18.79–87
In these verses, Sri Shankara refines the theory of reflection. In the teaching of Tat Tvam Asi (TTA), the word ‘Tvam’ directly refers to the ego and indirectly to the Self. This requires a relationship between the Self and the ego. The Samkhya system is unable to explain because it does not accept the theory of reflection. Consequently, a teaching imparted directly to the ego cannot be said to be imparted indirectly to the Self. In Advaita, however, reflection establishes the relationship. It is not a relationship of seer and seen because the Self is devoid of activity. Reflection, on the other hand, is formed merely by the presence of the Self. The opponent’s further argument that there is a relation of non-difference between the Self and the ego is also untenable because there is no knowledge in the form, “Consciousness is my real Self.”
If it is argued that this relation is known from scripture (Ch. Up. 3.14.3–4), that too is impossible because of the three defects mentioned above: (1) the ego, being non-conscious, cannot cognize any relation; (2) the Witness, being actionless, cannot cognize it and (3) the Veda cannot enlighten a non-conscious entity.
After refuting the opponent’s views and arguments, Sri Shankara concludes that reflection illumines the intellect and its modifications. Both shine like red-hot iron and the sparks emerging from it. The illustration of fire pervading black iron and making it red-hot is intended only to show that consciousness pervades the intellect, thereby making it sentient. An illustration is never similar to its subject in all respects.
The three states of experience—waking, dream, and deep sleep—are mutually exclusive and contradict one another. This is possible only if there is an entity that cannot be contradicted. That entity is the witnessing consciousness called the Self.
18.88–89
In order to reject the theory of reflection, the opponent takes the extreme position that the mind is intrinsically conscious. Such a view has neither scriptural nor rational support. Moreover, if this view is accepted, then the sense organs and the body would also have to be considered sentient in themselves, which amounts to the materialistic position.
18.90
When the teacher completes the teaching of TTA, the student should declare, “I am Brahman”; otherwise, the teaching is rendered useless. It is the intellect that makes such a claim, and therefore the intellect must be sentient. The Self is Consciousness per se, whereas the intellect is non-Self and insentient. The two are different, but the intellect becomes sentient because of reflection. In this way, the theory of reflection becomes essential for imparting the teaching of TTA.
18.91–95
Sri Shankara uses the distinction between noun and adjective in order to discriminate the Self from the non-Self and to show that the Self is the ultimate noun. This method has two benefits.
(i) An adjective not only qualifies a noun but also differentiates one noun from another. Pot is one undivided noun. By prefixing blue, a blue pot is distinguished from other pots. Similarly, “I” (the Self) is undivided. In statements such as “I am male” or “I am tall,” the “I” is qualified by maleness or tallness. The noun remains the same, whereas the adjectives vary.
(ii) The noun can exist independently, whereas the adjective cannot exist independently; it depends on the noun. To teach what red colour is, the teacher has to show it in association with a physical object, for example, a red ball. In the same way, the Self is the invariant, and the non-Self is the variant.
Sri Shankara makes a threefold division: the external world, including the gross body; the internal world, such as the ego; and the Self as the third category. The ego is the noun, and the world is its adjective. During deep sleep, there is only the Self, a homogeneous mass of consciousness. There is no ego (the “I-thought”) because the mind is dormant. Upon waking, the ego (the “I-thought,” an adjective) emerges and qualifies the Self (the noun).
Between the Self and the ego, the Self is the noun, and the ego is the adjective. The Self is the witness and illuminator of the ego. There are as many egos as are the minds, but the Self is unique. Between the ego and the external world (which includes the body), the ego (“I” and “mine”) is the noun and the external world is the adjective, as is evident from statements such as “I am tall,” “I am a father,” and “This is my cow.”
Ultimately, the external world, through the ego, becomes an adjective of the Self. Therefore, the Self is the ultimate noun. Since the noun is the substance and the adjective is an attribute, the Self is the substance, and the non-Self is the attribute.
No doubt, adjectives qualify nouns and bring about changes in them. However, in the case of the Self and the non-Self, these attributes are merely false superimpositions upon the immutable Self. This method is described solely for imparting the knowledge of the Self. Once that knowledge is gained, everything that is non-Self, being mithya, is to be discarded.
18.96 The word ‘I’ refers to pure consciousness which is the witness and ever existing. It is the ultimate noun as shown above. It is not a qualification. It is the qualified. The words such as, Self, Existence, Consciousness, Bliss imply pure consciousness. The words such as, agent, experiencer, fat, tall do not refer to pure consciousness but to it when it is associated with body, intellect, senses. In this manner, the word ‘I’ is ascertained in Upanishadic Great Statements.
Contd