365betÓéÀÖ

[Full title: Interpretation of ‘tat tvam asi� and reference of Srutigita and other illustrations in support of that]

The scriptural passage which is widely quoted as the most stable evidence for stating the identity as understood 840 by Advaitins is the passage- Tattvamasi. Vadiraja opines that it does not help the Advaitins to prove the identity between the embodied soul and Brahman. The real import of the passage is that soul is similar to Brahman in some 841 respects in a limited way. That does not promise complete identity between the two as made much of by the Advaitins. Vadiraja asserts that this type of expressions are common but nowhere the sense of identity as understood by the Advaitins is conveyed, The expressions like *He is a tiger' and 'The boy is fire' do not convey the sense of identity. But, it is the similarity with regard to some common properties that is intended here to be conveyed. Similarly, in the case of Tat tvam asi also, the sense of similarity in some respects is to be taken into account. The context in which the statement is taught clearly indicates the difference and not the identity. preceding statement also does not talk of identity. .843 842 The The Sruti- Sata somva tada sampanno bhavati states that there is no identity between the soul and Brahman but it is the soul who has close proximity with Brahman at heart [

pie r 289 during deep-sleep state. During waking state and dream state the soul abides in the eye and the neck respectively. So the passage Tat tvam asi that falls in the same context, cannot be understood in favour of identity of the Advaitins. 843 A 844 Another passage of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad viz., Prajnenatmana samparisvaktah also corroborates the view of the above Sruti that the soul has close proximity with Brahman during deep sleep. Here also the identity is not expressed. The sutra- Susuptyutkrantyorbhedena (I.iii.42) 845 also proves that there is difference during deep sleep and 846 Utkranti. If difference is not accepted then there should not be any difference between deep sleep and release. 847 The expressions or terms 'Manas ' and 'Prana' that are used in this context, denote soul and Brahman respectively. by the other. And it is also explained that one is regulated That means soul is regulated by Brahman. The relation of regulated and regulator shows that there is difference between the two. He, who is regulated seeks the shelter of the other. In the passage of 'Tattvamasi' itself, nine illustrations are given to substantiate the reality and the relation between 'Tat' and 'Tvam. And all these nine

] 290 illustrations clearly state that in this context difference of soul and Brahman is intended. The illustration of salt and water ascertains the difference. When salt is put in the water, no doubt it melts and becomes invisible, but it does not become identical with water. Likewise when river flow and join the sea it does not become identical with them. The river-waters do retain their separateness and individuality. The human capacity is limited and as $ such not enough to distinguish the river-waters from the sea. But that does not rule out the fact of their existing separately. It is only the confluence and not the identity. In the same way when bees collect the flower juice from different flowers and when they form into honey that does not mean that juices of different flowers have attained identity. Their separateness remains unharmed. The close examination makes it clear that they have the variegated tastes. Thus all the nine illustrations of nine that context prove difference and not the identity. 849 Vadiraja critically views the context wherein the passage occurs. When Svetaketu, son of Uddalaka, developed arrogance thinking himself to be highly learned, then this was realized by his father and the father wanted to remove the arrogance of the son. And with that intention he taught this truth. The father wanted to convince the son

291 that the knowledge is vast and mere recitation of the Vedic hymns would serve no purpose and hence one had to understand the real import of the Vedas. So, his intention was not to convey the identity but the difference. Then only 850 Che could make his son give up his arrogance. If the sense of identity was intended then there was no scope to reduce the arrogance, of Svetaketu. Thus, the context also affirms that the passage declares the difference and not the identity. The Advaita prefers to have implied meaning with regard to two terms Tat and Ivam. That means the primary meaning of the terms should be given up. As these two terms indicate the opposite attributes, the Advaita prefers secondary meaning to primary meaning. Because, unless and until the sense of opposite attributes is given up, it is not possible to talk of identity. Vadiraja says that resorting of Laksana or indication could be enough for one word- Tat as it shows an element of Laghutva or easiness in interpretation. But There is no need to adopt implication for two words- Tat and Tvam. Now the word Tat can be understood as Tatsadrsa or (similar to that) Tatsambandhi (or related to that). This would be the most befitting meaning to the context. So implication may be 851 applied to only one word and not to both the words. Further, the term 'Tat' may also be understood as

292 Tasmat. In that case, the meaning of the expression would be 'Thine very existence is from Him!* The sense of Akhandarthatva also is not tenable and agreeable to the -852 context. Because, it makes the entire discussion and exposition baseless and futile. Vadiraja refers to the statements of the Bhagavata such as srutigita and others and proves that even the Bhagavata does not declare identity between Brahman and the world. He asserts that even Visnusahasranama indicates difference. The inference Bhedo mithya bheda tvat candrabhedavat. advanced by the Advaitins has no support of either perception or of testimony. Hence, the very inference is likely to be disproved by counter inferences. JIvesvarabhedah paramarthika san mahapralayepi urvaY tatvat brahmavat. The very attempt of resorting to indication is unnecessary. Because, in that case, Brahman, giving away all His auspicious virtues, would have to be declared as only consisting of sentiency. Even this also does not help to prove the supposed identity. And moreover, perception also openly proclaims the difference. Thus, identity cannot be 853 established, Vadiraja, by the by, attacks the epistemology of the Advaita and remarks that according to them the Pramanas are *

293 not real as they are the product of nescience. As nescience is unreal, its effects must also be unreal Therefore, these Pramanas or means cannot establish the identity. While resorting to Laksana in Tat-tvamasi the Advaitins cite the example So'yam devadattah. But actually, neither the meaning of Sah nor of Ayam is given up. example does not confirm their arguments. 854 So this Because, in the example cited above, Sah stands for and denotes time and the place of the past and Ayam stands for and denotes the time and place of the present, Further, Vadiraja opines that Visistaikya cannot be traced here. And that will not indicate Visesanaikya Because, in the example Dandi devadattah necessarily. and Kundali devadattah. Devadatta is one and the same but not Danda and Kundala. So Visesanaikya cannot be held. 855 Now if the aspect of sentiency alone is to be meant with regard to the terms 'Tat' and 'Tvam,' then the very usage of expression would be meaningless. Not only that, the expressions, then by no means convey the sense of identity. And if sentiency alone would be there, then also, the question viz., as to the identity of what remains Therefore, as already mentioned the sense of unsolved. 856 similarity in certain respects between Brahman and the soul

294 is intended here. This passage also relates the relation of reflective and reflection. Brahman is reflective and soul is reflection. This relation promises certain similar- 856 A ity and also the control of reflective over reflection. Thus, the passage Tat tvam asi does not ascertain the identity. } In defence of this, Vadiraja mentions the episodes of Paundraka Vasudeva and of Mucukunda and shows how the knowledge of identity brought about self-destruction and 857 the sense of difference led to upliftment respectively. He also discusses the Gita statement isuarohamhambhogi.. and defends that knowledge of identity will not help to attain the liberation.