tat tvam asi

July 26, 2003

I was rereading Srila Prabhupada's purport to BG 4.9. I noticed that

he brought up "tat tvam asi" here, a famous Upanishadic statement

from the Chandogya.

What I found odd was the way in which Srila Prabhupada appears to

have understood "tat tvam asi." Madhvaachaarya understands it

as "atat tvam asi," (you are not that [brahman]). Of course, we are

not bound to the interpretations of Maadhvas. But contextually

speaking, the statement occurs in a conversation between Uddhaalaka

and his son Shvetaketu, after the latter had returned from the

gurukula with his knowledge of the Vedas. Uddhaalaka, sensing that

his son had become puffed up, told him to fast for some time and

then, having weakened him, challenged Shvetaketu to demonstrate his

Vedic knowledge which he was unable to do. It was then that

Uddhaalaka spoke the phrase "tat tvam asi."

However, here Srila Prabhupada appears to be interpreting the

statement as a reference to Krishna being Brahman. I don't see how

this can be the case, when the Lord is not even present during this

conversation, and the statement was said by Uddhaalaka to Shvetaketu.

Would anyone like to comment on this?

Please see the full purport below:

------

The Lord's descent from His transcendental abode is already explained

in the 6th verse. One who can understand the truth of the appearance

of the Personality of Godhead is already liberated from material

bondage, and therefore he returns to the kingdom of God immediately

after quitting this present material body. Such liberation of the

living entity from material bondage is not at all easy. The

impersonalists and the yogis attain liberation only after much

trouble and many, many births. Even then, the liberation they achieve-

-merging into the impersonal brahmajyoti of the Lord--is only

partial, and there is the risk of returning to this material world.

But the devotee, simply by understanding the transcendental nature of

the body and activities of the Lord, attains the abode of the Lord

after ending this body and does not run the risk of returning to this

material world. In the Brahma-samhita (5.33) it is stated that the

Lord has many, many forms and incarnations: advaitam acyutam anadim

ananta-rupam. Although there are many transcendental forms of the

Lord, they are still one and the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.

One has to understand this fact with conviction, although it is

incomprehensible to mundane scholars and empiric philosophers. As

stated in the Vedas (Purusa-bodhini Upanisad):

eko devo nitya-lilanurakto

bhakta- vyapi hrdy antar-atma

"The one Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternally engaged in

many, many transcendental forms in relationships with His unalloyed

devotees." This Vedic version is confirmed in this verse of the Gita

personally by the Lord. He who accepts this truth on the strength of

the authority of the Vedas and of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

and who does not waste time in philosophical speculations attains the

highest perfectional stage of liberation. Simply by accepting this

truth on faith, one can, without a doubt, attain liberation. The

Vedic version tat tvam asi is actually applied in this case. Anyone

who understands Lord Krsna to be the Supreme, or who says unto the

Lord "You are the same Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead,"

is certainly liberated instantly, and consequently his entrance into

the transcendental association of the Lord is guaranteed. In other

words, such a faithful devotee of the Lord attains perfection, and

this is confirmed by the following Vedic assertion:

tam eva viditvati mrtyum eti

nanyah pantha vidyate 'yanaya

"One can attain the perfect stage of liberation from birth and

death simply by knowing the Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

and there is no other way to achieve this perfection." (Svetasvatara

Upanisad 3.8) That there is no alternative means that anyone who does

not understand Lord Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead is

surely in the mode of ignorance and consequently he will not attain

salvation simply, so to speak, by licking the outer surface of the

bottle of honey, or by interpreting the Bhagavad-gita according to

mundane scholarship. Such empiric philosophers may assume very

important roles in the material world, but they are not necessarily

eligible for liberation. Such puffed-up mundane scholars have to wait

for the causeless mercy of the devotee of the Lord. One should

therefore cultivate Krsna consciousness with faith and knowledge, and

in this way attain perfection.

July 30, 2003

krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com (krishna_susarla) wrote:

>I was rereading Srila Prabhupada's purport to BG 4.9. I noticed that >he

brought up "tat tvam asi" here, a famous Upanishadic statement >from the

Chandogya.

The tat tvam asi passage is used by all three major schools to elucidate their

doctrines: you are that (Advaita), you are not that (Dvaita), you are

"organically one with" that (Visista-Advaita). So a Gaudiya understanding would

presumably put forward its view, hypothetically: you are "inconceivably

different and non-different from" that. To support this, one would need to

show that the Upanisads consistently teach achintya-bheda-abheda as the

relation between the soul and God.

Regarding the interpretation "Krishna is that", I notice that Srila Prabhupada

seems to be following Baladeva which can be instantly noted from the latters

quotation from the sruti, tat tvam asi, and the Svetasvatara Up. The exact

statement Baladeva says (pulled from the granthamandira website) is this:

yad vaa mocakatva-lingena tat tvam asi iti shrutesh ca me janma-karmaNii

tattvato brahmatvena yo vettiiti vyaakhyeyam |

The whole passage is quoted below. Can someone help translate?

ca eko devo nitya-liilaanurakto bhakta-vyaapii bhakta-hRdy antaraatmaa iti

shrutyaa divyam iti mad-uktyaa ca dRDha-shraddho yukti-nirapekSaH san | he

arjuna ! sa vartamaanaM dehaM tyaktvaa punaH praapan~cikaM janma naiti | kintu

maam eva tat-tat-karma-manojn~am eti mukto bhavatiity arthaH | yad vaa

mocakatva-lingena tat tvam asi iti shrutesh ca me janma-karmaNii tattvato

brahmatvena yo vettiiti vyaakhyeyam | itarathaa tam eva viditvaatimRtyum eti

naanyaH panthaa vidyate'yanaaya [shvetU 3.8] iti shrutir vyaakupyet | samaanam

anyat | janmaadi-nityataayaaM yuktayas tv anyatra vistRtaa draSTavyaaH ||9||

(Note: I believe I have transliterated this passage correctly from the font on the website)

Gerald S

August 14, 2003

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

> I was rereading Srila Prabhupada's purport to BG 4.9. I noticed that

> he brought up "tat tvam asi" here, a famous Upanishadic statement

> from the Chandogya.

>

> However, here Srila Prabhupada appears to be interpreting the

> statement as a reference to Krishna being Brahman. I don't see how

> this can be the case, when the Lord is not even present during this

> conversation, and the statement was said by Uddhaalaka to Shvetaketu.

> Would anyone like to comment on this?

Srila Prabhupada doesn't say anything about the context in which this statement

appears in the Chandogya; there is no such need either. He appears just to take

it literally here, and without any mayavada baggage. Moreover, he also qualifies

that this merely applies what is an already widely known aphorism to the

principle of Krsna's multiforms being one and the same. In others words,

regardless of whatever the Chandogya says about it, this is actually a better

application of what can be a general statement of identity.

That's perfectly acceptable too, if not even preferable--given Krsna's intent as

indicated in the previous verses (and Prabhupada's purports on them). So I

don't see any real problem with it.

(Srila Prabhupada wrote)

> As stated in the Vedas (Purusa-bodhini Upanisad):

> "The one Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternally engaged in

> many, many transcendental forms in relationships with His unalloyed

> devotees." This Vedic version is confirmed in this verse of the Gita

> personally by the Lord. He who accepts this truth on the strength of

> the authority of the Vedas and of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

> and who does not waste time in philosophical speculations attains the

> highest perfectional stage of liberation. Simply by accepting this

> truth on faith, one can, without a doubt, attain liberation. The

> Vedic version tat tvam asi is actually applied in this case. Anyone

> who understands Lord Krsna to be the Supreme, or who says unto the

> Lord "You are the same Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead,"

> is certainly liberated instantly, and consequently his entrance into

> the transcendental association of the Lord is guaranteed.

August 16, 2003

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

>

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

> > I was rereading Srila Prabhupada's purport to BG 4.9. I noticed

that

> > he brought up "tat tvam asi" here, a famous Upanishadic statement

> > from the Chandogya.

> >

> > However, here Srila Prabhupada appears to be interpreting the

> > statement as a reference to Krishna being Brahman. I don't see

how

> > this can be the case, when the Lord is not even present during

this

> > conversation, and the statement was said by Uddhaalaka to

Shvetaketu.

> > Would anyone like to comment on this?

>

> Srila Prabhupada doesn't say anything about the context in which

this statement appears in the Chandogya; there is no such need

either. He appears just to take it literally here, and without any

mayavada baggage. Moreover, he also qualifies that this merely

applies what is an already widely known aphorism to the principle of

Krsna's multiforms being one and the same. In others words,

regardless of whatever the Chandogya says about it, this is actually

a better application of what can be a general statement of identity.

> That's perfectly acceptable too, if not even preferable--given

Krsna's intent as indicated in the previous verses (and Prabhupada's

purports on them). So I don't see any real problem with it.

>

If I understood you correctly then, what you are saying is that Srila

Prabhupada is not trying to apply the correct meaning of tat tvam asi

as it appears in the Chaandogya Upanishad. Rather, he is deliberately

taking the statement out of context for some other purpose.

But I'm still not clear on why he would do that. Everyone knows where

tat tvam asi comes from. Srila Prabhupada also refers to it as

the "Vedic version," implying that he is pulling it out of somewhere

in the shruti. Even if this were not the case, why would he need to

refer to it at all in order to make his point? Especially when the

statement was not saying when he interprets it as saying? The

commentary itself does not require an isolated Vedic slogan to make

the point Srila Prabhupada is making.

Baladeva also quotes this tat tvam asi in his commentary, and since

Srila Prabhupada is following Baladeva, the question really is why

did Baladeva do it? Maybe you already answered my question, and I'm

just a little slow trying to figure it out.

"In others words, regardless of whatever the Chandogya says about it,

this is actually a better application of what can be a general

statement of identity."

Even if that were the case, why pick tat tvam asi to make that point,

when it was not needed in the first place and when it's not really

saying that based on its original context?

yours,

- K

August 17, 2003

>Even if that were the case, why pick tat tvam asi to make that point, >when it

was not needed in the first place and when it's not really >saying that based

on its original context?

Probably Srila Prabhupada is trying to show the right way of understanding a "Maha Vakya"?

Narasimhan

August 18, 2003