tattvamasi
The Sanskrit
word (or words) tattvamasi, first appearing in
the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, is usually translated
into English to mean: ‘Thou art that.’* tattvamasi
was and is taken to mean: ‘All (unqualified)
is brahman/atman (unqualified)’, ‘I
(unqualified) am brahman (unqualified)’, ‘You
(unqualified) too are brahman (unqualified).’ Or, if personal need be: ‘All (unqualified) is god (unqualified).’ It is crucial
to note that tattvamasi is unqualified. Hence
it does not mean that some or a selected part of ‘thou’ is some or all of
‘that’. tattvamasi
means ‘all
of thou (warts and all)
is all of that!’ And that is the
extraordinary and final (i.e. at the end of Veda) ancient Indian insight (cum
experience), namely pantheism that at once fully liberates (from the world as
samsara)
and fully binds (as an act of self-sacrifice into the world as samsara).
It is voluntary
self-binding into samsara that constitutes the ultimate
(meaning brahman/atman) sacrifice.** The insight
and/or experience of tattvamasi (warts and
all!) turns him or her who gains that insight or experience
into a true paramahansa
and his or her action as that of an avatar. Consequently, since none of the
great Upanishad commentators, such as Badarayana
and Adi Shankara, and,
lately, Vivekananda understood the foregoing, none qualified as paramahansas
and avatars. They were ignorant, albeit erudite and clever, bookworms. Clearly, tattvamasi is unqualified. It means ‘thou, warts and all, art that’. Alas, once spoken
(because so experienced by a genuine paramahansa
become jivanmukta), ancient Indian politically
minded commentators, i.e. Brahmins, did their utmost to qualify the word. For
the notion of an unqualified ‘thou art that’ opens up a right a-political can
of worms. ‘Thou art that’ not only makes all ‘thou’s’
equal (or at-one) with/in ‘that’ and the means to ‘thou’, but also equal (or
at-one) with/in all other ‘thou’s’ and their means
to ‘thou’. That insight (or reality) was deemed politically unacceptable by
both religious (i.e. Brahmin) and secular law makers because unworkable. But
the unqualified ‘thou art that’ (meaning pantheism or pandeism)
is the most reasonable because universally observable albeit uncomfortable
explanation of the origin of ‘the world’. What it says is that all thou’s (i.e. all appearances) are full and equal
participants in the whole creation process, i.e. before the universal (creation)
law or dharma. *… none
of the three elements of tattvamasi, namely
‘thou’, art’ and ‘that’ have yet been clearly defined. For the notion of
‘that’ ancient Indians produced three options, namely prajapati (i.e. the father of creation),
or atman, vaguely meaning ‘self’ or brahman. Specifically the notion of brahman, repeatedly declared to be
unknowable, could not be reasonably described (though often suggested to mean
prâna, translated as (divine)
breath or life force). **… The early Upanishads were an advanced attempt at describing
the transition from infantile to mature (post 30’s) human understanding of
the creation process, the latter to be applied as mature human behaviour/dharma.
The first attempt had been made in the Veda and by the lawgiver Manu. (After
30) Vicarious or ritual sacrifice, that connects the infant to a yet transcendent
creation ground, is now no longer meaningful, hence acceptable. From now on
sacrifice means actual personal self-sacrifice, meaning that life (or
appearance) itself is sacrifice. In Christianity the transition (i.e. from
suck (-er) to succour, or from predator to prey, or
from vicarious sacrifice to personal sacrifice) is clearly represented by the
(self-) sacrificial death of an initially infantile Jesus on the Cross, and which
(self-) sacrificial death every living being/appearance must emulate (to
experience the joy of heaven) or be damned (in a hell of their own making). |