Tat Tvam Asi

[atanu]

There is a tendency to equate conditioned Jiva (living being) with Brahman, based on above mahavakya of Chandogya upanishad.

I invite Vedantins to contribute to this thread to clarify what the mahavakya means.

I begin in a small way.

 

[atanu]

Brahman-Atman is the unborn non dual Sat Chit Ananda. It is the only sentient principle.

What we see and perceive, including our body, is Mind, which, as per Vedanta, is insentient matter. All that we see is modification of Mind alone. Mind is a product of Prakriti (Nature) of Brahman. Mind sprouts simultaneous with Subject-Object division (as we experience during transitioning from deep sleep to dream realm).

Mind is not sentient. It appears to be sentient just as hot iron ball may appear to be source of heat. But heat-fire is distinct from the iron ball.

Atman, the Seer is Sentient. It being the Seer, there is no way to See it through external sense organs. It can be known by withdrawing the senses and by being it.

"That You Are" (Tat Tvam Asi) does not equate the mental "You" with "That (Brahman). It equates the essence, the Atman, the Sentient Seer within, with Brahman.

In short, what is Sentient in us is from the unborn Brahman only.

The goal of Vedanta, repeated in most Upanishads is "The non dual atman-Brahman must be known".

 

[atanu]

Advaitic understanding of Tat Tvam Asi is summarised in this page:

The meaning of the mahAvAkya 'tat tvam asi'

 

[Chakra]

I am not intelligent enough to understand all this, but thank you for the information. Will do research on this.
Regards

 

[Ekanta]

Nice thread Atanu. As I understand it the "tat tvam asi" is the initiation into jnana, the knowledge of the unity of atman-brahman. But I cant comment to your thread without bringing in the other mahavakyas. The below is a reflection I havent seen anywhere else so I will give it here. So here we go:
Imo, Sathya Sai Baba describes the 4 mahavakyas in nice way:


Commentaries on Mahavaakyas

summarized as:
1. Prajnanam Brahma (consciousness is brahman): the divine consciousness as pervading the Cosmos [which kind of corresponds to karma-yoga]
2. Ayam Atma Brahma (this self is brahman): the divine consciousness inside oneself [which kind of corresponds to upāsana-yoga]
3. Tat Tvam Asi (that you are): the divine consciousness as identical to oneself [which kind of corresponds to jñāna-yoga]
4. Aham Brahma Asmi (I am Brahman): uniting with the divine consciousness [which corresponds realization]

 

[Stormcry]

There is a tendency to equate conditioned Jiva (living being) with Brahman, based on above mahavakya of Chandogya upanishad.

'Tat' refers to jiva exclusive to its Upadhi and 'Twam' refers to Ishwara exclusive to his 'Upadhi'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Atman, the Seer is Sentient. It being the Seer, there is no way to See it through external sense organs. It can be known by withdrawing the senses and by being it.
....
The goal of Vedanta, repeated in most Upanishads is "The non dual atman-Brahman must be known".

Known, by whom? If all that exists is Brahman, who is this knower, who does not know now, but is expected to know at some point of time in future?

An associated question - is time real? is it real up to some point and then turn unreal?

Thanks,
Shiv

 

[atanu]

Known, by whom? If all that exists is Brahman, who is this knower, who does not know now, but is expected to know at some point of time in future?
Thanks,
Shiv

Gurus teach that it is approximately like knowing that a dream is a dream. It is for the ego self to know.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Gurus teach that it is approximately like knowing that a dream is a dream. It is for the ego self to know.

This is where I am getting lost.

The dream case, is easy to grasp as there is still duality in the waking state - the memory of the dream, the individual who is reflecting on this are all different and therefore, the observation is easy to understand. However, in the case of moving from Vyavaharika to Paramartika, there is no individual in the latter who can know anything. So, what does it mean to "know"? The more I think about this, the more it appears Advaita logic fails at this point.

The ancients say it is above the known and also above the unknown - Kena Upanishad 1.3.

To me, "above the unknown" means it is not knowable. But, obviously, this is disappointing to people as we are all trying to get to the point where we will know, just like we know other things. A point in time, where we can say to ourselves, "I know it now".

Also,

There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth – Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika 2.32

Who is to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self? – Ramana

How should one know the knower (when all that exists is one self) - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

It appears therefore, there is nothing to be known newly or to be realized - The key reason being, there is no separation between subject and object. There cannot be a time when I can say "I know now that everything is one". Because, the moment I think or say it, everything is no longer one!

Am I missing something here, or do the volumes of logic used in Advaita stop at this point and people - giving up on logic - resort to faith in the words of Gurus and books hoping that - in spite of the contradictions - will somehow discover or realize something that can neither be discovered or realized?

Thanks,
Shiv

 

[atanu]

It appears therefore, there is nothing to be known newly or to be realized - The key reason being, there is no separation between subject and object. ...
Shiv

Then all this questioning is ......?

 

[atanu]

....... sivam-advaitam caturtham manyante sa tm sa vijneyah

 

[Valjean]

It's good to remember that language might describe waking-state reality well, but when we try to use it to describe the expanded Reality of higher states of consciousness it comes up short. Merger or identity with Brahman is a whole lot more than "knowing."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Known, by whom? If all that exists is Brahman, who is this knower, who does not know now, but is expected to know at some point of time in future?

When one is itself it, and there is no other, it just exists (like what Ramana or Brihadaranyaka said). To know or not to know, to be aware or ignorant, etc. are in Vyavaharika, the second level of reality..

 

[atanu]

When one is itself it, and there is no other, it just exists (like what Ramana or Brihadaranyaka said). To know or not to know, to be aware or ignorant, etc. are in Vyavaharika, the second level of reality..

That itself is the highest knowing. There is surely a difference between vidya and avidya, although most of us understand that these categories are of vyavarika.

I am in vyavarika and I study scripture at that level. As per Ramana and as per Gita, scripture, including Vedas and upanishads, are of no use for the jnani.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

That itself is the highest knowing.

But, how can there be any knowing without a knower?

People we consider Jnani-s are just like us. They talk to us as individuals and are aware of time and space. So how can we say that they are in Paramarthika where there is no duality (and therefore, no time/space and other jivas)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, the best is to have one foot in either planes. A matter of balance. Both are realities, none can be denied.

 

[Makaranda]

People we consider Jnani-s are just like us. They talk to us as individuals and are aware of time and space. So how can we say that they are in Paramarthika where there is no duality (and therefore, no time/space and other jivas)?

The Jnani is not a Jiva, even though you perceive an individual. It is your ignorance which causes this assumption. The Jnani is identical with Brahman, even as there appears to be an individual moving amongst a world of individuals in space- that is your perception, not the perception of the Jnani. The Jnani knows he is Brahman and that Brahman alone is everything. You see distinctions where the Jnani sees oneness. This is what makes him a Jnani, a knower.

Taking yourself to be a Jiva, you then seek liberation from being one. And yet you are not a Jiva, and it is only a troublesome notion arising in the mind, and the mind is but a ripple in consciousness, and consciousness is utterly unaffected. Consciousness is Brahman.

Hence, there is none in bondage, and none liberated as the Karika says. But this is the experience of the enlightened mind, not of the ignorant one. Therefore we have to talk about bondage and liberation, about Jivas and Ishwara, about samsara, for the sake of the ignorant mind, to make it enlightened to the truth.

When knowledge dawns, such questions which you are asking will fall away. Where now you struggle with paradoxes and jumps in logic or illogic, then you will experience the simple reality of what the scriptures take pains to point to. First seek moksha. Then the paradoxes will become clear.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There should be a provision for a double like.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The Jnani knows he is Brahman and that Brahman alone is everything. You see distinctions where the Jnani sees oneness. This is what makes him a Jnani, a knower.

If Shankara, the Jnani, sees oneness, he should not be able to see and talk to other people (He cannot see himself either as that would introduce the difference between seer and seen).

But he did function like a normal person. If you say he sees both oneness and also the differences that we see, this is not Advaita. Your position is more akin to the vedantin Bhaskara's bheda-abheda or simultaneous oneness-difference philosophy (which was later borrowed by Chaitanya). I believe, other non-advaitic vedanta doctrines too take some position on how everything is powered Brahman, while still holding on to differences, but I do not know enough about them.

Other forms of Vedanta (Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc.,) are easier to understand, though hard to believe. This is because, in all these doctrines, there is always an experiencer different from the world around him (which, we can all relate to). Time is real in these doctrines and so, one can understand the flow of not being realized at a time, getting realized at a certain point of time followed by a post-realization experience. Without time and without the distinction between experience and experiencer, Advaita is very different from its peer doctrines and its logic becomes vastly more complex. This is is just my opinion, but I think a lot of Advaitins do not fully play out oneness to its logical end and instead mix up Advaita with Bheda-abheda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sankara was a jnani. He had one feet in Parmarthika and the other in Vyavaharika. Following Sankara, I too ride two boats. Some sages are solely in Parmarthika (Shukadeva), the laymen are solely in Vyavaharika.