Vachyartha and Lakshyartha of ' Tat Tvam Asi'

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

I am retaining my previous posting as it is, at the end of this posting and
adding another question/doubt.

I can take the conception of Maya + Chidabhasa (Isvara) + Pure
Consciousness as a definition of 'Tat' and Avidya + Chidabhasa (Jiva) +
Pure Consciousness as a definition of 'Tvam', by considering all that is
associated with Jiva or Isvara.

Question: Does this mean the definition of Isvara does not include
the 'complete' Pure consciousness ? I can understand if Jiva is a limited
being, but why Isvara should be described as limited in a similar way ?

In another place the Swami writes:

" The Rea, Eternal nature of Brahman is apparently recognised in Isvara.
Hence, Isvara appears as real. Because the nature of Isvara and his
creatorship are apparently recognised in Brahman, Brahman appears to be the
cause of the Universe. Thus there is Anyonya Adhyasa between Brahman and
Isvara, and this Adhyasa can be annihilated only through knowledge born of
discrimination."

Question : Is Isvara not real ? Does it means to convey that independent
reality is not there, and it is one with Brahman. Is this Absolute Advaita,
incontrast to Visishtadvaita or Dvaita ?

In another place the Swami writes:

" Like Brahman and Isvara, there exists mutual Adhyasa between Kutastha and
the Jiva. The reality of Kutastha is recognised in the Jiva and hence the
Jiva appears to be real. Likewise, the nature of the Jiva and his Dharmas
are recognised in Kutastha who is non-attached, non-doer, non-enjoyer and
eternally free, and hence Kutastha appears in the opposite way. Thus the
mutual Adhyasa between Kutastha and the Jiva. This can be annihilated only
through Viveka-Jnana."

Question: Is Jiva not real ? Does it means to convey that independent
reality is not there, and it is one with Brahman. Is this Absolute Advaita,
incontrast to Visishtadvaita or Dvaita ?

Additional doubts are :

1. Why are we talking of Adhyasa between Brahman and Isvara; and Kutastha
and Jiva ?


2. What nature of the Jiva and its Dharmas are recognised in Kutastha ? and
what is meant by 'Kutastha appears in the opposite way' ?

3. While referring to Isvara the Pure Consciousnes is called 'Brahman', but
while referring to Jiva the same Pure Consciousness is called 'Kutastha'.
Why do we have the usage of two different words. What is the significance ?
and later struggle to prove that 'Brahman' is 'Kutastha'  which is the goal
of Lakshyartha of 'Tat Tvam Asi' ?

Kindly do not ignore my doubts and share your understanding/insights. It
will help me a lot to live in progress with correct understanding.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna


------------

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:03:29 -0500, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram
<srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>Hari Om !!
>
>While explaining the meaning of 'Tat Tvam Asi', Swami Sivananda writes
>in 'Vedanta for Beginners'
>
>" a) Maya (in combination ...) b) Chidasabhasa or the reflection of Chit
>contained in them  c) Brahman, the substratum for them - All of these  go
>together to make up the Vachyartha of the word Tat.
>
>To sum up, Maya and the rest (the gross, subtle and cosmic bodies), the
>Consciousness associated with Her and endowed with omniscience, rulership,
>etc. (by Consciousness Isvara, Hiranyagarbha and Avyakriti and meant
>here ), and Pure eternal Consciousness not associated with any of the
>foregoing things, - when these three appear as an inseparable whole like a
>red-hot iron ball, they become the primary meaning of the word Tat."
>
>In another place he writes,
>"Thus there is Anyonya Adhyasa between Brahman and Isvara, and this Adhyasa
>can be annihilated only through knowledge born of discrimination."
>
>Under the heading 'Lakshyartha of the word Tat', he writes:
>" That Pure, unassociated Consciousness which remains after avoiding maya
>and Her retinue and Chidabhasa, and which serves as the substratum of all
>these things, i.e of the limiting adjuncts and of Isvara limited by them,
>becomes the implied meaning or lakshyartha of the word Tat"
>
>Similar statements are made about Avidya, Chidabhasa (Jiva) and Kutastha.
>
>My doubts are:
>
>1. Why is he separating Chidabhasa (in this case Isvara) from Brahman, the
>substratum ? Are these two distinct entities, that we have to count three
>components of 'Tat' ?
>
>2. Why is 'Adhyasa' being talked about between Brahman and Isvara ? Till
>now I thought Adhyasa is between Brahman and Prakriti only.
>
>If we count Isvara and Brahman as separate, and Jiva and Brahman  as
>separate 'entities' will it not reflect Dvaita thought ?
>
>3. Till now I have been thinking the Chidabhasa (limited by Upadhis) is
>Jiva or Isvara (Jivatma and Paramatma when removed of upadhis). But the
>above statements are giving me a feeling of two different entities of
>Chidabhasa and Brahman (Chidabhasa and Kutastha).
>
>4. Does it mean that the Jivas are hanging as distinct entities in
>Brahman ? Is it not contradictory to Absolute Advaita thought ?
>
>Kindly give your enlightened views.
>
>Om namo Narayanaya !!
>
>Srikrishna