5. Does Jīva Become Akṣarabrahman Through This Oneness?

When we talk about oneness with Akṣarabrahman^[1], that doesn’t mean that jīva or īśvara become Brahman and leave their pre identity as jīva or īśvaras. Instead, the distinction between jīvas and īśvaras and Akṣarabrahman eternally remains. So, in the Svāminārāyaṇa tradition, jīvas and īśvaras always remain ontologically distinct from Akṣarabrahman even after attaining oneness with him. Here, we will analyze this topic vastly and provide some debates on the matter.

The Mundaka-upaniṣad starts the debate:

“sa yo ha vai tat paramaṃ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati nāsyābrahmavitkule bhavati |
tarati śokaṃ tarati pāpmānaṃ guhāgranthibhyo vimukto'mṛto bhavati” || Mundaka-upaniṣad 3/2/9 ||

“One who realizes that Akṣarabrahman becomes brahmarūpa. No one in their family is left ignorant of Brahman. They overcome grief and sin, and while becoming free of the shackles of the heart, they become immortal.”

Here the subject of discussion is—

“brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati” is literally interpreted that one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman. But the Svāminārāyaṇa-bhāṣya explains:

“iyamapi parabrahmopāsanaupayikabrahmaguṇasāmyanibandhanā sāmānādhikaraṇyoktiḥ na tu svarūpābhedābhiprāyikā” (Mundaka-upaniṣad 3/2/9, p.299)

“Here, sāmānādhikaranya does not imply that both the self (atman) and Brahma are revealed as one ontological entity but to imbibe those virtues of Brahman which are inevitable for upāsanā towards Parabrahman.”

Now we start the discussion with some background. A devotee who realizes, among others, the form, characteristics, virtues and abilities of the divine Akṣarabrahman by having a strong association with the Brahmasvarūpa Guru and imbibing his teachings, assuredly becomes brahmarūpa.

The entity Akṣarabrahman is described within the Mundaka Upaniṣad beginning with,

“parā yayā tadakṣaramadhigamyate.”^[2]

It is described as superior according to “hyakṣarāt parataḥ,^[3] since it eternally possesses superior form, virtues, abilities, etc. than that of the jīvas, īśvaras, māyā, and akṣaramukta.

It is identified as Brahman because it is immense or vast in size and identified as such by mantras such as:

“tadetadakṣarbrahma.”^[4]

The grammatical congruence (sāmānādhikaranya)^[5] seen here between the devotee and Brahman expresses that the devotee attains qualities similar to those of Brahman that are necessary for practicing upāsanā towards Parabrahman. Here, sāmānādhikaranya does not imply that both the self (atman) and Brahma are revealed as one ontological entity.

1. An Objection

Some argue that the assertion: “One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman” advocates that the self becomes one in the form with Brahman—the self becomes ontologically one with Brahman. They reaffirm that the revelation cannot be interpreted figuratively since doing so would contradict the use of the term 'eva'. The self (ātman) indeed becomes one in form with Akṣarabrahman—the self becomes ontologically one with Brahman. Furthermore, they reason that there are Śrutis, such as “aham brahmāsmi,”^[6] “ayamātmā brahma,”^[7] and “brahma sampadyate tadā”,^[8] that support this identification. They claim that since the grammatical congruence between the terms within these revelations and the subject and predicate nominative are defined to be equal, there is no ontological distinction between the self (ātman) and Brahman. They present examples of sentences such as (1) “this pot is a water-pot” and (2) “this boy is a Brāhmaṇa” to demonstrate that these sentences express that (1) the pot is no different in form (svarūp) to the water-pot and that (2) the boy is not ontologically distinct from the referent of Brāhmaṇa. They claim that the above revelations from sacred texts and the current mantra should be interpreted in the same manner.

Moreover, they maintain that revelations such as " brahmabhūtaḥm, "^[9] “brahmabhūtaḥ, "^[10] " brahmabhūyāya, "^[11] and the notion of brahmabhāva (the experience of being Brahman) also suggest that the self (ātman) is ontologically one with Akṣarabrahman. They substantiate that the term ' bhāva' is etymologically derived from the verbal root 'bhü, which means to become—an indication that the identification is ontological. Thus, they maintain that the revelation presented in the current mantra to be like the phrase, " mrdbhūto ghatah, "^[12] which describes a pot forgoing its form (shape) to once again become clay. They continue by pointing out that the term ‘rūpa' is also often used to express ontological oneness. For example, the statement: “Ghatarūpam dravyam, "^[13] expresses that substance and the pot are ontologically one. They argue that the same type of identification should be expressed when the self (ātman) is described as brahmarūpa. Similarly, the phrase: ghațātmakam dravyam' also implies that substance and the pot are one. Thus, 'brahmātmanā' and other similar constructions also imply identity of form (svarūp). Furthermore, the term ‘aikyam' (oneness) in terms such as ' brahmanaikyam' also establish ontological oneness between the self (ātman) and Akṣarabrahman, just as it exists between a pot and the water-pot. Thus, they reason, “brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" advocates oneness in form (svarūp) between the self (atman) and Akṣarabrahman.

2. The Response

The ontological identification argued for is founded on various fallacious arguments. The relationship expressed within the present mantra is not one of ontological identity (having the same form (svarūp)), but rather of qualitative similarity (possessing similar qualities). Note: Within the commentarial tradition, it is common for the commentator to first present the views that object the principle advocated by the commentator. This presentation is identified as the pūrvapakṣa. Thereafter, the commentator systematically responds to each objection to establish one's own position, which is identified as the siddhānta pakṣa. The commentator of this work follows the commentarial tradition by first presenting the pūrvapakṣa and then countering each of the arguments posed. The commentator begins his response by first summarizing the various uses of grammatical congruence and the term ‘one’. Thereafter, he explains how these usages apply to the statements in question.

The commentary explains: It is common for words like 'eka' ('one') to be used to express possessing similar qualities. Consider the statement, “The brāhmanas in the royal family became one.” The ‘oneness’ of the brāhmanas expressed cannot indicate an oneness of their form (svarūp). Instead, it implies the oneness of opinion—they all possess the same view, and hence, are one. ‘One’ may also refer to being in the same place. Consider ekibhavanti^[14], a term used to express, for example, that (1) the cows gather in the cow-shed in the evening, (2) the birds gather on a branch or (3) that devotees gather in the mandir.

‘One’ may also be used to express the abandonment of a grudge or ill-will. For instance, consider the expression: “These two countries have become one." ‘One’ may also express intense friendship between two parties. For example, within the Rāmāyaṇa, Hanumāna states to Sità: " rāmasugrīvayoraikyam”^[15] to express the unity between Rāma and Sugrīva. ‘One’ may refer to being of the same class or kind. For instance, “These books are one (the same),” “These pots are one (the same),” and “These rice are one (the same)”—all of these expressions use ‘one’ to express categorical similarity. From these examples, it is evident that ‘being one' is not solely used to express ontological identity but may imply various semantics. What is the intended meaning of the oneness expressed between the self (jīvātman and īśvarātman) and Akṣarabrahman? 355

3. Qualitative Similarity

The oneness expressed in the mantra is in reference to the self-acquiring qualities that are similar to those of Akṣarabrahman. Through the grace of the manifest Akṣarabrahmansvarūp Guru and his association, the self attains certain qualities like those of Akṣarabrahman. Furthermore, due to the association with Akṣarabrahman, the spiritual aspirant comes to reflect and understand things in a way that is similar to Akṣarabrahman. For example, the ātman who has attained such oneness with Akṣarabrahman comes to possess conviction in Paramātman like Akṣarabrahman. Just as Akṣarabrahman, they have a conviction such that: “I am undefiled,” “I am not the body, and above the three qualities (guṇas) of māyā.” This oneness also expresses being within the same location. As revealed in mantras such as: “So'śnute sarvan kāmān saha brahmanā vipaschita”^[16] the liberated ātman is within the same location as the servant form of Akṣarabrahman; they both reside within Parabrahman's divine abode, Akṣaradhāma.

4. Possessing Brahmabhāva

Furthermore, being engulfed in māyā and believing oneself to be the body both hinder brahmabhāva (the experience of attaining Brahman). When these two are removed, the ātman enriches with brahmabhāva-becomes like Akṣarabrahman. This is what is implied by the phrase, “brahma sampadyate tadā.”^[17]

5. Intense Adoration

When oneness between the ātman and the manifest Akṣarabrahmasvarūp Guru is interpreted as it was in the example of Hanumāna and Sugrīva presented earlier, it expresses the self as possessing intense association with Akṣarabrahman. As a result, realization attained through constant recollection or strong attachment may be articulated as having oneness with Akṣarabrahman. Thus, the sole intent of revealing aikyam (oneness) between the ātman and Akṣarabrahman is to express qualitative similarity acquired by the self, not to express ontological identity.

6. Summary

The above discussion on the various semantic ascriptions of ‘oneness' may be summarized as:^[18] Due to similarity in thought, type, qualities, location, time, spiritual state and other features, as well as by friendship and inseparability, things, though distinct, are yet identified as one. In the same manner, although jīvas and īśvaras are distinct entities, by possessing qualities that are similar to those of Brahman, they are identified as being one with Brahman.

7. The True Intention of Sāmānādhikaranya

It was argued earlier that the sāmānādhikaranya (grammatical congruence) in mantras such as “aham brahmāsmi”^[19] and “ayamātmā brahma”^[20] demonstrates ontological identity as it does in: “ghato’yam kalaśaḥ.” This, however, is not the case. Samanadhikāraṇa is also used to express two different things as having similar attributes. The word 'sādharmya' ('similarity') refers to having similar characteristics, and is defined as being ontologically different yet possessing many characteristics that are the same. This practice of using sāmānādhikaranya to express qualitative similarity is common. For instance, it is expressed within: " simho māṇavakah" ("the lion child”). In this example, both terms ('simhah and 'māṇavakah") are in the nominative case; however, the phrase does not assert that the child is a lion in form (svarūp). Instead, it states that the child is lion-like-it possesses some characteristics of a lion. 357

Those statements such as 1: ayamātmā brahma and “aham brahmāsmi” should be read similarly. When the self (atman) is revealed as being similar to Akṣarabrahman, it means that although the self is ontologically distinct, possesses many characteristics, such as being above the three qualities (guṇas) of māyā, being pure and others which are useful for the upāsanā of Paramātman, that are like those of Akṣarabrahman. For this reason, the use of sāmānādhikaranya here refers to possessing qualities or virtues that are similar to those of Akṣarabrahman. The same interpretation should be understood for all such revelations in which sāmānādhikaranya is employed.

8. The Semantics of ‘Being Brahman’

It was also argued that ' brahmabhāva' in revelations such as “brahmabhūtam,”^[21] “brahmabhūtaḥ,”^[22] and “brahmabhūyāya,”^[23] also expresses ontological identity between the self and Brahman. This is also inappropriate. The use of the verbal root 'bhü' (meaning, to be) does not necessarily indicate ontological identity. 'Bhü is used even when there is an ontological distinction between two objects. See, for example: “Gurau devabhāvam kurute "^[24] and “pitari devabhāvam karoti.”^[25] Although one's Guru and father are not deities (devas), because they possess virtues similar to those of deities, they are identified as such. Terms such as “brahmabhūtaḥ” should also be read in this manner-to express Brahman's particular virtues. Moreover, it is observed that the qualities of the meditator follow those of that which is meditated upon. Thus, one who contemplates upon Akṣarabrahman attains brahmabhāva. In such circumstances, there is no complication of them becoming one entity.

9. The Semantics of Atmarūpa

Similarly, terms such as ‘atmarūpa’ only imply intense association. For example, when interpreting the expression “Durväsa is anger personified," it is apparent that anger and Durväsa are ontologically distinct entities. The expression is used not to express ontological identity, but instead to emphasize an intense association between the two-viz. anger entirely overcomes Durväsa. The expression of oneness is understood figuratively. Also, statements such as “ghațātmikā drṣțih, "^[26] are interpreted to express that the pot is the focus of what is being seen. It does not mean that one's vision itself has become the pot. No one experiences the viewer viewing the pot as becoming the pot. Terms such as 'brahmātmanā' and ' brahmarūpa should be understood in a similar way. By possessing an intense association with the manifest Akṣarabrahmasvarūp Guru and engaging in intense contemplation of him, the self attains oneness and continually sees and experiences Brahman. It is in this sense the self is identified as being brahmarūpa. The term ' rūpa' is also used similarly.

See, for example:

“When a jīva attains similarity with Brahman through samādhi, that jīva is identified as brahmarūpa.”

Within the Gītā, ' kämätmanah does not express that the jīvātman itself becomes lust; however, it implies that self-possesses a lustful nature. It is explained as: “kämätmanah kāmasvabhāvāh”^[27] the same type of semantic ascription should be employed when deciphering: brahmätmā', or ‘akṣarātmā' and others. Alternatively, when the compound is analyzed as a possessive exocentric adjective compound,^[28] it refers to one whose form is similar to that of Brahman. Therefore, one who has attained virtues that are similar to those of Brahman-one who has, among other things, overcome the three bodies and become free of the hindrances and grief of māyā- may be identified as brahmarūpa or Brahman. 359

10. The Various Semantics of ‘Eva’

It was argued earlier that ‘eva’ in “brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati” implies that each ātman and Akṣarabrahman are ontologically identical. This is also not the case. The term ‘eva’ is also used to express similarity.

This semantic ascription of ‘eva’ is revealed in the Nighaṇtu, where it states:

“sāmye caiva kvacicchabdah.”^[29]

The Śrutis also use ‘eva’ to express similarity; see, for example:

“Vaiṣṇava vămanamālabheta, spardhamäno viṣnureva bhūtvemān lokānabhijayati.”^[30]

Here, ‘Viṣṇu eva’ is read as: ‘Viṣṇu iva’ (similar to Viṣṇu). Such usage is also seen in other instances. For example, Vardhamāna's Ganatantramahodadhi uses ‘eva’ in: “śrīsta eva me'stu,”^[31] to express similarity.

Moreover, when deciphering “brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati,” it is possible to rearrange its words.^[32] When ‘eva’ is sequenced to qualify the act of becoming, the mantra is read to express that one only becomes like Brahman—one does not become like anything else. Alternatively, when ‘eva’ is read in association with the knowing, the mantra is read to express: one who surely knows Brahman becomes Brahman. This reading stresses the need to realize Brahman in order to attain brahmabhāva. However, when ‘eva’ is associated with 'Brahman', the mantra is read to clarify that one does not become Parabrahman.

Also, ‘eva’ in “brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" may be understood to express that when a person of any caste, even one that is considered low, worships a Brāhmaṇa with devotion, they also become a Brāhmaṇa. This means that the worshipper of the Brāhmaṇa gains the qualities of a Brāhmaṇa. They do not, however, become ontologically one with the worshipped Brāhmaṇa. Similarly, the ātman, upon performing great spiritual endeavors in the form of brahmavidyā, becomes similar to Brahman in qualities, but does not forgo its own form (svarūp) and does not attain the form (svarūp) of Brahman. It is not the case that “ghate jñāte tadjñātā’pi bhavati ghatah” (The knower of a pot himself becomes a pot). Only the delusional would believe such a thing.

11. The Essence

The heart of the Śruti: “brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati,” reveals that one truly attains brahmabhāva when one realizes the form, nature, and virtues of the manifest Akṣarabrahmasvarūp satpuruṣa. Such realization occurs by associating with the Guru, contemplating his virtues and other qualities, and attempting to imbibe his qualities. Attaining such brahmabhāva is necessary for acquiring unhindered conviction in Parabrahman. The discussion presented here explains that “brahmaiva san brahmapyeti”^[33] does not advocate the self (ātman) and Brahman as ontologically one. Although both entities are ontologically distinct, the self (ātman) is concealed by Brahman in the way that the constellations are concealed by sunlight-the self (ātman) is engulfed by the greatness of Akṣarabrahman.

12. ‘Brahmarpanam’

Revelations such as “brahmārpaṇam”^[34] express Akṣarabrahman’s pervasiveness and do not denounce the other entities. Other terms such as 'brahmabhūtah', ‘brahmarūpa’? ‘brahmabhāva’ and “aham brahmāsmi”, like sāmānādhikaranya, express attaining the qualities of Brahman that are useful for attaining liberation.

13. Summary

The discussions above can be summarized as follows. Sāmānādhikaranya is used to express having similar qualities. The same semantic is expressed when one's father is identified as a deity using the Saṃskṛta verb 'to be'. Although the father is ontologically distinct from a deity, he is described as being a deity, because he shares certain qualities with a deity. ‘Eva’ expresses qualitative similarity both in sentences commonly used and in the Vedic revelations. When reading: ‘brahmaiva bhavati’, ‘eva’ should be interpreted in this manner. All scriptural revelations that imply oneness should be interpreted as expressing qualitative oneness and not ontological identity. If they are not read as such, then the five eternally distinct entities expressed in all sacred texts and expounded by Paramātman himself,^[35] will be contradicted.

The Upaniṣad mantra concludes by describing various other benefits of realizing Brahman. It states that when one realizes Brahman, no one in their family lineage remains ignorant of Akṣarabrahman. Thus, everyone born into their family indeed comes to realize Brahman. Furthermore, the brahmarūpa devotee, in this very life, overcomes grief caused by the three types of misery.^[36] They overcome sin, which is the root of grief. Moreover, by becoming free of the guhāgranthi- innate, mundane, firmly rooted instincts such as attachment and spite, which have since eternity resided in the heart like shackles-they become amrta. Upon becoming a brahmarūpa they, become an akṣaramukta, free from the cycle of births and deaths while being ever engrossed in the divine bliss of Paramātman Sahajānanda.^[37] In this way, Svāminārāyaṇa strongly rejects, that being brahmarūpa is not a substantial union but a qualitative similarity with Akṣarabrahman. The self remains metaphysically jīva or īśvara, albeit in a highly exalted spiritual state.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vacanāmṛta Gadhadā II/3, Mundaka-upaniṣad 3/2/9 351

[2]:

Mundaka-upaniṣad 1/1/5

[3]:

Mundaka-upaniṣad 2/1/2

[4]:

Mundaka-upaniṣad 2/2/2

[5]:

‘Sāmūnādhikaranya’ refers to the implied unity between the subject and predicate nominative. This is also known as the unity of substratum, coordinate predication, or syntactic similarity. 352

[6]:

Brhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1/4/10

[7]:

Māndūkya-upaniṣad 1/2

[8]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 13/30

[9]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 6/27

[10]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 5/24, 18/54

[11]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 14/26, 18/53

[12]:

‘A pot that has become a clay.’

[13]:

‘substance in the form (svarupa) of a pot.’

[14]:

To become one, however, as mentioned here, it is commonly also used to express: to gather, to unite, or to collect together.

[15]:

Ramāyāna Sundarakanda, 35/53

[16]:

Taittiriya-upaniṣad 2/1/1

[17]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 13/30

[18]:

The commentator summarizes the above points in two couplets, which are translated here in prose.

[19]:

Brhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1/4/10

[20]:

MaU 1/2

[21]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 6/27

[22]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 5/24, 18/54

[23]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 14/26, 18/53

[24]:

‘believe one’s Guru to be a deity.’

[25]:

‘believe one’s father to be a deity.’ 358

[26]:

Vision that has taken the form of the pot.

[27]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 2/43

[28]:

Bauvrihi of the possessive case.

[29]:

“And the term ‘eva’ is sometimes used to express similarity.”

[30]:

"When the competitor becomes Viṣnu, he defeats the world." (Tai.Sam. 2/1/3/16)

[31]:

“May your wealth become mine."

[32]:

Grammatical conjugations of terms in Saṃskṛta sentences are indicators on Saṃskṛta terms may be sequenced at.

[33]:

Svetāśvatara-upaniṣad 3/3

[34]:

Bhagavad-Gītā 4/24

[35]:

Vacanāmṛta Gadhadā I/7, Vacanāmṛta Gadhadā III/10

[36]:

In Indian philosophy miseries are generally categorized into three types: adhyatimika-those that are mental, adhibhautika-those that are physical and adhidevika-those that are caused by natural or supernatural forces.

[37]:

Sadhu Paramvivekdasa, The Mundaka-upaniṣad, With Exposition and Original Devanagari Text, New Bhartiya Book Corporation, New Delhi, 2020, pp.187-204.