Vachyartha and Lakshyartha of 'Tat Tvam Asi'

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

I have posted this same on Advaita-L, as I am looking for insights

from others as much as possible. For those this is a repetition,

please forgive me.

 

 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:03:29 -0500, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram

<srikrishna_ghadiyaram wrote:

>Hari Om !!

>

>While explaining the meaning of 'Tat Tvam Asi', Swami Sivananda

writes

>in 'Vedanta for Beginners'

>

>" a) Maya (in combination ...) b) Chidasabhasa or the reflection of

Chit

>contained in them c) Brahman, the substratum for them - All of

these go

>together to make up the Vachyartha of the word Tat.

>

>To sum up, Maya and the rest (the gross, subtle and cosmic bodies),

the

>Consciousness associated with Her and endowed with omniscience,

rulership,

>etc. (by Consciousness Isvara, Hiranyagarbha and Avyakriti and meant

>here ), and Pure eternal Consciousness not associated with any of the

>foregoing things, - when these three appear as an inseparable whole

like a

>red-hot iron ball, they become the primary meaning of the word Tat."

>

>In another place he writes,

>"Thus there is Anyonya Adhyasa between Brahman and Isvara, and this

Adhyasa

>can be annihilated only through knowledge born of discrimination."

>

>Under the heading 'Lakshyartha of the word Tat', he writes:

>" That Pure, unassociated Consciousness which remains after avoiding

maya

>and Her retinue and Chidabhasa, and which serves as the substratum

of all

>these things, i.e of the limiting adjuncts and of Isvara limited by

them,

>becomes the implied meaning or lakshyartha of the word Tat"

>

>Similar statements are made about Avidya, Chidabhasa (Jiva) and

Kutastha.

>

>My doubts are:

>

>1. Why is he separating Chidabhasa (in this case Isvara) from

Brahman, the

>substratum ? Are these two distinct entities, that we have to count

three

>components of 'Tat' ?

>

>2. Why is 'Adhyasa' being talked about between Brahman and Isvara ?

Till

>now I thought Adhyasa is between Brahman and Prakriti only.

>

>If we count Isvara and Brahman as separate, and Jiva and Brahman as

>separate 'entities' will it not reflect Dvaita thought ?

>

>3. Till now I have been thinking the Chidabhasa (limited by Upadhis)

is

>Jiva or Isvara (Jivatma and Paramatma when removed of upadhis). But

the

>above statements are giving me a feeling of two different entities of

>Chidabhasa and Brahman (Chidabhasa and Kutastha).

>

>4. Does it mean that the Jivas are hanging as distinct entities in

>Brahman ? Is it not contradictory to Absolute Advaita thought ?

>

>Kindly give your enlightened views.

>

>Om namo Narayanaya !!

>

>Srikrishna

 

Hari Om !!

 

I am retaining my previous posting as it is, at the end of this

posting and adding another question/doubt.

 

I can take the conception of Maya + Chidabhasa (Isvara) + Pure

Consciousness as a definition of 'Tat' and Avidya + Chidabhasa (Jiva)

+ Pure Consciousness as a definition of 'Tvam', by considering all

that is associated with Jiva or Isvara.

 

Question: Does this mean the definition of Isvara does not include

the 'complete' Pure consciousness ? I can understand if Jiva is a

limited being, but why Isvara should be described as limited in a

similar way ?

 

In another place the Swami writes:

 

" The Rea, Eternal nature of Brahman is apparently recognised in

Isvara. Hence, Isvara appears as real. Because the nature of Isvara

and his creatorship are apparently recognised in Brahman, Brahman

appears to be the cause of the Universe. Thus there is Anyonya

Adhyasa between Brahman and Isvara, and this Adhyasa can be

annihilated only through knowledge born of discrimination."

 

Question : Is Isvara not real ? Does it means to convey that

independent reality is not there, and it is one with Brahman. Is this

Absolute Advaita, incontrast to Visishtadvaita or Dvaita ?

 

In another place the Swami writes:

 

" Like Brahman and Isvara, there exists mutual Adhyasa between

Kutastha and the Jiva. The reality of Kutastha is recognised in the

Jiva and hence the Jiva appears to be real. Likewise, the nature of

the Jiva and his Dharmas are recognised in Kutastha who is non-

attached, non-doer, non-enjoyer and eternally free, and hence

Kutastha appears in the opposite way. Thus the mutual Adhyasa between

Kutastha and the Jiva. This can be annihilated only through Viveka-

Jnana."

 

Question: Is Jiva not real ? Does it means to convey that independent

reality is not there, and it is one with Brahman. Is this Absolute

Advaita, incontrast to Visishtadvaita or Dvaita ?

 

Additional doubts are :

 

1. Why are we talking of Adhyasa between Brahman and Isvara; and

Kutastha and Jiva ?

 

 

2. What nature of the Jiva and its Dharmas are recognised in

Kutastha ? and what is meant by 'Kutastha appears in the opposite

way' ?

 

3. While referring to Isvara the Pure Consciousnes is

called 'Brahman', but while referring to Jiva the same Pure

Consciousness is called 'Kutastha'. Why do we have the usage of two

different words. What is the significance ? and later struggle to

prove that 'Brahman' is 'Kutastha' which is the goal of Lakshyartha

of 'Tat Tvam Asi' ?

 

Kindly do not ignore my doubts and share your understanding/insights.

It will help me a lot to live in progress with correct understanding.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

 

 

------------