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 nondifference 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