Tat tvam asi?

January 26, 2002

The fundamental doctrine of Advaita is "tat tvam asi" in its most

personal sense. You are the Atman and it is because of ignorance that

you are not aware of it. Though there's the distinction between the

phenomenal self (jiva) and the real self (atman), still Advaita

advocates that even the atman is nothing but you in the deepest

sense. You are pure consciousness and due to ignorance (avidya) you

superimpose qualities of all the objects you experience (including

the mind and body) on yourself and hence the case of mistaken

identity where you who are the pure and free mistake yourself for the

impure and bound. So Advaita without doubt teaches "aham brahmaasmi"

or "I'm Brahman" in a personal sense and clearly advocates the link

between the "I" and the Atman.

We'd like to raise the following questions to question the "I"ness of

the Atman :

1. The classical Advaita path of self-introspection, the neti,

neti or the subject versus the object approach, where we discriminate

and reject all that is not us also implies the "I"ness of the Atman.

If such a path is to be true then the path to liberation is very

clear and self-effort by itself should fetch liberation ie after

rejecting everything that's not ourselves we should remain in the end

as the pure Atman. If that's so then why does Shankara still assert

that in the ultimate moment liberation is only possible due to divine

grace?

2. A thing in itself by logic should be true to its own nature

and it cannot have a nature in opposition to its own true nature ie

light cannot entertain darkness within itself nor vice versa. Even as

Gaudapaada says : "By the word nature is to be understood that which

is permanently acquired, or is intrinsic, instinctive, non-produced,

or unchanging in its character". So if we are the Atman whose nature

is existence, knowledge and bliss (sat-chit-aananda), ignorance

cannot be an integral part of us – if that is so why are we not then

aware of our true nature?

3. If ignorance is something apart from us and we are the

consciousness-in-itself, as is the import of the superimposition

theory which advocates that we as the consciousness superimpose on

ourselves the qualities of the objects that we experience, then we

should be fully aware of ourselves as the consciousness in itself

apart from the mind, body and senses – in short then we being the

pure consciousness should already be liberated and there should be no

question of seeking salvation. But not only are we not liberated but

also being consciousness itself is not common experience as nobody is

aware of consciousness in itself. All consciousness that we know is

only by its manifestations through the senses, mind and body. So how

can it be said that we are the consciousness who superimpose on

ourselves the qualities of all the objects that we perceive?

4. The argument that we know ourselves as the same person who

experienced the past and the present ie the "I"ness of the

presentation continuum, is not a valid argument to prove "I"ness of

consciousness. Such an argument uses the faculty of memory as an

integral part of the self where the self recognizes itself as the

same witness which experienced the past and present events. But there

are cases of people who've lost their memory and have no recollection

of the past. If memory belonged to consciousness, it being the ever

present witness, such a thing as "loss of memory" would not be

possible. So how can it be said that we are the consciousness?

5. Man is a psycho/physical/spiritual being – he's made up of

the body, mind, senses and consciousness or spirit. While he is a

compound of all these in the waking state, in the dream state the

body and the senses are absent. In the deep sleep state he is said to

be one with the spirit ie consciousness is said to abide in itself.

But again when there's no I-consciousness in deep sleep ie we do not

directly experience the state of deep sleep as we do in the waking

and dream states and only know the "peace of deep sleep" when we come

awake, how can we say that we are the consciousness that experienced

peace in deep sleep?

6. Also it is said that knower, known and knowledge are all

merged together in deep sleep. If the knower also doesn't exist by

itself in deep sleep then how can we claim to be that consciousness

of that state?

7. The presentation continuum which survives deep sleep and thus

facilitates the persistence of the individual identity need not

necessarily be the "I". A logically consistent explanation can also

be provided using the permanence of consciousness and the memory as

part of the brain to sustain one's identity through deep sleep and

waking.

8. When we think about the states where we have the "I"

consciousness ie the state of waking and dream, we find that the "I"

is always associated with the body. For even in the state of dream

though it is purely a product of the mind, still we have a body with

which we run, jump etc. So can there be "I"ness without the body?

By all these questions I'm not in anyway questioning the existence of

the Atman as pure consciousness. I'm only questioning whether

the "I"ness can be attributed to the Atman. The above questions are

inspired by the adorable Gaudapaada's assertion that : "He who sees

the Lord as untouched by conceptions of self, not-self, both or

neither (the classic Maadhyamika Chatushkoti), is omniscient".

January 26, 2002