HTMLCONTROL Forms.HTML:Text.1 Tat tvam asi according to the philosophies of Samkara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Bhaskara & Yadava

Tat tvam asi according to the philosophies of Samkara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Bhaskara & Yadava

Philosophical interpretations of 'Tat tvam asi' are a great insight into relation between God and Creation (the soul and the world). The philosophies identified with the Vedanta draw their support from the Upanisads and may be expected to interpret in their own way various important ancient texts, such as Tat tvam asi or That thou art. Thus, Samkaras Advaita, Ramanujas Visistadvaita and Madhvas Dvaita and other acharays have tried to analyze such Upanisadic texts using their own philosophical ideas. Consider for example in the following various interpretations of Tat tvam asi.

A. Samkara: Advaita or non-dualism (1)

Samkara is of the opinion that the passage, That art thou, is intended to bring out the metaphysical identity between Brahman and the individual soul, when their special characteristics are ignored. In the judgment, This is that Devadatta, the idea conveyed is of Devadatta and him alone. To understand the identity between S (soul or individual soul) and P (Parmatman or supreme soul - Brahman) we must eliminate thisness and thatness. Until we do so, S and P are never identical, and the sentence would be affirming a contradiction. So that text Tat tvam asi means absolute oneness of Brahman and the individual soul, which we should realize when we drop the imagined distinctions produced by avidya. Ramanuja argues against this contention (of Samkara) and holds that very judgment is a synthesis of distincts. When Brahman and the individual soul are placed in the relation of subject and predicate (samanadhikaranya), it follows that there is a difference between the two. Subject and predicate are distinct meanings referred to the same substance. If the two meanings cannot co-inhere in the same substance, the judgment fails. We distinguish subject and predicate in their meaning or intension, but unite them in their application or extension. So the text Tat tvam asi brings out the complex nature of the ultimate reality, which has individual souls inhering in it. Brahman and the jiva are related as substance and attribute (visesa and visesana), or soul and body. If there were not a difference between the two, we could not say that the one is the other. There are statements recorded in the scripture where the mystic soul identifies himself with the supreme and calls on others to worship him. Meditate on me, and Vamadevas declaration, I am Manu, I am Surya, are interpreted by Ramanuja as affirming the view that Brahman is the inner self of all (sarvantraatmatvam). Since the infinite one dwells in all, he may be said to dwell in any individual, and so one can say with Prahlada that as Brahman constitutes my I also, all is from me, I am all, within me is all. All words, directly or indirectly, refer to Brahman (1).

B. Ramanuja: Visistadvaita or qualified non-dualism (1)

Ramanuja supports his conception of reality from the scriptures. The Vedas declare that Brahman is full of auspicious qualities. Truth, knowledge and infinite is Brahman, says the Upanisad. These several terms refer to the one supreme realityand declare that the absolute Brahman is unchangeable perfection, and possesses intelligence which is ever uncontracted, while the intelligence of released souls was for some time in a contracted condition. It is infinite (anantam) , since its nature is free from all limitations of place, time and substance, and different in kind from all other things. Infinity characterises the qualities as well as the nature of Brahman, which is not the case with regard to the souls called eternal (nitya). It is first without a second, since there is no other God than God. Ramanuja admits that there are texts which deny all predicates to Brahman, but contends that they only deny finite and false attributes, and not all attributes whatsoever. When it is said that we cannot comprehend the nature of Brahman, it only means that the glory of Brahman is so vast that it eludes the grasp of the finite mind. The texts which deny plurality are explained as intended to deny the real existence of things apart from the supreme spirit which is identical with all things. The supreme spirit subsists in all forms as the soul of all (sarvasyaatmataya). In the highest intuition the Upanisads declare that one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows nothing else than Brahman. Ramanuja explains that when the meditating devotee realizes the intuition (anubhava) of Brahman, which consists of absolute bliss, he does not see anything apart from it, since the whole aggregate of things is contained within the essence (svarupa) and outward manifestation (vibhuti) of Brahman. Ramanuja interprets the famous text, Tat tvam asi, in accordance with his view of knowledge (1).

C. Madhva: Dwaita or dualism (2)

Madhva rejects all attempts to reduce the world of souls and nature to a mere illusion or an emanation of God, and sets forth an absolute dualism. The individual soul is dependent (paratantra) on God, since it is unable to exist without the energizing support of the universal spirit, even as the tree cannot live and survive without its sap. Even Laksmi, the consort of Visnu, though supreme and eternal, is dependent on God. She is the presiding deity over prakrti, which is the material cause of the world. Isvara somehow energizes prakrti, which forms no part of his being. Prakrti somehow lends itself to the control of Isvara.

Madhva comes into conflict with many scriptural passages, which he strains to make them yield a dualism. Taking the great text, Tat tvam asi (That thou art) Madhva argues that it does not declare any identity between God and soul. It only states that soul has for its essence qualities similar to those of God. This is also the meaning of passages which declare that the soul is a portion of the Lord. He sometimes reads the passage in a different way. Sa atma tat tvam asi is read as Sa atma atat tvam asi or That Atman, thou art not. Regarding the text, ayam atma Brahma Madhva says that it is either a simple eulogy of the jivatman or it is a subject for meditation. It is also suggested that it is a purvapaksha to be overthrown. Madhva uses the etymological meanings of Atman and Brahman to explain away the passages which identify the individual and the universal self. The Atman is Brahman, since it grows (vardhanasilah) or since it penetrates everywhere.

D. Vallabha: Suddhadvaita or pure non-dualism (3)Vallabha looks upon God as the whole and the individual as the part; but, as the individual is of the identical essence with God, there is no real difference between the two (like the analogy of sparks to fire). The individual soul is not the Supreme clouded by the force of avidya, but is itself Brahman, with one attribute (ananda) rendered imperceptible. The soul is both a doer and enjoyer. It is atomic in size, though pervading the whole body by its quality of intelligence (like sandal-wood makes its presence felt through its scent even where there is no sandal-wood).

The world of maya is not regarded as unreal, since maya is nothing else than a power which Isvara of his free will produces. He is not only creator of the universe but is the universe itself. Vallabha accepts the Brhadaranyaka account, that Brahman desired to become many, and he became the multitude of individual souls and the world. Though Brahman in himself is not known, he is known when he manifests himself through the world.

Bhakti is the chief means of salvation, though jnana is also useful. Karmas precede knowledge of the Supreme, and are present even when this knowledge is gained. The liberated perform all karmas. The highest goal is not mukti or liberation, but rather eternal service of Krsna and participation in his sports in the celestial Brndavana. Vallabha distinguishes the transcendent consciousness of Brahman from Purusottama. He lays a great stress on a life of unqualified love to God.

The relation between Brahman on the one side and the individual souls (jiva) and the inanimate nature (jada) on the other, is one of pure identity, even as the relation of whole and part is. While the difference is subordinated by Vallabha, non-difference alone is said to be real. He interprets Tat tvam asi (That thou art) as literally true, while Ramanuja takes it in a figurative sense. When the soul attains bliss, and the inanimate world both consciousness and bliss, the difference between these and Brahman will lapse a position which Ramanuja does not accept.

E. Nimbarka: Dvaitadvaita or dualistic non-dualism (4)

The relation of the three principles of jiva, the world and God, is not one of absolute identity or non-distinction. Nor can it be said that three principles are absolutely distinct. Both difference and non-difference are real according to Nimbarka. Creation (soul and the world) is different from Brahman (Isvara), since it possesses natures and attributes different from those of Brahman. Moreover, creation is not different from Isvara, since it cannot exist by itself and depends absolutely on Brahman. The difference signifies distinct and independent existence, and non-difference signifies the impossibility of independent existence. The individual souls and the world are not self-sufficient, but are guided by Isvara. In pralaya (dissolution), these two get absorbed into the nature of Isvara, who contains the subtle forms of jiva and jagat. Between the periods of dissolution and re-creation, all existence, conscious and unconscious, dwells in him in a subtle state. The usual theory (e.g. in the Samkhya) which traces the evolution of nature to the three gunas is accepted.

While both Ramanuja and Nimbarka regard difference and non-difference necessary, Ramanuja emphasizes more on the identity. For Nimbarka, the two (difference and non-difference between God and Creation) are equally real and have the same importance.

In the light of this doctrine of difference-non-difference, the famous text Tat tvam asi, is interpreted with Tat signifying the eternal, omnipresent Brahman; tvam referring to the individual soul, whose existence depends on Brahman; and asi brings out the relation between the two, which is one of difference compatible with non-difference. Such a relation subsists between the sun and its rays or the fire and its sparks. Though souls and matter are distinct from God, they are yet intimately connected with him, as waves with water or coils of a rope with the rope itself. They are both distinct and non-distinct from Brahman. We need not regard the distincts as mutually exclusive and absolutely cut off from each other. Difference and identity are both equally real, and what is different is also identical.

Nimbarka's philosophy also had the general support of Kesava, who in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra developed the theory of the transformation (parinama) of Brahman. A distinction is made there between the independent reality of Purusottama (God) and the dependent realities of jiva and prakrti. While both jiva and Isvara are self-conscious, the former is limited, and the latter is not. While the jiva is the enjoyer (bhktr), the world is the enjoyed (bhogya), and Isvara is the supreme controller.

F. Bhaskara: Bhedabheda-vada or real difference-nondifference (5)

Bhaskara does not favor either Samkara's views or those of Pancaratra Vaisnavas. He is an upholder of the bhedabheda-vada, or the doctrine that unity and multiplicity are equally real.

Brahman is not an undifferentiated mass of pure consciousness, but possesses all perfection. The causal state of Brahman is regarded as a unity, while its evolved condition is one of multiplicity. Things are non-different in their causal and generic aspects and different as effects and individuals. Non-difference does not absorb difference as fire consumes grass. The two are equally real.

Bhaskara believes in the real evolution. He regards the illusion theory as unauthentic. He holds that the world of matter has real existence, though it is essentially of the same nature as Brahman. When matter acts on Brahman, it serves as a limiting adjunct in the form of body and senses and results in the rise of individual souls. The jiva is naturally one with Brahman, while its difference from Brahman is due to limitations and not avidya. The relation of jivas to Brahman is illustrated by the analogy of sparks and fire.

Karma, according to Bhaskara, is an essential means to acquiring knowledge (jnana) which results in salvation. Thus he adopts the view of jnana-karma-samuccaya (the combination of karma and jnana).

G. Yadava Prakasa: Svabhaviko bhedabheda-vada or simultaneous difference-nondifference (6)

Yadava (for some time the guru of Ramanuja) adopts Brahma-parinama-vada , or the theory of the transformation of Brahman. He holds that Brahman is really changed into cit (spirit), acit (matter), and Isvara (God).

If Isvara is brought under cit, both conscious and unconscious forms are only different states of one substance and not different substances themselves. It is called the doctrine of simultaneous difference and non-difference. While Brahman undergoes changes, it does not forfeit its purity.

Yadava does not see a contradiction in saying that a thing can be different and at the same time non-different from itself. He says that all things always present themselves under these two different aspects. They present non-difference so far as their causal substance (karana) and the class characters (jati) are concerned; they present difference so far as their effected condition (karya) and individual characteristics (vyakti) are concerned. Brahman and the world are thus both different and non-different.

While Bhaskara believes that Brahman undergoes in a way the experiences of the finite souls, Yadava contends that Brahman remains in its pristine exalted condition. If we believe that the three, God, soul and matter are ultimate realities and not transformations of Brahman, we are in a realm of misconception. For removing false knowledge, both karma and jnana are considered useful. Brahman alone is real, and all else is produced from Brahman.

For Yadava, distinctions are as real as the identity, while for Bhaskara the distinctions are due to upadhis (limitations), which are real, while the identity is the ultimate truth. Ramanuja objects to Yadava's concept of Isvara as a modification of Brahman on the ground that there is none beyond Isvara

_1429644885.unknown

_1429644884.unknown