A Perspective-10

[Guest guest]

tat tvam asi:

 

tat tvam asi- is a statement of identity. When I say X= X or Y = Y, they are

identity statements alright, but they are trivial, since X cannot but be X;

there is no new knowledge revealed in that statement. But If I say X = Y, then

we are trying to equate two distinguishing entities that appear to be different.

By the equation we learn that, in spite of their apparent differences, their

essence is the same. For example, when we say 2+4 = 12-6; we are saying that

the value is essentially the same, even though the individual components are not

identically equal across the board. The - tat tvam asi- statement is an

instructional statement indicating an identity relation tvam = tat or you =

that. From the student’s reference the identity relation is I = that. From the

earlier posts we realize that the intended meaning of I, according to Vedanta,

is not the normal transactional I, which is the ego, but it is the witnessing

consciousness that I am. Now we

need to explore the meaning of - tat - in the equation.

 

In what follows, we will use the word SUBSTANTIVE for the material cause.

Substantive actually means noun, but as we know that noun refers to an object,

which has attributes that make it distinct from the rest of the objects in the

universe. Any definition of an object involves its attributes. Precision in the

definition involves precise description of the attributes that can help in

differentiating the object from all other objects whose attributes differ. All

objective knowledge is attributive knowledge. Attributes need a locus and that

locussed object is a noun. Here we are more concerned about attributes that

inhere with the object, which Nyaaya calls as having samavaayu sambandha,

inherent relationship and not incidental attributes called samyoga sambandha or

contact relationship. Example for the former one is blue lotus where blueness is

intrinsic with the lotus and that blue cannot be separated from the lotus. Crow

sitting on John’s house is

samyoga sambandha or contact relation. Here it is an incidental qualification

to identify John’s house, which is otherwise looking similar to all other

houses in the neighborhood. Our discussion here pertains to qualifications that

inhere with the object. They are also referred to as swaabhaavika lakshaNas, the

inherent qualifications that distinguishes the objects. (I am carefully avoiding

the use of the word swaruupa lakshaNa as we will discuss later that no created

object in the universe has swaruupa lakshaNa; only Brahman has that as given by

Tai. Up. as satyam, jnaanam and anantam, and it is neither created nor it is not

an object.)

 

Substantive of an object is more than just a noun, although the words are

synonymous. It is the substance that the object is made of or its material

content which is the real locus or true noun for its attributes. Nyaaya calls it

as dravyam, which is locus of guNa and karma. (Nyaaya-VaisheShikas have taken

the lead in Indian logic and are generally referred to as taarkikas.

Incidentally they are also Astikas, i.e, they believe in Veda pramANa). Then, is

there a difference between a noun and a substantive? Epistemologically, it is

important to explore this aspect as it makes easier for us to understand the

identity equation -tat tvam asi. Let us take for example, ring, bangle,

bracelet, etc which are objects thus nouns, each with distinguishing attributes

that differentiates one from the other, as well as from the rest of the objects

in the universe. Thus ring is different from non-ring as well as no-ring or put

it in Nyaaya’s terminology – ring is

abhaava pratiyogini of the ring –or ring is counter to the absence of ring- a

round about way of saying. According to Nyaaya, the absence of a ring is all

pervading and hence ring’s presence at a location A and time t1, then, is

obstructing (pratibhanda) its all pervasive absence (abhaava) at that location

and time. All that means is ring is there at location A at time t1, while it is

absent everywhere else, since the same ring cannot be there at two places at the

same time. The creation of a ring is then termination of its absence that was

present, before the ring was created – or technically called praagaabhaava

pratiyogini – that is it is counter to its previous absence. Similarly with

reference to its destruction we can call a ring as pradhvansaabhaava

pratiyogini, that is, it is counter to its posterior non-existence. Anything

that is created gets destroyed and matter cannot be created or destroyed –

these are fundamental laws of physics

and Vedanta too. If ring is a matter, then it cannot just come into universe

and disappear from the universe. Since ring is coming into the universe and

disappearing from the universe, ring cannot be matter or cannot be the locus for

its attributes. Then what is a ring which appears to be a locus for its

attributes such as ID, OD, width, ellipticity, etc., which are different from

the attributes of a bangle that is also made of the same material. Ring, bangle,

etc are nouns with no substantives of their own. Can we say that the attributes

of the ring belong to the gold, as gold is its material cause or substantive for

the ring? We cannot say that since in that case bangle attributes which differ

from those of ring also belong to the gold, which is the material cause also for

bangle. Gold cannot have mutually contradictory attributes of the ring and

bangle at the same time. Besides, ring can be modified into bangle but gold

still remains as gold.

Therefore attributes of the ring or bangle do not inhere with the gold. The

fundamental problem, if one looks into this carefully, is that there is really

no ring or a bangle. What we call ring and bangle are only apparent or only

transactional reality but they are not really there.

 

A lady objects: Sir, that cannot be, since I am warring a ring and a bangle.

Ring is distinctly different from bangle and their utilities are different. How

can you deny their existence? - In response, we can say ring and bangle exist,

at the same time we can also say that they really do not exist. This

contradiction is inherent in the transactional reality. The existence is

accepted at transactional level but is denied at higher order of reality. Hence

there is no contradiction. In reality, what one is warring is actually is not

ring, not bangle but only gold, but in two different forms. The names of the

forms are ring and bangle – without any substantives of their own. Therefore,

the attributes of the ring belong to the gold only but now in the form of a

ring, and the attributes of the bangle belong to the same gold only but that

gold is now in the form of a bangle. Ring and bangle are not different from

gold, yet they are different, since each has

their own attributes and utilities that differ from those of the other. That is

they are there, yet there are not really there, since what is there in only gold

in different forms. This is called maayaa. It is that force by which one appears

distinctly as many. The different attributes of the many do not really belong to

the substantive, the one, the material cause for the many. Hence Shankara

defines maayaa in VivekachUDAmaNi as:

 

sannapyasannaapyubhayaatmikaano

bhinnaapyabhinnaapyubhayaatmikaano

saangaapyanangaapyubhayaatmikaano

mahatbhuutaanirvachaniiya ruupa||

 

Applying to ring, neither you can say ring exists nor you can say ring does not

exist, nor you can say both as it exists and it does not exist, as they are

self-contradictory; neither you can say ring is different from gold nor the

same as gold, nor same and different from gold; neither you can say ring is part

of gold or not a part of gold or both – it is mityaa or due to maayaa, which

is incredible and inexplainable.

 

‘Sir, I cannot see maayaa and there is no proof for maayaa’ – a dvaitin

protests. For that the answer is maayaa is a force – or shakti – and

existence of any force is established only by the observed effects. A stationary

object if it starts moving, or a moving object if it comes to rest or if it

changes its direction of motion, there must be a force causing it, even if I do

not see it- says Physics. In fact, that is how the force itself is defined. The

change of status que is the very proof for the driving force for the change. One

gold becoming into many ornaments without itself undergoing any change is itself

a proof for maayaa. It is a transformation-less transformation where gold

remains as gold, yet varieties of ornaments, each with distinct attributes,

different from each other, come forth, which have no bearing on gold, the

substantive for all.

 

Hence ring and bangle, in these examples are just name for a form of the

material gold only. In truth, there is no object ring or bangle other than gold.

Gold in different forms expresses itself as different ornaments with different

names to distinguish the forms - it can also exist without forming any

ornaments. It is the glory of the gold to be able to exist in varieties in names

and forms as ornaments. Gold can declare, all the ornaments are in me, but I am

not in them, since their six fold modifications, asti, jaayate, etc., existence,

birth etc do not belong to me. I remain as changeless in all changes. I am

unaffected by any of the changes in terms of name and form. Most importantly

knowing one, the Gold, we can as well know all the ornaments that are created in

the past, in the present and those that will be created in the future, since

gold is the substantive for all. We will discuss this example again when we

discuss the perceptuality condition.

 

 

With this background, let us examine now the tat tvam asi statement. Let us

examine the word ‘that’ which is being pointed out. Obviously it is an

instruction for me from my Vedantic teacher. The word - that – normally refers

to something remote from me, spatially remote or temporally remote or remote

from both aspects or remote from understanding wise; that is notionally remote.

Since it is a pronoun, in order to understand what that ‘tat’ that is being

referred to, we need to go back to the original context where it was used. It

occurs in the Ch. Up. 6th Chapter which is popularly called Sat Vidya. (This is

not a commercial, but for those in States, who are interested, this text was

taken as a part of two-day Memorial Day camp, and MP3-CD is available with

Chinmaya Mission Washington Regional Center; www.chinmayadc.org). The discussion

starts with the father Uddaalaka asking his son, Swetaketu, who just returned

after his 12 years of Vedic

studies, and posing that he knows everything – whether he has learned that

knowing which everything else is known. The son says that it is impossible –

if I know physics, how can I know chemistry, zoology, etc, unless I study and

know each and every subject separately. The father says it is possible in some

cases. He provides three examples to illustrate the point. In essence, he says,

if we know the material cause, like gold for example, then all the products of

gold, say, all the ornaments, made of that material are as well known. By

knowing one, gold, we have substantive knowledge of all the products of gold.

The products are nothing but names and forms which are just superimpositions on

the substance gold. Form constitutes a representative attribute and name

constitutes the knowledge of that formed object. Hence ring, bangle, etc are

what scripture calls as vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH – in Hindi it is

–naamkevaaste- modified forms of gold,

since gold remains as gold in becoming a ring or a bangle. Are ring and bangle

really there? Well there are there, but not really there, says the scripture

itself. Our above analysis points to the same. There are no ringly or bangly

substances that exist, and what is there is only gold. Although for

transactional purposes we use the word as golden ring or golden bangle making

golden as adjective qualifying the noun, really it should be correctly called

ringly gold or bangly gold, since the substantive or noun should be gold, the

substance with which they are made up off. Thus ringly, bangly, etc are

attributive content of the ornaments and not their substantive content. Thus in

the very naming itself we are giving importance to the attributes than to the

substantive. For purpose of transactions or vyaavahaara to differentiate one

form of gold from the other, naming the forms as ring, bangle, etc is O.K., as

long we do not loose sight of the fact they

are just gold with different forms, and names that go with forms.

 

The purpose of the above discussion is to bring two essential aspects in terms

of tat tvam asi statement: 1. The material cause which I call it as substantive

cause pervades all the products of that material. The products are nothing but

material cause itself in different forms and therefore different names. From the

point of the material cause which does not undergo any transformation there are

really no products, since what is there is material itself in different forms.

However from the point of transactional utility the products are distinct from

each other based on their attributes. 2. We discussed before two aspects: I see

it, therefore it is there; and it is there, therefore I see it – the jiiva

sRiShTi or Iswara sRiShTi – In the final analysis both are established because

I SEE IT. Perception forms the basis for knowledge of their existence. Without

my seeing it, definite existence of any object, hence the whole world cannot be

established.

Now without going into details we are establishing (for details see post no.

in the knowledge series) that even via perception we cannot establish the

definite or as it is (yathaartha jnaanam) of what we perceived, since we can

perceive only the attributes gathered by the senses, within the senses

capabilities. We say, it is ringly gold, since we see ring form and gold-color

and both are attributes. The perception of an object occurs via sense input

where eyes see the form and color, ears sound, the skin the touch, tongue to

taste, nose the smell. The five senses operating the five distinct fields of

operation. In all these, the senses do not perceive the material substance or

they can sense however the attributes of the material substance such as

glittery-ness of the gold. Senses cannot gather whether it is really gold or

gold-plated iron or some other metal that glitters like gold. When we see gold

ring or bangle we assume that it is made of gold.

Thus it is made of gold is an assumption, forgetting the fact that all that

glisters need not be gold. That it is indeed gold, the material that it is made

up of, has to be confirmed by an expert using some tests; thus involving

karmendriyas. The story of Eureka is well known.

 

The bottom line is we cannot establish the reality to the existence of the

objective world since we cannot really perceive the material cause for the world

of objects. The transactional reality of the object is established by

transactions. If not the object perceived may not be real, since it is based on

perceptual data which can be defective as in the subjective or objective errors

discussed earlier. Then how do we know the material cause for the world. We can

say gold is the material cause for all the gold ornaments and mud is the

material cause for all mud pots and iron is the material cause for all iron

tools, etc – says the Ch. Up. Perceptual knowledge cannot establish the

material cause since perception is based on sense input which can only measure

sensible things – shabda, sparSha, ruupa, rasa and gandha which are guNas or

attributes and not substantives. Mind operates with the senses. Interestingly

perception forms the basis for all other

pramaaNAs that operate in the transactional world. However, there has to be a

locus for GuNs or attributes. What is the material for the world of objects

which cannot be known by senses?

 

The true material cause of the world of objects can only be established by

scriptures. With this understanding we can look at Uddaalaka’s teaching to his

son that terminates in the tat tvam asi statement. Uddaalaka at the request of

his son, teaches how the world of objects are created. The fundamental material

cause for the whole universe, he says, is existence itself. That existence is

not inert but it is existence which is conscious. Hence what was there before

creation is sat – chit, and being one without a second it is anantam, that is

it is limitless. Also being one without a second it has no differences of any

kind- that is no sajaati-vijaati-swagata bhedaas, in essence no attributive

differences of any kind. The creation is transformation-less transformation like

the three examples given before – just as gold becoming ornaments, mud

becoming pots, or iron becoming tools. Therefore scriptures says just as gold

remains as gold in all the

transformations without itself undergoing any transformation, the

existence-consciousness remain as such in all products formation, that

constitutes everything that is there in the universe, since it was one without a

second and it will remain as such one without a second, in spite of all

transformation-less transformations. That existence-consciousness that one

without a second that pervades the whole universe as its material cause, which

does not undergo or cannot undergo any transformation, is the real YOU, tat tvam

asi, Swetaketu, says father-teacher Uddaalaka. Bhagavaan Ramana starts his sat

darshanam text with the sloka that starts: sat pratyayaaH kinnu vihaaya santam..

that is, santam vihaaya, without the principle of existence, sat pratyayaah

kinnu (bhaveyuH) how can there be any existence of anything in the world

possible? Bhagavaan’s direct teaching from the UpaniShadic statement (Video

talks on Sat darshanam are available at

www.advaitaforum.org for those who are interested for personal viewing, also

some segments on U-tube). The material cause has to pervade all the products and

the whole universe is creation starting from SAT. Materials has to be conserved

during transformation, says Physics and Krishna declares (2:16) this

conservation principle in absolute terms in terms of the fundamental material of

the whole universe – SAT – naasato vidyate bhavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH|

That which is non-existence can never come into existence and that which exists

can never cease to exist. That existence pervades the whole universe of

creation, and tat tvam asi, Swetaketu – YOU ARE THAT.

 

More in the next post.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Shree Rammohanji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for you email.

 

Existence, sat is the same as chit or consciousness is established in the Ch. up

sat vidya - when it starts sat eva idam agra asiit - existence alone was there

before creation and it is - ekam eva advitiiyam - implying that existence is

infinite and one without a second. Logically if existence is finite then we

would ask what is there on the other side of the finiteness. Since the other

side is there - implying other side of existence exists, meaning the existence

can only be infinite.

 

Next the Upanishad itself says - tat aikshataa bahusyaam prajaayeya. meaning it

Saw or visualized. The existence which is infinite visualized - implies that it

has the capacity to visualize - hence it has to be conscious entity since

unconscious entity cannot visualize. This aspect is emphasized in Brahma sutra

by baadaraayana to establish what was there is Brahman which is sat and chit

swaruupam. Anantam is stated in the Upanishad in the ch. up as one without a

second and in Tai Up in defining Brahman as satyam - jnaanam and anantam brahma.

anantam is same as ananda swaruupam since limitless is happiness. Brahman is

defined as satyam jnaanam and anantam - they are samaanaadhikarana implying each

one independently defines Brahman - three words are used to indicate Brahman

from three different reference points. From asat or mityaa, Brahman is satyam -

from inert point Brahman is consciousness and from limitation point Brahman is

limitless. These are

pointers for inquiring into tat tvam asi statement.

 

In the next post or the next next one if there is one, your question will be

answered. If not keep me posted to make sure I address the issue. Ch. Up itself

established that sat and chit are the same. There is another mahaavaakya that

define Brahman has chit swaruupam. - prajnaanam brahma. Which means

consciousness is infinite. By using a converse statement in the definition,

scripture also pointing out that they are necessary and sufficient conditions to

define Brahman. That means if there is consciousness that must be Brahman. If I

say water is H2O is a direct statement but if I say H2O is water, then it

becomes a converse statement- implying it is necessary and sufficient condition

to define water. water is H2O and H2O is water - no two ways about it. Same way

prajnaanam Brahma definition - consciousness is Brahman and Brahman itself means

infiniteness - So we have one side sat is Brahman and on the other side chit is

Brahman. Brahman being

infiniteness only way possible to bring all this is sat eva chit and chit eva

sat - that is sat and chit are one Brahman but being pointed from two reference

points.There are also other ways to establish brahman is sat and chit. But the

point is made.

 

Since there is atleast one more post promised, we will be addressing these

issues.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Rammohan <s_rammohan wrote:

>  

> In your recent post - A Perspective-10 , the

> " existence " part is established by the logic

> of the statements & examples but I am not

> clear as to how   " Consciousness[Chit] " or

> " Ananatham " is established , the queries I have

> is -

>  

>

> Is Consciousness a creation of Maya ? I

> am led to this observation as I am assuming that the

> term " Consciousness " is more required to

> explain the continuity from the " absolute

> state "  to the " transactional

> state "   and it explains the time

>  factor of creation.( Maya) 

> Like wise Is   " Anantham "   to

> explain the space aspect of this continuity from absolute to

> Transactional reality.

> Then what remains is " Sat " and  that

> alone IS..

>  

> If there is some language or choice of word issues in

> understanding the above queries , please feel free to

> connect with me.

>  

> Pray elaborate and if this needs to be shared in the

> group that sis fine too but reword them for a better

> understanding by the group.

>  

> Om Namo Narayanaya

> Rammohan

>  

>

>

>

>

>