Guest guest Report post Posted June 23, 1994 Mani: This is in continuation to my earlier mail. You may want to glance through these points before replying to Vidyasankar's posting. Discussion on soc.religion.eastern mAyA (was Re: The Theism of the Upanishads) -------------------- (tat-tvam-asi section) [.....] vidya>> Advaita would rather leave the ontological status of mAyA as vidya>> anirvachanIya, than compromise on the Upanishadic teaching of identity vidya>> between Atman and Brahman. When the Upanishad says "tat tvam asi" it does vidya>> not mean "tad tava AtmA". Similarly, "ayamAtmA Brahma", not "asya Atmana: vidya>> AtmA Brahma". No SarIra-SArIrin relationship here, no soul of the soul vidya>> description, only absolute identity. In fact, it is this identity that is vidya>> unique to the teaching of the Upanishads, in no other religion is such vidya>> powerful non-duality affirmed. (Buddhism teaches identity, but not with vidya>> Brahman, because there is no concept of Brahman in Buddhism.) vidya>> Visishtadvaita offers alternative explanations to such identity, and is vidya>> comfortable with it; Advaita does not wish to dilute the Upanishadic vidya>> teaching. [.....] Does'nt the entire context of this Chandogya aphorism matter ? "Aitadaatmyam idam sarvam. Tatsatyam. Sa Atmaa. Tattvamasi Svetaketo" -Chandogya Upanisad (VI.8.7) Ramanuja interprets as follows: (free translation by SSR) " All this, namely, the world of physical nature and finite selves is ensouled by the Supreme Being. The world is the cosmic body of the Sat and has IT as it's soul. "It is only by virtue of this immanence that the world is real." "He the Lord, the Supreme Deity, is it's (world+finite self's) soul." (While the first statement posits the relation from the standpoint of the world, this sentence reaffirms it from the standpoint of the Supreme Brahman) The fourth sentence "Tattvamasi" is the culmination of the knowledge imparted by Uddaalaka to Svetaketu. The term "Tat" is taken to signify the supreme and primordial Sat, which was one without a second before creation. It also signifies all the attributes implied by the fact that it produces the world. "Tat" (that) must bear all this richness of connotation in order to be really meaningful. "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 dwells 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 Spirit as immanent in the individual. The verb "asi" means "art", and effects the identification of the meaning of "tat" and "tvam". The causal Brahman is identified with the Immnanent Brahman in the effect. It is this level of self knowledge that Uddaalaka found wanting in his son, and he accordingly imparts it to him. According to the Advaitic school, "tat" stands initially for Brahman the source of the universe, characterised by all the characteristics implied in being that. "tvam" stands initially for the individual self, subject to all the imperfections characteristic of it. At his stage the "identification" of "tat" and "tvam" is certainly impossible. Hence a drastic revision of their connotations must be worked out to facilitate the identification. In the revised scheme all that the word "tat" means, by virtue of Brahman's creatorship of the world, gets abolished. Only the idea of Brahman being infinite and non-dual remains. In the same way all that is understood by the word Jiva, its finitude, it's subjection to evil, is to be rejected. Only it's being the immediate and self evident subject of knowledge is to be retained. The resulting import that emerges out of the "identification" is that the self, signified by "tvam" is immediate and infinite. This double pruning down of the connotations of the two terms costs a great deal. The entire thought that Brahman is the creative source of the world is abandoned. The finiteness and evil associated with the individual self, must be given up as just creations of misunderstanding and error. Ramanuja refutes this interpretation repeatedly and thoroughly in the AanandamayaadhikaarnA of the Sri Bhasya and also in the Vedaartha Sangraha. The whole of Sadvidya upto the declaration of "Tattvamasi" builds up the conception of Brahman as the source and sustaining soul of the cosmos. It is on this premise that "Tattvamasi" is constructed. One cannot demolish the premise and enjoy the conclusion. The "tat" vanishes into nothingness, if very attribute distinguishing Brahman is drastically cut out. The subjection to evil characterising the Jiva cannot be abolished by the hypothesis that it is just a fabrication of error. The liability to such an error is itself a fundamental evil and as that is admitted, the "identification" of the Jiva with the perfect Sat is untenable. The pruning proposed is utterly unworkable. It is a "poor" Brahman that remains after this reduction. Hence Ramanuja suggests that "tvam" must not be mechanically understood as standing for the jiva but for the Supreme self immanent in the jiva. Brahman, which is the ground of the world is identified with Brahman, the ultimate self of all individual selves. This general thesis, already propounded in the sentences: Aitadaatmyam idam sarvam. Tatsatyam. Sa Atmaa. is particularised in conclusion, with reference to Svetaketu in "tattvamasi". The scriptural texts, in certain parts, establish plurality of entities in the Universe (bheda srutis), whereas in some parts they ordain simple Unity, discarding plurality (abheda srutis). This apparent contradiction cannot be successfully reconciled either ny the school of Monism or the school of Dualism that give prominence either to Abheda or Bheda texts exclusively. In either case it becomes extremely difficult to interpret all passages satisfactorily. But Visistadvaita takes Brahman as the Saririn of all beings and by this Sutra, binds all plurality into Unity without straining the scriptural texts. Whether Advaita borrows from Buddhism or not is not important. Whether it does justice to the Upanisads as a whole is the question ? (references 1. Ramanuja on the Upanisads by SS Raghavachar. and 2. The philosophy of Sadhana in Visistadvaita by NS AnanthaRangachar) -sudarshan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 1994 NOTe sudarshan your double pruning is correct regarding advaitins view on tattwam asi. but you have to properly prune both the objects " tat " and tvam. tat should mean according to advaitin - ishwara , devoid of all adjuncts that makes him an ishwara...ie. it is bramhan (nirguna only) without the maya adjuncts which make him appear as ishwara is the same bramhan as the the jeeva - devoid of all adjuncts that make bramhan appear as finite jeeva. note the clear double pruning alll the way. this was not clear in your statement. only then the "art" or " are" part of the statement can be taken to mean " identical" Please let me know where you got your double pruning algorithm? I hope this is not from standard authors!! oops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 1994 Krishna, I think you bring out a good point. >>NOTe sudarshan your double pruning is correct regarding advaitins >>view on tattwam asi. but you have to properly prune both the >>objects " tat " and tvam. >>tat should mean according to advaitin - ishwara , devoid of all adjuncts >>that makes him an ishwara...ie. it is bramhan (nirguna only) without the >>maya adjuncts which make him appear as ishwara is the same bramhan >>as the the jeeva - devoid of all adjuncts that make bramhan appear >>as finite jeeva. >>note the clear double pruning alll the way. this was not clear in >>your statement. only then the "art" or " are" part of the statement >>can be taken to mean " identical" Yes the double pruning has to go all the way so as to make the identification valid, according to Advaita. >>Please let me know where you got your double pruning algorithm? I >>hope this is not from standard authors!! oops. Well, I got this "algorithm" from SS Raghavachar's book "Ramanuja on the Upanisads", but maybe I missed this particular point as there is a considerably lengthy discussion on this topic and it needs several readings to understand the argument clearly. The oversight is mine, NOT the author's ! -sudarshan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
