18.72–75 are omitted, as they primarily deal with the Buddhist doctrine of momentary consciousness.
Who is the Hearer? Who Says, “I am Brahman”?
The teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA) can serve its purpose only if there is a hearer to whom it is addressed (18.111). Accordingly, verses 18.76–77 raise the question: Who is the hearer of the teaching?
Two possible answers are examined: the Self and the ego. The Self cannot be the hearer being actionless and beyond all empirical transactions. Nor can the ego, who is a sufferer, be the hearer in the ultimate sense and truthfully declare, “I am free.” Does it imply that scripture is not a valid means of knowledge and the teaching is purposeless? To remove this confusion, verse 18.78 introduces the concept of reflected consciousness.
TTA is imparted by a competent teacher who is well versed in scripture. The student (suffering jiva) being a saṃsari and desiring liberation, approaches him. He is now a hearer and seeker. The teacher then unfolds the meaning of TTA using the methodology prescribed in the scriptures.
The mind is inert (18.88) and cannot be a hearer (18.112). However, owing to reflection of Consciousness in the mind, it becomes sentient. It is this sentient mind, the ego, that listens to the teaching. On gaining the knowledge, a jnana-vritti arises in the sentient mind, and the ego claims, “I am Brahman.” Thus, from the empirical standpoint, the ego is the hearer and makes the claim.
An objection arises: How can scripture instruct the ego to regard itself as liberated when it is evidently in bondage?
Verses 18.161–162 clarify that the notions, “I am happy,” “I am unhappy,” are due to identification by the jiva with the body and mind system (BMS). These erroneous identifications are negated by the knowledge that his true nature is Consciousness. Thus, although the ego is the hearer, identification with the BMS is replaced by recognition of identity with Consciousness. This is figuratively described as the merger of reflection with Consciousness.
The analogy is that of a reflected face ‘merging’ with the original face when the mirror is removed. Strictly speaking, no merger takes place. Consequently, there is no contradiction when the enlightened ego, having understood the full import of TTA, declares, “I am Brahman.”
It is evident that reflection has a crucial place in Advaita Vedanta which is absent in Samkhya, the principal PP under consideration. In the statement TTA, the literal meaning of Tvam is the individual jiva. The implied meaning is Consciousness, the Self (18.101). The necessary connection between the two is through reflection. In the absence of reflection, Samkhya is unable to explain how a suffering jiva can later recognize himself as being always free.
In verse 18.113, Shankaracharya asks the opponent: what objection can there be to accepting reflection, which is supported by both Sruti (Br Up 2.5.19) and Smriti (BG 15.7)? He assures that, once reflection is accepted, all the relevant issues fall into place. Otherwise, the knowledge “I am Brahman” would be impossible (18.89), and TTA would be purposeless (18.90). The verse 18.110 emphasizes that only by accepting reflection can a seeker claim identity with Brahman, otherwise TTA would have no effective means of being communicated.
Reflection can legitimately claim similarity to the Self, like the case of reflection of a face and the original face (18.109). As liberation cannot be associated with the ego, which is modification of the mind, it is attributed to the Self, even though It is immutable just like victory is attributed to the king though won by his army (18.108).
A combined reading of verses 18.108 and 18.109 shows that, although the ego is the direct hearer of the teaching, liberation is attributable only to the Self. In this sense, the Self may be regarded as the indirect hearer (18.111), and the statement “I am Brahman” is justified (18.109).
Does the Acceptance of Reflection Imply Change in Brahman?
Verse 18.114 addresses a possible objection. If reflected consciousness arises from Brahman, will it not imply that Brahman undergoes change?
Shankaracharya replies in the negative. Consider the rope-snake illustration. Because of ignorance and dim light, the rope is mistaken as a snake or crack in the ground. In either case, the rope itself remains unchanged. The erroneous perceptions belong to the observer, not to the rope.
The reflection does not entail any change in Brahman just like the change in reflection due to change in the quality of the mirror does not affect the original face.
Consciousness appears to undergo changes because of modifications in the mind. In reality, however, Consciousness is unchanged. The changes belong solely to the reflecting medium and not to the Consciousness.
18.115–117
The opponent raises another objection. The illustration of the face and its reflection in a mirror is not applicable to Consciousness and Its reflection. In the former case, the two are distinctly experienced. On the other hand, in the waking state, Consciousness and the mind are physically inseparable and they function as a single unit. Vedanta could resort to circular reasoning, which is a defect, to explain their distinctiveness. To show that they are distinct, Vedanta could say that one is the original and the other its reflection; and to show that one is the original and the other its reflection, it could say that they are distinct.
Sri Shankaracharya clarifies with the help of dream. During dream, there is experience of an internal world in the form of thoughts arising from impressions created in the mind during the waking state. The mind is an object of experience, which implies the existence of a subject distinct from the mind. This subject is the Self.
He says:
“For in dream, the mental modifications and the witnessing consciousness are apprehended as distinct. In that state there are no (external) chariots, etc., so there must be the direct apprehension of mental modifications by the Self.” [The Thousand Teachings of Shankara: Upades Sahasri, Advaita Ashrama]
Contd