Atat Tvam Asi is Correct!

[tackleberry]

There are many retards, vaishnavas included, who keep repeating like parrots that Madhvacharya changed 'tat' into 'atat.' First off, the word 'tat' is not present in isolation in the said upanishad. So how could Madhva have changed tat into atat? The line goes like this: sa atmaatat tvamasi

 

Atmaatat can be split to atmaa atat, it's grammatically accurate. And this is what Madhva has done. But many idiots say he changed tat into atat, when that's a blatant lie. They're assuming that atmaatat can only be split as atmaa tat, hence the baseless accusation. But according to the rules of grammar, it can be split as atmaa atat.

 

Hence, Madhva did NOT change tat into atat, he simply split atmaatat into atmaa atat, which is grammatically correct. Which is why even an advaitin of Madhusudhana Saraswati's stature didn't object to this. But we have retards posing as vaishnavas objecting to this. This truly is kali yuga.

[Dark Warrior]

So now, anyone who isn't a dvaitin is a retard? I doubt a great Vaishnava like Sri Madhvacharya would endorse such language.

 

Nobody is looking at the Grammar. Look at this point,

 

1) Advaita - Tat Tvam Asi indicates that Jiva is Brahman. This means that Uddhalaka was advising the arrogant Swetaketu by calling him Brahman. So, Swetaketu's ego would be stoked even more to hear that he is Brahman. Illogical.

 

2) VA - General Oneness of Brahman and Jiva. Brahman resides in Jiva. There is identity, but the two are also distinct. Quite logical.

 

3) Dvaita - Uddhalaka painstakingly gives many, many analogies just to tell Swetaketu, 'You are not that, my son'. Ridiculous. He could have just told him so without taking up a sizeable portion of the Upanishad.

 

I am not denying that Sri Madhvacharya is grammatically correct. The problem is that often Sri Madhva's arguments rely on nuances and ingenious usage of grammar, often lending unusual meanings to very familiar and straightforward words. Sometimes, the context is not considered.

 

Before taking up arguments, realise that neither Sri Ramanujar nor Sri Madhvar defeated their opponents by calling them 'retards'. Mutual respect was given to even advaitins, and no Vaishnava acharya has ever launched a personal attack on Adi Sankara himself. So, try to argue without acting like a 6 year old.

[tackleberry]

 

 

2) VA - General Oneness of Brahman and Jiva. Brahman resides in Jiva. There is identity, but the two are also distinct. Quite logical.

 

 

 

Illogical, in fact, totally ludicrous. Uddhalaka painstakingly gives many, many analogies just to tell Swetaketu, 'You are not that, my son, and you're also that, my son.' So according to Ramanuja and co., Uddalaka wasted an entire upanishad to tell his son that he IS and he IS NOT brahman. Wow, great sri vaishnava logic.

[Dark Warrior]

Foolish debate. The Upanishads have already mentioned Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma. (All this, verily is Brahman). So Uddhalaka clearly tells Svetaketu, 'You are That' in the sense that 'Self is Brahman'. Judging by the fact that everything is Brahman, Self is also Brahman.

 

"Tvam", meaning 'thou' refers (superficially) to Svetaketu. But what is the deeper significance? What is the scope of the reference? It does not mean the body as that cannot be the reciepient of philosophical wisdom.

 

Does it mean the individual self?

 

The discourse, while explaining the entry of Sat into the world of particulars, has made it clear that the finite self cannot exist if the Supreme Self does not reside in it. NO term appicable to the individual self is applicable only to it. It's reference must extend to the indwelling Divine principle too. This applies to the term "tvam" also. The speciality of this term as opposed to "Tat" is that it signifies the Divine self as dwelling within the individual self of Svetaketu,which itself dwelling in the body of Svetaketu. It is this totality that is described as "tvam" and the principal factor is the immanent Divine self and the subsidiary factor is the Jiva of Svetaketu. So "tvam" means the Supreme Soul as immanent in the individual.

 

EDIT: In case you are wondering, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mentions that Brahman is within Jivatma. So, to summarise Tat Tvam Asi:

 

1) Advaita posits complete identity. But Brahman is within Jiva, hence, a distinction should be maintained.

 

2) Dvaita takes it as Atat Tvam Asi. But this denial also denies the Brahman within Jivatma. And even if it can be argued that it only denies the Jivatma, this again poses another problem in the sense that Jiva DOES have qualities that are identical with Brahman in full measure - Eternal nature, Jnana and Consciousness.

 

Therfore, logically speaking, VA is the best solution. The problem with Upanishads is that they say one thing somewhere and then expect the philosopher to correlate it with another quotation far away from the original saying. This has led to many philosophical debates.

 

DOUBLE EDIT: In order to shut Tackleberry's trap once and for all, let me give you proof from Vishnu Purana:

 

This Purana recounts how Sri Krishna defeated Shiva during the Banasura episode (I am sure all vaishnavas are aware of it). After subduing the enemies, Sri Krishna tells Rudra this:

 

"Because of your promise to Bana, my discus is arrested. But know this, O Rudra, that you need not fight me. That which I am, that you are, and so is this world, with all the Devas, Asuras and Humans."

 

Vishnu Purana clearly echoes the Tat Tvam Asi of the Upanishad here. After defeating Rudra, Sri Krishna declares Qualified Non-Dualism in no unambiguous terms. This fully validates Sri Ramanujar's philosophy, as Sri Krishna has also drawn a distinction between Himself and Rudra by fighting the latter (thus refuting Advaitic views of complete identiy).

 

Therfore, while Atat Tvam Asi is clever grammatical jugglery, it is proven that Tat Tvam Asi is the real purport. Unless Tackleberry wishes to say that Vishnu Purana is interpolated or that it cannot be accepted (feeble excuses), there is no argument here.

[tackleberry]

 

2) Dvaita takes it as Atat Tvam Asi. But this denial also denies the Brahman within Jivatma.

 

 

Brahman within jiva, you say. So how can Brahman be within jiva, if Brahman and jiva are one. So your statement itself proves dvaita, namely that Brahman and jiva are distinct, which is why Brahman is within jiva.

 

 

And even if it can be argued that it only denies the Jivatma, this again poses another problem in the sense that Jiva DOES have qualities that are identical with Brahman in full measure - Eternal nature, Jnana and Consciousness.

 

 

Dvaita believes in bima-pratibimba-vada, which explains why there are similarities between jiva and Brahman. And similarity is NOT oneness, it implies distinction. Second, if jiva did have all these qualities like jnana in full measure, it wouldn't be in samsara at all. So the VA view is silly.

 

 

Therfore, logically speaking, VA is the best solution.

 

VA is illogical, because it's tantamount to saying you're and you're not a six-footer. Two logical opposites cannot co-exist, which is what VA foolishly advocates.

 

 

So "tvam" means the Supreme Soul as immanent in the individual.

 

Again, you're proving the dvaita view. If the supreme soul is immanent in the individual, it only implies that the two are distinct. If they're one, it's tantamount to saying A is immanent in A, which is absurd.

[tackleberry]

 

This Purana recounts how Sri Krishna defeated Shiva during the Banasura episode (I am sure all vaishnavas are aware of it). After subduing the enemies, Sri Krishna tells Rudra this:

 

"Because of your promise to Bana, my discus is arrested. But know this, O Rudra, that you need not fight me. That which I am, that you are, and so is this world, with all the Devas, Asuras and Humans."

 

 

He speaks of similarity, NOT identity. Since Krishna being the bimba is made of jnana, ananda etc., the jiva-s being pratibimba-s are similar, nothing more. There's no statement of identity at all, only similarity.

[Dark Warrior]

 

He speaks of similarity, NOT identity. Since Krishna being the bimba is made of jnana, ananda etc., the jiva-s being pratibimba-s are similar, nothing more. There's no statement of identity at all, only similarity.

 

Oh, so now, the World is similar to Krishna? Interesting.

 

You have correctly pointed out my mistake in calling it identity. To which I have replied, based on Mahavakyas, that inseparability is oneness. To say it is completely distinct is stupid.

 

The Purple robe analogy illustrates that the purpleness and robe are distinct, but being inseparable, they are of the same substance. This is Tat Tvam Asi.

 

If He had wanted to say 'similar', He wouldn't include Jagat.

 

yuShmaddattavaro baaNo jiivataameSha shankara |

tvadavaakyagauravaadetanmayaa chakra.m nivattitam || vp 5.33.46 ||

tvayaa yadbhaya.m datta.m taddattamakhila.m mayaa |

matto 'vibhinnamaatmaana.m drShtumarhasi shankara || vp 5.33.47 ||

yo 'ha.m sa tva.m jagachcheda.m sadevaasuramaanuSham |

avidhyaamohitaatmaanaH puruShaa bhinnadarshinaH || vp 5.33.48 ||

 

Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from

respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of

safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend

that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and

that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men

contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.

 

Read the highlighted words properly. No way to juggle grammar here.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Brahman within jiva, you say. So how can Brahman be within jiva, if Brahman and jiva are one. So your statement itself proves dvaita, namely that Brahman and jiva are distinct, which is why Brahman is within jiva.

 

Which makes Jiva a mode, or an attribute of Brahman. Hence, there is unity.

 

 

Dvaita believes in bima-pratibimba-vada, which explains why there are similarities between jiva and Brahman. And similarity is NOT oneness, it implies distinction. Second, if jiva did have all these qualities like jnana in full measure, it wouldn't be in samsara at all. So the VA view is silly.

 

So you are saying the purpleness of a robe, or the blueness of a lotus, is easily distinguished from the robe or lotus? Yet, both are inseparable. There is oneness.

 

The Jiva is in samsara because its Jnana is limited by contact with material nature. Read VA philosophy for more answers. There are two forms of Jnana - Dharmabhoota Jnana and Svaroopa Jnana.

 

 

 

 

VA is illogical, because it's tantamount to saying you're and you're not a six-footer. Two logical opposites cannot co-exist, which is what VA foolishly advocates.

 

Dvaita foolishly overrides many mahavakyas which are contrary to its philosophy. And your foolishness is in not understanding that VA does not say you are and you are not. The essential substance is the same.

 

 

Again, you're proving the dvaita view. If the supreme soul is immanent in the individual, it only implies that the two are distinct. If they're one, it's tantamount to saying A is immanent in A, which is absurd.

 

Which has been refuted as before. Take for instance, Moksha, where the Jiva enjoys all the qualities of Brahman, but for the acts of creation, preservation and destruction. The Jiva also attains equality of status with Brahman and experiences the same bliss as Brahman. Even in this state, the Jiva is dependent on Brahman due to Brahman being the cause and reason why the Jiva exists and possesses the qualities and abilities that it does.

 

There is the sun, and many lamps. The light of the sun and the lamps are different sources. Yet, the light coming from them is indistinguishable as well.

[tackleberry]

 

Which makes Jiva a mode, or an attribute of Brahman. Hence, there is unity.

 

Unless A and B are distinct objects, one cannot be located in the other. So your idea that one can be an attribute of another defies logic.

 

 

So you are saying the purpleness of a robe, or the blueness of a lotus, is easily distinguished from the robe or lotus? Yet, both are inseparable.

 

The Jiva is in samsara because its Jnana is limited by contact with material nature. Read VA philosophy for more answers. There are two forms of Jnana - Dharmabhoota Jnana and Svaroopa Jnana.

 

Similarity is NOT identity, there's no way around it, period.

 

 

Dvaita foolishly overrides many mahavakyas which are contrary to its philosophy. And your foolishness is in not understanding that VA does not say you are and you are not. The essential substance is the same.

 

Funny you use the word 'mahavakya.' Even Sankara hasn't used that term to describe so-called abheda struti-s. The essential substance of a wooden chair and wooden table is wood, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same. They're different objects. Likewise, though both jiva-s and Brahman are conscious entities (due to bimba-pratibimba-vada), this only shows similarity and NOT identity. Which your thick head isn't perceiving.

 

 

Take for instance, Moksha, where the Jiva enjoys all the qualities of Brahman, but for the acts of creation, preservation and destruction.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Unless A and B are distinct objects, one cannot be located in the other. So your idea that one can be an attribute of another defies logic.

 

Why not? You are forgetting that only is the Jiva the sarira of Brahman, but Brahman also supports the Universe as His body. This clearly points out how everything is an attribute of Brahman.

 

Unless you understand the difference between Isvara and Brahman, this argument is wasted with you.

 

 

Similarity is NOT identity, there's no way around it, period.

 

Again, nobody is denying similarity. But the substance is Brahman, and hence, there is oneness.

 

 

Funny you use the word 'mahavakya.' Even Sankara hasn't used that term to describe so-called abheda struti-s. The essential substance of a wooden chair and wooden table is wood, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same. They're different objects. Likewise, though both jiva-s and Brahman are conscious entities (due to bimba-pratibimba-vada), this only shows similarity and NOT identity. Which your thick head isn't perceiving.

 

You think I am not aware of the fact that Mahavakya isn't a legit term? I'd suppose, on an online forum, the best way is to be concise. It wastes time writing 'these quotations'.

 

The fact is, certainly, chair and table are distinct. But the essential substance connecting them is Wood. And your idiocy is unwilling to let you see this unity.

 

I do not talk of identity, but unity. Already, I have clarified that the usage of the term 'identity' is indeed wrong.

 

The sameness rises from the fact that the underlying substance is the same. The changes are in the description of the entity. This is validated by the fact that initially, everything was in a subtle form, with no distinction. However, as Brahman decided to create, everything underwent transformation and differentiation into forms and names. BUT, it is to be understood that they are essentially of the same substance.

 

So, is this right? According to Dvaita, Chair and Table are different. Fine. Then, Dvaita says, the woodness of chair is similar to the woodness of the table. Ridiculous. Here, only the word 'same' or 'identical' even, is applicable.

 

Melt that chair and table into raw wood. What distinction can you see now?

 

 

 

Which proves the dvaita view that there's only distinction between jiva and Brahman, and no identity whatsoever, EVEN IN THE STATE OF MOKSHA.

 

There is distinction. Then you must say, 'there is similarity between the bliss of Jiva and Brahman'? Again, idiotic. The underlying sameness is clearly brought out.

 

You cannot distinguish the lamplight from sunlight. Period.

 

EDIT: To summarise:

 

Brahman is a triad of Chit, Achit, Isvara.

 

Isvara is the indweller.

 

Chit (Jivas) and Achit (Matter) are modes of Brahman.

 

Tackleberry needs to unclog his brain.

[tackleberry]

 

Why not? You are forgetting that only is the Jiva the sarira of Brahman, but Brahman also supports the Universe as His body. This clearly points out how everything is an attribute of Brahman.

An object and its attributes are one. So if jiva were an attribute of Brahman, you'll have to ascribe dukha, ajnana to Brahman. This is what VA position leads to. Therefore, jiva cannot be considered an attribute of Brahman.

 

 

Again, nobody is denying similarity. But the substance is Brahman, and hence, there is oneness.

There's no evidence that same substance implies oneness.

 

 

You think I am not aware of the fact that Mahavakya isn't a legit term? I'd suppose, on an online forum, the best way is to be concise. It wastes time writing 'these quotations'.

 

It proves your lack of integrity.

 

 

So, is this right? According to Dvaita, Chair and Table are different. Fine. Then, Dvaita says, the woodness of chair is similar to the woodness of the table. Ridiculous.

 

If we consider the woodenness of the table and the woodenness of the chair as one, as VA does, one should be destroyed when the other is. This is how ridiculous the VA position is.

 

 

There is distinction. Then you must say, 'there is similarity between the bliss of Jiva and Brahman'? Again, idiotic. The underlying sameness is clearly brought out.

 

That's because you're confusing sadrshya with abheda.

 

 

You cannot distinguish the lamplight from sunlight. Period.

 

You've already distinguished them by referring to them, treating them differently, and also admitting that when one isn't there, the other is. All this proves distinction.

[Dark Warrior]

 

An object and its attributes are one. So if jiva were an attribute of Brahman, you'll have to ascribe dukha, ajnana to Brahman. This is what VA position leads to.

 

good Lord, what a moron.

 

ISVARA IS IN JIVA AND JIVAS ARE IN ISVARA. Got it?

 

Brahman is the triad of Chit, Achit and Isvara.

 

Sri Ramanujar has explained the reason for ajnana as follows:

 

In the beginning, there was no distinction. Matter was present in a subtle form. Then, differentiation of name and form occured. Since, everything is the body of the Supreme Soul, the Svaroopa (nature) of the Supreme Soul remains unaffected by ajnana.

 

The differences are not indicative of inherent nature. The subtle nature remains the same.

 

Thus, is Dvaita refuted.

 

 

 

There's no evidence that same substance implies oneness.

 

 

 

It proves your lack of integrity.

 

Funny, I have proven properly how Isvara is the indweller and Brahman is the substance. And you say I lack integrity?

 

 

If we consider the woodenness of the table and the woodenness of the chair as one, as VA does, one should be destroyed when the other is. This is how ridiculous the VA position is.

 

But the differentiation does NOT affect the subtle or causal form. It is only name and form which changes. Therfore, the Chit and Achit differences remain solidly established.

 

It is Dvaita that looks ridiculous by denying this.

 

 

That's because you're confusing sadrshya with abheda.

 

I confuse nothing.

 

 

You've already distinguished them by referring to them, treating them differently, and also admitting that when one isn't there, the other is. All this proves distinction.

 

This proves your inability to comprehend anything properly. When I have clearly established the reason for the differences and the original subtle form they existed in, even a third grader should have understood it.

 

Dvaita is incomplete.

[tackleberry]

 

ISVARA IS IN JIVA AND JIVAS ARE IN ISVARA. Got it?

 

Then you're accepting the dvaita view, joker. Thank you!

 

 

Funny, I have proven properly how Isvara is the indweller and Brahman is the substance. And you say I lack integrity?

 

Because, moron, no shruti supports distinction between Ishwara and Brahman. Therefore, your other points on identity have no substance at all. And funny while defending VA, you're coming closer and closer to dvaita.