10

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is a part of the Shukla Yajur Veda. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad contains this verse (1.4.10):

ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्, तदात्मानमेवावेत् ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इति । तस्मात् तत् सर्वमभवतद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणां तद्धेतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चेति । तदिदमप्येतर्हि य एवं वेदाहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इदं सर्वं भवति तस्य ह न देवाश्चनाभूत्या ईशते । आत्मा ह्योषां स भवत्यथ योऽन्यां  देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद तथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्जयुरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ।


I-iv-10: This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, ‘I am Brahman’. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, ‘I was Manu, and the sun’. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, ‘I am Brahman’, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another’, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals ? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.

I'm interested in the bold quoted part. As it says who worships God by thinking, "He is one and I am another." are like animals to Gods. As God/Brahman is same as Jeeva in Advaita philosophy there is no problem for it.

But In Dvaita Philosophy a devotee always worships God thinking himself different from God as Jeeva and Brahman are different in Dvaita. Hence I want to know How is this verse interpreted by Dvaita philosophers? What commentaries are made by Dvaita philosophers on that part of the verse?

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
Tezz
  • 48,448
  • 9
  • 230
  • 344
  • 3
    Excellent point. Maybe Keshav or some Maadhvas on this site can answer this question. – Surya May 04 '16 at 10:38

2 Answers2

7

Here's how the Dvaita philosopher Madhvacharya renders the portion you put in bold, in this excerpt from his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

But he worships any other god (than Brahman), he does not know. Similarly when one worships some other devata as Ever-present, Ever-full, Ever-existing knowledge (thinking that Brahman is devoid of qualities), he also does not know. (Such men are like beasts.) (The true knower of Brahman is) also like a beast to the Devatas. As many beasts go to nourish a single man (by supplying milk, etc.), so even one single knowing man nourishes many devas. (He is beloved of the devas.) For as in this world, when one beast is given to a man, he becomes pleased, what to say when many are given. (Therefore, greater the number of the knowers of Brahman, greater the happiness of the devas.) Therefore the devas do not like this that men should know (worship) (anyone else other than Vishnu as the Ever-present, etc.).

See here for a word-by-word breakdown. So in Madhvacharya's view, the gods feel pleased, not threatened, when someone attains knowledge of Brahman.

By the way, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Madhvacharya's interpretation of the most important part of the verse, namely the famous Mahavakya "Aham Brahmasmi" emphasized by Advaitins:

The word Aham in the sentence 'Aham Brahma asmi' does not mean "I", and the sentence above given does not mean "I am Brahman". On the other hand Aham means Aheyam "that which cannot be neglected, cannot be avoided"; similarly the word Brahma means "all-full". Asmi does not mean "I am" but it is a compound of two words "As" meaning existence and "Mi" meaning knowable. So Asmi means ever-existing knowledge or he whose knowledge is ever-existing and never-obscured. Brahman knew (always realizes) the nature of His self as being Aheyam (all-pervading ruler of the world), Brahma (all-full), and Asmi (ever-existing knowledge).

Personally I find Madhvacharya's interpretation rather implausible. In any case, Visistadvaita has another way of interpreting seemingly Advaita-sounding statements in Hindu scripture, namely that they're referring to Brahman as the Antaryami or inner self of the Jivatama; see my question here.

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • 5
    @Tezz Two words: motivated cognition http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/04/ethnic-tension-and-meaningless-arguments/ People often use reasoning to prove that what they already believe is correct. It's relatively rare to find people who use reasoning to find out if what they believe is correct. – Keshav Srinivasan May 04 '16 at 15:01
  • 1
    @Tezz By the way, you may be interested in my question here, about a case where different people, who all belong to the Shaiva Siddhanta sect, still manage to interpret a Shwetashwatara Upanishad verse in exactly opposite ways: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/10296/36 – Keshav Srinivasan May 04 '16 at 15:04
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Do you know views of any other Dvaita Philosophers? – The Destroyer May 04 '16 at 15:33
  • 2
    @TheDestroyer All the Dvaita philosophers are followers of Madhvacharya, so they agree with Madhvacharya's interpretation. – Keshav Srinivasan May 05 '16 at 14:55
  • @KeshavSrinivasan What about Shaivaite Philosophers? How they interpreted this verse? – The Destroyer May 05 '16 at 15:01
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer Well, for better or worse there aren't that many Shaivite philosophers within the Vedanta school. That's actually one of the reasons why philosophical Vaishnavism is so much more popular than philosophical Shaivism nowadays; a lot of Shaivite sects rejected the Vedanta school, whereas the Vaishnava sects aligned themselves with Vedanta. So when Vedanta became the dominant school of Hindu philosophies, a lot of Shaivite sects dwindled or became extinct. Nowadays most people who call themselves "Shaivites" aren't philosophical Shaivites, just people who have Shiva as Ishta devata. – Keshav Srinivasan May 05 '16 at 15:12
  • @KeshavSrinivasan This is bad. Why did they reject Vedanta, which focus on realization of Brahman or Parameswara (for Shaivaites)? – The Destroyer May 05 '16 at 15:17
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer Philosophical Vaishnavism, on the other hand, is still thriving. Anyway, the only Shaivite commentary on the Brahmasutras I have is by Srikantha Shivacharya, who belonged to the Shaiva Siddhanta sect. I haven't checked how he interprets the "Aham Brahasmi" verse, but in any case how a person interprets the Upanishads isn't based on Vaishnavism vs. Shaivism, it's based on the Vedantic philosophy they subscribe to. So Srikantha Shivacharya would interpret the verse using his philosophy of Shivadvaita, aka Shiva Visistadvaita, which is pretty similar to Ramanujacharya's philosophy. – Keshav Srinivasan May 05 '16 at 15:25
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer Well, they weren't opposed to realization of Brahman, although they thought that the Shaiva Agamas led to higher states of realization than the Upanishads. But their bigger disagreement with the Vedanta school was about the relationship between Brahman and the world. The Vedanta school said that Brahman is both the efficient cause of the Universe, meaning the one who runs it, and the material cause of the Universe, meaning the substance the Universe is made of. But the Shaiva Agamas say that the substance the universe is made of is Prakriti, which is totally separate from Brahman – Keshav Srinivasan May 05 '16 at 15:35
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer The worldview of the Shaiva Agamas is more like the viewpoint of the Samkhya and Yoga schools, which both say that Purushas and Brahman are separate from Prakriti. So most philosophical Shaivites rejected the Vedanta school. (Srikantha Shivacharya was a rare exception.) The Pancharatra Agamas, on the other hand, completely agree with the Vedanta school that Brahman is both the efficient cause and the material cause of the Universe, so philosophical Vaishnavas aligned themselves with Vedanta. – Keshav Srinivasan May 05 '16 at 15:41
  • 1
    @KeshavSrinivasan But Shiva Purana says Shiva and Shakti are inseparable and Shakti is nothing but Prakriti and Shiva is nothing but Purusha. They say Purusha is efficient cause and Prakriti is material cause and indeed Shiva- Shakti or Sadashiva (Brahman) must be both as Vedanta. Do these Shiava Philosophers accept Shiva Purana? – The Destroyer May 06 '16 at 01:24
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer Well, philosophical Shaivites focused on the Shaiva Agamas more than the Shiva Purana. The Shiva Purana (or any of the Puranas) isn't an independent source of philosophy, the philosophical views articulated in the Shiva Purana come from things like Shaiva Agamas and Shakta Agamas. In any case some philosophical Shaivites equated Shakti with Prakriti, but most did not; that's more of a Shakta view than a Shaivite view. But either way, philosophical Shaivites believed that the supreme Shiva is the efficient cause, Prakriti is the material cause, and the two are completely separate. – Keshav Srinivasan May 06 '16 at 01:59
1

Since I cannot add a comment (being a newcomer on this forum), adding it as answer. Shri Madhvacharya justifies his interpretation, while showing the inaccuracy in the conventional or the superficial meaning. He says, in his commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, that if the meaning of that phrase was 'I am Brahman', the words 'AtmAnaM' would be redundant -

yadyahaMshabdo asmachChabdArthavAchI, asmishabdashchottamapuruShe tadA.a.atmAnamiti vyarthaM syAt..

The entire line is तदात्मानमेवावेत् ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इति. If you take every word at its conventional meaning, it means - Then, it knew itself as I am Brahman.

This is grammatically wrong. It should either be 'it knew itself as Brahman' or 'it knew as - I am brahman'.

Since the flawless Veda wouldn't indulge in superfluous usage, even in terms of svara or chandas, the superficial interpretation as 'I am Brahman' should be rejected. Moreover, the Vedantic lore (including Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) considers 'ahaM' as not just a pronoun, but also as a name. See 1.4.1 tato ahaM-nAma abhavat.

While non-dvaitins may ignore or reject the above as nitpicking or hairsplitting every vedic utterance, the dvaitin holds that any interpretation that makes vedic words redundant, should be shunned.

Pandya
  • 26,175
  • 10
  • 99
  • 243
Krishna
  • 79
  • 1
  • 2
  • Can you add dvaitin translation of full sentence? Starting from तदात् to इति – Aks Apr 27 '17 at 18:22