பக்கம்:திருவாசகம்-ஆங்கில மொழிபெயர்ப்பு-1.pdf/90

be called one-ness and need not be called as Advaitham. Further when the soul and God are united the fundamental character of the soul that it can unite with odd matter and understand things, will be lost when it is in such a union at liberation. 2. He has argued that it is not copulation (caiyogam) just as mixing of milk and water as the diffusing property of the two different substances will no longer be there in their union. 3. He has argued further that it is not a kind of formed union made out by some relevance or other as it does not convey the meaning of Advaitham which term resulted to signify and stress the contention of the great saying of the upanishad, “Thatvamasi’. 4. He has argued that it is not (Samavaayam) inseparable oneness just like sound and music as it is not different from a kind of (Thaathanmiyam) union inseparable for ever and in which there is no complete union of two objects as in the simile. But he has very cleverly interpreted Advaitham in the fight of the great saying “Thatvamasi". According to him this term means in the first person, “That I am”, in the second person, “That you are”, and in the third person “That it becomes you” or “That you become”. In these meanings one will find that there are two clearly different objects, such as ‘That' and ‘You’ and that these two, objects God and soul respectively have such intrinsic faculties of uniting one with theother that they maintain the three characteristic principies of Advaitham as (a) “be united’, (b) “be together', and (c) “be separate in their union. Further, “That’ is one object and ‘You’ are another object. How is it that one object becomes 66