Advaita Vision

www.advaita.org.uk

Advaita for the 21st Century

pa~nchadashI
of shrI vidyAraNya svAmi

flower picture

Chapter 5

mahAvAkyaviveka
Understanding the import of the �mahAvAkya-s�

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

In this chapter the meaning of four mahAvAkya-s from the four vedas is explained.

The first mahAvAkya taken for explanation is �praj~nAnam brahma� (aitareya upaniShad (3.1.1) in the rigveda). This means that brahman is pure consciousness. It is because of this consciousness that all creatures are able to see, hear, smell, speak and distinguish different tastes.

The same consciousness enlivens gods, men and all other creatures. This consciousness is brahman.

The next mahAvAkya is �aham brahma asmi� (bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShad (1.4.10) in the shukla yajurveda), which means �I am brahman�. The infinite, supreme brahman, which, as the indwelling Self of all, is the witness of all the functions of the intellect, is known as �I�. The person who has acquired the necessary qualifications such as control of the senses, control of the mind, total detachment towards all pleasures and an intense yearning for liberation is fit to realize his identity with this Self.

The mahAvAkya in the chhAndogya upaniShad (6.8.15) in the sAmaveda is �tat tvam asi�, which means �That thou art�. Before the creation of the universe there existed only one non-dual existence without name and form. Even now it exists in the same condition (but with the universe of names and forms superimposed on it by mAyA). This existence is indicated by the term �That�.

The indwelling self in individual beings that transcends the body, mind and senses is indicated by the term �thou�. The identity of �That� and �thou� is expressed by the term �asi�.

The mahAvAkya �ayam Atma brahma� is in the mANDUkya upaniShad in the atharvaveda. This means that the indwelling self in every creature is brahman.

The identity declared in the above-mentioned mahAvAkyas is not with reference to the primary meanings of the terms, but only with reference to their implied meanings. This has been elaborated in the summary of chapter 1, which may be referred to.

How knowledge arises from the mahAvAkya�two theories.

According to one theory, known as the prasankhyAna theory, attributed to maNDana mishra, the knowledge which arises from the mahAvAkya is relational and mediate, like any other knowledge arising from a sentence. Such a knowledge cannot apprehend brahman which is non-relational and immediate. Meditation (prasankhyAna) gives rise to another knowledge which is non-relational and immediate. It is this knowledge that destroys nescience.

The view of sureshvara is the opposite of the above. Knowledge of brahman arises directly from the mahAvAkya-s. According to him also, meditation is necessary, but it is only for perfecting the hearing. The difference between the two theories is that, while, according to sureshvara, the knowledge which arises from the mahAvAkya is immediate and non-relational, according to the other theory this knowledge is only mediate and relational. For an elaborate discussion sureshvara�s naiShkarmyasiddhi may be referred to.

Following the view of maNDana, vAcaspati mishra holds that the mind is the instrument for the attainment of Self-knowledge. Following the other view stated above, prakAshAtman, the author of vivaraNa says that the mahAvAkya itself is the instrument, though the knowledge no doubt arises in the mind.

The mahAvAkya gives rise to Self-knowledge by making the mind take the form of brahman. The question arises�since brahman has no form, what is meant by saying that the mind takes the form of brahman (akhaNDa-AkAra-vRRitti)? This is explained by vidyAraNya in jIvanmuktiviveka, chapter 3, by taking an example. A pot made of clay is full of the all-pervading space as soon as it is made. Filling it afterwards with water, rice or any other substance is due to human effort. Though the water, etc., in the pot can be removed, the space inside can never be removed. It continues to be there even if the mouth of the pot is hermetically sealed. In the same manner, the mind, in the act of being born, comes into existence full of the consciousness of the Self. It takes on, after its birth, due to the influence of virtue and vice, the form of pots, cloths, colour, taste, pleasure, pain, and other transformations, just like melted copper, cast into moulds. Of these, the transformations such as colour, taste and the like, which are not-Self, can be removed from the mind, but the form of the Self, which does not depend on any external cause, cannot be removed at all. Thus, when all other ideas are removed from the mind, the Self is realized without any impediment. It has been said: 'One should cause the mind which, by its very nature, is ever prone to assume either of the two forms of the Self and the not-Self, to throw into the background the perception of the not-Self, by taking on the form of the Self alone.'

And also: 'The mind takes on the form of pleasure, pain and the like, because of the influence of virtue and vice, whereas the form of the mind, in its native aspect, is not conditioned by any extraneous cause. To the mind devoid of all transformations is revealed the supreme Bliss.' Thus, when the mind is emptied of all other thoughts, Self-knowledge arises.

The meaning of the mahAvAkya �aham brahma asmi�

This mahAvAkya is explained by sureshvara in naiShkarmyasiddhi (2.29) thus: 'Just as in the sentence, "This post is a man," the earlier cognition that there is a post is sublated by the subsequent cognition that it is a man (and not a post), the cognition "I am brahman" removes entirely the cognition as "I". sureshvara explains the statement aham brahma asmi, (I am brahman), through what is known as bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. In a sentence in Sanskrit, words which, having the same case-endings, denote one and the same thing are said to be in samAnAdhikaraNam. The relation between the words is called sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. This relation is of two kinds, mukhya sAmAnAdhikaraNyam and bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. In the former, the objects denoted by the words will have the same ontological status (or the same order of reality). For example, in the sentence, the pot-space is but the great (outer) space, the space within the pot and the great space are both empirically real (vyAvahArika satyam). The difference between them is only due to the upAdhi in the form of the pot. When the upAdhi is removed, they become one, which they really are, even earlier. But if the words of a sentence, having the same case-endings, denote objects which have different ontological status, and if they purport to convey only one idea, they are in bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. For example, in the statement, "This post is a man," the words "post" and "man" have different ontological status. Since what exists is a man and not a post, "man" is empirically real (vyAvahArika) and "post" is only apparently real (prAtibhAsika). Thus, just as the idea that what is seen is a post is removed when the person hears the statement, "This post is a man," the wrong cognition of the form, "I am a man," "I am happy," etc., is removed when a person realizes that he is brahman on hearing the statement aham brahma asmi.'

The essence of the entire universe is brahman. The same brahman is the self-luminous indwelling self or Atma.

End of Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Return to main S N Sastri page

om
Page last updated: 10-Jul-2012