How to see brahman, or know brahman, is pointed out in kena upanisad, i.e kenopanisad
Pratibodha viditam matam
In every cognition, we should recognize brahman.
How to recognize brahman in every cognition?
What is involved in a cognition, in an act of cognition?
We can take an example of an act of cognition.
I see an apple. I is the one who sees, apple is an object of sight, and apple thought is the knowledge or thought that is seen, through which mind ascertains, that I see an apple.
Now how to recognize brahman here?
Brahman, first of all has to be non dual existence, as per the definition given by the shastra.
Secondly brahman has to be consciousness, as well.
Thirdly brahman has to be limitless.
So now how to recognize brahman in "I see the apple".
If we analyse what I refers to, it refers to atma, not the eye or the mind, as the kena upanisad has already clarified, what does I refer to?
I refers to chakshusaH chakshuH, manaso mano yat.
Eye of the eye, and mind of the mind. Hence I here refers to consciousness, because of which eye becomes seer, mind becomes knower, the truth of seer, knower , is consciousness, I.
So here I refers to brahman, in I see the apple, I refers to brahman.
Now what about the "apple thought" and the apple object?
Can we see it is other than brahman?, no we cannot .
If we see it is other than brahman, then the seer brahman, becomes another space bound object. And brahman necessarily has to be limitless.
So how to now see apple thought, and apple object.
Apple thought, is a thought. what is the reality of any thought, the reality of thought is consciousness only.
When we say, apple, mango , banana, each of these are a thought, and what is invariable present, as the truth of the thought, as the reality of the thought is not available as an object of course. If it were an object we cannot say brahman is limitless.
Also if we say it is limited to being subject alone, again we cannot say so, as the truth of the subject is not limited by space.
So only explanation is one given by shastra, the reality of the thought is "I" the consciousness or brahman.
Then finally the reality of the object, apple is also "I".
It seems hard to believe at first, due to the dehatma buddhi, but it is indeed the truth. What is the apple object, apple object has its reality in something else, all that is "seen" is mithya, has its reality in satyam. Brahman is that satyam.
We habitually lend reality to object, reality of their "own", but on little analysis itself, we cannot find any object with a reality of its own.
When we examine a tree, a tree is made of non tree parts, such as leaves, stem, etc.
The leaf itself breaks into multiple "is's" as cholorphyll IS and so on, again multiple "is'es" for different names and forms we say "is" and that makes up the jagad, names within names, nAmani, nAmAni. Many names within one name, there are infinite names. All these are names of what, of the one reality, that reality is sat, and that sat is I.
When we say I see the apple, the truth of I, is indeed the truth of seeing, as well as seen.
Reality of seer, seen, seeing is one atma, oneself. In the seer recognise atma as seer. In the seem recognise it is atma when we say "apple is". The apple thought is also brahman. Thus let the vyavaharik be, in the vyavahara itself recognize seer is brahman, seen is brahman, seeing is brahman. Bangle is gold, ring is gold, chain is gold.
Thus one can recognize, oneself as brahman, in every cognition I remain the non subject, non object brahman. As the subject also, I remain brahman and non dual, so the subject I becomes a role, which is mithya. The object and the thought is also brahman or atman.
At the level of ahamkara alone we say "I am the seer". That is vyavaharika. We do not deny the vyavaharika reality that you are indeed the seer of the apple. But when we talk about moksa we recognize the reality to be only vyavaharika, and recognize the fact that I am the truth of all that is here, brahman.
Then only vyavahara is seen objectively as ultimately untrue, only transactionally true.
Pratibodha viditam matam
In every cognition, we should recognize brahman.
How to recognize brahman in every cognition?
What is involved in a cognition, in an act of cognition?
We can take an example of an act of cognition.
I see an apple. I is the one who sees, apple is an object of sight, and apple thought is the knowledge or thought that is seen, through which mind ascertains, that I see an apple.
Now how to recognize brahman here?
Brahman, first of all has to be non dual existence, as per the definition given by the shastra.
Secondly brahman has to be consciousness, as well.
Thirdly brahman has to be limitless.
So now how to recognize brahman in "I see the apple".
If we analyse what I refers to, it refers to atma, not the eye or the mind, as the kena upanisad has already clarified, what does I refer to?
I refers to chakshusaH chakshuH, manaso mano yat.
Eye of the eye, and mind of the mind. Hence I here refers to consciousness, because of which eye becomes seer, mind becomes knower, the truth of seer, knower , is consciousness, I.
So here I refers to brahman, in I see the apple, I refers to brahman.
Now what about the "apple thought" and the apple object?
Can we see it is other than brahman?, no we cannot .
If we see it is other than brahman, then the seer brahman, becomes another space bound object. And brahman necessarily has to be limitless.
So how to now see apple thought, and apple object.
Apple thought, is a thought. what is the reality of any thought, the reality of thought is consciousness only.
When we say, apple, mango , banana, each of these are a thought, and what is invariable present, as the truth of the thought, as the reality of the thought is not available as an object of course. If it were an object we cannot say brahman is limitless.
Also if we say it is limited to being subject alone, again we cannot say so, as the truth of the subject is not limited by space.
So only explanation is one given by shastra, the reality of the thought is "I" the consciousness or brahman.
Then finally the reality of the object, apple is also "I".
It seems hard to believe at first, due to the dehatma buddhi, but it is indeed the truth. What is the apple object, apple object has its reality in something else, all that is "seen" is mithya, has its reality in satyam. Brahman is that satyam.
We habitually lend reality to object, reality of their "own", but on little analysis itself, we cannot find any object with a reality of its own.
When we examine a tree, a tree is made of non tree parts, such as leaves, stem, etc.
The leaf itself breaks into multiple "is's" as cholorphyll IS and so on, again multiple "is'es" for different names and forms we say "is" and that makes up the jagad, names within names, nAmani, nAmAni. Many names within one name, there are infinite names. All these are names of what, of the one reality, that reality is sat, and that sat is I.
When we say I see the apple, the truth of I, is indeed the truth of seeing, as well as seen.
Reality of seer, seen, seeing is one atma, oneself. In the seer recognise atma as seer. In the seem recognise it is atma when we say "apple is". The apple thought is also brahman. Thus let the vyavaharik be, in the vyavahara itself recognize seer is brahman, seen is brahman, seeing is brahman. Bangle is gold, ring is gold, chain is gold.
Thus one can recognize, oneself as brahman, in every cognition I remain the non subject, non object brahman. As the subject also, I remain brahman and non dual, so the subject I becomes a role, which is mithya. The object and the thought is also brahman or atman.
At the level of ahamkara alone we say "I am the seer". That is vyavaharika. We do not deny the vyavaharika reality that you are indeed the seer of the apple. But when we talk about moksa we recognize the reality to be only vyavaharika, and recognize the fact that I am the truth of all that is here, brahman.
Then only vyavahara is seen objectively as ultimately untrue, only transactionally true.
No comments:
Post a Comment