Use of words for Brahman
Brahman is not an object of knowledge. Being free from attributes, It is beyond words and ideas. Up Sah 18.24 states that word or idea can refer to objects of knowledge and not to non-objects. Brahman is known and realized as the innermost self and the ultimate subject and is therefore not an object of cognition. The Self is known as that remains after negating all objects by the process of neti, neti (18.25). The same idea is reiterated in 18.28 which says that word can apply to ego which is possessed of species and not to Self which has no classification, i.e., swagata, sajatatiya and vijatiya. Self is devoid of any differentiation. Then the question is why are words used to describe It?
Shankaracharya clarifies that owing to proximity with Self (Consciousness), the intellect is sentient and there is emergence of thoughts, ‘I’(ego) and ‘mine’. There is superimposition of ego onto the Self (18.26). It is like a crystal appearing red in close proximity with red flower (18.27). 18.29-31 and 18.57-58 further clarify this point. The word ‘I’ primarily refers to ego which is intellect with reflected consciousness and secondarily and indirectly to Self. The metaphor of fire and torch is apt. The action of burning is attributed to the torch that contains the fire though it is the fire which burns.
To sum up, the answer of the Q is like this. As Brahman is beyond word and idea, the Sruti ‘teaches’ It in an indirect way by using the words describing an object which appears similar on account of proximity to or superimposition onto Self. It then negates the dissimilarity and is silent as it were and expects the student to grasp the Self as that which remains after negation.
Self and ego
18.32/33 The metaphor of face and its reflection in mirror is relevant. The reflection appears similar to the face but is different from it because the quality of reflection depends on the type of mirror. However, the difference is not real because the reflection represents the original. When the mirror is removed, the reflection as it were merges with the face. In the same way, ego which is the reflection of Consciousness (Self) in the intellect appears similar to Self, but it is different. However, the difference is not empirical and not real.
18.34-36 Sri Shankara introduces positions of Purva Pakshas (PPs).
(i) PP1 holds that refection of the consciousness in the intellect is real and experiences the transmigratory life. In support he says that Smriti prohibits crossing the shadows of venerable persons thereby suggesting that shadows are real. Furthermore, shadows are said to be real as they provide coolness.
(ii) PP2 says that the individual soul is part of Brahman. BG 15.7/ 15.8 are cited in support: “An eternal part of Myself becomes the individual soul in the world of living beings.”
(iii) PP3 holds that the individual soul is a modification of the Brahman.
(iv) PP4 holds that the individual soul is neither part nor modification, it is independent and experiences the mundane existence.
18.37 to 18.43 Rather than immediately discussing the positions of PPs regarding transmigratory souls, Shankaracharya continues to discuss reflected consciousness.
(i) The reflection of the face in the mirror is neither a property of the mirror nor of the face because it disappears whenever anyone of the two is absent.
(ii) Though the reflection of the face is spoken as ‘the face, it does not qualify as the property of the face. For, on one hand, it conforms to features of the mirror which would not be possible if it were a property of the face, on the other hand, it disappears when the face is present, but the mirror is removed.
(iii) It is also not a property of a combination of the mirror and the face as it is not perceived when the two are inappropriately placed.
(iv) The argument that reflection is an independent reality though it is invisible but is visible on some occasions on the analogy of Rahu which is invisible but is visible in sun and moon during eclipses is misplaced because Rahu is real according to scripture but there is no scriptural support of the reality of reflection. And if Rahu is considered a shadow, then it is unreal as per earlier reasoning.
(v) The purpose of the instruction of not stepping over the shadows of certain persons is to prohibit an act and not to establish the reality or unreality of the shadow. A sentence cannot have two different meanings at the same time.
(vi) The shadow does not produce coolness, but it only keeps a person away from the sunlight and he feels cool not because of the shadow. Coolness is not the nature of shadow unlike water. There is no coolness in the shade of an asbestos sheet.
(vi) In view of the above, both scripture and reasoning point to a Self, its reflection in the intellect, the reflecting medium on the analogy of the face, its reflection in the mirror, the reflecting medium and further that the reflection has no independent reality.
Contd