Fallacy of Advaita Mahavakyas - Prajnanam Brahma

Advaita lists four (pieces of) statements taken out of context from teh entire
corpus of Upanishadic literature and projects them as major mahavakyas. Many other
minor mahavakya-like statements are pointed out from the Upanishadic corpus to
indicate Advaita is the real purport of Vedanta.
The four major Mahavakyas are:
1. Aham Brahma-asmi
2. Tat-tvam-asi
3. Ayam-aatma Brahma
4. Prajnaanam Brahma
A closer look of the fourth Mahavakya follows.
Advaita treats the word prajnaanam to mean conciousness (or chaitanya). Thus it
says that the chaitanya is Brahma. The real "I" is that chaitanya which is Brahma
itself. Thus projecting Jeeva brahma aikya.
But is it really so?
We take a look at both Dvaita and even Advaita interpretation by Shankaracharya
himself to show Shankaracharya did not give jeeva brahma aikya interpretation for
Prajnaanam Brahma.
1. The statement "Prajnaanam Brahma: is from Aitareya Upanishad (2nd Aranyaka, 6th
Adhyaya).
2.
a. This adhyaya talks about the characteristics and attributes of God that should
be considered for upasana.
b. It lists the 23 names (attributes) of God, of which Prajnana is one name. God is
called Prajnanam because he grasps himself as-is (jnaana) - which is nothing but
the best of attributes (pra).
c. In this context, the Upanishad provides a laundry list different creatures
starting from the very elevated one viz. Chaturmukha Brahma to the most inferior
creatures that are controlled (niyamya) by the God named Prajna (i.e. Prajnanetram)
and completely dependent on him (prajnaane pratishitam).
d. Thus Prajnanam is Brahma.
e. One should worship the Brahman as Prajnanam (as having the best of knowledge).
This is as per the Bhashya of Sri Madhvacharya.
As is standard with Acharya's approach, the context (prakaraNa, vakya, abhyasa,
upakrama upasamhara) and logic are to be applied to arrive at the holistic meaning.
3. In contrast, Advaita picks isolated statements or pieces of isolated statements
of Upanishadic literature that only apparently appears to suit their purpose of
jeeva brahma aikya vaada.
4. But in this case, even that approach fails drastically. For, Shankaracharya
himself has interpreted this entire episode almost along the same lines of
Madhvacharya. He translates
a. Prajnaanam as Paramatma and
b. Brahma as One with nitya shudha svabhava
Hence it is amply clear that Shankaracharya never really interpreted Prajnaanam
Brahma as Jeeva-Brahma aikya para at all. It is definitely a concoction of later
era.
5. Modern day advaitis cite an elusive Yajushiya Shuka Rahasyopanishat as quoting
the four mahavakyas as-is (atha mahavakyani chatvari yatha......). This upanishat
has no parampara, totally unknown and surprisingly no Advaita Acharya of by gone
period has quoted this inspite of reading out-and-out Advaita!! Again another proof
that the "4 mahavakyas set" is an idea not having its origin in Shankaracharya.

Fallacy of Advaita Mahavakya (2) - ayamAtmA brahma

1. The mahavakya ayamAtmA brahma is from Manduka Upanishad.
2. The context of this vakya is elaborating on the four forms of Brahma.
3. The upanishad starts with describing Om.
a. Om iti etat axaram sarvam
This God named axara (for being imperishable) is also called sarvam.
Sarvam is also Brahma,
b. This atma is a Brahma (literal meaning of ayamaatmaa Brahma).
c. The word Atma denotes Paramatma in parama mukhya vrutti.
d.This atma has four forms - vishwa Taijasa Prajna Turiya
So goes the upanishat.
4. The advaita argument that AtmA here speaks of jeeva is full of contradictions.
For Shankara himself says in his Brahmasutra Bhashya that Atma word denotes God in
mukhya vrutti. (Om dyubhvAdyAtanaM svashabdat 1.3.1). Similar meaning is given by
Sri Madhvacharya to this sutra - of course with the addition that God is Vishnu.
5. However Advaitis argue in this case that he usage of term "ayam" to identify the
AtmA implies the entity (lakshya) be pratyaxa siddha. Hence the main meaning of
atma as God is overlooked as God is not pratyaxa siddha and invisible.
6. Sounds like nice argument except that in his own Bhashya for the second sutra Om
Janmadyasya yatah Om,
Shankaracharya says the "asya" and "idam" words are not restricted to the creation
of pratyaxa worlds like we live, but also the heaven and other worlds invisible to
eyes but can be inferred (anumana) or known through shabda (agama). Hence in his
own bhashya, Shankaracharya associates the usage of asya idam etc with any pramana
siddha entity that is conceptualized in mind.
7. The irony is that the ayam AtmA as God is readily conceptualized in mind as God
is pramana siddha. Hence there is no obstacle to interpret the word Atma as God in
ayam AtmA brahma. In fact the rule mandates that the term AtmA be interpreted as
God when there are no obstacles to accepting such main meaning.
8. Thus the Upanishat describing the God named Om, axara, sarvam with four forms is
referred as aatma in the vakya ayamaatmaa brahma. and is not at all propounding the
aikya (unity) of Jeeva and Brahma
Acknowledgements:
1. Upanishat Prasthaana by PPVP
2. Civil Suit (Satyadhyana Teertharu)