[Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
sriram
srirudra at vsnl.com
Fri Dec 11 10:04:20 CST 2009
Dear Shakthi Prashanth
Your idea of philosophy is flawed.Philosophy is the mother of all
sciences.It is to the credit of philosophers that our thinking process is
fine tuned and errors are eliminated.To denounce preaching of philosophy as
selfishness is a wrong .In fact philosophy is after truth only.And as to
your belief system that there may not be anything after death I have to say
that then all this enquiry is waste of time.There is Athman and eventhough
the body dies it dies not is the belief of all who are called asthikas.So
you can adopt an reductio ad absurdum method to know whether there is Athman
or not.Then start your journey for Truth.If you are a doubter then it is
meaningless to pursue any thought process leading to know
Brahman.R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shakthi Prashanth" <shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com>
To: <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
Thanks Sivasenani, for ur expressing your feeling.
I want to make a note here.
We are here to understand mostly the following aspects (I feel).
What this life is all about?
Who Am I?
Why am I here?
How did I come here?
Why am I like this?
What is the meaning of Birth, Death?
Where do I go after Death?
Where was I before Birth?
Who is controlling the entire universe?
Why do the planet in which we are, has life?
If there is no significance of Me after my death, probably there is no
meaning for philosophy. Am I right?
Suppose that I born in Shankaracharya's followers family. So, I will leatn
and follow Advaita philosophy. Do you know WHY? " I am in this group. "
If I born in the next incarnation as a son of Ramanujacharya's follower,
then I will follow and preach Vishishtadvaita philosophy. Do you know WHY? I
am *now* in this group.
And, in my third incarnation, I may be a son of Madhvacharya's follower, So
I follow Dvaita philosophy. WHY???? Now I am in *this* group.
So If we look at ourself as a whole in all three incarnations, it is a
studpidity.
The reason behind preaching philosophy is the Selfishness, not the truth.
So, If I have to know truth, no matter wherever I born, my learning is
consistent and constant.
I am not follower any particular philosophy, rather I am follower of
ULTIMATE TRUTH, no matter whichever it is.
I have expressed what I felt. Please forgive me if I am wrong.
Warm Regards,
Shakthi
["Blackle.com - Saving energy one search at a time"]
--- On Thu, 10/12/09, sivasenani at yahoo.com <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:
From: sivasenani at yahoo.com <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
To: "Michael Shepherd" <michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk>,
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Thursday, 10 December, 2009, 5:05 PM
Sir
If I may be permitted to speculate on exegetical gymnastics, it might be in
no small measure due to the post-advaitic schools trying to read a different
meaning into what the Vedas say very clearly.
Sometime back Sri Shakthi was posting one such attempt saying aham means not
ham and such non-sense! I find the effects of VisishTaadvaita acharyas
clearly in Thibaut, for instance. In sum, it might be less a Sanskrit -
English issue (it might interest you that Sanskrit has no synonyms - every
seemingly equivalent word gives a different sense: a vriksha is one which is
cut and a bhuruha is something which grows on earth, though both refer to a
tree - and this nuance in general seems to be fairly well captured by
Westerners, mostly by Germans based on what elders who know German as well
say) and more a pre-conceived notion, in this case implanted due to
unfortunate influences, about what the Vedas say.
A scholar with an open mind, somebody like you I dare say, relates quite
well across linguistic boundaries.
Best regards
Senani
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael Shepherd" <michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:27
To: A discussion group for Advaita
Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
Dear Sri Senani
A light-hearted addendum : Languages divide... but the frustrations of
Sanglish and Engskrit have their passing delights...
Take MacDonell struggling with the shades of the verb 'as' : Tattvamasi may
be translated as-- in you, That (Absolute) is, exists, happens, takes place,
dwells, is found in, is for, belongs to, accrues to, has, possesses, is
present in, is peculiar to, is ready for, is equal to, is capable of, is
sufficient for, occurs to...
I enjoyed reading that..
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Michael
Shepherd
Sent: 10 December 2009 14:18
To: sivasenani at yahoo.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
Dear Sri Senani
Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest,
most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit
explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything
that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier
simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And
grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living
purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large
pinch of organic sea-salt...
However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is
an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and
India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as
a broad consensus.
'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along
with -asmi.
So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :)
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
sivasenani at yahoo.com
Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar
I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi
is a pronominal suffix but could not.
I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply
an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham
brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'.
The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often
supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam
brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam
anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does
not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take
examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same
as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and
'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a
mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in
the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self.
In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama
purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we
were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in
Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam'
Best regards
Senani
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael Shepherd" <michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30
To: A discussion group for Advaita
Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
Anant
Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory
'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness')
am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The
'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The
king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the
battle'..
The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second,
also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar)
is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'.
Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be
taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So
this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is
indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya
'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu')
The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different
positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they
are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math
indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually
and together !
You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first
person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the
fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about
consciousness itself being universal as Brahman..
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
Somayaji, Ananth
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective
qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman
albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts
? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we
have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can
some one correct me if I am wrong ?
-Ananth
-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav
Kumar
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
well sir,
first take the sentence
brahma asmi
that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi'
implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham'
now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both
the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns.
therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation
itself is something novel. i have never come across it.
On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan <r_sthanu at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Shakthi,
>
> I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if
> "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be
> "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non
> Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is
> in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person.
>
> Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in
> learning sanskrit.
>
> regards
> Sthanu
>
> > But I have also heard an interpretation like this:
> >
> > "Aham Brahmasmi"
> > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.]
> >
> > So, it comes to a conclusion that,
> > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest.
>
>
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST)
> > From: Shakthi Prashanth <shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com>
> > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued]
> > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of
> > you.
> >
> > But I have also heard an interpretation like this:
> >
> > "Aham Brahmasmi"
> > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.]
> >
> > So, it comes to a conclusion that,
> > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest.
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
http://in.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list