Atma is a to be known, it is the subject matter of vedanta shAstra.
In other words, every shAstra deals with some kind of knowledge, vedanta shAstra deals with atma, as the subject matter.
Vedanta also equally deals with ishvara as the subject matter.
The same shAstra deals with both atma, as well as ishvara as the subject matter of its contents, the reason being, that , the knowledge that is available in the shAstra, is one that equates atma to ishvara.
Hence both atma-the self, and ishvara- the universal manifest orderly cause of this creation i.e. the total, are both the subject matter.
Any knowledge has to reveal some vastu. Since vedanta reveals atma, and ishvara, again one must not mistake that two different vastu are revealed, rather one vastu alone is revealed, since this is essentially an equation between atma and ishvara.
So summarising, the first unique aspect of vedanta is that, it has both ishvara and atma as its subject matter, by revealing only one vastu, which is essentially an equation between atma and ishvara.
The second unique aspect of vedanta is as follows.
Any shAstra, or source of knowledge, deals with knowledge of an object, or about an object, which becomes evident to atma, or the knower, oneself.
Since in the case of vedanta, atma itself is the object of knowledge, vedanta becomes very unique, since atma is ever the subject, and never an object, that being the case, it is very puzzling as to how can vedanta become a means of knowledge for atma, which is the subject.
Moreover, it is a fact, that atma is self evident, which means, it does not need to be revealed, everyone always knows that I 'am' , and I am is self evident , doesnt require to be known, hence if it is said that atma is the subject matter of vedanta, this still remains a puzzling aspect.
If one were to say, alright, perhaps atma is already known, but there are certain aspects about it , which one doesnt know, and shAstra talks about those aspects, even that though initially may seem promising, on inquiry this is also found to be illogical.
how can you say so, one may ask.. it is a very logical thing to say, one may argue, One may give an example that, look, suppose I know my son, however there are certain things about my son that even I dont know, and someone , some friend of his tells me, I get to learn a new aspect about him, hence isnt that possible in the case of atma. Perhaps shAstra reveals aspects about atma, which I did not know.
If one is to examine this above argument, it is found to be faulty, the reason being that atma is formless subject. Only objects can have attributes, can have aspects, can be categorised, and can have more attributes about it that can be known. However atma is the formless subject , with no attributes that are 'knowable', If it did have attributes, these attributes would be knowable through a means of knowledge, if it had 'non knowable' attributes, then again it is a logical fallacy, since what is 'non knowable' through any means, is essentially non existent.
So clearly atma is the formless attributeless vastu, being the very content of the subject.
This being the case we can safely negate the assumption that shAstra reveals some aspect of atma, as atma has no aspects.
So atma is self revealing, and atma has no aspects, then the question remains that this being so, how can atma become the subject matter of vedanta shAstra.
Earlier we had said that vedanta gives knowledge of both atma and ishvara. And it equates ishvara and atma.
Hence this can give a clue as to what vedanta reveals.
Vedanta does not reveal anything new, atma being self evident.
However all vedanta does, is, it equates this self evident atma, to ishvara.
And when vedanta says ishvara, it bears upon itself the responsibility to define what ishvara means,
So ishvara is explained in so many words in vedanta, the famous sentences being " the Upanisadic statement “that from which everything comes into being, by whom they are sustained and unto whom they go back” does not mention any cause other than Brahman. It also quotes: “This (universe) was indeed the unmanifest (Brahman) in the beginning. From that alone the manifest (universe) was
born. That (Brahman) created itself by itself. Therefore, it is said to be the self-creator.”
Asadvä idamagra asét|Tato
tadätmänaggssvayamakuruta|Tasmättatsukåtamucyata iti| Yadvai
tat sukåtam|Taittiréya Upaniñad, 2.7.1.
This is what is said to be ishvara.
Thus when ishvara is equated to atma, then quite clearly, this cause which is called brahman is said to be the self evident atma, oneself.
So this is the second unique aspect of vedanta is that, the knowledge of vedanta is in the form of an equation which has a two sides, and atma that is self evident is equated to being ishvara, the cause for this creation.
Hence no new vastu is revealed rather an equation is made, the equation itself conveying some knowledge.
However any knowledge has to be logically assimilable. One should be able to logically assimilate the knowledge.
In the next post, we can discuss , how this knowledge that atma , is nothing but the one who "desired created all that is here" can indeed be logical.
In other words, every shAstra deals with some kind of knowledge, vedanta shAstra deals with atma, as the subject matter.
Vedanta also equally deals with ishvara as the subject matter.
The same shAstra deals with both atma, as well as ishvara as the subject matter of its contents, the reason being, that , the knowledge that is available in the shAstra, is one that equates atma to ishvara.
Hence both atma-the self, and ishvara- the universal manifest orderly cause of this creation i.e. the total, are both the subject matter.
Any knowledge has to reveal some vastu. Since vedanta reveals atma, and ishvara, again one must not mistake that two different vastu are revealed, rather one vastu alone is revealed, since this is essentially an equation between atma and ishvara.
So summarising, the first unique aspect of vedanta is that, it has both ishvara and atma as its subject matter, by revealing only one vastu, which is essentially an equation between atma and ishvara.
The second unique aspect of vedanta is as follows.
Any shAstra, or source of knowledge, deals with knowledge of an object, or about an object, which becomes evident to atma, or the knower, oneself.
Since in the case of vedanta, atma itself is the object of knowledge, vedanta becomes very unique, since atma is ever the subject, and never an object, that being the case, it is very puzzling as to how can vedanta become a means of knowledge for atma, which is the subject.
Moreover, it is a fact, that atma is self evident, which means, it does not need to be revealed, everyone always knows that I 'am' , and I am is self evident , doesnt require to be known, hence if it is said that atma is the subject matter of vedanta, this still remains a puzzling aspect.
If one were to say, alright, perhaps atma is already known, but there are certain aspects about it , which one doesnt know, and shAstra talks about those aspects, even that though initially may seem promising, on inquiry this is also found to be illogical.
how can you say so, one may ask.. it is a very logical thing to say, one may argue, One may give an example that, look, suppose I know my son, however there are certain things about my son that even I dont know, and someone , some friend of his tells me, I get to learn a new aspect about him, hence isnt that possible in the case of atma. Perhaps shAstra reveals aspects about atma, which I did not know.
If one is to examine this above argument, it is found to be faulty, the reason being that atma is formless subject. Only objects can have attributes, can have aspects, can be categorised, and can have more attributes about it that can be known. However atma is the formless subject , with no attributes that are 'knowable', If it did have attributes, these attributes would be knowable through a means of knowledge, if it had 'non knowable' attributes, then again it is a logical fallacy, since what is 'non knowable' through any means, is essentially non existent.
So clearly atma is the formless attributeless vastu, being the very content of the subject.
This being the case we can safely negate the assumption that shAstra reveals some aspect of atma, as atma has no aspects.
So atma is self revealing, and atma has no aspects, then the question remains that this being so, how can atma become the subject matter of vedanta shAstra.
Earlier we had said that vedanta gives knowledge of both atma and ishvara. And it equates ishvara and atma.
Hence this can give a clue as to what vedanta reveals.
Vedanta does not reveal anything new, atma being self evident.
However all vedanta does, is, it equates this self evident atma, to ishvara.
And when vedanta says ishvara, it bears upon itself the responsibility to define what ishvara means,
So ishvara is explained in so many words in vedanta, the famous sentences being " the Upanisadic statement “that from which everything comes into being, by whom they are sustained and unto whom they go back” does not mention any cause other than Brahman. It also quotes: “This (universe) was indeed the unmanifest (Brahman) in the beginning. From that alone the manifest (universe) was
born. That (Brahman) created itself by itself. Therefore, it is said to be the self-creator.”
Asadvä idamagra asét|Tato
tadätmänaggssvayamakuruta|Tasmättatsukåtamucyata iti| Yadvai
tat sukåtam|Taittiréya Upaniñad, 2.7.1.
This is what is said to be ishvara.
Thus when ishvara is equated to atma, then quite clearly, this cause which is called brahman is said to be the self evident atma, oneself.
So this is the second unique aspect of vedanta is that, the knowledge of vedanta is in the form of an equation which has a two sides, and atma that is self evident is equated to being ishvara, the cause for this creation.
Hence no new vastu is revealed rather an equation is made, the equation itself conveying some knowledge.
However any knowledge has to be logically assimilable. One should be able to logically assimilate the knowledge.
In the next post, we can discuss , how this knowledge that atma , is nothing but the one who "desired created all that is here" can indeed be logical.
No comments:
Post a Comment