Who is the hearer? Who says, I am Brahman?
Teaching of TTA becomes useful (Up Sa18.111) if it is meant for a hearer. In 18.76/77, there is a question: who is the hearer of the teaching? Two possible answers, namely, the Self and the ego are examined. It is argued that Self cannot be the hearer because It is free from action. The ego which is miserable, and a sufferer cannot be the hearer because it cannot say, ‘I am free’. Does it mean that the scripture is not a pramAna and teaching has no value? To dismiss such a possibility, 18.78 suggests a solution by introducing chidAbhAsa.
The knowledge of TTA is imparted by the teacher who knows the scriptures. A jiva is a samsAri and is in bondage. Being desirous of freedom, he approaches a teacher in a proper manner and becomes an aspirant (hearer). The teacher teaches TTA by employing scriptural methods.
Intellect is inert (18.88) and cannot be the hearer (18.112). Because of the reflection of the Self (Consciousness) in the intellect, the intellect is sentient. The ego (sentient intellect) listens to the teaching. On completion of the teaching, there is jnAna vritti in the sentient intellect and the ego says, I am Brahman. Therefore, ego is the hearer, and it says, I am Brahman.
There is an objection. How can Sruti ask ego to say that it is liberated when it is seen that ego is in bondage? 18.161/162 clarifies that the erroneous notion of being happy or unhappy is due to one’s identification with the body etc which is negated by the right knowledge that one is Consciousness. It means that ego is the hearer and on getting knowledge, there occur cognitive dis-identification from the intellect (the reflecting medium) and identification with Consciousness because of ‘merger’ of chidAbhAsa with the Consciousness. It is like saying that the reflection of the face merges with the original face when the mirror is removed. Resultantly, there is no defect when the enlightened ego who knows the full import of TTA says, ‘I am Brahman’.
It is seen from the above that reflection (ChidAbhAsa) is an important concept in Advaita VedAnta which is absent in Samkhya, the purva paksha. In TTA, the literal meaning of Tvam is jiva, which is an extension of ego. The suggestive meaning is Consciousness, the Self (18.101). The requisite relationship between the literal meaning and the suggestive meaning is through chidAbhAsa. Since Samkhya does not accept chidAbhAsa, it is unable to establish the relationship and as to how a jiva in bondage claims freedom later.
In 18.113, ShankarAchArya addresses the opponent: what is the harm in accepting chidAbhAsa as it is supported by Sruti (Br U 2.5.19) and Smriti (BG 15.7)? And he assures (18.113) that with ChidAbhAsa, everything falls in place, otherwise, the knowledge, I am Brahman is not possible (18.89) and the teaching ‘Thou art That’ will be useless (18.90). 18.110 cautions: “It is only by accepting chidAbhAsa and in no other way, a seeker establishes identity with is Brahman. Otherwise, the teaching, ‘Thou art That’ would be useless in the absence of a medium and the reflection.
ChidAbhAsa is similar to the Self, like reflection of face is similar to the face (18.109). As neither the intellect (with reflection) nor its modification in the form of ego can be connected to liberation, the liberation is capable of being attributed to Self, though immutable, like victory earned by army is attributed to the king (18.108).
A combined reading of 18.108 and 18.109 shows that though the intellect with chidAbhAsa is the direct hearer, liberation is attributable to the Self and the Self is the ‘indirect hearer’ (18.111) and the sentence ‘I am Brahman’ is valid (18.109)
18.114 responds to a possible objection, namely, formation of chidAbhAsa would suggest that Brahman undergoes change. In rope- snake illustration, a snake is seen by a person in dim light in place of rope due to ignorance. The snake is unreal. Another person may see a crack in the earth similar to rope. But the rope does not change. There is no change in Brahman like formation of reflection of a face in the mirror without any change in the original face. Even if there are changes in the reflection due to changes in the mirror, the original face does not change. Because of changing experiences, consciousness appears to change but there is no real change in consciousness.
Source: Upadesa Sahasri, translated by SwAmi JagadAnanda, Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Mylapur, Chennai and transcripts of lectures by SwAmi ParmArthAnanda
Contd Part 7