In the last chapter we looked into the similarities between Shankara and Heidegger in a comparative light. The present chapter attempts to study the striking differences to be found in the thoughts of these thinkers. We will do this through three themes, viz., man, Being and the path.

In this section, we bring to comparative light some of the important differences in the perceptions of Shankara and Heidegger regarding man. Though we find a great number of similarities in the way they understand man, yet there are a few striking differences. Our task here is to highlight them.

In Shankara’s perception of man, time plays hardly any role, for he does not perceive man in relation to time. Man’s temporal existence is not real, as it is due to a superimposition of the unreal on the real. It comes about as the result of falsely attributing the qualities of one thing on another, as the qualities of the snake on the rope. Thus, when seen from the paramaartha point of view, our experience of time is an illusion due to the activity of both individual and cosmic maayaa. Maayaa causes temporal experiences in man, and make him experience himself as the time-bound jiiva. Shankara understands man in relation to eternity; the real nature of man is not temporal, but eternal. The ultimate truth about man is that deep within himself, he is not the jiiva, but Aatman and is identical with Brahman, the ultimate spirit behind the universe. The goal of man is to experience this identity, both inwardly and outwardly. To realize this truth is perfect knowledge. Since Shankara gives primacy to the identity experience in his perception of man and sees time only in relation to the superimposition by maayaa, he does not give any significant value to the temporal and historical dimensions in his understanding of man.

Heidegger considers time as the ontological condition and the ground of Dasein’s being-in-the-world. The structure of Dasein must be understood in relation to the three ecstases of time, viz., the past, the present and the future. The past points to Dasein’s ‘back-to-himself’, the present to his ‘letting-himself-be-encountered’ by being-alongside-entities, and the future to his ‘towards-himself’. These characteristics of ‘to’, ‘alongside’ and ‘towards’ clearly indi-cate the temporal structure of Dasein’s being-in-the-world. According to Heidegger, temporality temporalizes Dasein in both his authentic and inauthentic existence.

- The authentic mode of the past is ‘repetition’, in which Dasein’s thrownness acquires a transparency, while its inauthentic mode is ‘having forgotten’, in which, the thrownness is hidden from his view.

- The authentic mode of the future is ‘anticipation’, in which Dasein projects towards his final possibility, viz., death. The inauthentic mode is one of ‘awaiting’, which involves the actualizing of the thing awaited.

- The authentic mode of the present is the ‘moment of vision’, which consists in Dasein being involved with the other two ecstases, viz., repetition and anticipation. This would involve Dasein’s con-cernful dealings within the environmental and communal worlds, without losing himself.

- The inauthentic mode of the present is the ‘making-present’, by which Dasein loses himself in the ready-to-hand. In inauthentic temporality, the present plays a significant role because the inau-thentic Dasein is concerned mainly with the present. Authentic temporality is concerned more with the future, because by existing authentically towards death as a future possibility in anticipation Dasein exists finitely. Of the three ecstases, the future has pre-eminence since the future makes Dasein appropriate his own being, i.e., his finite existence. Temporality is so fundamental to Dasein, that it places a mark on every aspect of Dasein’s life in the world. In his noetic, everyday, whole, authentic and historical dimensions, time plays a vital role. Without temporality Dasein’s being cannot be understood. We will see briefly how Dasein’s life in the above-mentioned dimensions is characterized by time.

Dasein’s noetic aspect implies understanding, state-of-being and discourse. Understanding, disclosing what Dasein is capable of, is related to future. In order to be authentic understanding must be related to the past and the present. Authentic understanding perceives and interprets the present situation in the light of the past, as the ‘has been’ and moves on to actualize the possibilities of Dasein in the future. In inauthentic understanding, the future would have hardly any connection to the past and the present. State-of-being, pointing to Dasein’s primordial thrown existence, is based on the past. In order to be authentic, the state-of-being must be related to the future and the present. In clarifying this point Heidegger speaks of fear and anxiety as inauthentic and authentic modes of state-of-being respectively. In the state of fear, Dasein is confused, as he is not able to see his present and the future in relation to the past. Therefore, the possibilities of the past cannot be relived in relation to the other two ecstases. But anxiety fully opens Dasein to the limits of his being-in-the-world. Thus, Dasein, by remaining in the present, turns back to his past and brings out the possibilities of the past and moves towards the future. In discourse, the disclosedness of Dasein that is reached in understanding and state-of-being gets articulated. Discourse, thus, belongs to the three ecstases of temporality in that in it Dasein makes present the under-standing which is futural, and the state-of-being which is related to the past.

Everyday Dasein is involved with entities in circumspective concern, related to the world and fallen. In his everyday circumspective concern, Dasein encounters entities in relation to his work-world, in which he is involved with an equipment system. This implies that Dasein has an awareness of the purpose of the equipment system, which means that the ‘that-which-is-for’ of his circumspective concern belongs to Dasein’s past. Dasein’s understanding the purpose of the equipment system also has the ecstasis of the future, as it is oriented towards Dasein’s projective concern. Dasein makes the equipment system present in his circumspective concern both by moving towards the ‘what-for’ (future) and in retention of the purpose (past), i.e., the reference to the future ends by reliving the past. The world is the matrix of Dasein’s relational totalities and their significance. Dasein’s meaningful involvement in the relational totalities of the equipment system is always moving towards a ‘where to’, which is called ‘horizional schemata’. Relating to the future, it is Dasein’s ‘for-the-sake-of-himself’. The past discloses Dasein’s thrown existence, the ‘before-what’ and the ‘face-of-which’ he is thrown. In the present, Dasein is ‘being-alongside-entities’ in concernful dealings.

This horizional schemata is grounded in the ecstatic unity of temporality, which expresses itself in Dasein as the ‘not-yet’, the ‘being-already’ and the ‘being-alongside’, relating to the future, past and present respectively. Dasein understands himself and his world in terms of the unity of the horizional schemata, by grounding it in the unity of the ecstases of temporality. Dasein moves into the fallen state, only because he is not able to hold on to the temporal structure of his nature. In the fallen state Dasein, focuses only on the present and ignores the future and the past. He flees from the future, because he is afraid of facing his ultimate existential possibility, viz., his death. He avoids the past, as he does not want to face the existential guilt and existential limitations. This living only in the present and running away from the future and the past, brings about Dasein’s fallenness.

The whole and authentic Dasein is also characterized by temporality. Anticipatory resoluteness brings about wholeness and authenticity in Dasein. There are three moments in the process. Firstly, anticipation of death concretizes the movement of wholeness and authenticity as ‘being-ahead-of-itself’ (the future). Secondly, in the face of one’s own existential guilt, anticipatory resoluteness concretizes the moment as ‘already-being-in’ (the past). Thirdly, the summon to Situation is the concrete expression of ‘being-alongside’ entities and ‘being-with’ other Daseins. Anticipation of death, resolute acceptance of the existential guilt and summon to the Situation are the three moments that are made possible on the basis of three phenomena, viz., letting oneself come to oneself (the future), coming back to oneself (the past) and encounter (the present). Thus, the wholeness and authenticity of Dasein is made possible by the fact that by his structure Dasein is future oriented, having-been and presencing, i.e., temporal.

Dasein’s historicality is nothing else but a concretization of his temporality. Therefore, historicality is not something different from temporality. In fact, the former is elucidated in terms of the latter. Thus, in analyzing the historicality of Dasein, we concretely work out Dasein in his temporality. Dasein’s history is the stretch of life between birth and death, and the interconnectedness which he constantly maintains. As historical Dasein exists as born, and from the moment of his birth he is dying as by his very nature he is a being-towards-death. Therefore, as long as he exists, both of these ‘ends’ and their ‘between’ are part of Dasein’s being-in-the-world. The movement that is characteristic of the interconnectedness of Dasein’s life is called historizing; Dasein is fundamentally histo-rical. The historicality of all the other entities is based on that of Dasein, because the historizing of history is the historizing of Dasein.

Just as temporality can be spoken of as authentic or inau-thentic, so also the historicality of Dasein can be authentic or inauthentic. Inauthentic historicality lacks the interconnectedness of life. In it, every event appears now and disappears after a while. Dasein lives today; in waiting for the new thing he has already forgotten the old. Therefore, he is not able to relive the past possibilities in the present and move on with the present possibilities into the future. Dasein’s present is loaded with either past memories or future fears, having no connections. Authentic historicality is attained in anticipatory resoluteness; in anticipation of death and in resoluteness, Dasein understands his finitude. The grasp of his finitude, frees him from seeking pleasure and taking things lightly; it enables him to accept the heritage he hands down to himself in existential historizing. Thus, Dasein understands himself in terms of fate, his finite awareness of himself, and destiny as the communi-tarian dimension of his finite givenness. Such an authentically his-torical Dasein understands entities in relation to himself, and passes to them the authentic dimension of his primary historicality in his being-in-the-world. Therefore, genuine world history cannot be understood apart from Dasein’s fateful destiny, i.e., his authentic historicality. In this manner authentically historical Dasein becomes the existential source of historiology, the science of history. Without the authentic Dasein, who is genuinely open to the Being’s giving, no genuine history is possible. Thus, unlike Shankara, time and history becomes very significant elements in Heidegger’s perception of man.

In Shankara’s understanding of man, the reality of death has a very insignificant place. Death is considered as jiiva’s shedding of the gross body, the fleshy covering. Other than the gross body, there is the subtle body, which survives death and accompanies the jiiva beyond death. The subtle body is the seat of praana, the individual vivifying principle in jiiva, the sense organs, the five organs of action, the central organ, with its twofold faculties of manas and buddhi, and the faculty of ‘I-sense’. Besides, the gross and subtle bodies, jiiva possesses a third type of body called the bliss body. The latter two bodies survive death and continue to exist. Thus, in Shankara’s perception, death is the jiiva’s shedding of the gross body, similar to a snake casting off its skin, when it becomes unable to perform its functions. This understanding of death comes from Shankara’s karma-samsaara theory. It presumes that through various births and deaths jiiva continues to live the samsaara existence depending on its past karma. Death, therefore, is only a change in the life situation of the jiiva, rather than leading to any new existence. The nature of the change in the condition of jiiva’s life depends on the fruits of jiiva’s action in the previous existence. The jiiva moves towards its authentic destiny, only in and through different such existences of birth and death. Since jiiva can have very many lives before it attains its authentic destiny of identity with Brahman, death is not an important event in the life of jiiva.

For Heidegger, death is a very vital event in the life of Dasein, as it is the possibility of the impossibility of Dasein himself. The significance Heidegger gives to the reality of death in his under-standing of man comes from his assumption of the one life theory. Though, Heidegger never explicitly discusses this fact, we can rightly presume that with his western and Christian background he could not have thought anything different about the end of man’s life on earth. Since only one life is given to man and he has to attain his authentic destiny in and through it, automatically throws real significance upon the reality of death. Thus, for Heidegger, death is an important event in the life of Dasein, which makes him feel dread and anxiety.

For Shankara, the phenomenal world of man’s experience is one brought about by maayaa. The empirical world in which man lives and does all types of activities cannot be considered either as being (sat) nor as non-being (asat). Though the world of appearance is unreal in the sense that it does not exist to the one who has attained the true and highest knowledge, it is real in the sense that it appears to exist as long as ignorance lasts. It also is taken as real because it is known to consciousness, the witnessing agent. At the same time, we cannot speak of the world of maayaa as being co-existent with Brahman, the absolute reality, as it loses its existence as soon as knowledge is attained. It can be compared to a fog that covers the sun from our view; but when the sun is in full view, the fog vanishes. The world of experience is real as it presents objects to our perception; but it is unreal in that it is not transcendentally existing as Brahman. Thus, for Shankara, man’s everyday world has only a relative existence. It is real to the one who is caught up in the vyavahaara existence; but for a Brahmajnaani it is unreal in the true sense of the term.

According to Heidegger, Dasein is an ‘in-the-world’ existence and as such has a relational concern consisting of his relationship with entities and other Daseins. Dasein’s relationship with entities constitutes the environmental world. In the environment of his dealings, Dasein experiences entities as present-at-hand and ready-to-hand. In the former case, Dasein views an entity from the theoretical perspective as something static, occupying a place, i.e., as a mere thing out there. In the latter case, an entity is viewed from the practical aspect as equipment that can be used for some specific purpose. Dasein’s involvement with entities, in the environmental world is one of concern and is characterized by an existential cognition called circumspection. It is not a mere detached looking at entities, but involves the actual use of the entities which belong to and are part of an equipment referential totality. Only in such a totality as the meaning and purpose of an equipment and its equip-mentality understood. But the significance of the equipment system itself depends on Dasein, who is the ultimate ‘for-the-sake-of-which’. For example, inkstand, pen, ink, paper, blotting pad, table, lamp, furniture, door and room never show themselves as they are for themselves. But if understood as an equipment for Dasein’s residing, taken in its totality, all these individual equipments do have a significance in relation to the unity of the pattern of these references and in relation to Dasein who ultimately uses the equip-ment system for his own purpose.

Not only the equipmentality of the entity, but also its spati-ality, is understood in relation to Dasein. An entity is spoken of as being near or in a direction, thereby being in space, only because Dasein brings it closer and gives it a direction. Therefore, the spatiality of entities must be understood not in terms of measurable distances, but in relation to Dasein’s circumspective dealings with entities. Thus, we can speak of the spectacles that one wears on the nose as being farther away than the picture out there on the wall, and of the bus for which one is running as closer than the ground on which one runs. Again, ‘a good walk’ or ‘a stone’s throw’ has de-finiteness relating to Dasein’s concern. Measurements, such as, ‘an hour’s walk’ are to be understood in terms of duration rather than of number. A pathway that is long objectively may be shorter, very long, or hard-going, depending on Dasein’s concernful look. Thus, Dasein is spatial in the sense that he discovers space circum-spectively, by bringing entities closer and giving them direction.

Dasein is not only related to the environmental world, but also to the communal world of other Daseins. The nature of Dasein’s relationship with other Daseins is characterized by ‘being-with’, which Dasein expresses in solicitude. There are two modes of solicitude, viz., negative and positive. The negative mode is indif-ference, which consists in the other not mattering to one. The positive solicitude is of two types: one that leaps in for the other and the one that leaps ahead of the other. The former is a solicitude in which one takes over the cares and worries of the other by taking his or her place. In such a solicitude, the one who comes to help out, taking over the responsibility of the other fully, dominates the other and interferes with his or her freedom. The latter mode of positive solicitude is such that the one who comes to help does not interfere with the freedom of the other. In it, by support, assistance and suggestions one opens up the care of the other is that the other can existentially face the issue and solve it in his own way. Such a solicitude helps one to become transparent in his own care and internally become free to face and solve it. These modes of positive solicitude find expression in consideration and forbearance, just as Dasein’s concern towards entities is directed by circumspection.

Heidegger understands Dasein’s world in relation to Dasein’s concernful dealings with entities and respectful solicitude for other Daseins. The world, taken in this sense, is the net-work of Dasein’s total relationship to entities and others, and the matrix of their meaningfulness. Thus, the world is the ‘wherein’ these net-works of relationships take place and their significance is discovered. So, we can speak of as many worlds as there are different net-works of relational totalities that are meaningful. We can speak of a work world, an academic world or a world of art. It is not a subjec-tivization of the world concept, but a mode of Dasein’s relating to beings in his concernful dealings. The world, in this sense, is not a mental creation of Dasein, but it is Dasein’s way of giving meaning to the existential relational net-works in which he finds himself.

Shankara speaks of the relative reality of man’s phenomenal experience of the world. For him the world of reality is Brahman-experience and when compared to this transcendental experience man’s experience of the cosmological world is unreal. Heidegger does not deny the reality of the cosmological world in which man lives. As a matter of fact this cosmological world is that in which Dasein finds himself by his being-in-the-world as the state-of-being. In his consideration of the world, Heidegger emphasizes Dasein’s existential experience of the world by his existential ‘being-in’ in the relationship of ‘being-alongside’ entities and ‘being-with’ other Daseins. Therefore, Dasein’s world is not a mere subjective expe-rience, based on one’s whims and fancies, but it is an understanding of the world obtained as a result of Dasein’s ‘in-the-world’ expe-rience of the net-work of relationships of his encounter and their significance. Thus, we find a fundamental difference in Shankarite and Heideggerian conceptions of man’s relationship to the world.

In this section, we would like to elaborate a number of topics that are related to Being and Brahman, indicating the significant differences that are found in the approaches of Shankara and Heidegger.

Shankara proposes identity-experience as the ultimate goal of the seeker. In it the aspirant realizes that he is not the psycho-physical-conscious organism called jiiva, but that his inner spirit is Aatman which is one with Brahman, the ultimate spirit behind the universe. In the identity-experience there is no duality as everything is viewed and understood from the primordial Brahman-perspective. In this state, there is no trace of ignorance and so its effects are totally absent. Therefore, though the Brahmajnaani lives in the world of duality, he is not disturbed by the pairs of opposites. Neither is he swayed by such various emotional states as fear, desire and sorrow, nor is he bound by moral imperatives and social conventions. Thus, the one who has arrived at the state of identity-experience is totally free, untouched by any type of constraints, and experiences total oneness with Brahman. This implies that the identity arrived at is an unqualified identity which excludes any element of separation or division. So, in the identity-experience, the individual identities cease to exist and only Brahman-Aatman identity exists.

Though, we find a striking parallel to the identity-experience of Shankara, in Heidegger’s notion of ‘belonging-together’, a closer look at these two concepts would make us wonder if the unqualified identity Shankara speaks of in Brahman-Aatman unity, is really found in the belonging-together of Being and Dasein. According to Heidegger the belonging-together between Being and Dasein involves a mutual relationship between them, which lets each other enter into their realms, hold each other and be in a face-to-face relationship with each other. Being’s belonging to Dasein implies that Being presences itself to Dasein, abides in him by making a claim on him, appropriates him and finds in him a lighting-up-place for its presencing. Dasein’s belonging to Being consists in that he recognizes himself as a special type of being in the totality of beings, moves towards Being as its thinker, as a dweller in its nearness and a seer of its truth, thereby, becoming Being’s shepherd, who guards and preserves the spatio-temporal-historical manifestation of Being in himself and entities.

This appropriative relationship between Being and Dasein calls for a mutual gifting of Dasein to Being and Being to Dasein, and a dedicating of Being and Dasein to each other. These twofold relationships of Being and Dasein, as we have explained above, do indicate a genuine and depth level communicative interaction be-tween Being and Dasein. But, it does not seem to us to imply an unqualified identity between Being and Dasein in the Shankarite sense, which involves the loss of individual identities. Besides, belonging-together between Being and Dasein is spoken of as a primordial relationship and the basis of all other relationships of Dasein, such as causal and subject-object relationships. The implication is that even after Dasein’s experience of belonging-together to Being, he does have such other relationships as causal and subject-object ones. It would mean also that the belonging-together does not involve an unqualified identity, because that would imply the cessation of all such relationships involving duality, because an identity like the Brahman-Aatman identity calls for a movement from the level of particularity to universality and to that of unity.

Again, Dasein’s experience of Being in the spatio-temporal history is always temporal and finite, while identity-experience is eternal and absolute. Besides, Dasein experiences Being in different attunements, as Being always remains a mystery to Dasein and he is never able to get hold of the whole of Being. Such a Dasein, even in his Being-centered existence, must continue his seeking of Being by being the lighting-up-place of Being and shepherd the presencing of Being in himself and things. If Dasein experiences an identity with Being in the belonging-together, then such a seeking of Being for the state of identity is not necessary for him. These two facts clearly point to the lack of unqualified identity of Being and Dasein in his experience of belonging-together to Being. From what we have said, it seems that though Heidegger’s notion of ‘belonging-together of Being and Dasein’ resembles very closely the Shankarite notion of ‘identity of Brahman and Aatman’, yet the former does not amount to the unqualified identity experienced in the latter.

Since Brahman-experience is an identity-experience, it belongs to the transcendental realm. Brahman-experience is attained in the tuuriya state. In this state, there is absolute self-trans-cendence, as there is no ‘I-consciousness’ and duality. Tuuriya state bypasses the limitations of time, space, causality and history. Besides, it is free from the products of avidhyaa. Thus, Brahman-experience cannot be caused; it cannot be bound by time, space and history. The identity with Brahman is as eternal as Brahman himself. It is a mediate and direct experience of Brahman. The mediation of senses, mind and intellect cannot bring about this experience, as the eternal experience cannot be brought about by the time-space bound faculties of knowledge or the means of knowledge. Thus, Brahman-experience is an absolute, incomprehensible, indes-cribable, unchangeable and unitive experience that is unavailable to the phenomenal world of time, space and history.

For Heidegger, Being-experience is available to Dasein in his relationship of belonging-together to Being in the realm of Ereignis. When Dasein is appropriated and claimed by Being and when Dasein responds to Being’s summon by being attuned to the voice of Being, as an essential thinker of Being, a dweller in Being’s nearness and a seer of Being’s truth, Dasein moves towards attaining Being-experience. Unlike the Brahman-experience, Dasein’s experience of Being is available to him in spatio-temporal history, as Being gives itself as a time-space play in a continuous process. Therefore, it is to the spatio-temporal history Dasein must give himself in the realm of Ereignis, in order to experience Being. History is history of Being, as that which constitutes history is Being’s self-giving. Thus both in its temporal and spatial aspects, history is only a concretization in external events and things of Being’s self-giving.

In its temporal sending, Being’s giving is its self-presencing to Dasein. The mode of Being’s giving is one of revealing and con-cealing. As Being reveals itself in beings it withdraws and conceals, in the process revealing beings in their being. This giving with-drawing sending of Being is due to the temporal nature of Being’s giving of itself. The presencing of Being extends to the three ecstases of time. Being’s self-giving lasts in Dasein as the ‘having-been’ (the past), the ‘not-yet’ (the future) and the present. Even in this interplay of the three ecstases of time, Being gives itself to Dasein’s experi-ence as presencing and absensing: the presencing of the ‘having-been’ and the ‘not-yet’ is in the mode of absensing, while the presencing of the present is in the mode of presencing. Thus, the reason for Being’s revealing-concealing presencing is the temporal nature of Being’s giving. As soon as Being lights up beings, the moment of lighting-up becomes the ecstasis of the past, and Being is withdrawn. Since Being’s giving is temporal, the history of Being is epochal. The spatial dimension of the history of Being is understood in relation to the mirror-play of the fourfold, viz., the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals, into a simple unified whole. According to Heidegger, such a spatio-temporal history of Being, as expe-rienced by Dasein, always remains finite. Thus, unlike the Brahman-experience which is eternal and trans-empirical, the Being-experience is temporal and finite.

In Being-experience, even though Being is the closest to Dasein, yet it is the farthest from Dasein. In other words, in spite of Dasein’s belonging-together to Being, and his encountering Being in his own person and entities, Being is far away from Dasein. Being always remains a mystery to Dasein. Dasein can never get hold of the whole of Being due to the manner of Being’s self-giving, viz., in the revealing-concealing process. As soon as Being gives itself in an entity, it withdraws in favor of the entity in which Being is revealed. As a result, the entity is revealed and the Being itself is concealed. Thus, Dasein cannot have the total experience of Being, but only experiences it as revealing and concealing, giving and withdrawing. This manner of Being’s giving makes Dasein continue his search for Being. Even in the state of Being-centered existence, Dasein must continue to be the lighting-up-place of Being and shepherd the revelation of Being in himself and in things. But in the Brahman-experience, unlike the Being-experience, the seeker himself attains Brahmanhood, and so there is no need for him to seek Brahman again or be its shepherd.

The Upanishads consider that maayaa is the creative power of Iishvara, by which he fashions the universe. Shankara accepts this scriptural teaching and interprets it from the perspective of Advaita Vedaanta. Shankara holds an enlightened agnosticism with regard to the origin of maayaa and its relationship to Brahman, as it is not something that can be grasped intellectually. For Shankara, maayaa is both a statement of fact and a principle. As a statement of fact it is the present, the past and all the possible worlds. Besides, it is the domain of the antithetical situations, subject-object distinctions, paradoxes and antinomies that characterize the world of everyday perception. As a principle, like Brahman it is eternal and begin-ningless; it is the inexplicable power of the supreme Lord by which all changes in the world are brought about. The changes in the world of phenomena are brought about by the presence or absence of the three gunas, viz., sattva, rajas and tamas, which constitute maayaa.

When sattvaguna is predominant there is produced the jnaanashakti, which is responsible for the working of the cognitive process. The preponderance of rajas and tamas produces the kriyashakti, which has two powers, viz., the concealing power (avaranashakti) and the power of projection (vikshepashakti). By the concealing power, maayaa veils the true nature of Brahman and Aatman. Just as a small particle of cloud, by obstructing the vision of the observer, conceals, as it were, the solar disc which extends over many miles, similarly the concealing power of maayaa en-shrouds man’s spiritual intelligence and conceals the Aatman, which is unlimited, thereby preventing its realization of identity with Brahman. As a result, Aatman is experienced as the jiiva, the subject of pleasure, pain and misery. The projecting power of maayaa is co-existent with the concealing power and brings about the manifold realities of the world of name and forms. It is the power of creating with which maayaa creates the appearance, superim-poses the unreal on the real and leads to error, like that of a ‘rope-snake’. Thus, by the simultaneous interplay of the concealing and projecting powers, maayaa veils the true and real nature of the absolute reality, and at the same time ‘forms’ or ‘creates’ the world of appearance, just as ignorance conceals the nature of the rope and creates the illusion of the snake.

In Heidegger, we find the notion of the unconcealing and concealing presencing of Being. Being gives itself to Dasein, in the spatio-temporal history. The mode of giving is one that holds itself back and withdraws. In other words, Being manifests itself in entities in a unconcealing-concealing process. In giving itself Being withdraws; in unconcealing it conceals. Being is always the Being of beings, i.e., Being ‘is’ in beings. This ‘is’ of Being in beings is not static, but something dynamic. Being is of such nature that it ‘comes-over’ to beings. The ‘coming-over’ of Being to beings consists in Being’s self-giving to beings in which Being unconceals (reveals) itself in beings. Beings themselves come-to-presence only in and through the coming-over and unconcealing of Being. On the part of beings it is an arrival in which beings are unconcealed in their essence. In the process of arrival of beings in their being, there comes about the concealment of Being itself. Thus, just as the coming-over of Being is the unconcealing of beings, so also the arrival of beings in their being is the concealing of Being. So the coming-over and unconcealing beings on the part of Being, and the arrival and concealing Being on the part of beings, is a single process in which Being and beings are turned towards and away from each other. The reason Being, by his coming-over to beings and unconcealing them, withholds and conceals itself is the temporal nature of Beings’s giving. As soon as Being lights up beings, the moment of lighting-up becomes the ecstasis of the past, and Being is withdrawn and concealed.

Though there are similarities between the Shankarite notion of ‘concealing and projecting powers of maayaa’ and the Hei-deggerian idea of the ‘unconcealing-concealing process of Being’s giving’, there are also striking differences. For Shankara, the con-cealing and projecting powers belong to maayaa, by which the true nature of Brahman and Aatman is hidden by superimposing the unreality of Iishvara and jiiva respectively. Besides, the concealing power veils the essence of reality, while the projecting power creates the illusion of multiplicity. The interplay of these two powers of maayaa is the source of all contradictions, relativities, dichotomies and polarities of human living. It is also the reason for the passing nature of phenomenal existence. For Heidegger, the unconcealing-concealing process belongs to Being. It is the mode in which Being manifests its truth, viz., the appropriative relationship of belonging-together of Being and Dasein; the relationship of difference between Being and beings and Being’s giving of itself in a time-space-play. Thus, what is given in this unconcealing-concealing process is not the illusory world of appearance, but the real truth of Being, regarding itself, Dasein and beings. From what we have said it is clear that the concealing and projective powers of maayaa and the unconcealing-concealing process of Being’s giving are fundamentally different in that the former leads us into a world of unreality, while the latter guides us towards the real truth of Being. Whereas, the former fails to lead the aspirant towards his authentic destiny, the latter helps Dasein to move steadily towards the Being-experience, wherein he attains his authentic human destiny.

In this section, we would like to bring to light the striking differences we find in paths of Shankara and Heidegger to authentic human destiny. This will involve a comparative analysis of the ideas relating to the ways proposed and their attainment. We will probe also into the issue of the value of these paths after one has attained authentic human destiny.

Shankara proposes a concrete way to the removal of ignorance that would help the aspirant reach the goal of Brahman-Aatman identity. The process undertaken by the aspirant to remove ignor-ance is called Brahmaajijnaasa. Shankara speaks of an indirect and a direct method in Brahmaajijnaasa. To those who are not able to embrace the direct path the method of jnaana, an indirect method of karma and bhakti is suggested. In it, the lower nature of man with its activities and emotions is satisfied before he can move towards the vision of pure reason and discriminative consciousness. The willing surrender of oneself in generous service without any self-interest in a life of sacrifice and action, and the deeper and fuller life of love and devotion to the supreme Lord, lead the aspirant towards the higher intellectual discriminative consciousness. Thus, the indirect me-thod, though it cannot bring about the total removal of ignorance, can help the aspirant to open himself to the direct method of the jnaana path through which alone the removal of ignorance can take place. 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.

The direct method of the jnaana path proposes threefold preparations that would facilitate the study of scriptures and thereby remove ignorance, viz., the physical, the moral and the intellectual. The physical preparation consists in working towards the attainment of full control over the bodily organism. The stability of the gross body is very much required even for the normal functioning of man. But, when it comes to preparing oneself for the study of scriptures, there is the need for higher intellectual and spiritual training to discipline the body sufficiently so as to make it a fit instrument for the realization of Brahman. The system of training, that prepares the body for such higher states of existence is called Hathayoga. This opens the aspirant for the life-process of the cosmic praana, there-by, increasing bodily vitality, giving good health and preserving a great amount of energy in the aspirant’s physical system. The main steps of Hathayoga are aasana and pranayaama. The former helps the aspirant to get rid of all restlessness of the body and brings it under the control of the will, in the process facilitating deep reflection and concentration. The latter makes the seeker restrain the vital power of breathing, the basis of organic life, thereby helping him to control instincts, passions and impulses that disturb the peace of mind. Besides, it awakes the praanic dynamism which opens the aspirant for extra-ordinary consciousness and bring to life his moral and spiritual possibilities. Total controlled of the body, by way of posture and breath-control prepares the seeker for the next two types of preparations.

Fire has the potentiality to burn wood; but if the wood is wet, fire is not able to burn it. In the same way, though the intellect is able to know and understand scriptural statements, it cannot grasp their true meaning if it is clouded by passions and attachments to things. Thus, purification of the mind and heart is necessary if one is to attain discriminative consciousness. Moral preparation attempts to do this task. Shankara proposes four moral conditions, viz., discri-mination between the eternal and the non-eternal, renunciation, practice of the six virtues -- calmness, self-control, self-settledness, forbearance, faith and complete concentration, and the hunger for liberation. All these four moral disciplines prepare the mind and intellect of the aspirant to undertake the study of the scripture.

Taking up the study of the scriptural statements is the be-ginning of the intellectual preparation and has three stages, viz., hearing, reflection and meditation. Hearing consists in understanding the meaning of the Vedaantic statements, as it is being taught by the guru. At the hearing stage the teacher initiates the aspirant to the traditional Vedaantic teaching, viz., only Brahman is real, by way of six tests, namely, commencement, ending, repetition, uniqueness, result, eulogy and reason. Thus, in hearing, the student becomes familiar with the true import of the mahaavaakyas. Reflection is a mental activity, which consists in the employment of favorable arguments for the removal of the apparent contradictions that might arise during the study of scripture. In other words, in this state, the aspirant attempts to strengthen his conviction about the import of the Vedaantic aphorisms by looking for rational bases for the teachings received from the teacher by hearing. At this stage, the seeker makes use of the negative method of Advaita Vedaanta, which consists in eliminating what a thing is not by way of negation so that we attain knowledge about a particular reality: we negate the attributes of the non-self in the process gaining knowledge about the self. Reflection logically establishes the truth of identity by critical thinking and discourse. The final stage of the intellectual preparation that re-moves ignorance is meditation, which consists in withdrawing the mind from all things and concentrating it on Brahman. Here the mind is turned completely inward and firmly fixed on the inner self and its identity with Brahman till one’s finitude and individuality is dissolved. By the repeated exercise of meditation one moves to greater depth of absolute consciousness. This removes all effects of ignorance, paving the way for the identity-experience. Thus, Shan-kara proposes a clear, practical and concrete way towards the attainment of authentic human destiny.

Heidegger proposes a threefold way to the goal of Being-centered existence. In order to attain Being-experience, Dasein must move through the ascending path of essential thinking of Being, dwelling in the nearness of Being and seeing the truth of Being. All three stages of the Heideggerian way to authentic human destiny involve an interactive relationship between Being and Dasein. But, the role played by Being is always primary, and Dasein plays a role that is subservient to that of Being. Essential thinking is neither having an opinion about something, nor is it a conceptual system of thinking, with a chain of logical premises which lead to valid con-clusions. It cannot be brought under any logical categories. Think-ing of Being goes beyond metaphysical-technological-calculative thinking, as it overcomes the onto-theo-logical thinking and lan-guage. It is available to Dasein in the realm of Ereignis, in which there is an interactive and communicative relationship between Being and Dasein. Essential thinking presupposes that there is a relationship of caller and the called between Being and Dasein respectively. Being calls Dasein and gives itself as ‘the most thought-worthy’. Dasein responds to Being by re-calling Being in memory and thanking for its gift. In so doing, Dasein ‘keeps’ and preserves Being, the most thought-worthy, from being lost and forgotten. In other words, by being ready for recollective thinking, Dasein thankfully offers Being the center of his being, i.e., the heart, and thereby becomes the lighting-up-place and an attentive attendant of Being.

Essential thinking leads Dasein to dwell in the neighborhood of Being. It is a standing out in the openness of Being, an abiding in his ‘origins’ and an ek-sisting. Dasein’s ek-sisting consists in being attuned to the voice of Being which gives itself in silence and responds to the call by his openness to the lighting of Being. Dwel-ling implies not only having an open relationship to Being, but also involves a genuine building and dwelling of beings in their essence. In other words, in the state of dwelling Dasein is involved with things in an authentic way, in that he becomes the guardian of Being that is manifested in things. Essential thinking and dwelling take Dasein to the third stage of the way, viz., seeing the truth of Being. The truth of Being consists in Dasein’s essential relationship of belonging-together to Being, Being’s relationship of difference and Being’s manifestation in the time-space-play. When the truth of Being dawns on Dasein, he becomes the seer and shepherd who guards Being as it manifests in relation to himself the entities and history.

Having looked into the ways proposed by Shankara and Heidegger, we do find some striking differences between them. Firstly, the aim of the Shankarite way is to remove ignorance that prevents the aspirant from attaining the goal of Brahman-experi-ence, while the aim of the Heideggerian way is to lead Dasein directly to the Being-experience. Secondly, Shankara proposes a way that is concrete, practical and holistic, that is aimed at the total transformation of the aspirant, for it includes the physical, moral and intellectual preparations. Heidegger’s way is rather theoretical and vague, in that it does not contain any concrete measures or practical guidelines, with the help of which Dasein could move towards the goal of Being-experience. Thirdly, in the Shankarite way, Brahman hardly plays any role, as the physical, moral and intellectual preparations involved in the jnaana path are undertaken totally by the seeker. He equips himself in the physical, moral and intellectual aspects of his life so that ignorance and its consequences in all these aspects can be removed. But the Heideggerian way speaks of Being and Dasein playing differing roles, in Dasein’s threefold movement towards Being. Besides, it makes the role of Being primary and that of Dasein subservient. In this manner we find significant differences between the ways of Shankara and Heidegger to man’s authentic destiny.

Samaadhi or Paraa vidhyaa, the ultimate goal of man, is an integral and intuitive experience of Brahman, the absolute reality. This experience is beyond the level of duality and ignorance. Therefore, we cannot speak of an attainment of Brahman-experi-ence from the paramartha point of view. Only from the phenomenal perspective, i.e., from the point of view of the seeker, can one speak of an attainment of Brahmaanuhabva. Besides, in Samaadhi state one does not gain anything new, as the aspirant only realizes what he really is and has forgotten by his being caught up in the cosmic and individual maayaa. Therefore, the seeker can strictly do nothing to bring about the attainment of Samaadhi. Neither the efforts of the seeker, nor his mental and intellectual faculties can do anything to effect self-realization, as it is non-dual, transempirical and undiffer-entiated. Paraa vidhyaa is an eternal and uncaused identity-experi-ence that no human effort, however great it may be, can cause it. Thus, the whole question of the attainment of Brahmaanubhava is beyond the abilities of man. All that the seeker can do is to follow the way proposed by Shankara, and work at the threefold preparations that the ignorance which envelops human condition can be removed.

According to Heidegger, the ultimate goal of Dasein, the Being-experience, is attained in three stages based on the three ways he proposes: (a) essential thinking is attained in release; (b) dwelling occurs in Dasein’s relation to his homecoming to the source and sparing the fourfold in things; (c) seeing the truth of Being is experienced by Dasein when he opens himself to the un-concealment of Being and to language, the house of Being. Unlike Shankara, Heidegger envisages a genuine interaction between Being and Dasein at every stage of the attainment of Being-experience.

Essential thinking is attained in release, which is an attitude of saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same thing at the same time. It consists in accepting a thing for its value and not allowing it to master us. In other words, release is a mental state in which one is involved with things, but not entangled with them. Essential thinking is attained in release, by the co-operation of Being and Dasein. Being, as that-which-regions (Gegend), manifests to Dasein and things in a twofold regioning: Vergegnis and Bedingnis. In the former, Being helps Dasein to rise above the pushes and pulls of everyday existence and turn towards Being, which results in Dasein attaining a genuine freedom to be himself. In the latter, Being lets things be things by allowing them to rest in the abiding expanse of Being. By this twofold regioning Being initiates the process of the occurrence of essential thinking in release. Dasein responds to the initiative of Being in a twofold activity: non-willing and waiting. Non-willing consists in Dasein’s turning from representational-calculative thinking, while waiting involves deliberate turning to Being in atten-tiveness and openness. Waiting brings about in Dasein two attitudes: a release towards things and an openness to the mystery. Whereas the former makes Dasein relate to things in an authentic and balanced way, the latter helps Dasein see the inner or the Being-dimension in his experience of life and reality. Thus, in Being’s twofold regioning and Dasein’s twofold response essential thinking is attained.

Dwelling is attained in Dasein in relation to Being and beings. When Dasein opens himself to the poetic presencing of Being, by poetic dwelling, he dwells in the neighborhood of Being. This involves a homecoming and a return to Being at its summoning, and the preservation of the original experience of Being, by poetic dwelling in the three ecstases of time. Dasein dwells among things, when he lets beings be in their being. This is done by keeping (sparing) the fourfold, viz., by saving the earth as the earth, receiving the sky as the sky, waiting on divinities as divinities and initiating one’s own nature as the mortal. Dasein’s seeing the truth of Being involves a leap from the logic-dominated representational thinking to the realm of Ereignis, in which, Dasein and Being are naturally appropriated to each other. Having made the entry into the realm of Ereignis, Dasein opens himself to Being’s un-concealment in the process of aletheia and Being’s presencing in language, which is the house of Being. In this manner, in all the three stages of the attainment of authenticity, Dasein plays an active role at the initiative of Being. Thus, we find a striking difference between Shankara and Heidegger regarding the attainment of man’s authentic destiny, in that while the former would hold for the impossibility of human effort in the actual attainment of Brahmaa-nubhava, the latter would accept the active role of Dasein in the attainment of Being-experience.

In this section, we would like discuss the value and relevance of the paths proposed by Shankara and Heidegger after the seeker has attained the authentic state. For Shankara, the goal of the seeker is a state of identity in which one realizes that Brahman is Aatman. In this state, the Brahmajnaani is totally unconscious of the empirical existence, even though he continues living in the pheno-menal world. In such an enlightened existence the realized person is free from the pains and gains of aparaa existence. Jiivanmukta has a bodily existence because of the effects of the accumulated karma, but the world of reality is non-existent to him, as it does not affect him in any way. He is untouched by passions, prejudices and all types of attachments, because by the practice of Hathayoga, he has once and for all banished them from his system. The ethical virtues, such as, humility, unselfishness, purity and fellow-feeling, which he practiced during the moral preparation, now cling to him, even though he neither needs them nor seeks them. To such a liberated soul, the path he had taken in the removal of ignorance (Brah-maajijnaasa) would not be of any value. Brahmaajijnaasa, literally means ‘the desire for Brahman’. Once that desire is fully realized in the Brahman-experience, there would be no more such desire left. Therefore, for the realized person, Brahmaajijnaasa ceases to exist. Only the one who has to cross the river needs a boat. If a person has crossed the river with the help of the boat, and needs to cross no river any more, that boat would be of no value for him. Similarly, the boat of Brahmaajijnaasa would not have any relevance to the Jiivan-mukta. Again, only a child plays with toys; if the child has grown up into a man, he no longer plays with toys. In the same way, as a child in the spiritual path the seeker used the various stages of the path. But at the realization of identity, the seeker would no more need the path once he has walked it. Thus, in the Shankarite system, since the realized person has reached a trans-empirical stage of existence, the empirical means he once used would not be of any significance to him.

In the Heideggerian system, the path to authenticity would be of value to Dasein, even after he has experienced Being in the realm of Ereignis in appropriative belonging-together to Being. This is because Being gives itself to Dasein in the spatio-temporal history, i.e., in the interplay of the three ecstases of time and the mirror-play of the fourfold. Since, Being’s giving is spatial, temporal and historical, Dasein experiences Being in terms of space, time and history. As a result, even in the authentic state, Dasein cannot but experience Being as finite. Besides, the nature of Being’s mani-festation is one of giving and withdrawing, unconcealing and con-cealing, presencing and absencing. As soon as Being gives itself in an entity, it withdraws in favor of the entity in which it is revealed. Therefore, in spite of the fact of Dasein’s relationship of belonging-together to Being and his encountering of Being in his own person and the entities, Being still remains for Dasein a mystery. Though he is very close to Being, yet he is still far away from it, in that he can never get hold of the whole of Being.

Again Dasein experiences Being in various attunements. For instance, Being as the Mystery has to be faced with reverential awe, and Being as the Joyous is experienced by Dasein with joy. This is because, unlike the goal of Shankarite path, which is an identity-experience, the goal of the Heideggerian path, the Being-experience, is not one of identity between Being and Dasein; there is subject-object duality in Dasein’s experience of Being. Dasein is the subject of Being-experience, as he is the lighting-up-place of Being that is manifested in history. Thus, Dasein must constantly seek and be open to the revelation of Being in the spatio-temporal-history, even in Being-centered existence.

The fact that Dasein must seek and open to the revelation of Being is pointed out at every stage of the attainment of Being-experience. Dasein is called into essential thinking by Being’s giving itself as ‘the most thought-worthy’ and Dasein’s re-calling Being’s giving in memory and thanking Being for its gift. Essential thinking is attained in release by the twofold regioning of Being and twofold response of Dasein, viz., non-willing and waiting on Being. Dwell-ing in the nearness of Being is effected by Being’s poetic presencing and Dasein’s poetic dwelling in the three ecstases of time, and in Dasein’s building and sparing the fourfold, i.e., the three ‘facets’ of Being in things. Seeing the truth of Being is brought about by Being’s giving of itself in the unconcealing process (aletheia) and language, the house of Being, and Dasein’s openness to aletheia and language. Thus, at every stage of the attainment of the goal, Dasein remains a seeker of Being’s giving. This seeking of Dasein does not cease to exist, even in Being-centered existence, as Dasein’s experience of Being is finite. Therefore, unlike the Shan-karite path which ceases to have any significance to the seeker after he has arrived at the liberated state, the Heideggerian path is of continuous value to Dasein even in his state of Being-centered existence.

1. Cf. SZ, p. 236.; BT, p. 280.

2. Cf. SZ, pp. 243-244.; BT, pp. 287-288.

3. Cf. SZ, p. 245.; BT, p. 289.

4. Cf. SZ, p. 250.; BT, p. 294.

5. Cf. SZ, pp. 237-240.; BT, pp. 281-284.

6. Cf. SZ, pp. 250-251.; BT, pp. 293-294.

7. Cf. SZ, p. 251.; BT, p. 295.

8. Cf. SZ, pp. 255-258.; BT, pp. 299-302.

9. Cf. SZ, p. 251.; BT, p. 295.

10. Cf. SZ, pp. 252-255.; BT, pp. 296-299.

11. Cf. SZ, p. 260.; BT, pp. 304-305.

12. Cf. SZ, p. 261.; BT, pp. 305-306.

13. Cf. SZ, p. 262.; BT, pp. 306-307.

14. Cf. SZ, p. 264.; BT, pp. 308-309.