The Mahaavaakyas

 Statements in the upanishads declaring the identity of the jiiva and Brahman are known as Mahaavaakyas. S’rii S’ankara says in Viveka chuuDaamaNi, verse 251 that there are a hundred (i.e. innumerable) such statements in the s’ruti. Out of these, four statements from the four Vedas are well known. They are:-

prajnaanam Brahma –Ait.up. 3.13--- R.g Veda,

aham brahma asmi- Br.up.1.4.10—Yajur Veda,

 tat tvam asi- Ch.up. 6.8.7—Saama veda,

 ayam aatmaa brahma- MaaND.up. 2.

              The meaning of tat tvam asi

V.C.- Commentary of S’rii Jagadguru Chandras’ekhara Bhaarati on verses 243 to 251—

The word tat stands for Brahman as qualified by the functions of creation, sustenance and dissolution (i.e.iis’vara). The word tvam stands for the aatmaa as qualified by the mental states of waking, dream and deep sleep (i.e.jiiva). These two are of mutually opposed qualities, like the glow-worm and the sun, like the servant and the king, like the well and the ocean and like the atom and the earth (verse 244). There can be no identity between these two, which are the literal meanings (vaachyaartha) of the words tat and tvam. The identity is only between their implied meanings (lakshyaartha). The opposition between the literal meanings is due to the upadhis, since the literal meaning of tat is Brahman with the upadhi or limiting adjunct of maayaa and the literal meaning of tvam is aatmaa with the limiting adjunct of the five sheaths. When these limiting adjuncts, which are not real, are effectively removed, there is neither iis’vara nor jiiva. The two terms tat and tvam (That and Thou) are to be understood properly by their implied meanings in order to grasp the import of the absolute identity between them. This is to be done neither by total rejection of their literal meaning nor by total non-rejection, but by a combination of both.            

 Implied meanings are of three kinds—jahallakshaNaa, ajahal- lakshaNaa and jahadajahallakshaNaa. 

 jahallakshaNaa- The literal meaning is to be rejected and some other meaning consistent with it is to be adopted. An example is—gangaayaam ghoshaH, the literal meaning of which is—a hamlet on the river Ganga. Since there cannot be a hamlet on the river itself, it is the bank of the river that is meant. Here the literal meaning of the word ‘Ganga’ has to be given up completely and the implied meaning ’bank’ has to be adopted.   

ajahallakshaNaa- Without giving up the literal meaning of the word, what is implied by it is also adopted to get the meaning intended to be conveyed. An example is—“The red is running”, which is intended to convey that the red horse is running. Here the literal meaning of the word ‘red’ is retained and the implied word ‘horse’ is added to get the correct sense of the sentence.

jahadajahallakshaNaa- Here a part of the literal meaning is retained and the other part discarded. The sentence “This is that Devadatta” is interpreted by using this lakshaNaa. The meaning intended to be conveyed by this sentence is that Devadatta who is seen at the present time in this place is the same as the person who was seen earlier in another place. The literal meaning of the word ‘this’ is Devadatta associated with the present time and place. The literal meaning of the word ‘that’ is Devadatta associated with the past time and some other place. Since this sentence purports to convey the identity of the person seen in different places at different times, we get this meaning by discarding the reference to the place and time conveyed by the words ‘this’ and ‘that’ and retaining the reference to Devadatta. This is also known as bhaagatyaaga-lakshaNaa. The meaning of the sentence tat tvam asi is obtained by using this method. Just as in the sentence “This is Devadatta” the identity is stated by rejecting the contradictory qualities, so also in the sentence “That thou art” the contradictory qualities (namely, the limiting adjuncts)  are rejected. Thus it follows that the jiiva and Brahman are in essence one when the limiting adjuncts, maayaa and the five sheaths, are rejected.  

                  The above view, that jahadajahallakshaNaa is to be applied for getting the meaning of this Mahaavaakya, is the traditional and the most widely accepted view. But the author of Vedaanta Paribhaashaa says, after stating this view, that according to him it is not necessary to resort to implication (lakshaNaa) at all (Chapter IV- Verbal testimony).

                   In Samkshepas’aariirakam, I.169, the adoption of jahallakshaNaa is mentioned as a possible alternative, but the author has given an indication in this verse itself that he is not quite in favour of it.

How knowledge arises from the Mahaavaakya—two theories.

According to one theory, known as the prasankhyaana theory, attributed to MaNDana Mis’ra, the knowledge which arises from the Mahaavaakya is relational and mediate, like any other knowledge arising from a sentence. Such a knowledge cannot apprehend Brahman which is non-relational (asamsr.shta) and immediate (aparoksha). Meditation (prasankhyaana) gives rise to another knowledge which is non-relational and immediate. It is this knowledge that destroys nescience.

The view of Sures’vara is the opposite of the above. Knowledge of Brahman arises directly from the Mahaavaakyas. According to him also, meditation is necessary, but it is only for perfecting the hearing. The difference between the two theories is that, while, according to Sures’vara, the knowledge which arises from the Mahaavaakya is immediate and non-relational, according to the other theory this knowledge is only mediate and relational. For an elaborate discussion Sures'vara's  Naishkarmyasiddhi may be referred to.

          Following the view of MaNDana, Vaachaspati Mis’ra holds that the mind is the instrument  for the attainment of Self-knowledge. Following the other view stated above, Prakaas’aatman, the author of VivaraNa says that the Mahaavaakya itself is the instrument, though the knowledge no doubt arises in the mind.    

          The Mahaavaakya gives rise to Self-knowledge by making the mind take the form of Brahman. The question arises-- since Brahman has no form, what is meant by saying that the mind takes the form of Brahman (akhaNDaakaaravr.tti)? This is explained by Vidyaranya in Jivanmuktiviveka, chapter 3 by taking an example. A pot made of clay is full of the all-pervading space as soon as it is made. Filling it afterwards with water, rice or any other substance is due to human effort. Though the water, etc, in the pot can be removed, the space inside can never be removed. It continues to be there even if the mouth of the pot is hermetically sealed. In the same manner, the mind, in the act of being born, comes into existence full of the consciousness of the self. It takes on, after its birth, due to the influence of virtue and vice, the form of pots, cloths, colour, taste, pleasure, pain, and other transformations, just like melted copper, cast into moulds. Of these, the transformations such as colour, taste and the like, which are not-self, can be removed from the mind, but the form of the self, which does not depend on any external cause, cannot be removed at all. Thus, when all other ideas are removed from the mind, the self is realized without any impediment. It has been said-“One should cause the mind which, by its very nature, is ever prone to assume either of the two forms of the Self and the not-Self, to throw into the background the perception of the not-Self, by taking on the form of the Self alone”. And also—“The mind takes on the form of pleasure, pain and the like, because of the influence of virtue and vice, whereas the form of the mind, in its native aspect, is not conditioned by any extraneous cause. To the mind devoid of all transformations is revealed the supreme Bliss”. Thus, when the mind is emptied of all other thoughts Self-knowledge arises.                 

      The meaning of the Mahaavaakya ‘aham brahma asmi’

 This Mahaavaakya is explained by Sures’vara in Naishkarmyasiddhi, 2.29 thus:--Just as in the sentence, “This post is a man”, the earlier cognition that there is a post is sublated by the subsequent cognition that it is a man (and not a post), the cognition “I am Brahman” removes entirely the cognition as “I”. Sures’vara explains the statement aham brahma asmi, ( I am Brahman), through what is known as baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam. In a sentence in Sanskrit, words which, having the same case-endings, denote one and the same thing are said to be in samaanaadhikaraNam. The relation between the words is called saamaanaadhikaraNyam. This relation is of two kinds, mukhya saamaanaadhikaraNyam and baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam. In the former, the objects denoted by the words will have the same ontological status (or the same order of reality). For example, in the sentence, the pot-space is but the great (outer) space, the space within the pot and the great space are both empirically real (vyaavahaarika satya). The difference between them is only due to the upaadhi in the form of the pot. When the upaadhi is removed, they become one, which they really are, even earlier. But if the words of a sentence, having the same case-endings, denote objects which have different ontological status, and if they purport to convey only one idea, they are in baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam. For example, in the statement “This post is a man”, the words “post” and “man” have different ontological status. Since what exists is a man and not a post, “man” is empirically real (vyaavahaarika) and “post” is only apparently real (praatibhaasika). Thus, just as the idea that what is seen is a post is removed when the person hears the statement ”This post is a man”, the wrong cognition of the form ‘I am a man’, ‘I am happy’ etc, is removed when a person realises that he is Brahman on hearing the statement aham brahma asmi.

        The same explanation of this Mahaavaakya is given also in Panchadas’i, 8.43.                  

The statement sarvam khalu idam brahma (Ch.up.3.14.1)—All this is only Brahman—is also explained through baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaraNyam in B.S. 1.3.1. S.B--  sarvam brahmeti tu saamaanaadhikaraNyam prapanchavilaapanaartham -------- iti ekarasataas’ravaNaat----- The use of the words ‘all’ and ‘Brahman’ in apposition in the text ‘All this is but Brahman’ is intended to eliminate the conception of the universe (as a reality) and not for establishing heterogeneity (in Brahman). For we hear of homogeneity in ‘ As a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire and purely saline in taste, even so is the Self without interior or exterior, entire and pure consciousness alone’ (Br.up..4.5.13).  

 To Contents