In this chapter, we shall study similar themes in the Shankarite and Heideggerian paths in a comparative light. The themes selected are related to the manner in which these two thinkers have analyzed man, Being and the path to authentic human destiny.

In this section, we will bring out similar themes from Shankara and Heidegger, related to their perception of human person, both in his or her authentic and inauthentic states.

For Shankara jiiva is that unit of existence which is conscious of its physical covering. It is the individual psycho-physical organ-ism or the mind-body system. As it has a body, jiiva experiences hunger, thirst, anger and all such emotional states. Since it is a psycho-physical system possessing emotions and appetites, jiiva enjoys gross and physical things. Because it is caught up in a desire for enjoyment, jiiva involves itself in misery and ceaseless change. Thus, the life of jiiva is characterized by not only enjoyment, but also bitterness. Jiiva is the source and subject of all empirical experiences. Other than physical body, there is the subtle body that survives the individual jiiva beyond death. It includes: the vivifying principle called praana; the five sense organs, through which, the mind perceives the world of reality; the five organs of action, with the help of which the jiiva, as the psycho-physical-conscious organ-ism can move about; the central organ with manas and buddhi, as two faculties of deliberation and knowledge, having such intellec-tual and volitional states as cognition, decision, desire, pleasure, fear and shame; and the faculty of the ‘I-sense’, called ahankaara. Besides the physical and subtle bodies, there is the bliss body, which is the innermost level of jiiva.

With the help of these senses and faculties, jiiva experiences various stages, viz., the waking stage, the dream stage and the stage of deep sleep. In the waking stage, jiiva creates its own microcosmic world and enjoys various satisfactions. Here, it is the agent of action and enjoyer of the fruits of actions. In the dream stage, jiiva enjoys pleasures or suffers pains, in a world it creates. The dream world is based on jiiva’s fiction and fancy. In the stage of deep sleep, jiiva attains the state of quiet and bliss, over-powered by the tamas guna. Because of its past karma, jiiva is tossed from one birth to another, and one state of existence to another, and thus is the subject of all transmigratory existence. Besides, jiiva experiences itself as having five sheaths, viz., the sheath of body, the sheath of vital force, the sheath of mind, the sheath of knowledge and the sheath of bliss. All these limiting conditions of avidhyaa individuate jiiva and make it forget its own true nature and condition. As a result, the jiiva does not realize that it is Brahman, the ultimate spirit behind the universe. Tossed by the pushes and pulls of everyday living, it loses sight of its true nature and in this manner lives an inauthentic life, forgetting its own authentic destiny.

Heidegger’s notion of inauthentic and fallen Dasein strikes a similarity to the notion of jiiva. The inauthentic state of Dasein involves a state of Dasein’s absorption in the world of his concern. It consists in being lost in the publicness of the ‘they’ (das Man) and is Dasein’s losing sight of the truth about himself. It is a state in which, one fails to grasp one’s being with transparency and clarity. It is one’s entanglement with the life-world so that one loses sight of one’s roots. It is a style of living in which one not only loses one’s vision about oneself, but also bases one’s life totally on other people’s direction. In this inauthentic state, one’s life is totally aimed at living others’ expectations of oneself. In other words, in the inauthentic state one loses one’s individuality, i.e., being one’s self, and allows oneself to be guided by the ‘crowd’ or the impersonal self. In the inauthentic state a person is characterized by curiosity, idle talk and ambiguity.

The curious Dasein allows himself to be carried away by the looks of the world. He seeks novelty for the sake of novelty, and in the process allows his life to be restless, always looking for excite-ment and changes. Thus, he lives a life of ‘never-dwelling-any-where’. In this way, curiosity denies Dasein his genuine being and he lives a superficial existence. The superficiality of curiosity is ex-pressed in idle talk. Such idle talk closes off what is talked about, discourages any new inquiry, understanding, interpretation and communication. Thus, Dasein is cut off from a genuine relation to entities, other Daseins and his own self. The lack of genuineness leads to ambiguous living and results in the inability of Dasein to distinguish between what is genuine and what is not. As genuine knowledge is denied to the ambiguous Dasein, he is not able to be straightforward. Thus, one’s whole life becomes an ambiguous spying on each other and a tense watching of one another. In such a state, one has no time to think of his authentic destiny. Thus, Dasein, in his inauthentic state, like the jiiva of Shankara, has lost sight of his true self, but lives in an illusion about himself and his destiny.

For Shankara, avidhyaa is the individual maayaa. It is a principle of ignorance that blocks things from one’s view. It consists in the real nature of a thing being obscured by misinterpretation of one thing for another, as for instance, the idea of snake preventing the reality of the rope that is there, being experienced. Thus, in avidhyaa, the idea of obscuration is prominent. It is due to the activity of rajasguna and tamasguna. In this manner, avidhyaa denies the knowledge of identity in the human person and projects subjectively false ideas.

The effects of the individual maayaa on man are manifold. Avidhyaa makes man forget his true nature and identify himself with the psycho-physical organism called jiiva. Man, identified with the body which is the seat of all emotions and appetites, becomes the enjoyer of physical pleasures and the experiencer of miseries. Besides the physical body, avidhyaa presents man with a subtle body and a bliss body. Subtle body includes the vital principle, called praana, which supports and preserves organic existence in man. It also possesses the external sense organs, organs of action and the central organ. The five sense organs make man experience the world outside, while the organs of action make the psycho-physical organism move about. The central organ has two faculties, viz., the manas and the buddhi. The former is the faculty of desire, deliberation and will, while the latter is the faculty of right appercep-tion or discriminating knowledge. The manas has a number of modi-fications relating to the intellectual and volitional states. The modi-fications of the intellectual state are doubt, cognition, belief and retention, while the modifications of the volitional state are desire, decision, deliberation, fear, shame, pleasure and pain. Manas gives knowledge, weighs reason for and against, while buddhi helps jiiva to apprehend rightly. Other than these, there is the ‘I-sense’ which makes one experience oneself as the individual ‘I’ and say ‘I exist’ in all the three stages of existence, viz., waking state, dream stage and stage of deep sleep. In each of these stages, as the individual jiiva, one experiences the illusion of physical body, subtle body and bliss body respectively. Thus, avidhyaa, by superimposing very powerfully on man the I-consciousness and various intellectual and volitional modifications, makes him believe that he is a combination of five sheaths, viz., physical, vital, mental, knowledge and bliss, and in the process denies him the knowledge that his inner spirit, the Aatman, is identical with Brahman.

In Heidegger, we find a parallel notion in his concept of the ‘they’. ‘They’ is the false self Dasein assumes in the fallen state. It has a number of characteristics. The first is distentiality, in which the everyday Dasein stands in subjection to others, the ‘they’ who determine the everyday possibilities of Dasein. Here, Dasein’s self is taken over by the ‘they’. Distentiality so dissolves one’s own identity completely into the being of the other, that the distinction between the other and oneself is destroyed. Thus, Dasein takes pleasure, reads, judges and is shocked based on the standards set by ‘they’. Having brought about the loss of Dasein’s identity in distentiality, ‘they’ maintains this loss in the second characteristic, viz., medio-crity. Here, everything extra-ordinary and exceptional in Dasein is done away with, and every type of priority is leveled down. These two characteristics together constitute in Dasein a publicness in which every specialty and genuineness that belongs to Dasein is obliterated and obscured. ‘They’ interpret the world for Dasein, who is fully disburdened of his responsibilities. Thus, Dasein feels a sense of security about his life, even though it is dominated by the ‘they’. This security provides Dasein a constancy for his fallen existence, from which he does not want to be disturbed. Caught up totally by this ‘impersonal self’ Dasein experiences a constant temp-tation towards living the fallen state of existence, as he gradually believes that the fallen state is secure, genuine and the one in which his possibilities are fulfilled. It, in turn, brings about a tranquillity in Dasein about his life. When Dasein is tranquil and happy about his illusory existence, he is moving towards alienation, as he is moving away from his own unique possibilities and gets entangled with the other. Thus, under the influence of the ‘they’, Dasein takes a ‘down-ward plunge’ into his own groundlessness, while under the impres-sion that his way of living is an ascension. In this manner, the ‘they’ makes Dasein to be inauthentic, to forget his uniqueness and throws him into the bottomless living of everydayness, like that of the jiiva, under the influence of avidhyaa.

The cosmic maayaa is the capacity to bring the entire exist-ence appearing as objective to subjective consciousness. The origin of the world process and the changes that take place in the world are attributed to the cosmic maayaa. In it, the idea of origination, which implies power and will, is more apparent. Cosmic maayaa is the principle of individuation, that makes one experience plurality and multiplicity in the universe. The effects of the cosmic maayaa are varied and many. It leads to the evolution of the world of names and forms. Besides, the cosmic ignorance veils one’s perception of Brahman, the ultimate reality, in that it is experienced as Iishvara, the supreme Lord, whom the human mind can grasp and the human heart can love. Due to the activity of the cosmic ignorance, Iishvara is experienced by the devotee as the creator, the sustainer and the destroyer. Cosmic maayaa is the basis of the emergence of the five subtle bodies, viz., ether, air, fire, water and earth. From the subtle matter, by the process of fivefold combination, the gross body originates. The various combinations of the gross matter, by way of integration and differentiation, give rise to the cosmic system of fourteen worlds, in the higher, the middle and the lower regions, viz., the satyaloka, the jnaanaloka and the tapaloka respectively. Besides, the cosmic maayaa effects three cosmic stages of existence and three cosmic orders of existence: the cosmic waking-conscious-ness, which is conscious of the totality of the concrete existences inhabiting the threefold regions and in which Brahman is limited by the cosmic gross body; the cosmic dream-consciousness, in which Brahman has the totality of the subtle body as its limiting adjunct; and the cosmic sleep-consciousness, in which Brahman has for its limiting adjunct the cosmic bliss body. In this manner, cosmic maayaa brings about the illusion of the plurality of the material world, the plurality of gods, the plurality of kingdoms of beings, the plurality of cosmic order and the plurality of stages of existence. In effecting the illusion of plurality and multiplicity, cosmic ignorance veils the ultimate reality behind the universe, viz., the Brahman.

The sway of the metaphysical-technological thinking, with its scientific method and technological attitude of domination and their consequence, calculative thinking, gives man a view of reality totally cut off from his authentic destiny. Caught up in such a world view, man has no time for, or interest in, thinking of Being as Being, though only in relation to this can man’s total authenticity be realized. Thus, just as the cosmic maayaa (in Shankara) prevents man from recognizing his oneness with Brahman, so also the metaphysical-technological existence bars Dasein from experiencing his belonging-together to Being.

For Shankara, aparaa vidhyaa is man’s state of phenomenal existence. Here man is caught up in the hustle and bustle of everyday living, as he is swayed by individual and cosmic maayaa. Under the influence of ignorance in these two aspects, one’s knowledge and experience of reality is characterized by superimposition, a mis-taken ascription of one thing for another. In superimposition one attributes to a thing qualities of essential nature which do not belong to it. In other words, it mistakenly considers one thing as the other. For example, rope is falsely judged as a snake so that the qualities of the snake are wrongly attributed to the rope. According to Shankara, due to the influence of maayaa, the attributes of the non-self, viz., the world of thought and matter, are superimposed on Brahman. Thus, Brahman, the ultimate and changeless reality, appears as the world of names and forms in the state of aparaa vidhyaa. In this manner, maayaa superimposes the unreal on the real. There are two stages, in which, the veiling of Brahman takes place. Firstly, the ‘ego-idea’ is superimposed upon the inner self in man (Aatman), which is absolute existence and reality. As a result, one loses the universal idea of Aatman being absolute existence and considers oneself as an individual (jiiva). Secondly, the ‘ego-idea’ reaches outside, as it were, and identifies itself with the body, with physical and mental attributes and with actions without ever becoming aware of the true nature of the ‘I’. Attributing individuality and other qual-ities to oneself in this way, he sees multiplicity everywhere. This world of multiplicity, of names and forms, constituted of individuals like oneself and different from oneself, is superimposed on Brahman or absolute spirit. So, in the aparaa state, one identifies everything in the world with oneself. The inner self, though veiled by maayaa, looks on as if it is a witness completely unaffected by the false attri-bution caused by superimposition. Therefore, for Shankara, the aparaa vidhyaa experience fundamentally depends on the ‘ego-idea’, the removal of which will effect the disappearance of this experience.

Since the central element in the state of aparaa vidhyaa is the ‘ego-idea’, i.e., the individuality of the jiiva, every experience is related to man who becomes the subject of every experience and experiences the world of reality as his object. Thus, there comes about the distinction between the experiencer and the experienced, the knower and the known, the seer and the seen, the subject and the object, the ego and the non-ego. These two elements become inseparable in every experience in the state of aparaa vidhyaa. All the means of knowledge characteristic of human knowing presuppose this subject-object duality. As a result, knowledge, truth and meaning are attained only in relation to man’s use of senses, manas and buddhi. Thus, all knowledge attained in the aparaa state is mediate and indirect knowledge. Besides, the knowledge one possesses is caused by man himself, as every knowledge comes about as the result of man’s mental activity. This implies that man can make, develop and increase his knowledge of reality by way of research, modern techniques and technologies. In this manner, in the state of aparaa vidhyaa, man becomes the center of life and lives in the illusion that he is the only reality, ignoring the genuine truth about himself.

In Heidegger, we have a parallel notion in ‘care as Dasein’s being-in-the-world’. As care, Dasein is constituted of the threefold concerns, viz., epistemological, relational and existential. The epis-temological concern of Dasein is that he finds himself in the world as a thrown state-of-being, understands his thrown existence and expresses it in discourse. That Dasein always finds himself placed in the world, an ‘already-found-himself-thereness’, means that Da-sein’s existence has already started, without his ever knowing or choosing. Dasein knows that-he-is, but his origin and destiny are hidden from him. He is a factical existence, in which he finds himself in varying moods involved with entities and affected by them. Though like any other present-to-hand-entity, Dasein is a thrown existence, he is the horizon in relation to which the question of Being is raised, the meaning of entities is discovered and his own being is realized. This is because, Dasein is capable of understanding his thrown existence, interpreting it and expressing it in discourse. Dasein’s knowing the world is founded on his being-in-the-world as a state-of-being, understanding and discourse. Because of his existential ‘being-in’ among entities that he nonetheless transcends in that he discovers their meaning and truth, Dasein is the formative agent of the world.

As the world’s formative agent, Dasein’s nature must be understood not in relation to his ‘whatness’, but in relation to his ‘way of being’ as Dasein. Dasein is existence, as one who stands above all other entities; he is ‘mineness’ due to the fact that he has a unique individuality of his own. Because of these two qualities, Dasein has to be either authentic or inauthentic in his existence. This means that Dasein is the only being among all entities who can realize or neglect, develop or reject, build up or forget his being and possibilities. In other words, Dasein is what he makes of himself. Thus, Dasein can either exist as the distinctive type of being he is or can live a routine manner of living. When Dasein owns his possibilities and actualizes them he is authentic. If he is blind to his possibilities or ignores them, he is inauthentic. The uniqueness of Dasein in actualizing his own possibilities and in discovering the truth and meaning of entities, clearly points to his priority in the order of existence. He has threefold priorities: an ontic priority, in that he is existence, stands out from all other beings and is open to Being; an ontological priority, because Dasein is able to understand Being; and an ontico-ontological priority in that by his understanding of Being Dasein not only understands his own being, but also that of other entities, which thereby provides an ontico-ontological condition for any study of reality.

In his relational concern, Dasein is related to entities in a ‘being-alongside’ relationship, in which his involvement with them is one of pre-occupation. In the process, understands them as present-at-hand, ready-to-hand and in their spatiality. Towards other Daseins Dasein has a relationship of ‘being-with’, which is characterized by various modes of solicitude. The twofold relationship with entities and other Daseins, viz., the environmental world and the ‘we-world’ respectively, constitute Dasein’s world. Dasein’s existential concern includes the state of fallen existence, Dasein’s movement towards authenticity and the temporal-histor-

ical nature of Dasein. Just as Dasein is central in the other two concerns, so also he plays a key role in the existential concern, as he pulls himself out of fallen existence, effects his authentic existence, and remains the foundation of his temporal-historical nature and the basis of historiology as the science of history.

Our consideration, of the epistemological, relational and existential concerns of Dasein, clearly points to the fact that in the state of care, Dasein holds a prime place, as the whole world and all the entities in it revolve around him. The total dependence of every reality on Dasein, in the state of care, makes him live in an illusion that he is the only reality and forget his nature. Just as the jiiva, in the state of aparaa vidhyaa, is caught up with himself, so also Dasein, in the state of care, is centered on himself, and in the process moves far away from the authentic destiny.

Paraa vidhyaa is the ultimate state of man. It is an integral and intuitive experience of absolute reality. Such an experience involves no duality. Therefore, we can speak of attainment of paraa vidhyaa not from the paramaartha point of view but only from the point of view of the seeker. In empirical knowledge, we come to know something new in attaining knowledge. But in paraa knowledge nothing new is attained; only the seeker realizes what he really is, viz., his identity with Brahman. Thus, there is neither a subject nor an object of experience; it is a pure knowledge and pure experience. It is, therefore, neither Brahman-consciousness nor self-conscious-ness, but pure consciousness without subject-object duality. So in Brahmaanubhava the differences of the experiencer and the experienced are totally removed. Since Brahmaanubhava is a non-dual and subject-objectless experience, it is direct and immediate experience of Brahman. In the attainment of the paraa state, the senses, the mind and the intellect do not play any role as it is the immediate and direct recognition of one’s real self. In fact, no mediation is necessary to know one’s true self.

As paraa vidhyaa is non-dual and direct experience it is indescribable. The very notion of description involves duality. In the empirical realm any experience, however great or small, can be given at least some description. What is known through the various empirical means of knowledge can also be expressed in words, using our own everyday or philosophical language; what is not known through empirical means of knowledge cannot be expressed in words. As Brahmaanubhava is trans-empirical, non-dual and undifferentiated, it is indescribable. Since, Brahmaanubhava is of the nature of Brahman, just like the latter the former also is unknowable and indescribable. Brahmaanubhava is an ontological state of absolute oneness between Brahman and Aatman and like them is eternal. Thus, paraa knowledge is uncaused; the seeker and his activities cannot bring about the state of paraa vidhyaa, for a transcendental experience cannot be caused. So Brahmaanubhava is eternal, uncaused and identical with Brahman, as it consists in recognizing that that one is Brahman.

In the Heideggerian notion of ‘transcendence as Dasein’s being-toward-Being’, we find a parallel to the Shankarite notion of paraa vidhyaa. By his very nature, Dasein is called to a life of being-toward-Being. This state transcends a life enmeshed by the cares of everydayness. It is a life oriented towards and focused on Being. The nature of the state of transcendence is one of belonging-together between Being and Dasein. This relationship is not a mere causal relationship, but one in which both Being and man hold each other and remain in total openness to each other. It is a relationship of Being giving and man responding, and of presencing Being’s mani-festation in himself and in entities. This relationship of belonging-together makes Dasein the ‘place’ of Being’s presencing in the spatio-temporal history. Open to Being in this essential relationship, Dasein moves towards Being through an ascending path of essential thinking of Being, dwelling in the neighborhood of Being and seeing the truth of Being.

Essential thinking does not consist in developing a conceptual system of thinking with a chain of logical premises which lead to valid and certain conclusions. Thinking of Being is beyond logical and metaphysical thinking, as it overcomes onto-theo-logical think-ing and language. Thinking of Being is non-subjective, non-representative and non-logical in the sense of pre-subjective, pre-representative and pre-logical respectively. It is pre-rational, but not irrational; and anti-logic, but not illogical. Essential thinking comes about in man as the result of Being’s giving as ‘the most thought-provoking’ and ‘that which is eminently thought-worthy’, and correspondingly Dasein’s responding to this giving of Being by recollecting Being in memory and thanking it for its gift of itself. In Dasein essential thinking leads to an openness to the mystery of Being, whereby he becomes a dweller in the neighborhood of Being. Dwelling is an ek-sisting and standing out in the openness of Being. It is an abiding of Dasein in his own origins and consists in Dasein being attuned to the voice of Being. This gives itself in silence to which Dasein is called to listen, even amidst the loudest noise. When Dasein is related to Being in this relationship of dwelling, he is able to relate to entities in an authentic way. As a dweller in the nearness of Being, Dasein builds and spares beings in their authentic being, thereby preserving Being’s manifestation in things. The essential thinker and the dweller becomes the seer of the truth of Being. As a seer, Dasein recognizes Being’s truth, viz., Dasein’s relationship of belonging-together to Being, the relationship of difference that exists between Being and beings, and Being’s manifestation in history as a time-space-play. When this truth dawns in Dasein, he becomes the seer and the shepherd of Being who guards Being as it is manifested in himself, in entities and in history.

The three ascending stages of Being-centered living, therefore, involve an interactive relationship between Being and Dasein: Being calls and gives Dasein listens and responds. In this interactive relationship the role of Being is always primary, as the initiative comes from Being, to which Dasein responds by being its lighting-up-place. Thus, like the state of paraa vidhyaa, in the state of transcendence, Dasein moves from his worldly involvements to a deeper-level of existence, that is based on his relationship of belonging-together to Being.

In this section, in a comparative light we should consider a few themes from Shankara and Heidegger relating to Being, indicating their similarities.

According to Shankara the realization of Brahman is the goal of paraa vidhyaa. The term ‘Brahman’ is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘brih’ which means to gush forth, to grow, to be great and to increase. The suffix ‘man’ added to the root, signifies the absence of limitation. Thus, the term ‘Brahman’ means that which is absolutely the greatest. Brahman, therefore, is the absolute and unlimited reality, which is the substratum and foundation of the world of our experience and on which everything depends for its existence. It is the cause from which proceeds or originates the world. Brahman is self-sufficient and does not depend on anything else for its existence. It is a spiritual reality, since matter is not self-sufficient, but limited and subject to change. Brahman is absolutely homogeneous in nature and whatever exists is this one universal Being. It is pure Being, Intelligence and Thought. These are not attributes of Brah-man, but constitute its substance. Brahman is not a thinking being, but is Thought itself without any qualities, and beyond the order of empirical experience. Thus, Brahman is a priori and cannot be grasped by a posteriori experience. Since Brahman is beyond empirical grasp, whatever positive descriptions we develop about Brahman would always remain in the level of phenomenal experience. Thus, Brahman is different from all we can speak of him by human language on the empirical level.

The nature of Brahman is so transcendent that it cannot be compared to anything we know. In comparison with Brahman all we know in the world of our experience can be considered as non-existence. Yet Brahman is the Being of all beings as present in everything that is, for without the Being of Brahman nothing can exist. In spite of this, empirical experience of Brahman is not possible because it is unalterable and absolute Being which remains identical with itself in all its manifestations. It is the ground of all experience and yet is different from the space-time-cause world. Brahman has nothing similar to it, nothing different from it and does not have any internal relations, for all these are empirical distinc-tions. It is non-empirical, non-objective, wholly other, but it is not non-being. Brahman is absolute, unchangeable and attributeless. It is a principle of utter simplicity: there is no duality in Brahman, for no qualities are found in the concept of Brahman. It is also simple in the sense that it is not subject to inner contradictions. Brahman is not a metaphysical postulate that can be proved logically, but must be experienced in silence. Brahman is one: It is not a ‘He’ or personal being; nor is it an ‘It’ or impersonal concept; but it is a state which comes about when all subject-object distinctions are obliterated. Ultimately speaking, Brahman is a name, given to the timeless pleni-tude of Being.

As described above, Brahman is the same as the Aatman, which is rendered in English as ‘self’. It signifies the most fun-damental being of the individual. Aatman is the deathless, birthless, eternal and real substance of every soul. It is the unchanging reality behind the changing body, sense organs, mind and ego. It is the spirit which is the pure consciousness, unaffected by time, space and causality, limitless and without a second. For Shankara, the terms ‘Brahman’ and ‘Aatman’ basically denote the one and the same underlying principle: the former stands for the unchanging principle of the universe, while the latter refers to the unchanging reality in the individual. Thus, the two terms stand for two descriptions of the same ultimate reality, which is the ground of everything from the point of view of the universe and the individual. The ultimate reality represented by these terms is the fullness of Being that forms the goal of paraa vidhyaa.

Heidegger’s notion of Being bears a striking resemblance to the Shankarite concept of Brahman/Aatman. The goal of the state of transcendence is Being. Heidegger understands Being in relation to the German term ‘Geviert’. It is related to the term ‘Vier’, which means the number four. The prefix ‘ge’ has the collective signi-fication. Thus, the term ‘Geviert’ is translated as the ‘fourfold’. It constitutes the four ‘aspects’ of Being, viz., the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. The earth and the sky constitute the phy-sical ‘component’ of Being, while the divinities and mortals constitute the divine and human ‘components’ respectively. Each of the four ‘elements’ represents symbolically different dimensions of the ‘essence’ of Being. The earth is that which constructively sup-ports the growing and blossoming plants, besides rendering them fruitful. It is the earth that preserves the rocks and water. It is on the earth that animal life and all forms of life continue. The sky is the path of the sun and moon; in it the stars shine. Changes in seasons, the light and dusk of the day, the gloom and glow of the night, the good and the bad weather, the moving clouds and the blue depths of the ether -- all happen in the sky. The divinities are the messengers of the Divine; out of the holy sway of the Divine, they appear and withdraw into concealment. Mortals are human beings, called mortals not because their earthly life comes to an end, but because they are capable of death as death. Mortals are those that have a relationship of presencing Being as Being.

Thus explained, the fourfold must not be misunderstood as four types of beings in the ontic sense. We cannot speak of them as being ontically and causally related because they are beyond the realm of entities. The fourfold must be understood in the realm of Ereignis, the event of appropriation, in which mortals experience their belonging-together to Being. The intersection of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals, in the unity of the fourfold constitutes the ‘essence’ of Being. Thus, the fourfold is the artic-ulation of Being itself.

Heidegger attributes a number of qualities to Being. It is Gladsome. As Gladsome and hence brightness, serenity and gently joy. Being is Holy in the sense that it is the ultimate conserving power which guards beings in the integrity of their being. It is the Origin and hence the overflowing and continuous source. It is the Ground, which points to the fact that though it is a continuous source and constantly gives itself out, nevertheless it retains itself always as the source. In other words, while giving itself out, Being does not empty itself, but remains a steadfast and constant source. Thus, Being manifests itself as the Gladsome, the Holy, the Origin and the Ground. In this manner Being’s manifestation assumes a relationship of belonging-together relating to Dasein, in which Dasein and Being appropriate each other into their realms. This is so because Dasein is transcendence by his very nature, and has a dimension of Being within him. But Being’s relationship to entities is one of difference. Being is always the Being of beings which can be never thought of as existing without Being. Even though Being and beings are so closely related to each other that we can never think of one without the other, yet the relationship between them is one of difference. The reason for this is that Being does not have a separate and independent existence as a concrete entity. Only if it is an entity can it be related to other entities in a positive manner. By its very nature, Being is transcendence, and so can have only a relation of difference with entities. In this relationship both of belonging-together to Dasein, and of difference with beings, Being gives itself as a continuous process of presencing and absencing, revealing and concealing, giving and withdrawing, both in the temporal and spatial aspects. Thus, sptatio-temporal history is nothing else but the giving of Being in the time-space unity. So like the Brahman/Aatman of Shankara, Heidegger’s Being is the source of all reality and the ground of everything that is.

Shankara speaks of two types of maayaa, viz., the cosmic and the individual. The former leads to the evolution of the world of names and forms. In the cosmic absorption of everything in Brahman there comes about a sudden change when Brahman wills to evolve from within itself and express itself. This, in turn, disturbs the indeterminate maayaa and its constituent elements, viz., the sattva, rajas and tamas. When Brahman accepts maayaa in its sattvic element, it becomes Iishvara which is the supreme Lord, who is worshipped by ordinary people as their personal God in the form of different deities. Again, it is the cosmic maayaa that gives rise to the conception of Iishvara as the creator, sustainer and destroyer. The three gods are nothing other than Iishvara with regard to the three gunas. When Iishvara is limited by maayaa in its sattvic aspect it is called Vishnu, who is the preserver and sustainer of the cosmic order. When Iishvara has maayaa with rajas as its dominant upaadhi it is called Brahma, who is the creator of the world. Maayaa with tamas predominating is called Siva, the destroyer of the universe. Besides, the cosmic maayaa brings about the illusion of the plurality of the cosmic order, the kingdoms of beings, the material world and the stages of existence. In the same way, the individual maayaa makes one perceive the Aatman as the psycho-physical-conscious organism, the jiiva with the threefold types of body, having three stages of existence and five sheaths. In other words, cosmic maayaa and avidhyaa individualize Brahman/Aatman as Iishvara and jiiva, besides bringing about the plurality of existence.

To the question "why must there be an emergence of the infinite process of becoming from Brahman through maayaa?", often the answer given is that it is the liila of Brahman. The term ‘liila’ means a sport or a playful activity. We cannot ascribe any specific reason when the liila of Brahman takes place, except saying that it is an appearance suitable to the capacity and understanding of the one to whom it does appear. Liila, therefore, lies in ignorance and can never reveal the nature of reality. Liila is real to the one to whom it appears, but does not mean anything to Brahman, who sportily assumes the appearance. In other words, liila is a self imposed limitation on the part of Brahman, which does not impair the integrity of the absolute Brahman. But it satisfies our volitional and emotional nature, which makes us conceive the absolute as personal existence that can fulfill our pragmatic need for love and devotion. Thus, there is no answer to the ‘why’ of liila of Brahman, except that it is a liila of Brahman.

We have a parallel to the liila of Brahman in Heidegger’s notion of the play of Being. In speaking about the spatio-temporal nature of history, Heidegger says that it is due to the nature of Being’s manifestation. Being gives itself in history in time-space unity. It implies a process of presencing and absencing, revealing and concealing, giving and withdrawing on the part of Being, both in the temporal and spatial aspects. Being is always Being of beings. This ‘is’ of Being in beings involve a dynamic coming-over of Being in beings, revealing beings in their essence. But, as soon as the beings are revealed in their being, the Being conceals itself in favor of the entity that is revealed. Thus, in Being’s giving of itself to beings, there is an in-built revealing of the entity and a concealing of Being itself, as in sending itself Being withdraws and in giving itself Being withholds. Therefore, the temporal nature of history is due to the giving-withdrawing presencing of Being in the three ecstases of time, viz., the past, the present and the future. The spatial giving of Being in history is due to the interactive mirror-play of the fourfold, viz., the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals, in a mutual appropriation into the onefold of the four. Thus, the unity of the fourfold constitutes the world in its spatial aspect.

To the question of the ‘why’ of the spatio-temporal manifestation of Being in history, Heidegger says that it is a play of Being. It is a time-space play that comes from Being to man, in which entities can appear in their being. It is play, in which, ‘time times’, ‘space spaces’, ‘thing things’ and ‘world worlds’. It is a world-play which lets one encounter the temporality of history in the three ecstases of time, and its spatiality in the four regions of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the morals. There is no ‘why’ to this play of Being. It is a groundless play of Being, as the play is not conditioned by will and calculative thinking. Besides, the play does not allow any causal or planned out patterns. It is like a child playing draughts. Being plays because it plays. The ‘because’ sinks into the play; the play is without ‘why’. Being plays while it plays, and there remains only the play. There is no parallel to this type of play in the realm of entities. Thus, the Heideggerian notion of the play of Being is very similar to the idea of the liila of Brahman.

For Shankara, the goal of paraa vidhyaa is realization of the identity of the seeker with Brahman. In other words, the seeker realizes that his indwelling spirit, Aatman and Brahman are one and the same. In this realizing, essentially nothing new is attained. The seeker has come to know that he is not his psycho-physical organism of gross body, the subtle body and the bliss body. He has recognized the illusoriness of the world of his experience, which now is an asat for him. The aspirant has recognized the falsity of his empirical world which is the basis of his experiences founded on duality. When the unreality of the illusory experiences are negated, the seeker ‘sees’ the truth about himself. Thus, the knowledge involved in Brahmaanubahava does not add any new elements to the seeker, except that it brings about an awareness of what he really is. In the experience of realizing Brahman, the seeker awakes to the truth of identity, which dawns on the seeker. We can compare this exper-ience to a person who is experiencing the dream state. As long as one is dreaming, the environment of his dreams, people involved with him in the dream and other details about the dream are real to him. But, as soon as he comes out of the dream state, he recognizes the unreality of the dream world, and the reality of the conscious world dawns on him. The experiencing of the reality of the conscious world does not bring any new knowledge to the dreamer because, even while dreaming, he is essentially part of the conscious world. In the same way, when a person who is caught up in the phenomenal world attains Brahmaanubhava state, he does not gain any new knowledge, for even when he is part of the phenomenal world the essential truth about himself is that of identity with Brahman. He has only awakened to this truth of identity, which was hidden from him due to ignorance. Thus, as the result of ignorance, he wrongly identifies himself with the multiplicity of the phenomenal world, just as in the dream state the dreamer identifies himself with the contents of the dream experience and considers them as real. From this it is clear that the attainment of identity experience in Brahmaanubhava is a realization of the truth of identity of Brahman and Aatman, rather than an attainment of any new knowledge.

Heidegger’s idea of seeing the truth of Being is similar to the Shankarite notion clarified above. For Heidegger, the essential thinker and the dweller in the neighborhood of Being becomes a seer of the truth of Being. The German word ‘wissen’ (to see) and its Latin equivalent ‘videre’ signify ‘seeing’ in the sense of ‘attaining wisdom’, rather than mere intellectual seeing. Thus, the seer is the one who already intuitively and mystically has grasped the pre-sencing of Being. The ‘seeing’, therefore, is determined not by the physical sight and intellectual grasp, but by the depth experience of the lighting of Being in which one is dawned to the awareness of the truth of Being manifested in spatio-temporal history, in the uncon-cealing-concealing process. The truth of Being is the essential relationship of belonging-together between Being and man, the relation of difference between Being and beings and the spatio-temporal giving of Being as a play of Being. This is not a new knowledge that Dasein attains in Being-centered existence. This truth is ever present to Dasein, even when he is in the state of care. But the concerns and involvements that characterize the state of care do not let him see the truth about himself and about Being’s manifestation. In other words, the state of care blocks Dasein completely from ‘seeing’ or realizing the truth of Being, as in it he is fully closed to Being’s giving. But as he moves into the state of transcendence, as an essential thinker and dweller in the nearness of Being, he begins to awake to the truth of Being which he has lost sight of due to his forgetfulness of Being. From this it is clear that, like the Shankarite notion of realizing Brahman, Heidegger’s idea of ‘seeing Being’ is in fact an awakening to the truth of Being. This is not a new knowledge, but in some way always is present in Dasein, due to his transcendental nature.

Under the influence of avidhyaa, jiiva experiences three stages of existence, viz., the individual waking-consciousness, the individual dream-consciousness and the individual sleep-consciousness. In the state of individual waking-consciousness, the jiiva is characterized by the individual gross body. In this state, jiiva experiences the world of external objects. The perceptual world becomes its field of knowledge and enjoyment and its objects are known and enjoyed as real existing things outside the mind. The world is perceived by jiiva as a series of states, and is understood in relation to jiiva itself as the subject. Cognitive process, in this state, also involves three aspects, viz., the instrumental (pramaana), the objective (premeya) and the consequent (phala). The individual state of dream-consciousness has the subtle-body as its object. In this state, jiiva is conscious of what is within and enjoys subtle objects. Here, the consciousness is withdrawn from external objects and rests on the impressions of the waking state that remains within the mind. Thus, the senses are fully at rest. There is no body consciousness, and no time-space restriction. Jiiva’s individual sleep-consciousness is characteristic of the bliss body. In this state, jiiva enjoys bliss. Here, there is no duality that characterizes the other two states. In it, there is neither the subject that knows, nor the object that is known, as it is a state of undifferentiated consciousness in which the contents of waking and dream states come together. As a result, in this state jiiva experiences the highest serenity. But it is not a state of unconsciousness, as after jiiva is awake from the state of deep sleep, it knows that ‘I slept soundly and that I did not know anything’. Thus, jiiva has the ‘I-consciousness’, after he wakes up from sleep. All these three states belong to aparaa vidhyaa. The characteristic element found in all the three states is ‘I-consciousness’. In other words, in all these three states jiiva sees itself as the subject of various experiences. The ‘I-consciousness’ always implies duality, as in it every other reality becomes the object of the knowing ‘I’. The experience of duality is due to avidhyaa; thus, as long as avidhyaa and its result, duality, exist, one cannot attain the paraa state of existence. Therefore, Shankara, along with the Upanishads, postulates a fourth state, viz., the tuuriya, as distinct from the other three states of jiiva. In it, there is absolute self-transcendence, as there is no ‘I-consciousness’ and duality. The Tuuriya state surpasses the limitations of time, space and causality besides, it is free from avidhyaa and its products, which vitiate the other three states. According to Shankara, only in the realm of tuuriya is paraa vidhyaa or Brahmaanubhava attained.

The state of tuuriya is parallel to the Heideggerian notion of the realm of Ereignis, in which the total authenticity of Dasein is attained. The German term ‘Ereignis’ is rendered in English as ‘the event of appropriation’. In common usage this word means an event or a happening. ‘Ereignis’ has the etymological affinity to two words: ‘er-eigen’ and ‘er-augen’. The former term is related to ‘eigen’ (own), and in this sense ‘Ereignis’ means to come to one’s own or to come to where one belongs. The latter word is related to the German ‘Auge’ (eye), meaning to catch sight of, to see with the mind’s eye or to see face-to-face. If we put these two meanings together, Ereignis gives the sense of being far removed from everyday events, or something which we can see with our mind’s eye; and yet it is something so close to us that we cannot see it, i.e., it is something to which we belong. Ereignis is the most inconspicuous of the inconspicuous phenomenon, the simplest of the simple, the nearest of the near and the farthest of the far, in which we mortals spend our life. Ereignis is the realm in which Being manifests its truth; being must be understood in and through the realm of Ereignis in which the thinking of Being reaches its purity. It is not available to metaphysical-representative-calculative thinking or to the individual experiences of man. Rather it is given to the essential thinker, the poetic dweller, the seer and the shepherd in his realization of belonging-together with Being. Thus, it is a realm in which Dasein’s complete self-realization in Being and Being’s appropriation of Dasein is attained. Being is different from Ereignis, but only in the realm of Ereignis are Being and its manifestation available.

Shankara expresses the nature of paraa vidhyaa, the state of identity between Brahman and Aatman, in the Vedaantic aphorism ‘tat tvam asi’ (That art Thou). It is not something tautological or superfluous, but a linguistic representation of a movement of thought from the ontological level of particularity to another of universality and to yet another of unity. When the latter state of unity is attained the distinction between the former is negated. One begins with the individual consciousness, passes on to the universal consciousness and finally arrives at the pure consciousness that overcomes the separate reality of both the individual and the universal. It is this state of unity that constitutes the ground of all individuality and multiplicity. The unity is obtained by stripping away what is incompatible in the ‘That’ and the ‘Thou’, and arriving thereby at the common basis. In the example, ‘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 differences. In the same way, the negation of apparent contradiction 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 recognizes the Devadatta, whom one has already known. In the same way, the Upanishadic statement ‘tat tvam asi’ does not reveal anything new about Brahman or add anything to its nature. Nevertheless, it is of immense value in that it helps the seeker to remove the false notion of difference between the Aatman and Brahman. When the ignorance on which is based the difference between ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ is removed, they cease to be different and the seeker is able to experience their identity. In other words, the intrinsic nature of ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ is one and the same. In their implicit meaning the words ‘That’ and ‘Thou’ point to the same reality, just as the terms ‘I’ and ‘the tenth’ indicate one and the same person, in the sentence ‘I am the tenth’. Thus, the identity statement ‘That art Thou’ clearly shows that Brahmaanubhava 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 respectively.

We have a similar idea in Heidegger’s notion of belonging-together of Being and man. Heidegger understands ‘belonging-together’ in two senses based on the emphasis we give to each of the two words present in the compound. If we see in this compound ‘belonging’ as determined by ‘together’, the stress would be on something placed as a part of a unity, a manifold or a system. This is a type of relation to which metaphysical thinking refers as a necessary or causal connection. In contrast, ‘belonging-together’ can be seen as ‘together’ being determined by ‘belonging’. In this sense, the compound means that the related belong to each other in the same. In other words, there exists an appropriating relationship between the related by which they let each other enter into their realms by belonging-together. The latter sense is the belonging-together of Being and man in the realm of Ereignis. It means that both Being and man hold each other in the belonging-together. Though an entity in the totality of beings, man is distinctive in that as a thinker of Being and a dweller in the nearness of Being he is open to being and stands, as it were, face to face with Being. In this orientation and openness towards Being, man listens and responds to Being. Not only does man belong to Being, but also Being belongs to man, in that it presences itself to man and abides in him by making a claim on him. Thus, Being draws man to it, appropriates him and finds in him a place for its presencing. This appropriation of Being and man involves a mutual gifting of man to Being and Being to man, and an entry into each other’s realms. The mutual belonging-together is a dedicating of man and Being to each other. This funda-mental relationship of Being and man is the basis of all other relationships, whether, they be in the individual or in the world.

This section aims at highlighting the similarities between the paths of Shankara and Heidegger to human authenticity. In other words, we would like to look into the means proposed by these thinkers in attaining the authentic state. We would also clarify the nature of authentic states and the authentic persons comparatively according to Shankara and Heidegger.

For Shankara, the path to authentic human destiny is a movement from aparaa vidhyaa to paraa vidhyaa. This path implies, on the part of the seeker, that he moves beyond being caught up in the world of ignorance. Thus, the aspirant makes all the efforts required to remove the ignorance that prevents him from knowing his true destiny and moving towards it. The process undertaken by the aspirant to remove the superimposed knowledge is called Brahmaajijnaasa. Literally it means ‘desire for realization of Brah-man’. It consists of all the efforts the aspirant makes to arrive at the paraa state. It would also include the different means used by the aspirant to transcend the dualities of the empirical order and attain the identity consciousness. Shankara’s Advaita Vedaanta recog-nizes a dualism in the process of Brahmaajijnaasa, i.e., it proposes a direct and an indirect method. The direct method involves a deep understanding of the illusoriness of the phenomenal reality, the fundamental oneness of everything in Brahman and a discriminative consciousness that would enable the aspirant to break through the appearance and apprehend the underlying absolute reality in the manifoldness of the world. But, the direct method may not be possible for everyone, as all may not be able to attain the vision of pure reason and discriminative consciousness. To such persons an indirect method is proposed, in which the lower nature of man, such as, activities and emotions are satisfied before one moves towards the higher intellectual discriminative consciousness. For Shankara, this indirect path consists of karma and bhakti. The performance of karma must be without self-interest (nishkaamakarma). Such actions, done in faith and love can open the heart of the aspirant for the divine flow of the deeper and fuller life of love and devotion. The indirect paths of love and service are not, by themselves, capable of removing total ignorance, but gradually they can open the individual aspirant to a life of wisdom. Thus, the removal of ignorance can be brought about only by knowledge; though knowledge cannot cause the attainment of Brahmaanubhava, it can remove ignorance and thereby pave the way for identity-experience.

The jnaana path of Shankara proposes three stages of Brahmaajijnaasa that help the aspirant to study the scriptures. They are physical preparation, moral preparation and intellectual preparation. The first aims at conditioning the body, by way of aasana and pranayaama. The second aims at purifying the mind and strengthening the will so that one can deeply take the study of the scripture. The third consists in hearing the scripture from a guru, reflection on what is heard and meditation on the reflected truths from the scripture. These three stages of Brahmaajijnaasa strictly adhered to lead to the removal of ignorance. When ignorance is fully removed, one attains the highest state of existence, viz., Samaadhi or Brahmaanubhava.

The Heideggerian path of a movement from care to transcendence strikes a clear resemblance to the Shankarite path to authentic human Destiny. Dasein attains his authenticity when he opens himself to the voice of Being and focuses more on Being rather than on himself. Thus, the path to authenticity involves, on the part of Dasein, a movement from being caught up in the care of his self-centered living to a Being-centered existence. He must turn from self and to Being. In self-centered existence, Dasein experiences himself as a self-sufficient being, on the one hand, and as a being that is anxious, helpless, dependent and finite, on the other. As a self-sufficient being, Dasein stands alone, because he is not in need of any other reality for his truth about himself, the meaning of his life and even for his authentic existence. As a finite and dependent being, Dasein also stands alone in his anxiety, as his life is marked by existential guilt, existential limitations and existential death, which he must face all alone. Since Dasein, in his self-centered existence, stands all alone, reduced to his resources which are limited, he cannot be the reason for his authenticity. Even the so-called authen-ticity he attains in the state of care can be nothing more than a reflective acceptance of his own tragic existence. Therefore, in order to attain genuine authentic personhood, Dasein must move from this self-centered existence. This is not to throw out Dasein’s earlier existence, but consists in a change in perspective, i.e., in the manner in which Dasein sees his life. When Dasein turns from self-centered existence, he no longer views everything from the perspec-tive of the enclosed, self-assertive and lonely self. It is a breaking of the shell within which Dasein has enclosed himself. It is a letting-go of the self and opening of oneself to Being in a genuine and real way. Once Dasein comes out of this ‘walled-existence’ of self-centered living, movement towards authenticity happens. In the process Dasein turns to a Being-centered living.

In Being-centered existence Dasein is aware of his insufficiency to bring about his genuine authenticity. Here, he depends more on Being rather than on his own self. Besides, Dasein is aware that he cannot take the first step towards this movement unless he be called, summoned and claimed by Being. It is Being that initiates the process, by its revealing-concealing mode of giving, to which Dasein responds correspondingly. Every stage of Being-centered existence is characterized by Being’s giving and Dasein’s responding. For instance, in essential thinking Being calls and gives, while Dasein re-calls and thanks. Release is brought about by Being’s regioning and Dasein’s response of non-willing and waiting on Being. Dasein begins to be a dweller in the nearness of Being, by Being’s poetic presencing and Dasein’s poetic dwelling. Dasein becomes the seer, when Being’s look is reciprocated by Dasein’s seeing into the realm of Being. Besides, in the state of Being-centered existence, Dasein understands himself in a new way, viz., in the light of appropriative belonging-together of Being and himself. There is no inconsistency about his understanding of himself. Dasein knows that he is not self-sufficient, even though he is a special being that stands above all other entities. He is grounded in Being and so the unsettled dimensions of his being, such as existential guilt, existential limitation and existential death do not matter to him as before. Since Dasein is securely grounded in Being all incon-sistencies about his nature fall apart. To the extent Dasein is able to effect this change in perspective about his life, and live by this perspective, he becomes a total, authentic human person.

Nididhyaasana (meditation) is a mental activity consisting in withdrawing the mind from all other things and concentrating on Brahman. If an aspirant, having heard the teacher, is successful in his reflection and is intellectually convinced of his identity with Brahman, he is ready for entering the stage of meditation. This strikes the Vedaantic wisdom deep into the aspirant’s heart and eradicates the innate confusion of the body with the soul. In medi-tation one does not concentrate on Brahman as an external entity. In this activity the mind is turned completely inward and is fixed firmly on the inner self and its identity with Brahman till his finitude and individuality is dissolved. Meditation is a state in which the aspirant is totally caught up with Brahman. When involved in meditation nothing captures the attention of the seeker except the experience of Brahman. When one moves deeper into meditation, one is not aware of any mental modifications; there is no sense of duality, as all modifications produced by the meditation on the scriptural axiom have ceased to exist. As there is no subject-object duality in meditation on the Aatman becomes the subject and object of meditation, and thereby identity is attained. The meditative state leads the seeker to a state of quiet inner tranquillity, as the illusory world of multiplicity is, as it were, lost to the seeker by the removal of ignorance and the experience of identity.

Heidegger’s notion of essential thinking is similar to the Shankarite notion of meditation. Essential thinking is an experiencing of Being, in which Dasein says ‘yes’ to the call of Being to tread into the untrodden region of Being. It is Dasein’s pouring himself out to the positive lighting of Being, and providing himself as the lighting-up-place of Being. Thus, essential thinking is a self-surrender of Dasein to Being so that he assumes the task of watching over Being. In this manner, Dasein echoes the silent voice of Being with fidelity, always being heedful to the demands of the voice of Being. In essential thinking Dasein lets go of attachment to the ontic order, calculative thinking, and is at home with the fundamental thought Being brings to pass. Besides, it implies that Dasein takes upon himself the noble poverty of Being which deals with the supremely simple and the intangible. Thus, meditative thinking frees Dasein to be totally focused on Being and understand everything else in relation to his belonging-together to Being. Essential thinking brings about a twofold release in Dasein, viz., release towards things and openness to the mystery of Being. The former consists in saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same thing at the same time: ‘yes’ because we need the thing as it has reference to our life; ‘no’ because we do not want to be mastered by it. The latter involves that we be not guided by the external, superficial and illusory in our perception of reality, but rather by the deeper mystery dimension that lies hidden beneath the external and superficial. Release towards things and openness to mystery belong together. They help us to live in the world in a different way by giving new ground to stand upon and a new vision to guide our lives.

The realization of one’s absorption in, or identity with, Brahman is Samaadhi. It is the true liberation and the ultimate end of the seeker. The state of Samaadhi is of the same nature of Brahman. Thus, Brahman and Samaadhi are identical, for liberation is nothing else but becoming Brahman. In the liberated state, the aspirant knows that all, including himself, is Brahman. In Samaadhi nothing new is attained, as the seeker only realizes what he is from all eternity. There are three ascending stages in the attainment of Samaadhi: the first consists in the removal of the thought of non-existence of Brahman; the second stage involves the obtaining of the discriminative capacity so that one is able to penetrate the appearance to get into the essence of reality; and the third is that of identity-consciousness, in which the seeker experiences the deepest core of his being, Aatman, as identical with Brahman, the ultimate source behind the universe.

In the Heideggerian notion of ‘the state of total authenticity’, we find a parallel to the reality of Samaadhi. The authentic state of Dasein is a state in which Dasein is totally centered on Being. In it, Being and Dasein give themselves to each other in a relationship of belonging-together. In so doing, there comes about a giving-receiv-ing and a calling-responding relationship between Being and Dasein. In the process, Dasein becomes the lighting-up-place for Being, in that he shepherds, manifests and preserves Being in its giving. Dasein moves towards the state of total authenticity in three ascen-ding stages: as an essential thinker of Being, as a dweller in the neighborhood of Being and as a seer of the truth of Being. In each of these stages there is the interactive relationship of belonging-together between Being and Dasein. In essential thinking, Being calls and gives; Dasein re-calls Being’s gift of itself and thanks Being for the gift. The release, the result of essential thinking, is attained by Being’s twofold regioning and Dasein’s twofold response of no-willing and waiting on Being. Dasein becomes a dweller in the nearness of Being, by Being’s poetic presencing of itself and Dasein’s poetic dwelling on Being’s poetic presencing, in the three ecstases of time. Dasein becomes the seer of the truth of Being, when Being and Dasein appropriate each other into each other’s realms in their essential relationship of belonging-together. In this way, just as the seeker who has attained Samaadhi is fully engrossed in Brahman and is available for its tasks, so also in the total authentic state Dasein is fully caught up in Being and becomes a shepherd of Being.

Jiivanmukta is the one who possesses the true jnaana about Brahman, while he is still alive. He enjoys the liberated state in his present life. He is caught up in the transcendental consciousness, even though he goes about his everyday life. His life is not affected by the empirical word and his vision is not marred by phenomenal reality. His state of existence cannot be described in positive terms as it is transcendental. He is enlightened and free, fully unaffected by the pains and gains of aparaa existence. The behavior of Jiivanmukta is distinguished from that of others on the basis of the absence of ignorance and its effects. Jiivanmukta does not possess any trace of ignorance as his life is characterized by oneness, i.e., seeing everything in Brahman. Though he lives in the world of duality, because of this unitive perspective he is not disturbed by the pairs of opposites. Jiivanmukta’s life is characterized by fearlessness. Fear is the result of ignorance. As there is no ignorance in him, there is also no fear. The released person transcends scriptures, ethical imperatives and social conventions, as he does not need them; but they have become so much part of him, due to assiduous practice, that they cling to him. Jiivanmukta is desireless and free from sorrow; as he is identical with Brahman there is nothing more to be desired or to be sad about. All these qualities mentioned here are only approximations and negations, as the state of Jiivanmukti is incomprehensible and indescribable, just as is the nature of Brahman. Jiivanmukta has the task of leading others into true freedom. Therefore, as long as the liberated person is alive he works towards making everyone aware of his true goal in life, viz., realization of Brahman.

Heidegger’s notion of authentic Dasein are parallel to the Shankarite notion of Jiivanmukta. The life and activities of the authentic Dasein is based on the relationship of belonging-together of Being and Dasein. He views his life from the primordial perspective of Being. This openness of Dasein to Being raises him to the realm of Ereignis, whereby he becomes a standard-bearer for Being. As the spokesmen for Being, Dasein is called to shepherd and preserve Being that is manifested in the fourfold, viz., the physical, earth and sky, the divine and the human ‘facets’ of Being. Dasein does this by saving the earth as earth, receiving the sky as sky, waiting on divinities as divinities and initiating his own nature as mortal. In this preserving Being in things Dasein spares things in their essential being. In sparing and letting things be things, Dasein does not attempt to manipulate, master or compel things, but builds them in relation to the fourfold. Thus, like the Jiivanmukta, the total authentic Dasein lives his life in the unitive perspective and works towards the realization of Being-centered living by shepherding and preserving Being in its manifestation in the spatio-temporal history.

Shankara, like other Indian philosophers, accepts the distinction between the veda (sabda) and the sruti. Veda is the eternal word that is revealed and heard by the sage (rishi). Sruti is the written form of the veda, as communicated by the rishi.

In Heidegger’s distinction between the ‘word’ (Wort) and the ‘terms’ (Woerter), we do find a striking parallel. Word is not, but it gives (es gibt): it is the giver (das Gebende) and not the given (das Gegebende). Word names things, which naming by word is not a mere giving of an external label to a thing. Rather, the word stands for the being of the thing. In naming a thing, the word ‘bethings’ (bedingt) that thing in its being. Terms are only written expressions of what word communicates in its giving. Thus, the terms are found in the dictionaries, but not the word. Therefore, terms are only expressions of what ‘the word words’: it is what ‘word words’ that is the being of the thing.

1. Cf. WM, p. 19.; Cf. Martin Heidegger, "The Way Back into the Ground of Metaphysics", Existentialism from, Dostoevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: New American Library, 1975), p. 275 (hereafter: "The Way Back to the Ground of Metaphysics").

2. Cf. ID, p. 50.; IAD, p. 59.

3. Cf. EM, pp. 12, 137.; IM, pp. 15, 179.

4. Cf. EM, pp. 10-11.; IM, pp. 11-13.

5. Cf. William J. Richardson, Through Phenomenology to Thought, pp. 301-382.

6. Cf. Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche, Bd. II (Pfullingen: Neske, 1961), pp. 201, 291-302 (hereafter: N II). Cf. also William J. Richardson, Through Phenomenology to Thought, p. 281.

7. Cf. EM, p. 143.; IM, p. 188.

8. Cf. EM, p. 136.; IM, p. 176.

9. Cf. EM, p. 19.; IM, p. 25.

10. Cf. Johnson J. Puthenpurackal, p. 125.

11. Cf. VA, p. 76.; Martin Heidegger, The End of Philosophy, trans. Joan Stambaugh (London: Souvenir Press, 1975), p. 93 (hereafter: EP). Cf. also Martin Heidegger, Der Satz von Grund, 5. Auflage (Pfullingen: Neske, 1979), p. 209 (hereafter: SG).

12. Cf. HW, p. 87.; Martin Heidegger, "The Age of the World as Picture", QCT, p. 135.

13. Cf. HW, p. 78.; QCT, p. 125. Cf. also Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach dem Ding, 2. Auflage (Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer, 1975), p. 74 (hereafter: FD).; Martin Heidegger, What is a Thing?, trans. W.B. Barton Jr. and Vera Deutsch (Indiana: Gateway Editions, 1967), p. 95 (hereafter: WT).

14. Cf. HW, pp. 78, 90-91.; QCT, pp. 125, 139.

15. Cf. GL, p. 18.; DT, p. 50.

16. Cf. TK, p. 16.; QCT, p. 16.

17. Harold Alderman. "Heidegger: Technology as Phenomenon", Personalist, 51 (1970): 542.

18. Cf. Martin Heidegger, "Wozu Dichter?", HW, pp. 270, 289.; PLT, pp. 114 -115, 135.

19. Cf. VA, p. 88.; EP, p. 104.