Tat tvam asi?

[hbdave]

Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, nanda chandran wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > Can there be a knower independent of the known?
> >
>
> Yes. The Knower is ALWAYS independent of the known. The "known object" on
> the other hand, cannot exist without the Knower. Welcome to the first
> class in Advaita Vedanta.
>

Except in the special case of aatmaa, where knower, known and knowledge merge
into
One.

>
> > Neither experience nor logic can prove it to be so.
> >
>
> True, but logic with the aid of the shruti can -- and does!
>
> > So when the Upanishads say that the Atman is the "knower", they cannot mean
> > knower in the normal sense.
> >
>
> You are wrong.
>

I think Nanda is right - when Upanishads say that Atman is the "knower" it is in
a very special sense only. In  the quoted :

viGYAteryastu viGYAtA sa tvamityuchyate yataH .
sa syadanubhavastasya tato.anyo.anubhavo mR^ishhaa .. (2.12.8)

vi in front of ~njaataa denote a special type of Knower.

>
> > Note that though I oppose "selfness" to the Atman, I've very clearly said
> > that on liberation, you are the Atman where you can clearly say "aham
> > brahmaasmi" in a personal sense.
>
> The GYAnI wouldn't care to make such statements about himself. The
> mahAvAkyas are for aid in nididhyAsana by sAdhakas of the highest order.
> -Kartik  (*)

(*) Please see my previous mail.
-- Himanshu