Chāndogya Upaniṣad (VI.1, VI.8-16)

02/17/2026 · Tue/Thu 12:00-1:15 PM · Brad Bannon · Boston College

📄 Synopsis

This class session centered on Chapter 6 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, specifically the dialogue between the young student Śvetaketu and his father. The discussion focused on the first of the four mahāvākyas, or 'great sayings': 'Tat Tvam Asi' (That Thou Art). Students explored a series of famous analogies used in the text—including clay and its products, gold jewelry, the merging of rivers into the ocean, the Banyan seed, and salt dissolved in water—to understand the relationship between the 'subtle essence' of Pure Being and the manifest world of individual forms. The session emphasized that liberation (mokṣa) involves the removal of ignorance to reveal an identity with the divine essence that is already present, rather than the acquisition of new information, highlighting the necessity of a teacher to move from rote memorization to true understanding.

⚡ Key Takeaways

The mahāvākya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (That Thou Art) identifies the individual self with the ultimate, subtle essence of all existence.
Analogies like the clay pot and gold jewelry illustrate that while names and forms change, the underlying material essence remains identical.
Deep sleep is described as a state where the individual is temporarily united with Pure Being, though they remain unaware of this union.
The salt-in-water analogy demonstrates that the divine essence is all-pervading and real even when it is not immediately perceivable by the physical senses.
Individuality is compared to the juice of different flowers becoming honey; once merged into the whole, the distinct origins can no longer be identified.
The metaphor of the tree and the Banyan seed illustrate how a subtle, invisible essence is the source of life and growth.
The story of the blindfolded man emphasizes that while the Vedas provide a 'map,' a teacher is often necessary to guide a student to personal realization.
Śaṅkara's theological perspective suggests that every word in scripture is significant and lacks extraneous meaning, including the repetition of the mahāvākya.
True theological understanding requires moving beyond rote memorization of the Vedas to a personal realization facilitated by discourse and instruction.
The dialogue explores the tension between the 'one' (ultimate reality) and the 'many' (individual forms and names).

🎤 Transcript Tap any timestamp to jump the audio player

0:00

Opening and Administrative Instructions

0:01

Large Group Discussion: Metaphors of the Self and Pure Being

Brad

Ready? 50 calories in a can of play-doh? Is that it? Oh, all right, let's take a moment please and put away screens, close laptops, and let's just transition and be. Let's take a breath together. Go ahead and breathe in. And out. Word? Alright, let's not forget the quiz today, man. That was lame, wasn't it? It's crazy, forgot the quiz last time. Alright, just keep it— we'll start at the same time, so just keep them face down for a moment, please. Um, we have Dylan, Aiden. Missing Dylan and Aiden, right? Aiden, right? Everybody else here? Cool. So while those are coming around, here's what we're gonna do today. We're gonna start with the quiz, obviously, and then after the quiz, then we're gonna hear from our discussion leaders. And actually, no, sorry, after the quiz, we'll take some time in small— in your teams, right? So So discussion leaders can kind of, you know, talk about what they're going to talk about and get input from your team and all that kind of stuff. And we'll take hopefully 10 minutes. I say hopefully. ⚠

0:04

Closing Activity and Play-Doh Creations

Brad

I'll cut it off if I hear folks kind of meandering into different topics. But as long as everybody's on topic, I'd like to take 10 minutes in small teams to talk about the text. And then we'll take about a half hour. Or so for the discussion leaders to really lead discussion. And during that 30 minutes, I'm going to shut my piehole and just listen. And then we'll broaden the discussion after that. So yeah, go ahead and flip them over. Everybody got a quiz? Go ahead and do your quiz. Looks like folks are mostly done. Just take another minute to wrap up. Okay, good. Are we good? All right, go ahead and if you would just make sure that they're kind of all facing the same direction, please. And go ahead and pass them to me. I do have more Play-Doh if anybody, uh, wants or doesn't have Play-Doh. There's more Play-Doh. Yeah, we'll call it Great, so who are our— okay, let's just run down. 11, is your— okay, Spellon. 12, Gina. How did the Swim, swim, competition, track. No swimming on the track, huh? Okay. 13. 14. Okay. So, okay. Thank you. 15. Okay. ⚠

Brad

Thanks, sir. 16. 17. Brian. And 18? All right, cool. So yeah, I mean, I don't want to give you too much direction. Just feel free to chat amongst yourselves. Let's try to stay on topic, but take till 20 after. And then at 20 after, we're going to shift into larger discussion. And like I said, I'm not going to talk. Until Ted Till, so, is the ideal goal. And so I'd like to hear from the discussion leaders first, but it doesn't just have to be discussion between discussion leaders. You can lead the discussion in the class. Yeah, go for it. ⚠

Student

Okay, that's what I thought, cuz I was like, it is a chocolate.

Brad

Yeah, I have kind of a light cream.

Student

Everything from which everything started.

Brad

Maybe, you know, from that, uh, this is all, whatever. Good. All right, let's transition into the Big group, larger discussion. I can start. ⚠

Student

We found it really interesting, like the gold, clay, and iron example about how, you know, a pot can be clay, but just because it's called a pot doesn't mean it's necessarily something different. We kind of related that to like how we are all part of the self, but just because I'm called Eduardo or Max is called Max, that doesn't mean we're necessarily different from that original self, if that makes sense. ⚠

Student

We were also talking about that and how like, when I read this and the first thing that came to my mind was like, nothing is ever that deep. Like, especially with the clay, like, we're all here and we're all gonna die at some point, and that's like— our essence is just us, no matter what our status is, how much money we have. Like, we are all gonna die eventually, and you'll remember our— us as humans. ⚠

Student

Yeah, adding on to that, I thought it was interesting how in the beginning, at like no notes that like he's not a Brāhmaṇa by birth, and like the way that he can become that is like by studying the Vedas and like understanding these like fundamental truths. Um, so it's interesting kind of the idea that like no matter your status, like if you understand these like fundamental things, you can be liberated. Um, I think it's interesting that he like, um, Śvetaketu, he like keeps asking for like clarification because he like really wants to know, like he really wants to be one with himself, and all these kind of metaphors are like kind of showing him how, like ways he can reveal it because it's not straightforward, and like the only way that you can describe something like this I think is probably like through metaphors because otherwise like it's just so abstract, like there's no like set of steps he can follow to understand it. ⚠

Brad

So I thought that was interesting.

Student

In terms of metaphors, I know we talked about that a lot. We thought the examples, or at least I did, examples were very profound and made a lot of sense. It was very comprehensible the way I thought these topics were discussed through the way they described things. Going back to the clay thing, I definitely, when I first read it, sat back and thought about it. And I was like, this kind of makes sense. It wasn't something I really thought about. Like you said, it was not 100%. I didn't even comprehend that until the way they worded it in the sense they did. ⚠

Student

Especially with the river example, there's the water cycle. So all the water is constantly being moved around. So the water within the river is not going to be the same water in the river in a day from now. It might be the same river, might have this sort of kind of distinct identity, but it's also connected to other rivers, connected to oceans, and all the water all around it is always connecting. So by knowing this one river, you can essentially know all the rivers or all the water or just the idea of rivers through that.

Student

Yeah, I also thought it was interesting, the connection with deep sleep and like that being where you're like united with your pure being. I thought it was interesting how the state of being unconscious and being at peace is when you're finally united with that pure being. And also the idea that you don't really know that you've reached it or that you've been united with it while you're asleep. It just kind of is there. I thought that was interesting. Also, my group was talking about the idea of the subtle essence and how we understood it as everybody has two truth in themselves and that essence is in everybody. And I feel like especially connecting it with yoga and the idea of tranquility was interesting how big of a role that idea of peace and tranquility plays in being united with the pure being yourself. ⚠

Student

Yeah, we also discussed the pure being at length. I mean, definitely interesting the fact that there's a pure being really in all of us and all creatures. The metaphor of the tree really kind of brought that home for us, where they talked about how you could strike the tree in 3 different places and it would still stand. But it was only when that living essence and pure being got kind of dissipated from the tree where that tree would start to die. I think that really highlighted the idea of pure being and how it was something that is in all of us and will always be in all of us. It was even kind of described as kind of a Creator as well. ⚠

Student

I think they kind of made the distinction that the pure being isn't necessarily within us, it just is us. So, you know, our sense of self or the Ātman is our pure being, and they aren't something that can really be separated, because when they do, you know, we die. Think of our body— if our body dies, you know, so the self doesn't die, but then they're split again back into the kind of like the bed sheet example. ⚠

Student

It's kind of like the salt and water. That kind of stuck with me too. Like, you put the salt in water, you can't see it, but then when you taste it, it's like, oh, there's salt in the water. It's like, even if it's like unseen, it's everywhere, and it— you eventually do realize it's there. You don't like perceive the being, but it's still there. ⚠

Student

I think going back to the river metaphor, that one kind of made me think about like this idea of like, like with water and earth, like it's all the same. Like, do we actually like— if that's like being compared to like us all being part of the same being, like the true being, and then like water's just water and like land is just land. Like, I feel like there's a pretty big thing to be said there about, like, we can't actually, like, assert control over these things that are all, like, this one being that, like, kind of just, like, forms the earth and, like, forms creation. Like, I feel like the idea of us, like, asserting control over it almost, like, seems kind of stupid if you think about it in those terms. Um, and, like, the same with us, like, kind of like talking about like our differences, because if you like look at it from this perspective, then it's like differences like don't like really matter. Like, I don't know, that almost like makes me like think of questions about like past and that type of stuff. ⚠

Student

Going back to like the death example, I read it in a way where it was like kind of the process of death illustrates like that whole idea of like conservation of matter and energy that we had talked about a couple classes earlier. Like, you slowly, like, lose your vision and your senses. Eventually, like, you lose your breath, and the last thing you lose is the heat in your body. And that kind of— all that matter goes back to the earth, but your energy is still conserved in, like, the pure being. So, you know, maybe that gets recycled into, like, a new person. I at some point, but, you know, kind of like the cycle of life and death goes along with the conservation of energy. Yeah, kind of like adding on to that and going back to like the river's example, like my group was asking if like individuality is like really— ⚠

Brad

if it really exists or if it's just like an illusion and like how we should like perceive it and like our own individuality.

Student

Yeah, going off that I know I marked down when they were talking about the absence of individuality in deep sleep specifically. They talked about, as bees make honey by collecting the juices of trees from different places, reducing them to one form, no discrimination, I am the juice of this tree or I am the juice of that tree, all reach pure being even if they do not know that. I think that kind of ties in everything we just talked about. And that really made sense to me, where it's like, at the end of the day, it is just like juice from like trees, like there's no difference between like where it got from one tree to another tree or like how that kind of came together at the end. And they all reach that pure being, even if it's like not like knowledgeable. ⚠

Student

That's kind of like the Banyan seed. The seed contains like nothing that is actually visible, but a massive tree will come out of it. That is the individual essence of all. ⚠

Student

There's both.

Student

I also thought it was interesting, the emphasis on truth, especially with the repeated saying with that is true, that is the self, in connection with the liberation of the Brāhmaṇa. The idea that if the man that was accused of theft tells the truth that he didn't commit the theft, and that is his truth, then he's saved. So that was interesting, the really strong emphasis on being truthful and honest. In connection with theology of like the idea of like yourself, like that is the truth, especially the— ⚠

Student

I think for me like that made sense, but like I didn't really like talk around like so much like— I think we talked about it as a purpose, but then like the rest of the text, like I understood that the truthfulness like the ultimate like was generation, like the people man is now born, like, so like God is not born again, that exists itself, that is true to self, in that thou art, like that whole part like kind of makes sense, but I didn't really like, I don't know if any of you guys know, but like I felt like it didn't really go with, at least to me, into the rest of like the readings where we were talking about like pure being and all that other like stuff like that. ⚠

Student

I mean, I took it as like you know, if you're guilty or innocent, but I took it as an example of like guilty being like you're ignorant of your inner self, right? Whereas if you're innocent, you realize the truth about your inner self. So I just thought he was making a comment on that, that we should strive to remove that ignorance and that eventually will lead us to liberation or Mokṣa. ⚠

Student

I think another, um, one of the, one of the parts of the text that kind of stood out as a little different was like the blind man being led, um, or not blind, but like the man who was blindfolded, um, being led away and kind of having to find his way back, um, to his country. I think that was kind of interesting because I think the whole The rest of the text was kind of just very individualized. It's like telling one person how they're supposed to see the true being of the self. But then this kind of elaborates on it. It's like you actually need assistance, and then you need the teachings of others to kind of be able to do that. ⚠

Student

Yeah, I'm going off that point. I think the idea of you need a teacher to help further your own knowledge was really important, and like the importance of discussion. Because like, I don't know how to pronounce his name, but he was like able to learn the Vedas, but he wasn't truly able to understand without like that conversation he had like with his father. So I thought that like that just demonstrates the importance of like having this teacher and then like showing them gratitude, which we talked about. ⚠

Brad

And then also like having conversations about this, which is like what we're trying to do. So I thought that was interesting.

Student

I think especially at the beginning, you know, when he says, did he give you instruction by which the unheard becomes heard, the unthought becomes thought, the unknown becomes known? There really is— it is like a distinct way of learning. And when you blindfold the man, you know, you're losing such an important sense. Our sense of sight is arguably our most important sense. I think if I was blind, I would be running into tables and falling down stairs all the time. But to be able to then make it back to his home country, he can either— someone just tell him where to go, or he can see the way for himself using his eyes and his knowledge. So sometimes if someone just tells you, you might not be learning to the same extent as you were if you had that knowledge within you from just living around there and then using that to get back to where you're from. ⚠

Student

I think it also emphasizes the relationship of a fatherly figure because it's like he was being taught the Vedas for so many years by teachers, but it wasn't until his father kind of explained to him that he really reached that understanding. I thought it was interesting in contrast to the other stories where it's father, like the biological father, was not all like representative of like a good father and the idea of like sacrifice. But in this, like the idea that like your father is guiding you, so maybe just to like as an educated instruction that like father figures are meant to like help you reach like liberation and also move to that like that understanding that you wouldn't get from maybe like a teacher from the veda. ⚠

Student

Yeah, I think it's interesting, the idea of knowing versus being told something.

Brad

I don't know.

Student

I feel like it's kind of hard for the individual person to have this transcendental knowledge just within them, and it just needs to be brought out in some type of way. I don't know if that's something everyone could necessarily do by themselves. Also, because going back to that idea discussed before about like, I can only ever know what I know, but like, I can't be the knower of like someone else, for example. Like, I can't ever truly fully know like what Olivia knows. And like, I think that, I think that might like is part of liberation, like maybe not trying to like know what other people know, but to understand that and to like be taught from another's perspective of like how to find the true self is better than just like sticking with your own because like that's what leads to like arrogance. And like, like it said in the story, he came back after learning for so many years and he was still like arrogant and he thought he knew everything. But his father changed his entire perspective. ⚠

Student

I also think it's interesting that like the words that, that art It's repeated so many times, but each time a new analogy is revealed. But I think this is what we're supposed to kind of like take from it. Like we're supposed to hear it and like hear each— like each time it's saying the same thing just in different forms. So I think it's just like a different vantage point on the same. ⚠

Student

Titles.

Brad

Yeah, yeah, I hear that as well.

Student

Uh, we were talking in the group that like, uh, this the boy, the Śvetaketu, he's not becoming the Brāhmaṇa. He is a Brāhmaṇa, but he is— he doesn't know this yet. And the teachers— and the teachers kind of like, um, not just some skills, but the teacher's job is to remove ignorance from a Śvetaketu and show him that, like, not to install the new information, but to reveal that he is Brāhmaṇa already, even if he doesn't know it. And it kind of goes under all of the 9 analogies mentioned in there. So seed is not the tree yet, but it's going to be a huge tree after some time. ⚠

Student

I think something interesting in all these stories is that there's not, like, one pathway to liberation. Like, for Sunashepa, well, all these people have to kind of learn the veda first, but that's not like how you get there. There's like another step, and it's usually through discourse. Um, I forget what class this was in, but it may have been this class. It was like, if you want to get somewhere, you can either ask someone, um, how to get there and they'll give you like detailed instructions, or they can just give you a map. And so I don't think there's like detailed instructions on how to get to liberation. I think you kind of get the map, and I think the map is kind of the veda. And then it's up to you to interact with it and kind of mold your own way to liberation. For Sunahsepa, it was when he was bounded, he recited the hymns. For this story, it was kind of just questioning and discourse and engaging with the text. ⚠

Student

Yeah, I think I noticed that right away. That's what I took from it. Also too, right away it brought me back to one of the first things you said, that they memorize the data. If you're studying it, you have to memorize it first. You may not even know what the meaning is, how to translate it, but you're going to memorize it. So therefore, when you start that discourse or start intertwining it into whatever you do, it starts to all kind of come together and make sense. And bring you to that liberation. ⚠

Student

The way I'm like— what I'm taking from all that is like, you know, liberation isn't so much just about knowing, but rather understanding. And different people understand in different ways, whether that be like thoughts, words, or actions. And, you know, like obviously, as we mentioned, like when he was bound and he freed himself through his words, and now we're seeing someone being free through discourse So there's like different paths you can take, but it's so person-dependent. ⚠

Student

I think that was like the mountain example that we were using. There's multiple paths up the mountain to liberation, and it fully just depends on what kind of clicks for you and how you can understand it. But as long as it works for you, that's good enough.

Student

Yeah, I think the path is like very different for everyone. Like, obviously everyone has the Vedas and you know, like interpretations and like applications of that are all different, but I think the whole point of like the pure self is that like the destination is the same and like everyone who is liberated is gonna end up at the same place and there's no one right pathway to take that's gonna get you there, um, which I think fits. ⚠

Student

Um, one thing that like stood out to me from the another class is like, it was like political philosophy and we were talking about Machiavelli and he says like, the prince can't know the commoner like without being the commoner. And like a painter can't draw a mountain without being on top of the mountain and also like below the mountain. So I thought that that was like interesting how like we can never really know someone or something because we aren't that thing. So I feel like that kind of relates to like The idea we're talking about of teachers and all the examples that we're using of the tree and the salt, it just kind of relates to sometimes we're just not going to know. And are we ever really going to know ourselves? ⚠

Student

Going off that, in Chapter 6 with the cause of the universe, the different views from Aruni and then Uddalaka of how the universe started, rather it being from non-being, that being was born like being alone existed. And I thought it was interesting that even though like they had studied the same thing, they had that different interpretation of how the universe was created. And I mean, I guess going off of what was said from being creating many, the idea that like there was one being and then that created everything, like the folding paper example. But I just thought it was interesting that they introduced it with kind of like two different perspectives just to show that, especially with all the different mentioned, like, there's a lot of ways that you could interpret the beginning of the universe, and I thought that was really well done. ⚠

Student

Also, like, kind of going back to Chapter 6 too, like, we kind of saw epistemology, like, the knower and the known, and then ontology, the one and the many. Like, I feel like this chapter kind of throws both in with, like, one that becomes many, and then, like, the teaching kind removes that, like, ignorance, and it makes you think that you're, like, separated from it. ⚠

Brad

So I kind of thought about that.

Student

And I think we kind of see, like, the many going back to the one a lot in this chapter, especially, like, with what we said, with what Ben was talking about with the honey and the bees. Like, obviously each bee contributes its own, like, plays its own role in making, like, this pool of honey, but you can't distinguish, like, which particle is from which bee. So then you're back to that state of oneness that really is, like, the self. ⚠

Brad

Yeah, something that's really emphasized not only in this chapter but also pretty much everything else is, like, transformations. So all the analogies, like, with the bees and the juice, or, you know, a seed in the tree, um, involves things changing form, like, really drastically. ⚠

Student

And I think that also kind of indicates that even when you sort of achieve an enlightenment, you're not going to—

Brad

you have to change that to achieve. But despite the change you go through, you're still the same essence that you were before, even though you are different in other ways.

Student

I think speaking of transformations, one thing we talked about was when it talked about it being a Brāhmaṇa, may I be many, may I grow forth and create a fire. Fire thought, may I be many, may I grow forth and create a bar, and so on to food. I think speaking of stuff like that, I know we mentioned that it could be a little confusing in itself. Didn't just directly become— like water doesn't directly become food, but like it has that role in it and that transitions that we talked about. So I think there is some like confusion there, but like also like kind of like makes sense in the sense where like when you have it, I think it said, yeah, like when it rains, abundant food is produced from water alone. It is edible food that is produced. Like that makes sense. But like we just thought like there could be some confusion with that because I feel like other things always play within it. ⚠

Student

So I guess like building off that, I remember it was saying that like the being is the root of all things. So maybe it's not that like there's one thing like the water that created everything, but the idea that like everything goes back to the being and like the beginning. So maybe not like one specific item that's making everything, but just like the idea that the self and being is like the basis for all things. ⚠

Student

Yeah, I think a line that like kind of really affirms that is like when it said all the things, all the creations have their root in being, they dwell in being, and they rest in being. So like, I guess everything, like Boris was kind of saying, like transforms out of being, but at the same time, like, it, like, it, it's only there because of being. And like, at its like core, I guess it is being, I don't know, I'm explaining this poorly, but like kind of with the fire, I thought it was interesting how like they explain it like, okay, being grows into fire, then that grows into water, then that grows into food and the earth, but then it goes backwards as well. So like the earth goes back to water, the water goes back to the fire, fire goes back to the being. So I think it's like the being expands, but at the same time, when it rests, it kind of goes back. Like when fire's gone, there's still the being of fire. ⚠

Student

The way we understood that is that pure being necessitates everything else, and like you said, it's still within fire. Pure being still exists, but when fire doesn't exist, pure being is still there. So it's not necessary— it's not necessary for all of these things to exist for pure being to exist. But also when you talk about the individuality within that, you know, there's all like there is fire and there's food and there's water and they're all still pure being, but they're different forms of that. And the same thing with the honey, you know, you have all these different flowers and it's technically, you know, one pot of honey, but it would be a different pot of honey if you got it from different flowers. You know, you're ontologically looking at it. So it is important that there is individuality, but at the same time, it is still honey, and they all still have that pure being within them. So at the very, very base level, the subtle essence, they are identical. ⚠

Student

On a different note, I thought that the deep sleep passage was able to help me understand maybe like what happens to us like after death, or like what happens to a loved one after death. Because like your individuality disappears in deep sleep, but you still exist. So like maybe then in death, like who you are, your individuality disappears, but like your true self exists. It's like before thought. So Your true self still exists.

Student

Yeah, I mean, something I highlighted and took away from that too, bouncing off the deep sleep but also into the death thing, in the final chapter, it was around a dying person afflicted with illness, his alters gather and ask, do you know me? He knows them as long as his speech is not merged with mine. And his prana and heat and the heat in the highest deity. That, to me, goes off of that piercing thing of there is this distinct difference between those two stages. Once you're in that deep sleep or that state of mind, your individuality is separate, but you still exist as part of that being. ⚠

Brad

Very nice. You guys are doing great. I hate to interject, but let me just interject without, you know, taking over. I want to draw your attention, and you've already kind of talked about it a bit, but I'd like to kind of zoom in and focus especially on 687. I marked it a little bit differently in the text. I labeled that one a little differently. So this, we first encountered the mahavakya when I gave you just that massive list of vocabulary to memorize, right? And included the four great sayings. Maha means great, vakya means saying or sentence or utterance. Sentence is pretty accurate. So the great sentences, the great sayings. And there's four of them. And so then we encounter them again, Rambachan talked about them in the article that we read by him. And then so this unit, Unit 3 that we're on now, is just the mahavakyas, right? So we're just reading each of the 4 mahavakyas. So today is our first, our first mahavakya, first great sentence, which is there in— usually it's, you know, if you quote it, it's 6.8.7 because that's the first instance of it. ⚠

Brad

It's actually in here What, 9 times? It's in here repeatedly, right? And so if you think way back to the very first day of class, within the first, you know, 15 or 20 minutes when I mentioned Shankara, who was the very first Hindu theologian that I talked about in the class. And I brought him up because he talks about the shanti mantra, right? Om shanti shanti shanti. And one of the first things I told you about him is that he says that every word in the scripture is significant. There's no excess meaning in the scripture. There's nothing extraneous. It's nothing extra, right? Everything in there matters. And therefore, if you're repeating this word, shanti, shanti, shanti, then every utterance of it has to mean something at least slightly different, right? It's not like night and day different, but like a little different, right? And so there I said, you know, Shankara says like there's body and mind and spirit, right? And each one of these you want to bring some peace to. ⚠

Brad

Shankara likewise says, as you, you know, might imagine, quite a lot to say about the fact that this sentence is repeated over and over again, right? So I guess there's a few things here to talk about, and I want to toss it back to you. But let's, let's all look together at 687, and then we can, you know, look at the various repetitions of it. But I'll just read the whole thing. So, so the entire verse: Now that which is the subtle essence, in its all that exists has itself. That is the true, that is the self, 'that thou art, Śvetaketu.' 'Please, venerable sir, give me further instructions,' said the son. 'So be it, my dear,' the father replied. So technically, the great saying is only 'tat tvam asi, Śvetaketu,' and usually the 'Śvetaketu' is left off. So, 'that thou art.' What does, uh, what does this word 'thou' mean? Can we take a moment before Just take a moment and pause. Why do you think they use the word thou? What does thou mean, just in English? It's not a word that we use very often, right? What does thou mean? Anybody have some? ⚠

Brad

Yeah, Eduardo.

Student

You or your.

Brad

You or your. Yeah. Anything to add to that? It's an old-timey you, right? It's just an old-timey you. Yeah, but there's a little bit more to it than that. So there is a slight difference between you and they. ⚠

Student

Thou?

Brad

Anybody? No? Yeah, Lucas? Do you know which one is which? You're right.

Student

I think, is it you is formal?

Brad

Thou is informal. Thou is informal. That's right. So interesting that the informal is the one that's dropped out, right? If anything, you would think that the formal one would have dropped out. But you're exactly right. So thou is like the more informal. Like in French, you know, vous versus tu, or in German, like ihr versus du, right? So like the— I don't know if you have this in Spanish or in other languages as well, right? So you have the formal and the informal, and at least I think in all three of those, the formal is also the plural, right? So you can be individual or plural. You is formal, but thou is only informal. It's only intimate. Bit, right? So there's some— so the reason this is translated as that thou art Śvetaketu, I mean, Śvetaketu is a son, right? So he's calling his son, I mean, his son's name is part of the great sentence. And, um, yeah, Devin in fact brought that up, right? I mean, you said, um, like, it's only telling that one person how to be the self, right? ⚠

Brad

So there's very, um, so it's very particularized, very focused on You know, from father to son. I feel like there's already a lot to talk about there. Maybe there's some other questions you can come up with. Let me throw out another question since I— another question is, so that, that is an indexical pronoun. Anybody know what is an indexical pronoun? Didn't we talk about indexical pronouns in the midterm lecture from last semester? For sure did. That's okay. So an indexical pronoun— pronoun is just a word that's standing in for a noun. Pronoun and then a noun. Word that's standing in for a noun. Indexical means like index finger, right? So it points at something. So if I say like, you know, hey, give me that, right? I mean, you don't know what I'm pointing— you don't know what that is unless I point to something, right? So if I say give me that, there's no doubt what I'm talking about, right? But if I just say hey, give me that, you have no idea what I'm talking about, right? So that is an indexical pronoun that points to to something. Follow? ⚠

Brad

So then, this is going to be kind of important for the entire unit, but this is our first encounter with it. So then that's the— so grammatically, let's just point out the obvious, right? We've said that this semester we're studying the shaiva darshana, the 6 orthodox systems of Hindu theology, right? And we're mostly focusing on on these two, mimamsa and Vedanta, but, you know, we talked a little bit about the other four as well. And one of the things that came up in your podcast, right, is that all of them are reading the same scriptures, all of them regard the same scriptures as sacred, right? But the question is, I mean, just because we all read the same text and all consider the same text important doesn't mean that we're going to interpret it the same way or read it the same way, right? So with that in mind, let's kind of zoom in on this phrase, that thou art, Śvetaketu, and the repetition of it. And, you know, I mean, maybe think about what does that point to and what are the possibilities and what do you think it points to? ⚠

Brad

And that's what I kind of give you some topics to talk about. Yeah? You want to do it? Why don't you do a little bit small team chat for just a couple of minutes, 2, 3 minutes, and then we'll share that with the class. Yeah? Go for it. ⚠

Student

Exactly right.

Student

Yeah, I don't know how you would point at her being to promote something that's imperceivable. ⚠

Student

Is that like what they're saying there?

Student

It's like the thing you're trying to point at is just like you. Because when you break the scene, I can't see anything. ⚠

Student

So like, I feel like he said that too. I don't know, I feel like his foot— ⚠

Student

like, yeah, that mean— ⚠

Student

sometimes, like, right after I talk to my mom, I'm like, oh, sometimes I'm just like, well, that's stupid. ⚠

Student

Say no, like, you are so smart.

Student

That you are. That you are.

Brad

That you are.

Student

So, like, you know, I, like, sometimes I read these things and I'm like, wait, I'm taking it too surface-levelly. But sometimes I feel like you have to know something That's like just that you are. ⚠

Student

You are that.

Student

Like, I don't know, is that stupid?

Student

But that you are, or like, it could also be insulting. ⚠

Student

Like, if someone says something like that, you're like, that you are mean. Like, it's crazy because you could also be an adjective, but you can also be a physical thing. And I'm like, wait, I don't know. ⚠

Brad

Okay, questions, thoughts, insights, confusion? This spell?

Student

We can start with confusion, I guess. So we were kind of bouncing around different ideas about what it can mean.

Student

I guess we were just confused again with like what that is because it is repeated. So I guess like one way to look at it is like maybe that's— that thou art is a connection to like pure self. So like the self and that is true, like with the pure self and like Dharma being like such like a sought out for and like everyone like wants to reach it, not knowing that they they already have it, maybe that, that, or just reaffirming that idea that the self is what you're looking for, that's the art, possibly? ⚠

Brad

Just bouncing ideas around.

Student

We thought that that was pure being and thou is the self or the Ātman, and that it's pointing at you, but the subtle essence is something that is imperceivable, so it's not necessarily something that you can see the same way you can't see the salt in the water, but you can still experience it. So it's something you have to find, you know, whether it's within you or just within your environment, because everything has, you know, that— it has the pure being. ⚠

Student

Yeah, I think that's a good way of describing it. Like, it's something you can't see, but you still can, like, experience. Because I don't know, like, it does— it is something that's related relating your true being, but it could also just kind of be relating like what you are. Like you could be multiple kind of things within this true being. I don't know, like that's kind of what we were talking about, I guess. Like if we're not taking it as like the— like there's only one that, and that's like the truth, the true being, because there can be multiple like truths within your being. ⚠

Student

Yeah, we found it interesting that Brad brought up a lot of the times that Śvetaketu's name is dropped. And that just made us think like this sentence can be applied to anyone. Say like if I say like, thou art Nick, you know what I'm saying? Like Nick is the self, but also pointing out that like he still has like some individuality to him on some level. So we are all at some point like, you know, that being or that self, but like we're still ourselves. ⚠

Brad

I don't know if that makes sense.

Student

Yeah, I mean, we brought that up. We talked about like how it kind of appears at the end of all these like passages and like moments of like explanation, and that like it's like all talking about that individuality and that being in the same pure being. But it's all from different ways of looking at it and explaining it. So that's how we kind of determined it. You said it could be anybody's name that stands. But he's using his son's name to show that that is you. This is how existence plays a part in your life. ⚠

Student

One thought I had too was that it's the true self. Is all of us, like, and all of us are part of the same being, then those two are kind of like the same thing? ⚠

Brad

I think you guys are circling around, you know, maybe one of the most important topics of the semester, honestly, which is, you know, just to kind of state a little bit more explicitly, you know, which is this relationship between the one self, the self of all being, ultimate reality, whatever you want to call it, right, and individuality, right. So I mean, as Sophia brought up, like, individuality disappears in deep sleep. We're going to talk more about that when we get to the Mandukya Upanishad next Thursday, and maybe even before then. But yeah, I mean, and back to Eduardo's comment about conservation of matter and energy, right, law of conservation, then I mean, we are all individuals, right? I mean, part of the whole point of going through the exercise of emphasizing that thou is intimate, thou is personal, thou, and it's that thou art, Śvetaketu, right? Right? So that individuality, as you're pointing, right? That's— so we've got to account for that, right? You can't just say, oh, we're all the same, therefore differences don't matter. We've somehow got to account for that individuality on some level, right? ⚠

Brad

And so this is a large— to some extent, you know, something that we're focusing on. Is that confusing enough? I'm just throwing it out there. You understand what we're trying to answer, right? How to account for individuality. What's the point of being me, right? So if I ask, why am I here? I don't know. The answer to why I'm here, I think, is going to be different for Angel than it is for Cooper than it is for Brad, right? But maybe there's also something about, you know, maybe we're— maybe there's some reason for everybody to be, right? But that's— those are two different questions, right? One is like, why is the water boiling, right? And you could go through physics or you could go through different types of causality. So the question then, what is the point of individuality, right? What is the value of individuality? And so I'm just planting that question in your head. I'm certainly not going to rush to answer it for you. At least make sense what I'm trying to point out. Yeah? Good. A couple of things before we run out of time. ⚠

Brad

One is— I don't even have to think about that. As I'm listening to podcasts, You know, I mean, one of the benefits of podcasts is then I get a sense of what most folks, what many folks are kind of confused on, and, you know, which indicates what something I haven't explained very well, right, generally. So let me just kind of recap and explain a couple of things. It should all be familiar, but important to recap. So this semester we're focusing on the Shad Darshan. Right? The 6 perspectives, 6 orthodox perspectives, 6 schools. They're usually called the 6 schools of orthodox Hindu theology. So all of them consider the veda shruti. All of them consider it sacred, but they also have very different perspectives on it, right? So they do not agree on a lot. I mean, they agree on that, that the veda is sacred, but what does the veda mean? They all have differing perspectives, right? And then within those 6 schools, you know, there are 3 pairs basically. And so we aren't worried too much about the differences between the pairs except for maybe this pair. ⚠

Brad

But we're gonna— but we are— I mean, we're not too concerned about the differences within the pairs, but we are concerned with the differences between the pairs, right? So, just to recap, right? All of them agree that to be a human person, to be a living being, a living being, to be a living being, you have to have both of these two things, right? You have to have matter. Everybody here today brought your body with you, right? Which is good. I brought my body with me. So we are bodies, we have bodies, material bodies, right? So prakriti, that's part of being a living being. There are no living beings that don't have bodies, right, is one of the assumptions. But, you know, I could drop dead right here, right? I could drop dead right now. And if I were to drop dead right here, somebody would have to get all my shit out of here and move my body so that the next professor could come in and teach class, right? Because my body is not going to move itself, right? ⚠

Brad

One of the ways we know that I'm alive right now is because my body is moving itself, right? So the idea is that there's something that moves the body. There's something that moves matter, and that's the spirit, right? So we've got purusha and prakriti. All 6 perspectives, all the shaiva darshana agree that that's the case. So in terms of accounting, right, we've got to account for both physical matter and for the spirit or whatever that moves the matter, right? But then the question is, how do these two things relate, right? So we've got Jayden. We know for sure that Jayden is not dead, right? I mean, we can see that, right? So Jayden therefore has both a spirit and matter. But the question is, what, I mean, what is Jaden, right? What does it mean to be a Jaden, right? We're not just a Jaden, but this Jaden, right? And so the schools answer that differently, right? I think everybody from listening to the podcast, it seems everybody pretty much kind of got the two bed sheets, right? So in samkhya and yoga, this is one of the pairs, right? ⚠

Brad

Just one of the pairs, not all of them, just one of the pairs, right? So their perspective on it is like spirit and matter are separate ontological entities, right? And there's one spirit, the spirit of all beings, and then there's one material universe, right? And then these get combined, so the one spirit gets combined with a little bit of matter, right? And where that little a little bit of matter comes together with a little bit of the one spirit, then, you know, you get a Ben or a Hannah or an Alice, right? That makes sense, right? So then that joining, right, the spirit is eternal, matter is eternal, but the joining, the yoga, the joining between spirit and matter, that's not permanent, right? That's temporary. So that happens when Mom and dad love each other very much and they have too much wine. And then the death is the end of that joining, right? So that's one of the 6 systems. Nyaya vaisheshika though, right, is the idea that, you know, Nicholas is made up of billions of atoms, right? If we were to— sorry, chop, you know, Nicholas all up into tiny pieces. ⚠

Brad

The idea is that we would eventually get to something that can't be divided anymore. Right. And that thing that can't be divided anymore, let's call it an atom. Right. And so that atom, however small it is. Right. That atom contains both, both of these things. Right. Spirit and matter. They're inseparable from one another, but they're inseparable at the atomic level. Right. So then, as I just said, Nicholas is billions of atoms, and each one of those is its own spirit matter, you know, entity, right? So then how can we explain the fact that Nicholas looks very different? I'm assuming looks very different now than you did when you were like 4 minutes old, right? Probably looked different then. So how can we explain that? Well, super easy to explain, right? Because your atoms are constantly you know, coming together and separating. And so every time you eat, you're eating atoms, and those are all different, right? So why do we change over time? Because we're constantly changing the atoms that make us up, right? So you get how that perspective is very different than this perspective? Yeah? So that's one perspective. That's another perspective. ⚠

Brad

Don't get them confused. They're differing perspectives. They're fundamentally ontologically seriously different. Then the question that before us now is, what is this perspective? What is this perspective? In that case, I gave the folding paper example, which I think folks get a little bit confused about. But we're gonna— you don't have to understand this one just yet. I mean, the answer is non-dual. So spirit and matter are not two different things, which is different than saying they're the same thing, because they're not the same thing, right? But they're not two different things. So this is part of what we're trying to understand here, and part of what the great sentences, the mahavakya, are all trying to answer. Right, which is what is the relationship between these two things from Vedanta's perspective. Vedanta means the upanishads, right? So we're studying the upanishads now, and we're studying advaita Vedanta, which is the non-dual perspective that's grounded in the Vedanta, right? Everybody got plenty of context now, understanding all that? Good. I feel like there was one other thing I wanted to do, but maybe not. So then the, right, so then individuality, we can understand, right? ⚠

Brad

What makes Alice individual is because from samkhya yoga, that happens at birth, right? And you'll stop being different at death. But between those times, you're a unique joining of those two. From nyaya-vaisheshika, you're just constantly different all the time, right? Every moment you're an individual. Individuality is, you know, we're just constantly different individuals because our atoms are, you know, falling off and that kind of stuff, right? But then the question then might be from— or the question is from a dvaita's perspective, why are we all different, right? What is that individuality? What's the point of individuality? Does that kind of make sense? Yeah? At least as far as where we're going and what— Good. Questions? Thoughts? Follow-ups? We've got 3 minutes left. Anybody create anything cool with the Play-Doh? Yeah? Which is great. ⚠

Student

I made a flower.

Brad

Oh, nice.

Student

Oh, wow.

Brad

That is so cool. You did that without any tools? You just did that?

Student

Well, somebody had it in here when I found it.

Brad

OK.

Student

So I made a new one.

Brad

OK.

Student

But based off of the old one.

Brad

OK, word. Right on. Anybody else do anything cool?

Student

I made some cool stuff over here. We have a pretzel, a mouse, an octopus, and a snowman.

Brad

Nice. Cool.

Student

I made a hot dog, but then destroyed it.

Brad

Destroyed it? OK, that's all right. Good? Yeah? I just stuck my thumb down there and pressed it. Good. I made lots of— I don't know. Yeah, I think that this— so this particular passage that we read for today is, I think— It's safe to say maybe the most famous passage from all of the upanishads. Definitely one of the most, yeah, definitely up there. If not the most, then one of the 2 or 3 most famous. Yeah, all right, let's stop there. So I will see you all on— if you don't mind help moving the tables back, and I'll see you all on Thursday. ⚠