Mahavakyas
Created | Updated Aug 22, 2005
The Indo-European mass migrations from 2000 to 1600 BCE spread a common root language from Greece to India. Aryan nomads brought with them from Iran to india a set of texts called the Vedas, the primary of these being the Rig Veda. The authors of the Vedas are unknown but they form the foundation for all of Indian religion and philosophy up to the modern period. The Vedas were concerned primarily with ritual practices, social ethics, and cosmological explinations for the universe. From the Vedas came the Upanishads,meaning literaly in Sanskrit "sit with me," which are a commentary on and philisophical addendum to the Vedas. Later priests, theologians, and philosophers distilled the Upanishads into the Mahavakyas. The Vedas are considered shruti or revealed text. It is not the work of any one particular thinker or group but is considered by belivers to be the direct comunication of the entire universe, as such the identities of the authors were never recorded. The various Upanishads were named after the family group that composed them.
The Mahavakyas or Great Truths are fundamental statements about the nature of reality. They represent the distilled essence of the Upanishads and all prior Vedic thought. Following the elucidation of the four Mahavakyas all Indian philosophy is an expansion of these truths of a movement away from them and must account for them as objections. While simple in structure and formation all four of the statements have ethical and metaphysical implications that are not reflected in their appearance. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of understanding the Mahavakyas from a western perspective is how fundamental these statements are to Indian thought. They are so deeply rooted in Vedic thought that it is difficult to get a precise definition of the terms involved. There is still much debate of their meaning. But by couching the terms in the broadest acceptable definition some measure of understanding can be reached.
Atman is Brahman
This simple statement is perhaps the most challenging of all the Mahavakyas. A Vedic period scholar, familiar with the terms, would accept this almost as a tautology, a statement true by its very definition like “all bachelors are unmarried men.” For westerners these terms require a delicate definition. Brahman is the sum totality of existence. All that has been will be is going to be or could be is a part of Brahman. Brahman means more then just the physical universe. It is totality in the most total meaning of the word. There is nothing outside of the Brahman. The closest analogy in western philosophy is Kant’s concept of noumena. Brahman is that which is fundamental to even the possibility of existence.
Atman is a more personal concept. It is the totality of personal existence. Atman is the essence of the individual both physical and mental. Indian philosophy does not make the thinking versus non-thinking, mind versus body distinction that is a constant difficulty for western thought. Atman can also be considered embodied consciousness, knowledge not only in the conscious processes of the “mind” but also in the knowledge the body possesses, instinct and genetic knowledge.
These two terms seem inherently different. Brahman is universal and objective, true for all possible objects. While Atman is subjective and personal, true only for an individual. The claim that they are identical seems incredible. How can two concepts that appear to be diametrically opposed be identical?
The answer lies in the nature of the Atman. Upon reflection, meditation, and ritual use of the probably psychoactive substance soma Atman is seen as Brahman. Atman, our embodied selfhood, contains all the possibilities for our own existence. Reason, embodied in the human consciousness, is without limits. All possible experiences and objects can be grasped by reason. It is a matter of potential. There is no possibility that exists outside of reason and reason exists in us. Thus Atman, with infinite potential, is Brahman, with infinite possibilities.
I am Brahman
While the first Mahavakya connects the Atman and Brahman in theory the connection to a particular consciousness remains to be shown. It is possible that Atman and Brahman are unified in an exceptional individual with powerful faculties.
To make a universal claim about the unity of Atman and Brahman in every individual the necessary presence of both Atman and Brahman in the individual must be demonstrated. Brahman is the universal potential for all possible existence, external to time, space, and causality. This infinite potential can be found in the individual. Any possible experience can be experienced by the “I”. This means that the potential for every possibility, or Brahman, lies within the self. I am Brahman
Tat Tvam Asi – “You Are That”
Not only is the I Brahman, the potential for all events, but it is also Atman, the subject beyond experience that underlies all experience. Every experience has two parts, the subject and the object. The statement “that tree is green,” contains an implicit identification of the subject. “I see that tree which is green,” is the full statement. This underlying assumption of I is the full part of Atman. Atman goes beyond what in the west is called consciousness.
This means that Atman is not only the faculties and appetites of the understanding but the fundamental conditions of consciousness. It is an “I” that cannot be experienced. In the west when consciousness is discussed and analyzed it is taken as an object that has experiences of itself. Descartes used this method to prove the existence of his consciousness. His cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, is not a sufficient justification for existence. All a Hindu scholar would say is that "I think therefore there are thoughts." The Atman is the subject that lies underneath all experience and no experience can be had of.
This Atman is Brahman
Having shown how both Atman and Brahman can be found at the most fundamental depths of human existence the personal truth of the Mahavakyas appears clear. The difference between Atman and Brahman becomes one of perspective. Seen from the viewpoint of the selfish suffering human it seems that “nature” is an element apart from human existence, something to strive against and overcome. This position will later be embodied by Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. By finding the infinite universal possibility within every individual we assert our identity and power over the totality. All suffering becomes meaningless and powerless. What appears to be suffering, pain, hunger, death, is an illusion caused by a lack of understanding. This position is later held by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. If this Atman is Brahman because every self is both Atman and Brahman then every self is part of the universal totality. Suffering is linked to a sense of loss but if everyone contains everything possible then there can be no real suffering. The only “pain” comes from ignorance and lack of knowledge about the universal nature of every seeming self.
The Mahavakyas or Great Truths are fundamental statements about the nature of reality. They represent the distilled essence of the Upanishads and all prior Vedic thought. Following the elucidation of the four Mahavakyas all Indian philosophy is an expansion of these truths of a movement away from them and must account for them as objections. While simple in structure and formation all four of the statements have ethical and metaphysical implications that are not reflected in their appearance. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of understanding the Mahavakyas from a western perspective is how fundamental these statements are to Indian thought. They are so deeply rooted in Vedic thought that it is difficult to get a precise definition of the terms involved. There is still much debate of their meaning. But by couching the terms in the broadest acceptable definition some measure of understanding can be reached.
Atman is Brahman
This simple statement is perhaps the most challenging of all the Mahavakyas. A Vedic period scholar, familiar with the terms, would accept this almost as a tautology, a statement true by its very definition like “all bachelors are unmarried men.” For westerners these terms require a delicate definition. Brahman is the sum totality of existence. All that has been will be is going to be or could be is a part of Brahman. Brahman means more then just the physical universe. It is totality in the most total meaning of the word. There is nothing outside of the Brahman. The closest analogy in western philosophy is Kant’s concept of noumena. Brahman is that which is fundamental to even the possibility of existence.
Atman is a more personal concept. It is the totality of personal existence. Atman is the essence of the individual both physical and mental. Indian philosophy does not make the thinking versus non-thinking, mind versus body distinction that is a constant difficulty for western thought. Atman can also be considered embodied consciousness, knowledge not only in the conscious processes of the “mind” but also in the knowledge the body possesses, instinct and genetic knowledge.
These two terms seem inherently different. Brahman is universal and objective, true for all possible objects. While Atman is subjective and personal, true only for an individual. The claim that they are identical seems incredible. How can two concepts that appear to be diametrically opposed be identical?
The answer lies in the nature of the Atman. Upon reflection, meditation, and ritual use of the probably psychoactive substance soma Atman is seen as Brahman. Atman, our embodied selfhood, contains all the possibilities for our own existence. Reason, embodied in the human consciousness, is without limits. All possible experiences and objects can be grasped by reason. It is a matter of potential. There is no possibility that exists outside of reason and reason exists in us. Thus Atman, with infinite potential, is Brahman, with infinite possibilities.
I am Brahman
While the first Mahavakya connects the Atman and Brahman in theory the connection to a particular consciousness remains to be shown. It is possible that Atman and Brahman are unified in an exceptional individual with powerful faculties.
To make a universal claim about the unity of Atman and Brahman in every individual the necessary presence of both Atman and Brahman in the individual must be demonstrated. Brahman is the universal potential for all possible existence, external to time, space, and causality. This infinite potential can be found in the individual. Any possible experience can be experienced by the “I”. This means that the potential for every possibility, or Brahman, lies within the self. I am Brahman
Tat Tvam Asi – “You Are That”
Not only is the I Brahman, the potential for all events, but it is also Atman, the subject beyond experience that underlies all experience. Every experience has two parts, the subject and the object. The statement “that tree is green,” contains an implicit identification of the subject. “I see that tree which is green,” is the full statement. This underlying assumption of I is the full part of Atman. Atman goes beyond what in the west is called consciousness.
This means that Atman is not only the faculties and appetites of the understanding but the fundamental conditions of consciousness. It is an “I” that cannot be experienced. In the west when consciousness is discussed and analyzed it is taken as an object that has experiences of itself. Descartes used this method to prove the existence of his consciousness. His cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, is not a sufficient justification for existence. All a Hindu scholar would say is that "I think therefore there are thoughts." The Atman is the subject that lies underneath all experience and no experience can be had of.
This Atman is Brahman
Having shown how both Atman and Brahman can be found at the most fundamental depths of human existence the personal truth of the Mahavakyas appears clear. The difference between Atman and Brahman becomes one of perspective. Seen from the viewpoint of the selfish suffering human it seems that “nature” is an element apart from human existence, something to strive against and overcome. This position will later be embodied by Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. By finding the infinite universal possibility within every individual we assert our identity and power over the totality. All suffering becomes meaningless and powerless. What appears to be suffering, pain, hunger, death, is an illusion caused by a lack of understanding. This position is later held by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. If this Atman is Brahman because every self is both Atman and Brahman then every self is part of the universal totality. Suffering is linked to a sense of loss but if everyone contains everything possible then there can be no real suffering. The only “pain” comes from ignorance and lack of knowledge about the universal nature of every seeming self.
