of maaya as well. So the verses dealing with 'being born again' or 'retaining the conscience' is out of question.
I dont adhere to any doctrine, but rely upon logic, reasoning and moral sensibility when I try to adhere to any concept.
sampad indicates both 'get into' and 'unite with' so the basic essence of the word would be 'union', which leaves a pretty confusing stance here, as the being spoken of at the moment is God, but its explained that they do not realise they have merged into sat, then he declares 'that you are' - parsimony suggests it is definitely a reference to brahman... Do the verses speak of merging 'after death' by the way?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
(This really isn't a debate. We're just discussing. )
First, I think you have to agree that the khanda is referring to the cycle of birth and death that souls go through - or else the whole thing would no longer make any sense.
Second, it seems to me (and to Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati) that the khanda is also establishing the the unique identity of each soul. It refers to the soul with three terms, i.e. 'atman' (the pervader), 'anima' (the essence), and 'sat' (being). And the main thrust of the passage is to get Shvetaketu to realize that this is his true identity. In other words, that he is not the body, but instead the eternal soul, the true 'essence' within.
Now, the khanda refers to the creatures 'merging' with 'sat' at the time of death. Surely, this cannot mean that the soul of a gnat 'becomes one with Brahman' when it passes from its physical body. If it did, then there would be no point to spirituality, for even a gnat would be able to achieve moksha with no effort. The reason I mentioned Advaita (or monism, if you like) in this connection, is that this would have to be the result of an advaitic interpretation of the khanda.
What, then, does he mean by 'sat'? If we go back to the 8th khanda, it should be clear:
| Quote: | 1. Thereafter, Uddalaka Aruni spoke to his son Shvetaketu: "O dear, from me now, you would have instructions regarding the doctrine of sleep (svapna). Whenever a person sleeps here (in this body) (svapti, as it is called), then, O dear, he goes back to his initial-most stage, known as sat (Being), and hence svapna = svam apitah."
(I am omitting the middle part, but it is worth reading if you have the time and the resources)
7. "In this last, most subtile essence, everything that has its existence has its self. It is the true (tat satyam). It is the Self. O Shvetaketu, you are one such Self." |
Thus, how I read it, 'sat' is referring to the state of ignorance inhering in the soul which leads to birth in the manifest world. As he says in khanda 9:
| Quote: | | 4. "In all these cases, there is a subtile essence (anima), each one has its essence. It is the Being (sat), it is the Self (atman), and O Shvetaketu, that thou art (tat twam asi) - (a characteristic self-ever coming and going, repeating the cycle of life and death, infintesimal, also known as the jivatman.)" |
Therefore, 'sat' is referring to the soul in the state of unconsciousness. In other words, he is saying that it is the soul which experiences this unconsciousness, and for that reason we can call it 'sat'.
Perhaps it would be of interest to mention once again a notion which we discussed briefly before:
http://aryasamaj.forumwise.com/aryasamaj-post-3564.html#3564
(By the way, I found a reference to this notion in the book Daily Prayer by Gopal Saran.)
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Shishya,
The word debate always slips from my tongue. A discussion, yes If the interpretation can withstand all forms of attacks then it can be accepted, that's my policy.
| Quote: | | First, I think you have to agree that the khanda is referring to the cycle of birth and death that souls go through - or else the whole thing would no longer make any sense. |
It can refer to either of the two things - after end of universe; or general cycle of rebirth. If it be the latter then there's nothing opposed to advaita, but I say its the former because we're always pervaded by god, so it doesn't make a difference whether it be after death or no.
To say that the self is the sat, there remains no time when he's not the atman. To teach you're the atman is different from saying there comes a time when you're merged into atman, as there should remain a time when you're not that atman.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | It can refer to either of the two things - after end of universe; or general cycle of rebirth. |
I guess one could consider it to refer to the state of pralaya as well - as there, too, exists a state sometimes called svapna. However, going by the context (khanda 8), I feel it is, first and foremost, referring to the phases of consciousness as experienced in the cycle of rebirth.
| You wrote: | | If it be the latter then there's nothing opposed to advaita, but I say its the former because we're always pervaded by god, so it doesn't make a difference whether it be after death or no. |
I don't see how, if it's the case that the cycle of rebirth is being referred to, there is no conflict with the doctrine of Advatia. Advaita would interpret 'sat' as 'Brahman' and argue that the khanda is saying all beings merge into Brahman. However, this would contradict the meaning of moksha, for then every creature at the time of sleep or death would merge into Brahman - making the practice of spirituality superfluous.
True, we are always pervaded by God. However, this is not always realized by the individual soul - which is itself the root cause of rebirth in the first place.
Uddalaka Aruni is teaching that at the time of deep sleep or death, the unrealized soul 'merges' (i.e. 'falls into') the spiritual state of 'sat'. However, it is vital that we realize we are not unconsciousness, but rather the being which experiences it, the jivatman.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't see how, if it's the case that the cycle of rebirth is being referred to, there is no conflict with the doctrine of Advatia. Advaita would interpret 'sat' as 'Brahman' and argue that the khanda is saying all beings merge into Brahman. However, this would contradict the meaning of moksha, for then every creature at the time of sleep or death would merge into Brahman - making the practice of spirituality superfluous. |
Note that we can stick to the same meaning of 'merge' that traitavaadins do, that it refers to communion. To say that 'you stay in communion with god, yet you think that you're different from that. Know that you are that'. Time is also a factor of maaya according to some advaitins, this is something I agree to as well.
| Quote: | | True, we are always pervaded by God. However, this is not always realized by the individual soul - which is itself the root cause of rebirth in the first place. |
Similiar factor can also be put in support of monistic understanding - remember that is god nevertheless, it is therefore a reference to the state of knowledge or bondage of the soul. Union with god can also be a reference to state of communion with ishvara.
| Quote: | | Uddalaka Aruni is teaching that at the time of deep sleep or death, the unrealized soul 'merges' (i.e. 'falls into') the spiritual state of 'sat'. However, it is vital that we realize we are not unconsciousness, but rather the being which experiences it, the jivatman. |
So you're trying to say 'tat tvam asi' is reference to 'you're the state of bliss' or that 'you are the atman'? He constantly repeats the line 'tat tvam asi' and he makes mention of 'subtile self' so it is definitely a reference to atman.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | Note that we can stick to the same meaning of 'merge' that traitavaadins do, that it refers to communion. To say that 'you stay in communion with god, yet you think that you're different from that. Know that you are that'. |
Yes, I can agree with that, more or less. The soul need only realize its true identity and position in creation in order to attain communion with God.
| You wrote: | | Similiar factor can also be put in support of monistic understanding - remember that is god nevertheless, it is therefore a reference to the state of knowledge or bondage of the soul. Union with god can also be a reference to state of communion with ishvara. |
As you know, it is widely agreed that ignorance is the root cause of bondage. On this point, there is no real conflict between Advaita and Traitavada.
| You wrote: | | So you're trying to say 'tat tvam asi' is reference to 'you're the state of bliss' or that 'you are the atman'? He constantly repeats the line 'tat tvam asi' and he makes mention of 'subtile self' so it is definitely a reference to atman. |
Yes, I think that is the main purpose of the entire dialogue - much as in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita:
"But know that by which the entire body is pervaded, is indestructible. No one is able to cause the destruction of the imperishable soul." (2:17)
Krishna spends a good deal of time trying to show Arjuna that he is neither the body, the mind nor the senses, but instead the eternal soul. And that's how I read this Upanishad as well.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam 
Namaste 