Statements in the upanishads
declaring the identity of the jiiva and Brahman are
known as Mahaavaakyas. S'rii S'ankara says
in Viveka chuuDaamaNi, verse 251 that there are a hundred (i.e. innumerable)
such statements in the s'ruti. Out of these, four statements from the four
Vedas are well known. They are:- prajnaanam Brahma -Ait.up. 3.13--- R.g
Veda, aham brahma asmi- Br.up.1.4.10-Yajur Veda, tat tvam asi- Ch.up. 6.8.7-Saama
veda, ayam aatmaa brahma- MaaND.up. 2.
The meaning of tat tvam
asi V.C.- Commentary of S'rii Jagadguru Chandras'ekhara Bhaarati on verses
243 to 251- The word tat stands for Brahman as qualified by the functions
of creation, sustenance and dissolution (i.e.iis'vara). The word tvam stands
for the aatmaa as qualified by the mental
states of waking, dream and deep sleep
(i.e.jiiva). These two are of mutually opposed
qualities, like the glow-worm and the
sun, like the servant and the king, like the
well and the ocean and like the atom and the earth (verse 244). There can
be no identity between these two, which are the literal meanings (vaachyaartha)
of the words tat and tvam. The identity is only between their implied meanings
(lakshyaartha). The opposition between the literal meanings is due
to the upadhis, since the literal meaning
of tat is Brahman with the upadhi or limiting adjunct of maayaa and the
literal meaning of tvam is aatmaa with the limiting adjunct
of the five sheaths. When these limiting adjuncts,
which are not real, are effectively removed, there is neither iis'vara
nor jiiva.
The two terms tat and tvam
(That and Thou) are to be understood properly by their implied meanings
in order to grasp the import of the absolute identity between them.
This is to be done neither by total rejection
of their literal meaning nor by total non- rejection, but by a combination
of both. Implied meanings are of three kinds- jahallakshaNaa, ajahal- lakshaNaa
and jahadajahallakshaNaa. jahallakshaNaa-
The literal meaning is to be rejected and
some other meaning consistent with it is
to be adopted. An example is- gangaayaam ghoshaH,
the literal meaning of which
is-a hamlet on the river Ganga. Since there
cannot be a hamlet on the river itself, it
is the bank of the river that is meant. Here
the literal meaning of the word `Ganga'
has to be given up completely and the implied
meaning 'bank' has to be adopted. ajahallakshaNaa- Without giving up the
literal meaning of the word, what is implied
by it is also adopted to get the meaning intended
to be conveyed. An example is-
"The red is running", which is intended to
convey that the red horse is running.
Here the literal meaning of the word `red'
is retained and the implied word `horse'
is added to get the correct sense of the sentence.
jahadajahallakshaNaa- Here a
part of the literal meaning is retained and
the other part discarded.
The sentence
"This is that Devadatta" is interpreted by using
this lakshaNaa. The meaning intended
to be conveyed by this sentence is that Devadatta who is seen at the
present time in this place is the same as
the person who was seen earlier in
another place. The literal meaning of the
word `this' is Devadatta associated
with the present time and place. The literal
meaning of the word `that' is Devadatta associated with the past time and
some other place. Since this sentence purports
to convey the identity of the person seen
in different places at different times, we
get this meaning by discarding the reference
to the place and time conveyed by
the words `this' and `that' and retaining
the reference to Devadatta. This is also
known as bhaagatyaaga-lakshaNaa. The meaning
of the sentence tat tvam asi is
obtained by using this method. Just as in
the sentence "This is Devadatta" the
identity is stated by rejecting the opposed
qualities, so also in the sentence
"That thou art" the opposed qualities (namely,
the limiting adjuncts) are rejected.
Thus it follows that the
jiiva and Brahman are in essence one when the limiting
adjuncts, maayaa and the five sheaths, are
rejected. The above view, that jahadajahallakshaNaa is to be applied for
getting the meaning of this Mahaavaakya,
is the traditional and the most widely accepted
view. But the author of Vedaanta Paribhaashaa says, after stating this
view, that according to him it is not necessary to resort to implication
(lakshaNaa) at all (Chapter IV- Verbal testimony). In Samkshepas'aariirakam,
I.169, the adoption of jahallakshaNaa is mentioned as a
possible alternative, but the author has given
an indication in this verse itself that he
is not quite in favour of it. How knowledge
arises from the Mahaavaakya-two theories. According to one theory, known
as the prasankhyaana theory, attributed to MaNDana Mis'ra, the knowledge
which arises from the Mahaavaakya is relational and mediate,
like any other knowledge arising from a sentence.
Such a knowledge cannot apprehend Brahman which is non-relational (asamsr.shta)
and immediate (aparoksha). Meditation (prasankhyaana) gives rise to another
knowledge which is non-relational and immediate.
It is this knowledge that destroys nescience.
The view of Sures'vara is
the opposite of the above. Knowledge
of Brahman arises directly from the Mahaavaakyas. 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 Sures'vara, the knowledge
which arises from the Mahaavaakya is
immediate and non-relational, according
to the other theory this knowledge is only
mediate and relational. For an
elaborate discussion Sures'vara's Naishkarmyasiddhi
may be referred to. Following
the view of MaNDana, Vaachaspati Mis'ra holds that
the mind is the instrument
for the attainment of Self-knowledge.
Following the other view
stated above, Prakaas'aatman, the author
of VivaraNa
says that the Mahaavaakya itself
is the instrument, though the knowledge no doubt
arises in the mind. The Mahaavaakya
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
(akhaNDaakaaravr.tti)? 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 Mahaavaakya
`aham brahma asmi' This Mahaavaakya is
explained by Sures'vara 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". Sures'vara explains the statement aham
brahma asmi, ( I am Brahman), through what
is known as baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam. In
a sentence in Sanskrit, words which, having the same case-endings, denote
one and the same thing are said to
be in samaanaadhikaraNam.
The relation between the
words is called saamaanaadhikaraNyam. This relation is of
two kinds, mukhya saamaanaadhikaraNyam and
baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam. 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
(vyaavahaarika satya). The difference between them is only due to the upaadhi
in the form of the pot. When the upaadhi
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 baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam. 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 (vyaavahaarika) and "post" is only apparently real (praatibhaasika).
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 realises that he is Brahman on
hearing the
statement aham brahma asmi.
The same explanation of
this Mahaavaakya is given also in Panchadas'i,
8.43. The statement sarvam khalu idam brahma (Ch.up.3.14.1)-All this is
only Brahman-is also explained through baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam
in B.S. 1.3.1. S.B-- sarvam brahmeti tu saamaanaadhikaraNyam prapanchavilaapanaartham
-------- iti ekarasataas'ravaNaat----- The use of the words
'all' and `Brahman' in apposition in the text
`All this is but Brahman' is intended to eliminate the conception of the
universe (as a reality) and not for establishing heterogeneity (in Brahman).
For we hear of homogeneity
in 'As a lump of salt is without
interior or exterior, entire and purely saline in taste, even
so is the Self without
interior or exterior, entire and pure consciousness alone' (Br.up..4.5.13).