Verse 27 — The Method of Implication (Bhaga-Tyaga-Lakshana)

Since the direct meanings of "That" and "thou" indicate total identity, the method of total exclusion cannot be used; nor can total inclusion, since the direct meanings are fully distinct. Here the method of bhaga-tyaga is to be applied without fear or doubt — as in the sentence "This is that same man." [Verse 27]

This verse gives the precise interpretive tool. When the direct meaning of a sentence doesn't fit, language offers secondary meaning (lakshana — implication). There are three kinds, and only one fits "That thou art."

First, why the direct meaning fails

Taken literally ("primary meaning," mukhya artha), each word points to a five-part bundle:

Tvam (individual)	Tat (Supreme)
Gross body	Gross universe
Subtle body	Subtle universe
Causal body	Causal universe
Reflected consciousness (small, limited)	Reflected consciousness (total, cosmic)
Original consciousness	Original consciousness

At the level of these bundles, "individual = Supreme" is false — a limited body-mind is not the total cosmos. So the direct meaning cannot be the intended one. We must use implication.

The three kinds of implication

Type	Sanskrit	Rule	Everyday example
Total exclusion	Jahati / Jahal lakshana	Drop the primary meaning entirely	"India and Pakistan played" → not the land, but the people
Total inclusion	Ajahati / Ajahal lakshana	Keep the primary meaning, add to it	"The bus is coming, step aside" → add the driver; the bus is inert
Partial	Bhaga-tyaga-lakshana	Drop part, keep part	"I ate a mango" → keep the flesh, drop the skin and seed

flowchart TD
    A[Primary meaning<br/>doesn't fit?] --> B{Which implication?}
    B -->|drop all| C[Jahati — total exclusion]
    B -->|add more| D[Ajahati — total inclusion]
    B -->|drop part, keep part| E[Bhaga-tyaga — the one that fits]

We use bhaga-tyaga constantly without noticing: "I took a dip in the Ganga" (only part of the river), "I touched the book" (only part of it).

Why bhaga-tyaga is the right tool

Test the other two against "That thou art":

Total exclusion fails: if you drop the whole meaning of both words, you throw away the original consciousness too — and then there's nothing left to be identical. (Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.)
Total inclusion fails: if you keep the whole meaning, the contradiction (limited vs. cosmic) stays. Idli forced together with chutney — the clash remains.
Bhaga-tyaga works: drop the contradictory parts (the three bodies/universes and the two reflected consciousnesses), keep the shared part (the one original consciousness).

Key idea. In "That thou art," discard the five-fold packaging on both sides and retain only original consciousness — which is nirguna (attribute-free) and therefore identical in both. "Small" and "big," "limited" and "cosmic" exist only in the reflected consciousness, never in the original.

"This is that same Devadatta"

The classic illustration seals it. You meet an old friend, Devadatta, after fifty years:

Then ("that" Devadatta)	Now ("this" Devadatta)
Young, dark hair, slim	Old, grey, heavier
A different place and time	Here and now

You say, "This is that same Devadatta!" — effortlessly dropping the contradictory features (time, place, appearance) and keeping the one person. You don't get confused; you know it's the same man.

Apply the very same move to yourself:

Worldly standpoint (surface features kept): "I am a limited servant of the Lord" — the devotee's true and proper stance.
Absolute standpoint (surface features dropped): "I am Brahman" — the same consciousness that shines as the Lord.

Both are valid in their own domain. The reflected-consciousness level, where jiva and Ishvara genuinely differ, is real for transactions (vyavaharika) — which is why we still bow and pray. The original-consciousness level is the absolute truth (paramarthika), where they are one. Now that the method is clear, verses 28–30 apply it — carefully dismantling the tvam side by examining the three bodies.