Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: tat-tvam-asi debate

From the Bhakti List Archives

Sudarshan Iyengar H3–378 • June 24, 1994 


 Krishna,

        I think you bring out a good point.

>>NOTe sudarshan your double pruning is correct regarding advaitins
>>view on tattwam asi. but you have to properly prune both the
>>objects " tat " and tvam.

>>tat should mean according to advaitin - ishwara , devoid of all adjuncts
>>that makes him an ishwara...ie. it is bramhan (nirguna only) without the
>>maya adjuncts which make him  appear as ishwara is the same bramhan
>>as the the jeeva - devoid of all adjuncts that make bramhan appear
>>as finite jeeva.

>>note the clear double pruning alll the way.  this was not clear in
>>your statement. only then the "art" or " are" part of the statement
>>can be taken to mean " identical"


         Yes the double pruning has to go all the way so as to make the
 identification valid, according to Advaita.



>>Please let me know where you got your double pruning algorithm? I
>>hope this is not from standard authors!! oops.


        Well, I got this "algorithm" from SS Raghavachar's book "Ramanuja on 
  the Upanisads", but maybe I missed this particular point as there is a
  considerably lengthy discussion on this topic and it needs several readings
  to understand the argument clearly.

  The oversight is mine, NOT the author's ! 

-sudarshan