Talk:Tat Tvam Asi

Deep interpretation

The deep interpretation of this for Hindu philosophy is seen differently by the three major schools of Indian philosophy.

I was tempted to insert a clause about the fact that the Upanishads were written 1200-500 BCE, while Shankaracharya lived a millenium or two later. But then I wondered whether these schools arose before Shankaracharya's time, so I didn't add anything. If someone knows better, I maybe they could comment. --goethean ॐ 15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The section In Advaita reads like a sermon. At the very least capitalized essences ("the Infinite Cosmos") should be avoided. Thehotelambush 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Devanāgarī is correct now. David G Brault 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

As of now, I am seeing now arguments on this talk page FOR the tag or any complaints, so I am removing it. Sethie (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mysticism?

Are we relating Hinduism to mysticism? I don't believe that is impartial; nor should the article say the practice leads toward "Unio Mystica", a phrase that came into use thousands of years later. Surely we can find at least one suitable Sanskrit word for enlightenment.

Further, should we not mention that this is the second phrase of the sentence: "I am That, Thou art That, and all this is That"? The three phrases are descriptive of three growing stages of enlightenment: cosmic consciousness, God consciousness, and Brahman consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Websterwebfoot (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Websterwebfoot (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Using terms from other practices, religions.

One more thing. I have never heard the word "salvation" used in reference to Hinduism. I believe it is a Christian concept. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Websterwebfoot (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple explanation

Hi. Would anyone be interested in writing a version of this page for Simple Wikipedia? I'm above averagely intelligent (according to IQ tests), and I'm struggling to understand what Tat Tvam Asi is/means based upon this wikipedia article. --Rebroad (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrected jiva. Made it Atman.

Advaita says "Atman is Brahman". Jiva is a term for illusory individual Self or ego/soul. Atman is the true underlying all encompassing Self in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.160.217 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Authour

Is this a "Sanskrit" sentence?

It has been proposed in discussions in Wiktionary that Sanskrit is not a romanized language, and therefore that any use of the Latin alphabet to transliterate Sanskrit terms makes the resulting sentence an English sentence, not a Sanskrit sentence. bd2412 T 14:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not what has been suggested. What has been suggested is that usage of Sanskrit words in Latin spellings inside English sentences, with them undergoing syntactical agreement and taking on parts of English morphology (such as the plural suffix -s) makes them English words.

Not that that has anything to do with this article, though. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Merged to Mahāvākyas

I've merged this article to Mahāvākyas; it makes more sense to have the explanations of the Mahāvākyas together in one article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)