Thursday 22 November 2012

I am Brahman


The statement, “I am Brahman” is the English translation of the Mantra “ Aham Brahmasmi” that appears in Brihadharanyaka Upanishad.  We can split this statement into two parts ‘I am’ and ‘Brahman’ and analyse what this statement conveys.

 ‘I am’ is a simple statement that any live human being can make.  From this statement can you guess the sex, age, religion, colour, or nationality of the person who makes it or has made it? No. It is a simple statement of awareness applicable to male or female, young, old, middle age or child; Hindu, Muslim, Christian or of any other religion or its sub-division.  In fact it is valid for every human being on this planet, why to every living being, if they could speak.  Let us now limit our analysis to human beings. In that sense though it is individualistic, in that it is applicable to an individual, it is also universal in that it can apply to any individual.  Simple ‘I am’, we can call the statement of oneness as it is same for one and all, becomes a statement of separation when we add our name and form to it, form that includes our educational, professional and achievement details, in short our personality details.  ‘I am’, the Consciousness is our real Self and our personality details constitute our ego self.  ‘I am”, I call the real Self as it is unchanging from birth to death while everything else about us keep on changing and is a statement of our consciousness and existence without any qualifications.  We are the mix of our real Self and the ego self.  The ego self sets one individual apart from the other, while the real Self is identical for all humans.  Normally we refer to our ego self only, by the simple I and the real Self by Athma.

Brahman, a Sanskrit word, stands for the Cosmic Supreme that is behind and beyond all creation.  This is just a word that is a pointer to the Supreme as the Supreme has no form or name and is beyond any conceptualisation or objectification. The word Brahman itself means big, to signify that it is simply big without any limitation as to size or dimension, indicating that it is bigger than anything you can possibly think or conceive. This we can see from the way Upanishads try to define the indefinable Brahman. One method is to say it negatively  i.e. what it is not.  In Mundakopanishad, Brahman is described as one having no sense organs, one that cannot be seen, one that has no attributes, one that cannot  be grasped, one that has no origin, in Mantra 1.1.6.  The other method is to describe it in such a way that you cannot form a picture of it from the description.  In the above mantra in the latter part Brahman is described as all-pervading, subtler than the subtlest and imperishable.  Brahman is also described as pure Existence and pure Consciousness in Taittreya Upanishad.

When the translation is read as such without splitting into the two parts and equating them, it means the ego self, I, is the same as Cosmic Supreme, Brahman, which appears incorrect on the face of it.  But if we split it into two parts ‘I am’ and ‘Brahman’ and then equate them, the statement then means one’s real Self, Athma is the same as the Cosmic Supreme, Brahman. It is like the waves and the ocean being equated as one on the basis both are water only .  The Mantra in original is termed Mahavakhya, as it reveals the identity of Jivathma, individual’s real Self with Paramathma, Cosmic Supreme. To bring out this meaning clearly in the translation, I feel the translation must read as “’I am’ is Brahman”, instead of “I am Brahman”.  This does not affect the original Mantra, only it brings out the meaning more clearly in the translation, for in the original Mantra, I, the ego, is not equated with Brahman but ‘I am’, the Consciousness and Existence, is only equated with Brahman, that is also Existence and Consciousness.  Language purists, please excuse.


------------------------------------- 

2 comments:

  1. AHAM BRAHMASMI leads to realisation and the route to this realisation is never through linguistics. Advaitha leads us to unsheath the covers or camouflages JIVATHMA. JIVATHMA is not my mind, nor my bhudhdhi,nor my intellect and this leads to knowing understanding or realising what is that I. Jivathma as realised existed in the same way even before realisation. The difference is that "I" has been understood. Now the realised person perceives the JIVATHMA (that he was mistakenly believing as I) as none other than Parmathma.
    Between these two moments of "Before Realisation" and "After realisation" what lied was NON-AWARENESS ( IGNORANCE IS NOT A MATCHING WORD) OF THE REALITY WHICH IS BRAHMIN.
    JAL MEIN KUMBHA KUMBHA MEIN JAL BAHAM BEETHAR PAANI.
    KUMBHA POOTATH JAL HI JAL SAMANA says Kabir also.
    BrahadAranyakam chap 1.10 closely read illustrates .
    Your eluciidation may perhaps suit dwaitis . By introducing the word IS in the place of AM, perhaps what is perceived is the existence of TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not so. These two things were never different.
    They were there and they were same also.
    I have thought them to be different and dissimilar.
    I have realised their oneness now.
    So
    I am Brahman.
    The same elucididation holds valid for all the other Maha Vakyas found in Other Vedhas also such as,
    Thath Thvam Asi.
    BTW, why dont u enlist yourself as a member of the K.S.Sastry's Research institute at Mylapore?
    I sh send u details soon.
    sury

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is done is only "I am" is equated with "Brahman". So there is really no dwaitham as in Thath Thvam Asi,where Thath is equated with Thvam. The translation is slightly modified to bring out the meaning of the original Mantra more clearly without ambiguity. Thanks for the comment.

      Delete