sAmAnAdhikaraNyam/intros and table

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram wrote:

> Would someone comment on the first paragraph. Why is the author saying, "If
> we are asked to meditate on
> jIva as Brahman, repetition of the mahAvAkya (8)  is
> not necessary."
>

Because there is (apparently) more than one jiva.  If we say the jiva is
brahman does that mean Shrikrishna is Brahman or Jaldhar is Brahman?

Of course te real answer is both (and many more) are Brahman and the
concept that its is ones own self is Brahman is only provisional, a useful
meditation because it is ones' own self that one is most familiar with.

> Also in the beginning of the article itself the mahA vAkya, "
>
> Also, in the foot notes while mentioning the four mahA vAkyas, it is
> mentioned:
>
> "1  The first mahAvAkya is a lakshaNavAkya
> (definition); the second is an anusandhAna vAkya
> (sentence of practice); the third is an upadeShavAkya
> (sentence of instruction); while the last one is an
> anubhavavakya (sentence of experience)."
>
> i.e the mahA vAkyA, "aham brahmAsmi" is an anusandhAna vAkya. How is
> anusandhAna different from "meditaion" ?
>

It isn't.  The novice approaches "I am Brahman" under the mistaken idea
that "I" is known and "Brahman" is unknown but leaves thinking Brahman is
known and I is unknown.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/