Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art)

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> I expect Profvk and Sadaji to inject further

> insights to this

> important Statement from the Chandokya Upanishad in

> support of

> Sankara's Advaita Philosophy.

 

Ram - you have provided an exhaustive definition for

the famous mahavaakya. There is not much I can add

other than go into more details.

 

First Let me say that this is considered as

instructive mahavaakya than declarative mahaavaakya.

where the teacher Uddalaka instructs his disciple -son

'tat tvam asi' or you are that. This statement comes

with an explanation and Uddlaka repeats this

instruction 9 times taking each time a different

example, at the request of his student. When the

scripture itself repeats again and again, the

importance of the statement is very obvious.

 

Shankara therefore devotes a whole book 'vaakya

vRitti' explaining this statement. Shree Sadananda

yogiindra Saraswati gives an eloborate explanation in

'Vedantasaara' applying what is known in tarka

shaastra - bhaaga tyaaga laxana or jahat ajahallaxana.

 

 

A question is asked how can I be Him, I being limited

by space-wise, time-wise and object-wise with limited

knowledge, limited skills and limited powers and He

being infinite in all respects, space wise, time wise,

object wise, with infinite knowledge, unlimited skills

and power - Therefore some aachaaryas have concluded

that it can never be so and the statement should

actually be not ‘tat tvam asi’ but 'atat tvam asi' -

since sanskrit is amenable to such splitting too.

Advaitin of course does not accept that since we do

not need a scripture to tell us that 'I am not that'

since that seems to be everybody's everyday’s

experience in the world – that is the statement of

ajnaani that one is not omnipresent, or omniscient.

If Vedas are pramaNa for this, it has to tell me

something that I cannot know by other means - that too

no need to repeat 9 times. It has to repeat so many

times only because, it is contrary to our normal

experience. Hence it has to be understood properly.

 

The classical example that is given to unravel this is

'saH ayam devadattaH' ' this is that devadatta' - if a

statement like that is made, it is obvious that we are

referring to only one devadatta. If we are

introducing him for the first time we will just say

'this is devadatta'. But when we use two words, 'this

and that' with equal emphasis (samaana adhikaraNa) and

I am equating something that the listener is familiar.

I should have been familiar with that devadatta that

is being referred to some extent (although not in

complete detail) and also seeing directly this

devadatta that is being pointed out. That devadatta

that I was familiar was quite a young boy that

everybody used to admire and this devadatta that I am

seeing now looks old and ugly person, and if the

teacher says this is that devadatta - that instruction

immediately has to give me instantaneous knowledge-

how? I have to drop all the contradictory

qualifications of this devadatta and that devadatta

and equate only that which is essential quality

(swaruupa laxana)to see the identity of the two in

spite of the differences in the incidental attributes.

This is called bhaaga tyaaga laxana that is discarding

those incidental qualities that differ between this

and that devadatta and equating only that swaruupa

laxana (that which makes devadatta as devadatta and

without which devadatta is no more devadatta) of both,

to arrive at a unitary knowledge - this is that

devadatta.

 

Advaita does not say I am equal to God but what it

says is that if we discard the superficial qualities

of myself and the Lord and take only the essential

qualities, then only tat tvam asi is valid. Since it

is not easy to understand this equation, Uddalaka

keeps repeating the teaching using several examples to

drive the point. The swaruupa laxana of both I and

the Lord is sat-chit-ananda, and from that point ‘tat

tvam asi’ stands established. When that teaching

sinks in the student then he can declare unequivocally

that ' aham brahma asmi', I am Brahman. Then the

teaching served its purpose and Vedas have done their

job.

 

Shree Ramanuja aachaarya emphasizes the antaryamin

(indweller) concept in equating the ‘tvam’ with ‘tat’,

as ‘tvam’ is only a part of the total tat as

visheshaNa (quality). Interestingly he uses the

samaanaadhikarana to dismiss the advaitic

interpretation that involves bhaagatyaaga laxaNa to

establish his interpretation. In the example he takes

– the blue lotus – the blueness and the lotusness have

samaanadhikaraNa since both are attributes that

defines the object lotus in hand. But if one goes

deeper analysis of the laxaNas, there are incidental

and there are necessary qualifications and there is no

samaanaadhikaraNa for both. For example the blueness

is also necessary for the lotus to be blue it is not

necessary for lotus to be a lotus. If the blue lotus

looses it color by becoming yellow during drying

process, Lotusness remains but blueness is gone. Hence

the qualifications of blueness and lotusness do not

have samaanadhikaraNatvam since one is incidental

qualification while the other is swaruupa laxaNa. –

essentially it means lotus cannot remain as lotus

without lotusness (whatever that means) but it can

remain as lotus with out being blue. This is exactly

what advaita vedanta refers to in the bhaagatyaaga

laxaNa – what is given up (bhaaga tyaaga) are

incidental qualifications of devadatta and equating

only the essential or swaruupa laxaNa as the basis in

the statement ‘this is that devadatta’.

 

All this of course is not necessary for definition –

but now we are dealing with Mahaavaakya s– These great

statements are not something to define but some to

understand – not as a thought but as a fact.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda