Mahavakya and Abject surrender is there contradiction

There have been threads on Mahavakya.
https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=9488&p=149059#post149059
[h=1]Mahavakyas: The Great Contemplations[/h]

​

​

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]Sanskrit:[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]English:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]1. Brahma satyam jagan mithya[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is real; the world is unreal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]2. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is one, without a second[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]3. Prajnanam brahman[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is the supreme knowledge[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]4. Tat tvam asi[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]That is what you are[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]5. Ayam atma brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Atman and brahman are the same[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]6. Aham brahmasmi[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]I am brahman[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]7. Sarvam khalvidam brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]All of this is brahman

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

​

http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm#brahmasatyam


If everything is Brahman, where is the need for surrender? Who is surrendering to whom?

prasad1 said:

There have been threads on Mahavakya.
https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=9488&p=149059#post149059
[h=1]Mahavakyas: The Great Contemplations[/h]

​

​

​

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]Sanskrit:[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]English:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]1. Brahma satyam jagan mithya[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is real; the world is unreal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]2. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is one, without a second[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]3. Prajnanam brahman[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is the supreme knowledge[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]4. Tat tvam asi[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]That is what you are[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]5. Ayam atma brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Atman and brahman are the same[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]6. Aham brahmasmi[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]I am brahman[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]7. Sarvam khalvidam brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]All of this is brahman

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

​

​

http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm#brahmasatyam


If everything is Brahman, where is the need for surrender? Who is surrendering to whom?

Click to expand...

Recently I had some inputs about the surrender concepy from a Sufi perspective.

The Sufi told this..

"True surrender requires both dimensions, inwardly and outwardly. It is impossible to truly fully surrender in humility without an external discipline, one in which we unequivocally recognize our Lord and Creator, and learn to draw nearer unto He with love as He Almighty has prescribed.

Everything else is still ego"



From what I gathered from the Sufi about surrender is most of us humans have not much idea about true surrender contrary to what many of us believe.

He said as long as the ego(nafs) exists and identifies with form/ external identity etc..none of us have surrendered.

I guess many of us just claim surrender/ bhakti but as long as the ego exists none of us know any bhakti.

prasad1 said:

There have been threads on Mahavakya.
https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=9488&p=149059#post149059
Mahavakyas: The Great Contemplations

​

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]Sanskrit:[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]English:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]1. Brahma satyam jagan mithya[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is real; the world is unreal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]2. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is one, without a second[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]3. Prajnanam brahman[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Brahman is the supreme knowledge[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]4. Tat tvam asi[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]That is what you are[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]5. Ayam atma brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]Atman and brahman are the same[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]6. Aham brahmasmi[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]I am brahman[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"]7. Sarvam khalvidam brahma[/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"]All of this is brahman

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm#brahmasatyam


If everything is Brahman, where is the need for surrender? Who is surrendering to whom?

Click to expand...

hi

then bhagavan says...........SARVA DHARMAAN PARITYJA MAAM EKAM SARANAM VRJAAA..here comes surrender...

moksha has stages....SAAYUJYA ..SAAMIPYA....but according to advatin...VAAAKYA JANYA JNANAM EVA BRAHMAN...

JEEVATMA SURRENDER TO PARAMATMA...FIRST BEDHA AND THEN ABHEDA JNANAM..

Everything is brahman indeed but each operates at a different level of consciousness. So it makes sense that one at a lower level of consciousness seeks the help of one at a higher level of consciousness.

I think no one knows what surrender is.
There is a contradiction in the very idea of surrender.

If you try to believe these 'Mahavakyas' as a non-dualist then we only see confused people, even more so with the idea of surrender.

If you do lip service to these 'Mahavakyas' and you are sort of dualist then they do not know and do not care to know but you are then clear about surrender because you go through ritual of surrender.

I am yet to see a clear explanation of what surrender is and why one must do so.

Not sold on spiritual mumbo jumbo about some people being more spiritually evolved than others. That is all ego talk to me


I say that it is all about blind leading the blind in these forums - That is my vision LOL

a-TB said:

I think no one knows what surrender is.
There is a contradiction in the very idea of surrender.

If you try to believe these 'Mahavakyas' as a non-dualist then we only see confused people, even more so with the idea of surrender.

If you do lip service to these 'Mahavakyas' and you are sort of dualist then they do not know and do not care to know but you are then clear about surrender because you go through ritual of surrender.

I am yet to see a clear explanation of what surrender is and why one must do so.

Not sold on spiritual mumbo jumbo about some people being more spiritually evolved than others. That is all ego talk to me


I say that it is all about blind leading the blind in these forums - That is my vision LOL

Click to expand...

I read a 182 page Sufi book yesterday titled Mercy Oceans by Shaykh Nazim Qibrisi...even though it talks about surrender of ego(nafs) yet there were many unanswered questions.

But over all the book is a good read...its gives you an insight about some aspects of surrender...its almost like Vaishnavaism..until you start to wonder what am I reading? The bhaktas of the highest rank are called Awliya(meaning supporter/guardians)...sounds so similar to Alwar!

(back to story)..the concept in Sufism that is you realize you need to go back to the Divine and the highest stage would be the one who just wants to dwell in the essence of the Divine and nothing exists in your heart besides God..hence the famous line "Ma Fi Qalbi Ghairullah"

It does not really go Advaitic ..there is no Tat Tvam Asi or Aham Brahmasmi concept.

So Mr a-TB...I have to agree with you that I dont think anyone of us knows what surrender is all about finally.

When you really surrender you know that God is all powerful and will take care of your evolution. In a more immediate sense it is the understanding that He will take care of your problems concerning your present life but a more far sighted view would be to acknowledge that one's evolution spans a number of births and that a solution to a problem in one's current life will not be in the ultimate interest of the soul and God with His complete grasp of the whole will do what is right only to every soul ultimately, balancing all the factors perfectly.

Total surrender is like saying that unconditionally I accept God is all powerful and that He will take care of my evolution and my final liberation

sravna said:

Total surrender is like saying that unconditionally I accept God is all powerful and that He will take care of my evolution and my final liberation

Click to expand...

There was a time when Sravnaji used to be all about Advaita, then he got lost.
Where is God (all powerful) in Brahman?

There is no other in "aham Brahmansmi".

If I am Brahman there is no room for surrender.

prasad1 said:

There was a time when Sravnaji used to be all about Advaita, then he got lost.
Where is God (all powerful) in Brahman?

There is no other in "aham Brahmansmi".

If I am Brahman there is no room for surrender.

Click to expand...

The story goes that we do not " realize" we are Brahman.
We only read that its Aham Brahmaasmi but we have not experienced it.

Actually I feel its futile finally..whether its Advaita or Vishisthadvaita..it might just be some hallucination of some writer.

Best is just live well then die.
The only Aham I know is Aham Renuka Asmi.

An abject surrender to Aurangjeb or any other dictator might produce favorable results than surrender to God (who is imaginary).

Few thoughts here...

"sa ya eSo aNima aitadAtmyaM idaM sarvam tat satyam sa Atma tat tvam asi Svetaketu"

That (Sa) which (ya) those (eSa) minuteness/atomicity (aNima) those property of Atman (etad Atmya) here (idaM) everything (sarvam) is that eternity (tat satyam), that Atman (sa Atma) that (tat) in you (tvam) exists (asi) Svetaketu

"The property of Atman is that of minuteness which is present in everything as eternal, that Atma exists in you Svetaketu" - says Uddalaka.

aNima is difficult to be translated. it can be called 'minuteness', 'atomicity', 'mystic potency' etc etc etc. it is the property of Atma. It is present in everything as eternal. That potency/minuteness exists in you Svetaketu, says his father, in Chandogya Upanishad.

**
Chandogya Upanishad also describes this property of Atma in more detail.

A. Tasya kva mulam syad anyatra adbhyah - That which is the 'root-cause' of others. (which is not caused by anything else)

B."..........yad-yad bhavanti,tadabhavanti" -- whichever manifests that unmanifests". - Causing continuous manifestation

C. "imah sarvah prajah sataagamya na viduh, sata agacchamaha iti" - that by which everything goes in and out of consciousness (sleep/wake up) (and remain the same)

D. "Na jivo mriyata" - Living beings die, but the 'life' itself does not die

E. "esho’nimna evammahan nyagrodhas-tishthati" - That which causes a small seed to grow into a banyan tree

F. Like a salt dissolved in water is not visible, but changes taste, that which is dissolved and hence inferred

G. That from which we have come a long way, blindfolded and to locate our origin receiving complex set of instructions

H. That which makes the 'manas', drives the 'prAna' and the energy metabolism (tejas)

So the property of Atman is the 'root-cause', causes repeated manifestation, gives consciousness, ensures life in itself does not die out, that causes a small seed to grow big, that which may not be seen, but inferred, from which we have come a long way blindfolded and hence need complex instructions to locate it, that which is in the manas.

Modern science may call it 'process of evolution'. But who drives the evolution..? So Chandogya Upanishad calls it the 'property of evolution' which is located everywhere and deep inside as the 'Atma'.

Vedantins call it the 'Soul'.

Philosopher call it the 'Consciousness'.

**
The concept of surrender comes from 'nyAsa' mentioned in vedas and Upanishads. 'nyAsa' actually means 'giving up ownership', 'depositing/delivering', 'resigning', 'renunciation'. saMnyAsa means giving up everything.

The realisation that there is this 'Atma' or 'property of evolution' that changes everything, that is present everywhere leads us to 'nyAsa', a sense of giving up. We do not see us and others as 'originators' but beings caught in the torrent of evolution/Atma.

This leads to giving up of the sense of 'I am the powerful/cause' attitude. This the 'nyAsa' or giving up and understanding our actions in the overall scheme of evolution.

'nyAsa' is this realization, rather than an external submission.

-TBT

prasad1 said:

An abject surrender to Aurangjeb or any other dictator might produce favorable results than surrender to God (who is imaginary).

Click to expand...

Aurangzeb may grab your wife and daughter and take them away to his harem when you are in abject surrender while God will not do that.

And that is a lot of difference.

prasad1 said:

An abject surrender to Aurangjeb or any other dictator might produce favorable results than surrender to God (who is imaginary).

Click to expand...

Can you please give proof of any favorable results?

In the case of abject surrender, when woman involved, will the dictator allow the father or husband as the case may be, to walk free with a bounty or go to hell or heaven?

CHANDRU1849 said:

Can you please give proof of any favorable results?

Click to expand...

My quote was just a metaphor. But here is a proof.
During the eight-month siege the Mughals faced many hardships including the death of their experienced commander Kilich Khan Bahadur. Eventually, Aurangzeb and his forces managed to penetrate the walls by capturing a gate, and their entry into the fort led Abul Hasan Qutb Shah to surrender peacefully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

prasad1 said:

My quote was just a metaphor. But here is a proof.
During the eight-month siege the Mughals faced many hardships including the death of their experienced commander Kilich Khan Bahadur. Eventually, Aurangzeb and his forces managed to penetrate the walls by capturing a gate, and their entry into the fort led Abul Hasan Qutb Shah to surrender peacefully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

Click to expand...

What happened after the surrender? Was he allowed to leave with a bounty or sent to gas chamber?

CHANDRU1849 said:

What happened after the surrender? Was he allowed to leave with a bounty or sent to gas chamber?

Click to expand...

Sir,
Are you not getting away from the topic of the thread.
If you want history lessons try google. Qutb Shah was made the King (I do not know) nor do I care.

My point was that if you pray to a Human there is a chance that you will get what (material thing) you wanted, but praying to a God (Any God) would not get you anything.

Mahavakya's do not promise any Riches.

prasad1 said:

Mahavakyas: The Great Contemplations

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 45%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 55%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm#brahmasatyam


If everything is Brahman, where is the need for surrender? Who is surrendering to whom?

Click to expand...

Everything is Brahman, but you can get to understand that truth only through a Guru, who has already realised that truth himself. A surrender to the Guru is essential, for this learning to be instilled in your mind. If there is resistance, you will not get it, that is all.

Advaita doesn't insist on worship of a personal God, though it doesn't have objections to the concept of Bhakti as such and in fact considers it as a firm stepping stone towards liberation. However Advaita insists on getting the knowledge only through a Guru, and the Guru can be non-human beings too, including Gods.

prasad1 said:

An abject surrender to Aurangjeb or any other dictator might produce favorable results than surrender to God (who is imaginary).

Click to expand...

Aurangjeb himself was a fear-ridden abject surrenderer to an invisible God. At the end of his life, when death was looming, he tried to get some peace of mind by writing a penitent letter, quaking with fear at what awaits him after death, and admitting to the commission of a great number of crimes against humanity.

In Hinduism, there is no abject surrender and at the time of death, the bhaktas happily leave this body, considering a life well spent, mentally repeating the beloved names of God and remembering his auspicious form. The God in Hinduism himself prides in being the servant of his devotees. It is a servitude through love. "nanu bhakta-daasah" says lord Vishnu to sage Durvasa, in the Ambarisha charitam in Srimad Bhagavatham. The lord keeps the foot print of his bhakta Bhrigu Rishi, as an adornment in his heart (Srivatsam).

Note: - I am not a Vaishnava in the sense of follower of Sri Ramanuja, though I highly respect him as a revered teacher, the same way I respect other great teachers in Hinduism.

KRN said:

Everything is Brahman, but you can get to understand that truth only through a Guru, who has already realised that truth himself. A surrender to the Guru is essential, for this learning to be instilled in your mind. If there is resistance, you will not get it, that is all.

Click to expand...

Who made Guru a requirement? A GURU of course.

KRN said:

Note: - I am not a Vaishnava in the sense of follower of Sri Ramanuja, though I highly respect him as a revered teacher, the same way I respect other great teachers in Hinduism.

Click to expand...

Rāmānuja's guru was Yādava Prakāśa, a scholar who was a part of the more ancient Advaita Vedānta monastic tradition. Sri Vaishnava tradition holds that Rāmānuja disagreed with his guru and the non-dualistic Advaita Vedānta, and instead followed in the footsteps of Indian Alvārs tradition, the scholars Nāthamuni and Yamunāchārya.


So obviously Sri Ramanuja did not surrender to his Guru.

So your praise of Guru and Sri Ramanuja is a contradiction.

Sir, if in life you just keep compromising so that you do not offend your friends, life is not well lived. You need to have strong convictions and follow your individual path.

When you see a discrepancy you need to call it, and not just sweep it under the rug.

And for the reference to Aurangjeb see my post#17.


I have respect for all teachers, but I follow my own path.

Renukaji is correct. To fully realize Aham Brahmasmi, we truly need to surrender.

Here surrender is not a war metaphor. Perhaps the closest word is unify (ie self identify with Brahman).

renuka said:

The story goes that we do not " realize" we are Brahman.
We only read that its Aham Brahmaasmi but we have not experienced it.

Actually I feel its futile finally..whether its Advaita or Vishisthadvaita..it might just be some hallucination of some writer.

Best is just live well then die.
The only Aham I know is Aham Renuka Asmi.

Click to expand...

biswa said:

Renukaji is correct. To fully realize Aham Brahmasmi, we truly need to surrender.

Here surrender is not a war metaphor. Perhaps the closest word is unify (ie self identify with Brahman).

Click to expand...

You have used the best terminology to explain surrender...UNIFY.

Somehow the understanding of Sayujyam is not really seen as UNIFY becos of the Vaishnavas overusing the word when for them Sayujyam seems more of God getting biwis/habibis!

Surrender of the Vaishnava kind has shades of duality...that is why Vaishnavas many a time just get stuck at the Abrahamic concept of God and His slaves...the Vishnudasa concept.


In UNIFY...its more logical and intellectual.