Introduction:
Raimon Pannikar, using the comparison of the rainbow shows how the white Divine light falling on the prism of human experience diffracts into innumerable doctrines and religions.[1] This imagery given by Raimon Pannikar tries to bring home the message of ‘tat tvam asi’ in an analogical sense. It is the same white light, which appears into unique different colours. So too, the source and the ground of all beings is He, the Brahman. All human beings have their groundedness in Brahman (realityfying reality). We are all unique, yet our be-ing is in the Supreme Being. Speaking in the biblical terminology, God created us in His image and likeness.[2] It is only because we are gifted with the divine nature, that we are able to build a communion of mind and heart with other persons. The divine presence becomes a suitable platform for dialogue. Social liberation also gets an impetus to fight against racism, casteism, untouchability, marginalisation of dalits, tribals and women and all other forms of social discrimination as well as religious fundamentalism. Basically, the goal of Indian philosophy is self-realization (moksa). The search for self-realization is not a movement outward but inward to the deepest center of the human person, where the Brahman is hidden. This process of Brahmanubhava is possible because the human person has the capacity for the simple intuition of him/herself. In the following few pages, we attempt at a satisfactory analysis of the Mahavakya ‘tat tvam asi’ by which one realizes one’s own real nature.
Śankaracāryā[3] is a great genius of India. Pandit J. Nehru in his ‘Discovery of India’ describes the powerful mind and the rich personality of Śankara as “a curious mixture of philosopher and scholar, agnostic and mystic, poet and saint, practical reformer and an able organizer.[4] Not only Śankara But each philosopher understood and interpreted the Vedanta[5] differently. The word Advaita is very controversial in its interpretation and translation, although most sankarite scholars consider him to be a non-dualist but an equal number term him to be a monist.[6] Śankara’s Vedanta is called as “Kevala Advaita Vedanta”.[7] The following four premises may bring home the message more clearly, yet to grasp it in its totality is beyond our capacity. Brahman is truly real. The world is false (The pluralistic world is the appearance of Brahman, it has no reality of its own from the absolute point of view). The self is Brahman. Only non-duality.[8] The three levels of reality according to Śankara are: 1. Pratibhasika level (illusory experience) e.g. Rope/snake 2. Vyavaharika level(phenomenal experience). The world of multiplicity is only relatively real 3.Paramarthika level (transcendental experience). It consists in viewing the world of multiplicity from the supreme point of view in which everything is united.[9]
The four Mahavakyas[10] play a very significant role in the realization that the self (Atman) is Brahman. It was the truth that Uddalaka Arun imparted by way of instruction to his son Svetaketu in the Chandogya Upanishad VI, 8,6 ssq, when he said, “Thou art That”(tat tvam asi”).[11]
Upadeesa vaakya (The statement of advice)—Tat tvam asi
The central teaching of the Upanishads, the essence of the vedanta, the goal of all wisdom and all spiritual practices, the reality of all realities, the quintessence of truth is that the individual self, the embodied soul, the jiva is identical with the supreme, the absolute, the Brahman. To realize that the Atman is Brahman, the guru imparts instructions to the śisya. The formulae are mystical and cannot be lightly understood. They are imparted only to the picked disciples at the end of their Vedic training (Vedanta (=veda+anta). the guru[12] advises the śisya to recognize his Atman as identical with the Brahman. Every seeker of knowledge of Brahman must sit at the feet of a proper and competent guru. The instruction, study and understanding of the meaning of the Mahavakyas take place in three stages:[13]
(1) Hearing (Sravana)(2) Reflection (Manana)(3) Meditation (Nidh’djhyaasana).
Sravana is the mental activity, which helps the understanding of the Upanisadic text, that the self is Brahman. In the Sravana stage, the student ascertains and establishes the true import of the scripture text. The purpose of manana is to fortify one’s own convictions of the truth, to get rid of all the doubts and to make one comprehend the real meaning of the mahavakya by consistently interpreting it, so that the apparent inconsistencies are resolved. The final stage, meditation (Nidh’djhyaasana), leads to the complete removal of the ignorance, thus leading to the direct realization of the self as Brahman. If the śisya is successful in his reflection and intellectually convinced of his identity with Brahman, then he is ready to strive for the direct realization. It is in this stage that the guru says to the śisya; “Tat Tvam Asi”.
Meaning
Tat Tvam Asi. (That Thou Art). This famous text emphasizes the divine nature of the human soul, the need to discriminate between the essential self and the accidental self with which it is confused. He who knows only what is of the body or mind knows the things that may be his but not himself. The text “That Thou Art” applies to the inward person, antah purusa, and not to the empirical soul. (What I am, that is he, what he is, that am I.)[14] Let us now try to examine the meaning of the mahavakya ‘Tat Tvam Asi’. Tat (that) in its primary meaning refers to Iisvera, the personal God, who is the creator, preserver and the destroyer of the universe. This Saguna Brahman is endowed with qualities of omnipotence and omniscience. The term Tvam (thou) directly refers to the willing hearer of the scripture as taught by the guru. Thus, Thou refer to jiva, the individual ego. The jiva is conditioned by the three fold miseries, the misery of the body and mind, the misery arising from perishable creatures, and the misery arising from the action of gods .the jiva is limited by birth and death, hunger and thirst, pain and pleasure. The jiva has three states of existence –waking, dreaming, and deep sleeping. The term asi (art) states a complete identity of ‘that’ and ‘thou’. Thus, in the direct meaning ‘Tat Tvam asi’ points to the identity between Iisvera and the jiva. But such an identity is not possible in the full literal sense. Since Iisvera and jiva are separate from each other, the former is the powerful and the supreme lord, while the latter is the limited worshipper of Iisvera. Therefore an absolute identity between them seems to be impossible.
The scriptural statement ‘tat tvam asi’ cannot be interpreted in this meaning, because such an interpretation would falsify the scriptural statement therefore it has to be interpreted in the meaning other than this meaning. “So what is inconsistent in the connotations of the two terms is to be rejected and what is consistent is alone to be retained”.[15] It should not be interpreted in the first sense because, “If God becomes identical with the transmigrating soul, God will cease to exist, and as a result, the scripture will become useless. Similarly if the transmigrating soul becomes God, there will be none to follow the scripture, which will certainly become useless. This will also contradict such means of proof as common experience”[16]. The implied meaning of the word ‘tat’ refers to the universal self (Brahman). This Universal Being is the efficient and the material cause of the universe. Everything originates in Brahman, finds its existence in it, nothing can limit it. Just as a jar that originates from the earth cannot limit the earth, in the same way the whole universe cannot limit it. Just as a jar is nothing but the earth, so also the universe is nothing but Brahman, The word Tvam in the implied sense points to the inner self, the Atman. We comprehend the meaning of tvam only when we negate the body, senses, mind, vital forces, and the ego. Just as the reality of the rope is known only when the snake is negated from the rope. When this negation is done, we come to know that the ‘thou’ is Atman, which is free from the phenomenal existence. Thus the implied meaning of ‘that’ is the Nirguna Brahman, the pure consciousness, who is the absolute and without attributes. ‘Thou’ by implication refers to the self (Atman) which is the reality underlying the mind-body system. Hence, the statement, ‘tat tvam asi’ means, Brahman and Atman are one and absolutely the same.
Illustration:
In the mahavakya ‘that art thou’ there is an identity which establishes a genuine relationship between the two terms. Let us try to understand this with an illustration. This Brother John is that boy from Dabal. The words ‘this’ and ‘that’, by elimination of contrary association of past and present time stand in the relation as the implier and the implied with John, who is common to both. Though the words this and that have their temporal differences, imply the same person, John. The relationship between thatness and thisness involves a reference to the identity. The contradictions namely his life in the past and the present are given up, but the person of John is retained. Likewise, in the mahavakya ‘that thou art’, the conflicting meaning, namely, immediateness, remoteness and differences are given up and the absolute pure consciousness, which is common to both, is retained. “We arrive at this unity by stripping away the incompatible and contradictory elements of the terms ‘that’ and ‘thou’and by looking for the common elements or basis”.[17] In the illustration, the John seen now is identified with the John seen years ago, despite all the accidental differences like physical conditions, mental states and places of meeting. What makes one identify the person of John, as the same is the elimination of differences, In the same way the negation of the apparent contradiction of that and thou would lead to the fundamental and absolute reality as one. In fact, in recognizing the person of John now one has learned nothing new about the person of John expect the accidental qualities. In the same way the statement, do not reveal anything new about or add anything new about Brahman. When ignorance, on which is based the difference is removed, they cease to be different and we are able to experience their identity. Thus the identity statement ‘that thou art’ shows that Brahmananubhava or self-realization is a non-dual and unique experience of Brahman and Atman which is the absolute and fundamental reality behind everything.[18]
CRITIQUE
Some have attempted to propound interpretations and critiques in-terms of non-Indian traditions. Almost all questions raised to Śankara can be answered based on the three levels.
Negative Appraisal
1) In Śankara’s non-dualism, there is dualism inherent. The knowledge of the phenomenal reality is
Characterized by subject-object duality[19]. The transcendental state is characterized as non-dual. There is a diametrically opposite fundamental difference between the phenomenal and transcendental knowledge. One who is in empirical existence does not possess the transcendental knowledge (Is the Sisya real to the guru?) and to the jiivanmukta who has attained the transcendental state of existence, the empirical knowledge becomes unreal (how does he know then to act?). Such an epistemological position amounts to dualism because it presupposes two unrelated levels of knowing.
2) There is the difficulty of genuine communication between persons who belong to the phenomenal and transcendental levels of existence. The phenomenal knowledge is unreal to the self-realized person, so Brahmaanbhava cannot be communicated by the brahmajnanni (guru) to any one in the realm of phenomenal existence. So, Brahman-experience cannot be passed on to others in any form of communication, any attempt to communicate it using phenomenal language would be a mere phenomenal explanation of the transcendental level. Is there not incommunicability between the two levels?
3) The Sankarite path to self-realization is basically by the aspirant alone. It is not an I-Thou relationship, in which one enters into the life of the other as an equal partner. Other than the guru, the śisya does not have any significant relationship with any other person. This is very much clear from what the aspirant does in the three stages. The various stages are so centered on the individual seeker and his personal effort that the presence of the other in the process is seen as an interference that would distract him from the goal. Even after the seeker has attained self-realization, he doesn’t need to have any relationship with the other or with the community because all such relationships would be irrelevant and unreal to him. Thus, it appears that Śankara does not give any significance to the I-Thou relationship that is a genuine and neglects the inter-subjective communion of hearts between human persons that is essential for one’s living.
4) The śisya ought to be a person of healthy body, strong will, keen mind, and a sharp intellect. If these qualities were expected of the aspirant then even before they begin the process, a great number of people in the world would never be able to begin the process itself. It is impractical, in the sense that a majority would not be able to use it. It aims at helping only the intellectual and the wise to attain self-realization (moksa), leaving out the majority of the people.
5) Liberation implies freedom from the cycle of birth and rebirth. The liberated person continues to live in the bodily state (jivanmukta) but it is the result of the accumulated past karmas. Thus, Śankara does not give rightful place to the body.
6) It appears that the supreme intuition (anubhava) is an achievement well within the natural powers of humans rather than as a pure self-gift of God. Does Śankara negate the Divine hand and His grace?
7) A feminist will certainly ask whether the Brahmananubhava is open only to the male child and why not to the female?
8)As to when do the atman identifies with the body? What causes the atman to fall in the lower level? How does atman gets entangled into the cycle of birth and rebirth for the first time?
9) But is it not absurd to declare that the very sources of valid knowledge, including the Śruti [20]function in dependence on the very opposite of valid knowledge, avidya?
POSITIVE APPRAISAL
Self-realization is self-transcendence. When we know what we are, then we become what we should be.
1) The phenomenal world is relatively real. It is not acosmic but meta-cosmic. From this world (level) to beyond this world (level), yet rooted in this world. “Even if it is transformed for the liberated soul, the world continues to exists for the unliberated soul”[21] It is real for the Jivanmukta.
The empirical world is real from the Vyavaharika point of view but from the paramarthika point of view the phenomenal world is unreal. As Śankara clearly pointed out that, the world is real because we can never contradict or question the existence of the reality of the world as long as we are part of the phenomena. But when one attains the absolute oneness with Brahman all duality is eliminated thus from the paramarthika level the phenomenal world is unreal.
2) Many consider advaita Vedanta to be pantheistic because it consists in the identity of the self and Brahman. The theory of causality accepted by Śankara is not Brahmaarambavada but vivartavada. It is a mystical philosophy that aims at making everyone aware of his /her ontological nature that s/he is Brahman and of moving towards attaining it. Pantheism implies the identity of unity and multiplicity; unity-in-distinction (non-dual) makes pantheism an impossibility.[22]
3) Brahman is not a deity to be worshipped but is the absolute ontological reality behind all the phenomena. “The relationship between the person and the object worshipped implies a difference between the two”.[23] Hence, some claim that it is against religion and the worship of true God. But religion and worship of God are not ends in themselves but means to the ultimate realization of the self as Brahman. Brahman is not a deity to be worshipped but to be realized.
4) Is Śankara’s philosophy non-ethical? Rather it is a system of values that calls the sysya to move from the lower to the higher level. Finally, to the highest state of Brahman-experience.
5) Śankara’s approach to reality appears to be negative/pessimistic but he points to the spiritual nature of the universe and individual. He makes the distinction between what is of relative value and what of permanent value.
6) Brahman is nirguna, which should be translated as ‘impersonal’. Hence, there is no real possibility of establishing any interpersonal relationship with Him.[24] If Brahman is said to be the nirguna (beyond all definitions) than how can he be known at all?
7) It is not becoming but discovering. It is only the recognition/realization of what we are already. The aim is to become what we are. The goal of Indian philosophy is the attainment of liberation. ) 8) Śankara’s philosophy is not acosmistic that is escaping from the world.(fuga mundi).But his philosophy may demand attaching oneself to God by detaching oneself from the non-god.
THE EVENT OF APPROPRIATION:
We intentionally insert this section here after the critique to show the beautiful western interpretation of Martin Heidegger.“Tat tvam asi” means that both Being and man (?) hold each other in the belonging-together (to come to where one belongs). Though man is an entity in the totality of beings, man is distinct as a thinker of Being and a dweller in the nearness of Being. He is open to Being and stands face to face with Being. In this orientation and openness towards Being, man listens and responds to Being. Not only does man belong to Being, but also Being belongs to man, it presences itself to man and abides in him by making a claim on him. Thus, Being draws man to it, appropriates him and finds in him a place for its presencing. This appropriation of Being and man involves a mutual gifting of man to Being and Being to man, this mutual belonging together is a dedicating of man and Being to each other. This fundamental relationship of Being and man is the basis of all other relationships.[25]
Conclusion:
Religion, whose aim is to take people to their ultimate destiny and to experience the divine, often forgets this responsibility, so wars are fought in the name of religion. Since the human person has forgotten that, s/he is one with other persons, there is discord within human society. But a philosophy of life that attempts to flower all that is genuine and authentic in a person by taking him/her to the depth of his/her being is highly appreciative. The call to oneness and unity within oneself, with others and finally with the whole universe in the absolute Brahman is the message of Śankara’s Advaita. It is simply “faith seeking understanding” that is blissful intuition in which Vedanta places moksa. When I realize my principle unity and identity with the divine then consequently if follows that it is my responsibility to cherish and to love all beings since all are one in Brahman.[26] This dictum gives the metaphysics and morals together “Love your neighbour as yourself”. You shall love your neighbour as yourself because you are your neighbour and mere illusion makes you believe that your neighbour is somebody different from yourself. Therefore, one will not injure him/herself by him/herself. Thus, the apostolic letter of our Holy Father calls us to take the other as ‘those who are part of me’ as ‘gifts for me’ and ‘to make room for the other in me’.[27] It makes man realize that divinity is not something that one searches outside but that in himself is the Divine. It proclaims not the divinity of man but his nothingness. Since we are in the vyavarikha level we can rightly say that this too will pass away.
[1] Raimon Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue, (Book reviews, Vidyajyoti, volume 68, no.11, nov. 2004).
[2] Genesis1, 26a.
[3] He is an acāryā since he has written and commented on the Prasthanatrayi i.e the Upanisads, the Bhagvadgita and the Brahmasutras.
[5] Can also be referred to as Upanisads, which means (1) end of Vedas, (2) the cream/culmination of the Vedas,
(3) The last in the course of the Vedic study.
[6] A-dvaita means ‘non-dual’, therefore does it mean one? Advaita denies duality but at the same time, it does not accept/advocate monism (ekatavada). Advaita points that the absolute reality is indescribable and mysterious, human language is deficient in its expression. (Every determination/definition is a limitation.) Some critics have concluded that Sankara was an agnostic for claiming that Brahman is indefinable. However, metaphysicians of all times have stressed the unknowability of the divine essence for the simple reason that the finite minds are unable to grasp the infinitude of the absolute reality. The ultimate reality is not void or nothing but fullness. Advaita gives a clarion call to overcome the ‘either/or’ structure of our thinking. Reality escapes any total objectification by reason. Reality cannot be fully grasped or exhausted by reason, because the very nature of reality is dynamic, ever flowing, ever becoming, reality is be-ing.
[7] Jean L. Mercier, From The Upanishads To Aurobindo, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 2001, p.66.
[8] ibid, pp.66; T.M.P.Mahadevan, Outline of Hinduism, Published by sudhakar S. Dikxit,19844.
[9] T.S.Rukmani, Shankaracharya, pp.53, Publications Division, New Delhi, 20002)
[10] Cf. Swami Sivananda, Essence of Vedanta, published by The Divine Life Society, (India), 1980(2) ,pg. 231. a. Prajnanam Brahma – consciousness is Brahman.b. Aham Brahma Asmi – I am Brahman.
c.Tat Tvam Asi – That Thou Art.d. Ayam Atma Brama – This Atman is Brahman.
[11] H.O.Mascarenhas, The quintessence of Hinduism, Published by Rev. Bento D’Souza at St. Sebastian Goan High School, Thakurdar, Bombay, 1951, pp.75-6.
[12]A guru is a spiritual guide who is learned in the Vedas, desireless and sinless. He is one who has also experienced the identity between his self and Brahman.
[13] T.S.Rukmani, Shankaracharya, Publications Division, New Delhi, 20002, pp.38.
[14] Ed. by Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanisads, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1953, pp.458.
[15] Editor Sobodh Kapoor, The Hindus, The Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 10, Cosmo publications, New Delhi, 2000, pp.1612.
[16] T.M.P.Mahadevan, Superimposition in Advaita Vedanta, Sterling publishers Private Ltd., New Delhi, 1985, pp.67.
[17] Cf.Eliot Deutsch, Advaita perspective –A Philosophical Reconstruction, The University press of Hawaii,
Honolulu, 1962,pp.50.
[18] Edited by Vensus A. George, Self-Realization (Brahmaanubhava): The Advaitic Perspective Of Shankara,
The Council For Research In Values And Philosophy, Washington, 2001,pp.50. (Most of the ideas and textual
matter is borrowed from this book. It has served to us as an excellent guide on our journey).
[19] Therefore, there is always the distinction between the experiencer and the experienced, the knower and the known, the seer and the seen the subject and the object but subject –object duality is limited to the empirical order.
[20]Śruti taken as valid because it is eternal and it is apauruseya. “It is only with the help of the Śruti that the exceedingly deep Brahman can be fathomed, not of reasoning”( BSBh. 2,1,31.
[21]Editor Sadhu Santideva, Encyclopedia of Indian Mysticism, volume 2, Cosmo Publications India, 1999.
[22] It may be referred to as Panentheism-everything in God, yet God is beyond.
[23] S. Radhakrishna, Indian Philosophy Vol. 2, oxford university press, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 650.
[24] See Religious Hinduism, by Jesuit Scholars, St. Paul Publications, Bombay, 1964, pp 53.
[25] Edited by Vensus A. George, Authentic Human Destiny: The paths of Shankara and Heidegger, The Council For Research In Values And Philosophy, Washington 1998, pp.306-7
[26] Since, sometimes we use the pronoun ‘he’ to refer to the Nirguna Brahman, it appears to be a contradiction. The usage is for the sake of convenience. The impersonal absolute Brahman is sexless and has a neuter gender. Brahma is masculine; Brahmā is one of the deities of the Hindu Trimurti.
[27] John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte, No. 43, Pauline Publications, Bandra, Mumbai, 2001.
Scribbling 