The word ‘Brahman’1 is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘brih’ which literally means ‘to gush forth’, ‘to grow’, ‘to be great’, and ‘to increase’. The suffix ‘man’ added to the root ‘brih’ signifies the absence of limitation. Thus, the term ‘Brahman’ etymologically means that which is absolutely the greatest.2 So ‘Brahman’ denotes "that first . . . reality from which the entire universe of our experience has sprung up."3 In the words of the Vedaanta-Suutras, "Brahman is that omniscient, omnipotent cause from which pro-ceeds the origin of the world."4 Thus, the term ‘Brahman’ signifies the absolute and unlimited reality which is the substratum and the foundation of the world we know, and on which everything depends for its existence. Brahman is self-sufficient and does not depend on anything else for its existence. Hence it must be spiritual entity, since matter is not self-sufficient, limited and subject to change. George Thibaut, in his introduction to the Vedaanta-Suutras, says that whatever exists is in reality one, and this one universal being is called Brahman. This being is absolutely homogeneous in nature; it is pure Being, Intelligence and Thought. Intelligence or thought is not predicated of Brahman as its attribute, but constitutes its substance. Brahman is not a thinking being, but thought itself. It is absolutely destitute of qualities and whatever qualities or attributes are conceivable can only be denied of it.5 Thus, Brahman is without qualities (nirgunaa), beyond the order of our empirical and worldly experience. We cannot grasp Brahman with our empirical experi-ences, since the being of Brahman is necessary for anything to exist, and even for the possibility of empirical experience. In other words, Brahman is a priori and cannot be grasped by a posteriori or limited experience.

Because of our inability to grasp the true nature of Brahman, whatever positive description is developed about Brahman will remain in the level of phenomenal experience, and Brahman is beyond all phenomena. That is why we find contrary characteristics attributed to Brahman. In Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad, we read that Brahman is "light and not light, desire and absence of desire, anger and absence of anger, righteousness and absence of righteousness."6 Kaatha Upanishad speaks of Brahman as "smaller than the small, greater than the great, sitting yet moving, lying and yet going everywhere."7 Brahman is light and not light, in the sense that it is only because there is Brahman that there is light and darkness. Again there exist small and the greater only because Brahman exists.

At the same time the word ‘existence’ cannot be attributed to Brahman and to the empirical world in the same way, for Brahman’s existence is different in nature. The existence of Brahman is opposed to all empirical existence, so that in comparison with this it can just as well be considered as non-existence. Brahman is the being of all beings.8 The nature of Brahman is so transcendent, that it cannot be compared with anything in the world we know. At the same time, Brahman is present in all its manifestations, for without the Being of Brahman nothing can exist. Yet the empirical experi-ence of Brahman is not possible. Thus, Brahman is that unalterable and absolute Being which remains identical with itself in all its manifestations. It is the basis and ground of all experience, and is different from the space-time-cause world. Brahman has nothing similar to it, nothing different from it, and no internal differen-tiation, for all these are empirical distinctions. It is non-empirical, non-objective, wholly other, but it is not non-being.9

Shankara repeatedly speaks of, and strongly defends, the absolute, unchangeable, attributeless nature of Brahman, alluding to many texts in the scripture which points to the nirgunaa Brah-man.10 Commenting on the Upanishadic text, "as a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire and purely saline taste, even so is the self (Brahman) without interior or exterior, entire and pure intelligence alone",11 Shankara points to the oneness of Brahman. In the lump of salt there is nothing other than salt, so too Brahman is nothing other than itself. It is the absolute being without a second.12 Shankara also uses the example of the sun reflecting in water and appearing as many, in order to bring home the same truth. He says that just as the reflection of the sun in water increases with the increase of water, and decreases with its reduction, it moves when the water moves, and it differs as the water differs, so is the self. The sun seem to conform to the characteristics of water, but in reality the sun never has these increasing or decreasing qualities. So also Brahman, which from the highest point of view always retains its sameness, seems to conform to such characteristics as increase and decrease of the limiting adjunct owing to its entry into such an adjunct as a body.13

For Shankara, therefore, Brahman is a principle of utter simplicity. There is no duality in Brahman, for no qualities are found in his concept of Brahman. It is also simple in the sense that it is not subject to inner contradictions, which would make it change-able and transitory. Though Shankara uses logic and arguments to understand the nature of Brahman and to speak of Brahman, still for him in its reality Brahman is not a metaphysical postulate that can be proved logically, but must be experienced in silence.14 Thus, Brahman is one: It is not a ‘He’, a personal being; nor is it an ‘It’, an impersonal concept. It is that state which comes about when all subject-object distinctions are obliterated. Ultimately, Brahman is a name for the experience of the timeless plenitude of Being.15

The term ‘Aatman’ comes from the Sanskrit root ‘an’ which etymologically means ‘to breathe’. It is often rendered as ‘soul’ or ‘self’, and signifies the most fundamental being of the individual. There is no one who can deny the existence of the self for it is the basis of all individual actions. Everyone is conscious of the exist-ence of his self and never thinks that he is not.16 To doubt the existence of the self would be a contradiction in terms because then one would doubt the existence of the very doubter who engages in the doubt. The doubter of the self is often compared by Advaitins to a person who searches for the necklace while wearing it; or to a person who wears the spectacles on his face and at the same time looks for them elsewhere. Without the existence of the self, it is impossible for us to entertain the idea even of its being capable of refutation. For the knowledge of the self is not established through the so-called means of right knowledge, but it is self-established.17 Thus, the very existence of understanding and its functions presuppose an intelli-gence known as the self which is different from them, which is self-established and which they subserve.18 The very possibility of know-ledge and the means of knowledge (pramaanas) have relevance if there exists the self which is the source of all knowledge. Therefore, Aatman is beyond all doubt, "for it is the essential nature of him who denies it."19 Therefore, Shankara believed that it was the nature of the self and not its reality, which is to be proved. "The self must seek itself in order to find what it is, not that it is."20

Having established the existence of the self, we can turn now to the discussion of the nature of the Aatman. Aatman is the death-less, birthless, eternal and real substance in every individual soul. It is the unchanging reality behind the changing body, sense organs, mind and ego. It is the spirit, which is pure consciousness and is un-affected by time, space and causality. It is limitless and without a second.21 Vedantins speak of three states of consciousness, namely the waking state (vishwa), the dream state (taijasa), and the state of dreamless sleep (pragna). The basic underlying principle which witnesses all these three states of one’s existence is the pure con-sciousness (chaitanyam), the self. It is because of the presence of this ultimate substratum, that the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect function properly. At the same time it is not identified with these, nor affected by the changes that take place in the body, in the other sense or intellectual functions. Thus, Aatman is the "unrelated witness of the experiences of the three stages, which include a man’s diverse activities."22

Shankara gives a number of illustrations to clarify the nature of the self, especially in its role of being a witness (saakshin) to all activities of body, mind, senses, and intellect. Firstly, Shankara gives the analogy of a king’s court. In the court, the king sits in his high throne as the observer of the activities of his ministers, coun-cilors and all the others present. But because of his majesty as the king, he is unique and different from all. So too the self which is pure consciousness dwells in the body as a witness to the functions of the body, mind and other faculties, while at the same time it is different from them by its natural light. Thus, the witness is the absolute consciousness, the unchanging intelligence that underlies the finer and the grosser bodies. It is neither Iishvara nor jiiva, but it is Aatman which is untouched by the distinction of Iishvara and jiiva.23

To those who come with the objection that the self is not only a mere observer or witness, but also participates in the activities of the body, Shankara replies using the analogy of the moon and the clouds. The movement of the clouds on a moonlit night suggests that the moon is moving, whereas in fact it is the clouds that move. Likewise, the activities of the mind and senses create the illusion that the self is active.24 To the one who would say that activity belongs to the senses or other faculties and considers them the self, Shankara gives the following illustrations. Just as the iron filings become active at the presence of the magnet, so also it is the presence of the self that makes the body, the senses and all the other faculties active. It is fire which makes the iron ball red-hot. So also neither can the mind, the intellect or the body combined make the self. It is the self which is the source of all their activities. Just as a man who works with the help of the light that is inherent in the sun does so without ever affecting the sun, so too the mind, the body, the intellect, and the senses, engage in their respective activities with the help of the self, but without exerting any influence on the self.25 All these illus-trations point to the basic and absolute nature of the Aatman. The following Upanishadic statement bears witness to this reality. "That the imperishable is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the un-thought thinker, the ununderstood understander. Other than It, there is naught that hears; other than It, there is naught that thinks; other than It, there is naught that understands."26

The terms ‘Brahman’ and ‘Aatman’, both basically denote one and the same underlying principle: the former stands for the underlying and unchanging principle of the universe; while the latter refers to the unchanging reality in the individuals. Both of these terms are used in the Upanishads and by the interpreters as synonyms they do interchange these two terms in the same sentence. Commenting on the Upanishadic statement "Who is an Aatman? What is Brahma?",27 Shankara remarks: "By Brahman, the limita-tions implied in the Aatman are removed, and by the Aatman the conception of Brahman as a divinity to be worshipped is con-demned."28 These two terms fundamentally refer to one and the same reality, which is the ground of everything. In other words, these two terms stand for two different descriptions of the same ultimate reality, from the point of view of the universe and the individual. The ultimate reality represented by these two terms is the goal of paraa vidhyaa or Brahmaanubhava.

Paraa Vidhyaa or Brahmaanubhava is the ultimate and noumenal state of man. The term ‘Brahmaanubhava’ is a compound word, which consists of two Sanskrit words, viz. ‘Brahman’ (ab-solute reality) and ‘anubhava’ (intuitive experience or knowledge). The term ‘anubhava’ means not a mere theoretical or intellectual knowledge, but the knowledge obtained through an integral ex-perience. Anubhava is not the immediacy of an uninterrupted sen-sation, where the existence and the content of what is apprehended are separated. It is related to artistic insight rather than to animal instinct; it is an immediate knowledge.29 Thus, literally the term ‘Branmaanubhava’ means the integral and intuitive experience of the absolute reality. When we speak of the intuitive experience of Brahman, from the Advaitic point of view there arise many basic questions as to the nature of Brahmaanubhava. How is it possible to have an experience if there is no subject to experience and no object to be experienced? Besides, if there is no duality in an experience, can it be described? If Bramaanubhava is an experience, and if it has no duality in itself as an experience, then what is the nature of the experience involved in Brahmaanubhava? These questions stem from the fact that the Advaita philosophy of Shankara, does not permit the possibility of duality in this fundamental experience.

Possession of intellectual knowledge about the nature of Brahman and that of Brahmaanubhava is the first step towards the attainment of Brahmaanubhava. Obtaining intellectual knowledge by the study of the Scriptures, especially by understanding the meaning and the import of the Vedaantic statements like ‘That art Thou’, is necessary for Brahmaanubhava. In knowing the nature of Brahman intellectually, one can work towards the attainment of Brahmaanubhava. When we speak of the attainment of Brahmaa-nubhava, we use the term ‘attainment’ (labdha) in a figurative sense (upacara).30 In an empirical experience we attain some new know-ledge, i.e., knowledge which had not previously existed as far as we were concerned. In Brahmaanubhava, however, we do not attain anything new, but only realize what we are, i.e., our true nature, the identity with Brahman. According to Shankara, we are Brahman, and Brahmaanubhava is that experience by which we recognize our own real nature.

Many texts in Shankara’s works point to the fact that the attainment of Brahmaanubhava consists in the recognition and the realization that one’s real and true nature is Brahman. "The state of being Brahman is the same as the realization of the self."31 "Perfect knowledge . . . is the realization of the Aatman as one with Brahman."32 " When a man knows the Aatman, and sees it inwardly and outwardly as the ground of all things animate and inanimate he has indeed reached liberation."33 "No man who knows Brahman to be different from himself is a knower of truth."34 "My self is pure consciousness, free from all distinctions and sufferings."35 Thus, Brahmaanubhava which is the experience of identity with Brahman, is an attainment only from the point of view of the aspirant or the seeker of truth. From the absolute of paramaartha point of view there is no attainment of Brahman.

Shankara holds the authority of the scriptural testimony in our intellectual understanding of Brahman. Nothing else on earth, ex-cept the scriptures, can reveal to us the nature of Brahman and of Brahmaanubhava. In this regard Shankara is very clear; he does not substitute any pramaana than the scriptural testimony, for the attainment of the intellectual knowledge about Brahman. He does make use of all the other pramaanas, but only to elucidate, clarify and demonstrate what he accepts on the basis of scriptural authority about Brahman and Brahmaanubhava. He says, "The fact of every-thing having its self in Brahman cannot be grasped [intellectually], without the aid of scriptural passage ‘That art Thou’."36

The word ‘upanishad’ (scripture) derives its meaning from its capacity to lead to the truth those who, having been thoroughly dissatisfied with the things seen and unseen, seek liberation from ignorance, which is the source of bondage and suffering. The Upa-nishads are capable of accomplishing all these, for in them the highest end of life is embodied.37 The scriptural knowledge of Brah-man is contained in the Upanishadic statements (mahaavaakyas), which are also called ‘Vedaantic aphorisms’. Only by studying them and being guided by the teacher (guru) can one have the intellectual knowledge about Brahman and Brahmaanubhava which is the first step towards the attainment of Brahmaanubhava.

That are Thou (tat tvam asi)38

I am Brahman (Aham Brahmsmi)39

This Self is Brahman (Ayamatma Brahma)40

Brahman is consciousness (Prajnanam Brahma)41

The implied meaning or lakshana is of three kinds. The first of the lakshana is jahallakshana, which consists in discarding the direct meaning of a sentence or a word completely in favor of its indirect or implied meaning. For example, in the sentence ‘The Cowheard village is in the Ganga’,42 the phrase ‘in the Ganga’ is used to mean ‘on the bank of the river Ganga’. This is a case of jahallakshana because the direct meaning ‘in the Ganga’ is discarded in favor of the implied meaning ‘on the bank of the river Ganga.’ The second lakshana is the ajahallakshana in which the direct meaning is not completely given up, but the sentence in question hints at the real meaning of the sentence. We can obtain the direct meaning by associating with some object related to the idea expressed in the sentence. For instance, in the sentence ‘the red color is running’, the direct meaning of the sentence is not completely discarded, but hinted at. Its direct meaning can be obtained by asso-ciation with a red object that runs, for instance, a red horse. The third meaning by implication is jahadjahallakshana, which consists in giving up a part of the direct meaning and retaining the other part. In the example ‘this is that Devadatta’, the association of place, time and the conditions of the meeting of Devadatta now and then are given up and the Devadatta, who is one and the same in both the instances, is accepted.43

The great aphorism ‘tat tvam asi’ (That art Thou) is often open to misunderstanding, especially when seen from the point of view of ignorance. The direct meaning conveyed by ‘That’ (tat) to those who are in the spell of ignorance is the idea of a personal God associated with the universe. That God is creator, preserver and destroyer, and is endowed with omniscience, Lordship and great power. In other words the primary meaning of that is the sagunaa Brahman or Iishvara.44 The direct meaning of the word ‘Thou’ (tvam), in the context of the Brahadaaranayaka Upanishad is Sevetaketu, the son of Uddalaka, who is the hearer of this Upa-nishadic statement and the one to whom this aphorism is addressed. Thus, ‘Thou’ directly refers to any individual who is a willing hearer of the scriptures as taught by the teachers. In other words, ‘Thou’ primarily conveys the idea of ‘jiiva’, the individual soul. It is associated with the individual body, has little knowledge, and is characterized by the limitations such as birth and death, hunger and thirst, pain and pleasure. The term, ‘art’ (asi) states merely a complete identity of the ‘That’ and the ‘Thou.’ Thus, the direct sense of this Vedaantic saying ‘tat tvam asi’ (That art Thou) points to the identity between Ishvara and jiva.45

If God becomes identical with the transmigrating soul God will cease to exist; and as a result, the scripture will become useless. Similarly if the transmigrating soul becomes God, there will be none to follow the scriptures, which will certainly become useless. This will also contradict such means of proof as common experience.46

Therefore, in order to interpret the identity statements we must enter the realm of implied meanings.47 We know well, by now, that Iishvara and jiiva are the result of ignorance and the superim-position of the unreal on the real. Thus the implied meaning of ‘That’ is nirgunaa Brahman, the pure consciousness who is absolute and without attributes; ‘Thou’ by implication refers to the self (Aat-man), the pure consciousness which is the reality underlying the mind-body system. Hence this aphorism means that Brahman and Aatman are absolutely one and the same.

Jahadajahallakshana is precisely that which is applicable in interpreting identity statements like ‘That art Thou’. In this kind of implied meaning, a part of the sentence is given up and the other part is retained. In the example "this is that Devadatta," the part which involves contradictions, viz., his life in the past and in the present, i.e., the person Devadatta, is retained. Likewise in the mahaavaakya ‘That art Thou,’ the conflicting imports, namely immediateness, re-moteness, and differences are given up and the absolute, pure consciousness which is common to both ‘that’ and ‘thou’ is re-tained.48 It is according to this third lakshana that, ‘That art Thou’ and all other Vedaantic statements pointing to the identity of Brah-man and Aatman must be interpreted.

The mahaavaakya ‘tat tvam asi’ is not tautological or super-fluous. It and all such statements are concrete representation of a movement of thought from the ontological level of particularity to another of universality and yet to another of unity. When the latter state of unity is attained the distinctions between the former are negated. One begins with the individual consciousness, passes on to an universal consciousness, and finally arrives at the pure con-sciousness that overcomes the separate reality of both the individual and the universal. It is this state of unity which constitutes the ground of all multiplicity and individuality.49 The unity is obtained by stripping away the incompatible and the contradictory elements of the ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ and thereby arriving at the common element or basis.50 In the illustration, ‘this is that Devadatta’, the Devadatta seen now is identified with the Devadatta seen years ago, despite all the accidental differences like physical conditions, mental states and places of meeting. What makes one identify the person of Devadatta as the same is the elimination of the differences. In the same way the negation of the apparent contradictions of ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ would lead us to the fundamental and absolute reality.

In fact, in the recognition of the person of Devadatta now, one has gained nothing new about the person of Devadatta, except the accidental qualities, but only recognized Devadatta whom one had already known. In the same way the Upanishadic statements do not reveal anything new about Brahman or add anything new to its nature. Nevertheless, they are of immense value, since they remove the false notion of difference between the individual self and the Brahman. When ignorance, on which is based the difference between ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ is removed, they cease to be different, and we are able to experience their identity. In other words, the intrinsic nature of ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ is one and the same. The words ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ in their implicit sense (lakshana ) point to the same reality, as the terms ‘I’ and ‘the tenth’ indicate one and the same person in the sentence ‘I am the tenth’.51 Thus, the identity statement ‘That art Thou’ clearly shows, that Brahmaanubhava or paraa vidhyaa is a non-dual and unique experience of the identity of Brahman and Aatman, which is the absolute and fundamental reality behind both the universe and the individual.

Brahmaanubhava does not have an object of experience, nor does it have a subject of experience, in the empirical sense because Brahman is neither a subject nor an object. Shankara speaks of Brahmaanubhava as "pure knowledge and pure bliss, not smitten with suffering like sense perception, but serene (prasana), ever content and homogeneous or undifferentiated (ekarasa)."52 Since Brahmaanubhava is pure experience (avagatimatra) and pure knowledge (keevala jnaana), there is no possibility for the self or Brahman to become the subject or the object of Brahmaanubhava.

Brahman cannot be said to be the knower of Brahmaanubhava, because if Brahman is constantly aware of its bliss then that is the nature of Brahman. Hence there is no sense in maintaining that Brahman cognizes its own bliss. If, on the other hand, Brahman is supposed to be knowing its bliss interruptedly then in the intervals, when it does not cognize itself, it must do something else. The result of such a view would lead to the consideration of Brahman as changing and non-permanent.53 So, either way, Brahman cannot said to be the subject or the knower of Brahmaanubhava. It, therefore, is "neither Brahman-consciousness nor self-consciousness; it is pure consciousness without the subject-object duality."54 Shankara uses the example of fire and light to illustrate the im-possibility of Brahman being the subject of Brahmaanubhava. Fire cannot burn itself, but burning is the very nature and essence of fire. Neither does light enlighten itself, but enlightening other objects and things is the very nature of light. In the same way, Brahman is essentially knowledge and being. So, we cannot say that Brahman knows itself, for its very nature is knowledge. "As the fire does not burn itself," says Shankara, "so the self does not know itself."55

Shankara, likewise, holds that Brahmaanubhava is an object-less experience. When speaking of it, one often thinks that it is an experience of Brahman by the self, which way of looking at Brahmaanubhava stems from ignorance (avidhyaa), for in fact Brahman is none other than one’s own self. Brahmaanubhava does not mean experiencing Brahman as an object, but the realization of the real nature of one’s own self.56 Unlike empirical experience, Brahmaanubhava is not an experience of Brahman as an object, for it is not different from Brahman. When one attains Brahmaanubhava, one does not experience Brahman objectively (vastu) but recognizes his true nature which is Brahman. "In Brahmaanubhava," says, Shankara, "the differences of the experiencer (labdha), the experienced (labdhya) and the experience (upalabdhi) are totally absent."57 Thus, Brahmaanubhava is a non-dual and unique experience, which in no way involves the distinction between the subject and the object.

Though Shankara strongly defends the non-dualistic nature of Brahmaanubhava, many scriptural texts seem to contradict his position. Some passages in the Scriptures refer to Brahman as ‘all-knowing Brahman’ or as the ‘eternal Brahman’ (vijanata).58 Besides, Shankara himself alludes to the scriptures and speaks of Brahman as a witness (saakshin) of all actions that take place in the world of phenomena.59 Brahadaaranyaka Upanishad gives the analogy of the union between two lovers as an illustration to clarify the notion of Brahmaanubhava. A man fully embraced by his be-loved wife does not know anything, either internal or external, and is fully absorbed in the one whom he loves. So the infinite being fully embraced by the supreme self does not know anything at all, either internal or external.60 Again, in the same Upanishad, there is another illustration pointing to duality in Brahmaanubhava. When a lump of salt, which is a product of the sea-water, falls into the sea , it be-comes fully dissolved in the water and becomes one with it, to such a degree that it can never again be separated from the sea-water. In the same way, in Brahmaanubhava the individual self enters into the supreme self, loses its separate identity and becomes one with the supreme self.61 Mundaka Upanishad states: "As the flowing rivers disappear in the ocean quitting name and form so the knower, being liberated from name and form, goes into heavenly person (Brah-man), the higher than the high."62

All these illustrations, whose intent and purpose is to describe the nature of Brahmaanubhava, seem to point to a duality in Brahmaanubhava, between Brahman and the self. They portray Brahmaanubhava as that experience by which the self attains Brahman. The idea of Brahman as the "witness’ or as the ‘eternal knower’ suggests that Brahman is a subject distinct from the self as object. That the self is embraced into Brahman like a lover is embraced by the beloved, that the self is dissolved into Brahman as salt dissolves into salt-water, that the self enters Brahman as rivers merge into the ocean -- all indicate that in Brahmaanubhava there is a union of two distinct entities. In other words, all these illustrations show that "the self and Brahman are two distinct realities and the self’s oneness with Brahman is a result of its union with Brahman. This means that Brahman is the goal of the self or that Brahman is the object of higher realization."63 As a result, Brahmaanubhava amounts to an experience of Brahman by the self, i.e., the self is the subject whose object of experience is Brahman.

This description of Brahmaanubhava is incompatible with Shankara’s Advaitic understanding of Brahmaanubhava. He con-siders it as an experience which involves no duality. If Brah-manubhava is the experience of the self, whose object is Brahman, then this experience cannot be absolute, but only transitory and limited because the individual self or the experiencer is limited. According to Shankara, the dualistic consideration of Brahmaa-nubhava is a result of ignorance, which consists in mistakenly accepting the phenomenal (vyavahaara) and the relative as the transcendental (paramaartha) or the absolutely real. As long as one is under the sway of ignorance, he is not going to see the true nature of Brahmaanubhava. In reality, Brahman is neither a knower nor a witness. The word ‘knower’ is used of Brahman figuratively to indicate pure knowledge, which is the nature of Brahman.64 For Shankara says that ‘the immutable consciousness, that is Brahman, is spoken as the ‘eternal knower’ by a figure of speech (upacara ) just as by virtue of its heat fire is regarded as the agent of heating".65 All concepts of duality enter only if these texts are interpreted from the phenomenal point of view. But Shankara holds that if the Upanishadic texts are given the right interpretation, they in no way conflict with the tenets of Advaita Vedaanta.

Commenting on the illustration in which the self is said to be embraced by the supreme self, Shankara argues that the supreme self is not different from the individual self. In fact they are one and the same self, the pure consciousness. Due to ignorance we see the supreme self as the individual self. The individual self is embraced by its own real nature, which is the supreme self. Therefore what is embraced and what embraces are one and the same. They are not two different realities, but are identical. However, the empirical self thinks of the supreme self as something different from itself before it has realized its real nature. The idea of embracing is meaningful only from the point of view of an empirical self. But what actually happens in Brahmaanubhava is that the self realizes its real nature by giving up ignorance.66 The terms in other illustrations like ‘entering’ (preveesa), ‘merging’ (aapti) and ‘attaining’ (labdha) are used figuratively, like the words ‘witness’ or the ‘eternal knower’. They have meaning and significance only from the relative point of view. Shankara clearly points to this truth in his commentary on Brahadaaranayaka Upanishad. He says:

We hold the definite conclusions of all the Upa-nishads that we are nothing but the self or Brahman, that is always the same, homogeneous, one without a second, unchanging, birthless, undecaying, im-mortal, deathless and free from fear. Therefore, the statement ‘he is merged in Brahman’ is but figu-rative (upacara) meaning the cessation of differ-ences created by ignorance as a result of know-ledge.67

Therefore, for Shankara, these problems -- whether Brahmaa-nubhava has an object or not; if it has an object how can it be non-dual; and if it does not have an object, how can it be considered as an experience of Brahman -- arise only when one seeks to understand and explain the objective experience of Brahmaanubhava from the standpoint of empirical experience. From the standpoint of absolute knowledge there are no such problems. True knowledge is non-dual; Brahmaanubhava is nothing but Brahman itself. One can attain Brahmaanubhava only by directly and immediately being Brahman. In Brahmaanubhava, there is no distinction of Brahman and the experience of Brahman. The direct and immediate experience of Brahman is Brahmaanubhava.68 In other words, Brahmaanubhava is a non-dual and subject-objectless experience.

Since Brahmaanubhava is non-dual, subjectless and object-less experience, it must be immediate and direct.69 So, unlike the empirical experience, it cannot be obtained through our sense, mind and intellect. It is immediate and direct because it consists in recognizing and realizing one’s own true nature; no mediation is necessary to know one’s true self. "The consciousness of objects (which arise out of the functioning of the eye and other faculties) is mediately known: for it depends on an intervening reflection of the self (in order to be known). But as it is the self of the phenomenal consciousness, Brahman is immediately known."70

In order to demonstrate the immediate and direct nature of Brahmaanubhava, Shankara alludes to the Upanishadic illustration of a group of people crossing a river. When they had crossed the river, in order to ascertain whether all in the company had arrived at the other side of the river one person began to count the members of the group. He counted everyone except himself. Each time he counted he found one person missing from the group, until he came to realize that he himself was the missing person, for whom he had been looking. In such realization, neither was there any effort involved, nor was there any intervention or mediation of any other factor, for the missing person and the one who was looking for the missing person are one and the same or identical with each other. Hence there is no need for any mediation to recognize his own self.71 All that is needed in the direct realization, is recognizing one’s own self as the true self (Brahman). Therefore, Brahmaanubhava is the direct experience of the reality of oneself. It is direct and immediate experience and is never obtained through any media like senses, mind and intellect.

2.3.3. INDESCRIBABLE

Since Brahmaanubhava is without subject-object duality and is immediate and direct experience, it is indescribable: the very notion of description involves duality. In the empirical realm, any experience, however small or great, can be given at least some description. What can be known through various means of empirical knowledge (pramaanas) can also be expressed in words, using our own everyday or philosophical language. What is not known or experienced through empirical means of knowledge cannot also be expressed in words. As Brahmaanubhava is trans-empirical, non-dual and undifferentiated, it is indescribable. As Brahman is beyond all phenomena, the experience of Brahman also is beyond the realm of phenomenal language. Shankara says: "It is only to the object of knowledge and not to the non-objects that a word or an idea can be applied. Brahman, which is the self of them and also of the ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea."72 Maanduukya Upanishad speaks of the indescribable nature of the Brahman in the following passage:

Not inwardly cognitive, not outwardly cognitive, not bothwise cognitive, not a cognitive-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive, unseen, without which there can be dealing, ungraspable, having no dis-tinctive mask, non-thinkable, that cannot be desig-nated, the essence of the assurance of which is the state of being one with the self, the cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second . . . is the self (Brahman).73

Since Brahman is indescribable and unknowable, Brahmaa-nubhava is also indescribable. A thing can be defined when it can be distinguished from other things, because of its distinguishing characterization. But there is nothing different from Brahman, from which it can be distinguished. Nor can anything be said about Brahman, so that it can be distinguished on that basis. Therefore, one can speak of Brahmaanubhava only by way of negation, by denying the qualities of the empirical experience superimposed on Brahmaanubhava by ignorance. In the empirical realm, any experi-ence, however small or great, can be given at least some kind of description. Brahmaanubhava is trans-empirical and cannot be described because of the very fact that it is non-dual and undiffer-entiated. The words and languages we use refer to the phenomenal world (maayaa) and to the relative realities. As Brahman is beyond all that is phenomenal, Brahmaanubhava cannot be described in ordinary language. For Shankara says: "It is only to the object of knowledge and not to the non-objects that a word or an idea can be applied. Brahman, which is the self of them and also of the ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea."74

Yet the Upanishads do attempt to define Brahman as ‘reality’ (satyam), ‘knowledge’ (jnaanam), and ‘infinitude’ (aanandam).75 In fact, this description is not true of Brahmaanubhava, for it does not elevate our conception or understanding of Brahman to a higher level, or remove our conception of finitude. It only negates the qua-lities of ‘unreality’, ‘ignorance’ and ‘finitude’ superimposed upon Brahman. The description of Brahman as "infinite knowledge and reality" is a logical impropriety. By this very impropriety this des-cription of Brahman serves to show the logical uniqueness of Brah-man and that of Brahmaanubhava. By its striking oddness the phrase preserves as well as reveals, to some extent, the great mystery of Brahman. It preserves the mystery because we have no idea what infinite knowledge is, though we know what knowledge is. It reveals the mystery of Brahman because it effectively shows the uniqueness of Brahman by differentiating it from all objects and empirical subjects.76

Brahmaanubhava is of the nature of Brahman. Since Brah-man is eternal Brahmaanubhava is an eternal experience. There-fore, one cannot speak of it as taking place in some particular mo-ment in time. Unlike empirical experiences, Brahmaanubhava is an experience which is without a beginning or an end. In empirical ex-perience there is the distinction between the ‘knower,’ the ‘known,’ and the ‘knowledge’. In Brahmaanubhava there are no such dis-tinctions, for Shankara says, "the knower is the eternal knowledge. The known and the knowledge are not different"77 in Brahmaa-nubhava.

Thus, Brahmaanubhava is the knowledge of an ontological state of absolute oneness and unity between Brahman (the un-changing, eternal reality in the universe), and Aatman (the un-changing, eternal reality in the individual).78 Therefore, Brahmaa-nubhava is as eternal as Brahman and Aatman. It is not something that is caused by the individual who is striving to reach this state of unity. It is not an experience that takes place in time and which has Brahman for its object. For Shankara, the attainment of the self or Brahman cannot be the obtaining of something which has not been obtained before, for in Brahmaanubhava there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained.79 If Brahman is said to attain something other that itself, it becomes the attainer and the non-self, i.e., the object of attainment, because Brahman, the pure consciousness and eternal knowledge, is the one absolute reality.80

As eternal Brahmaanubhava is uncaused. There is nothing that can cause Brahmaanubhava directly; it is an experience which cannot be effected (asaadhya). Any attempt to cause Brahmaa-nubhava is meaningless, since the finite and the limited cannot effect or cause a trans-empirical or transcendental experience. As Brah-maanubhava is pure consciousness, it is essential for the attainment of anything; therefore the very attempt to attain it, indicates its attainment. In other words, all means of attainment are based on Brahmanubhava or pure consciousness, and so nothing can be attained without presupposing it. Therefore the self or Brahman is the basis of all knowledge and in attaining Brahmaanubhava everything else is attained.81 For Shankara says that just as one may get to the missing animal by searching for it through its footprints, similarly when the self is attained everything is attained. The very knowledge of the self is its attainment.82 Brahmaanubhava is so transcendental that there is no direct means of attaining it. Ac-cording to Shankara looking for means to attain Brahmaanubhava would be like swimming on land under the impression that it is water; or like searching in space for the footprints of birds.83 Thus, Brahmaanubhava is eternal, uncaused and identical with absolute reality. It consists in recognizing that one is Brahman.