Man can live his life either as entangled with the phenomenal or being open to the noumenal. According to Shankara, man's ultimate destiny does not consist in being caught up in the phenomenal existence, but rather in a depth living, in which, he must experience the source of the universe within himself. The task of man is not to search for his ultimate destiny outside, but to move into himself and discover the ultimate in the cave of his heart. It is not a new knowledge, but a realization of what one really is. It is a self-realization, in which one realizes Brahman as one's indwelling spirit (Aatman). In this chapter, we deal with the goal, nature and characteristics of self-realization.

The goal of self-realization is Brahman, the ultimate universal spirit behind the universe and Aatman, the ultimate principle in the individual. Only when one has true knowledge about both Brahman and Aatman can one begin to experience the oneness between the two. In this section, we will clarify these two notions in preparation for the analysis of the nature of self-realization.

The word `brahman' appears for the first time in the Rig-Veda. Here, it meant sacred knowledge or utterances, which are believed to have magical powers. Initially it meant a `spell' or a `prayer'. Gradually the word `brahman' acquired the meaning of the mysterious power of prayer, which can bring about what one wishes to achieve. Brahmanaaspati was considered to be the Lord of prayer. In the Braahmanas, `brahman' denoted ritual and so was considered omnipotent. In the later thought `brahman' meant wisdom or sacred knowledge (Veda). Since divine origin is attributed to `Veda' or `Brahman', it came to be known as the first created thing (brahmaprathamajam) and was treated as the creative principle and the cause of existence. In the Upanishads, the word `brahman' was used to mean the unitary and supreme reality which is hidden from senses but remains the same and resists change, thereby the knowledge of which frees one from finitude.¹

The word `brahman' is derived from the Sanskrit root `brimh' which literally means `to gush forth', `to grow', `to be great' and `to increase'. The suffix `man', when added to the root `brimh', signifies the absence of limitation. Thus, `brahman' means gushing forth, bubbling over and ceaseless growth (brihattvam). Shankara derives the word `brahman' from the root `brihati', which means `to exceed' (atisayana) and has the meaning of eternity and purity. So the term `brahman' etymologically means that which is absolutely the greatest, the eternal and the pure.<sup>2</sup> `Brahman', therefore, denotes "that first . . . reality from which the entire universe of our experience has sprung up."³ In the words of the Vedaanta-Suutras, "Brahman is that omniscient, omnipotent cause from which proceeds the origin of the world."⁴ Thus, Brahman signifies the absolute and unlimited reality, which forms the substratum and the foundation of the world as we know it, and on which everything depends for its existence. Brahman is self-sufficient and does not depend on anything else for its existence. Hence, it must be a spiritual entity since matter is dependent, limited and subject to change. George Thaibaut, in his introduction to the Vedaanta-Suutras, says that whatever exists is in reality one, and this one universal being is called Brahman. This being is absolutely homogeneous in nature. It is pure Being, Intelligence and Thought. Intelligence or thought is not predicated of Brahman as its attribute, but constitutes its substance. Brahman is not a being that thinks, but thought itself. It is absolutely destitute of qualities, and whatever qualities or attributes are conceivable can only be denied of it.⁵ Thus, Brahman is without qualities (nirgunaa) and beyond the order of our empirical and worldly experience; so we cannot grasp Brahman with our empirical experience. In other words, Brahman is a priori and cannot be grasped by a posteriori or limited experience.

Though Brahman, the ultimate reality that underlies the multiplicity of the phenomenal world, cannot be strictly expressed in terms of empirical language, scriptures attempt to describe the reality of Brahman in various ways. Brahma-Suutra speaks of Brahman as: having unlimited extension (aayaama) in terms of space and being omnipresent (sarvagata); ⁶ being endless (ananta);⁷ imperishable (akshara);⁸ without parts (niravyava);⁹ without form (aruupavad);¹⁰ in itself undifferentiated;¹¹ plenitude (bhuuman);¹² that deludes positive description and that can only be expressed negatively.¹³ The Upanishads describe Brahman as: `the self devoid of sin';<sup>14</sup> `immediate and indirect';¹⁵ `that which is beyond hunger and thirst';<sup>16</sup> `neither gross nor subtle';¹⁷ `the seer itself unseen';<sup>18</sup> `imperceptible, bodiless';¹⁹ `that great unborn self';<sup>20</sup> `without vital force or mind';²¹ `unborn comprising the interior and exterior';<sup>22</sup> `consisting of knowledge only';²³ and `beyond what is known and unknown'.<sup>24</sup> Bhagavad Giita speaks of Brahman as: `that which is neither born nor dies';²⁵ `not affected by anybody's sins';<sup>26</sup> `just as air is always in the ether';²⁷ `that is neither existent nor non-existent';<sup>28</sup> `beginningless and devoid of qualities';²⁹ `the same in all beings'; <sup>30</sup> and `the supreme Being is different'.³¹

Besides what the three major scriptures speak about Brahman, there are also some other descriptions of Brahman that are given to the seeker that he may continue in the process of assertion about Brahman. This process of assertion provides the seeker with material needed for contemplation and meditation, which would lead to the realization of Brahman. Some of the definitions of Brahman are the following: Brahman is eternal(nitya); is not bound by time; imperishable, deathless and changeless; and immaculate (suddha) and not affected by any limiting adjuncts. Just as electricity works through different equipment, yet remaining unaffected, so also Brahman, though it functions through everything visible, is unaffected by it. Brahman is liberated (vimukta), i.e., it is not affected by any bondage and enjoys supreme and everlasting freedom. Brahman is One (ekam). Though due to superimposition, the phenomenal world is projected on Brahman, it remains untouched by them. Just as a dream is an expression of mind, so also the plurality of the phenomenal world does not make Brahman many, but it remains one. When knowledge dawns, the plurality vanishes and only Brahman exists. Brahman is unbroken bliss (akhandaanantam). Unlike the passing joys derived from material things, the bliss of self-realization is absolute and eternal. Therefore, the supreme bliss is unbroken and everlasting. Brahman is non-dual (advayam). Though we refer to Brahman as one, we cannot consider it as a unit. The concept of unit would bring in the idea of composition of parts and so be a limitation on Brahman. So Brahman is spoken of as non-dual. Brahman is all pervading (saravagata). It alone exists, and it exists everywhere. If it were not so, there would be a place where Brahman has no access and it would limit Brahman. So it is limitless and all pervading. Brahman is formless (niraakaara). Since it is all pervading and existing everywhere, it is beyond form. Having a form limits a being. So, limitless Brahman is formless. Finally Brahman is satyam -- jnaanam -- aanantam (truth, knowledge and infinity). Brahman is satyam, because it is that which remains the same at all times -- in the past, the present and the future. Brahman as truth is ever the same and unchanging. Brahman as, jnaanam, is absolute knowledge. We cannot have knowledge of Brahman, as we have knowledge of sound, smell, taste, joys and sorrows; but Brahman is unconditional knowledge. Knowing Brahman, in the sense of experiencing (anubhava), is self-realization. Brahman is endless and infinite. Waves have temporary existence, but the sea is permanent. In the same way, the world of phenomenal experience is passing and Brahman, the infinite and the endless is the substratum upon which the world appears.³²

Because of our inability to grasp the true nature of Brahman with the help of empirical knowledge, whatever positive descriptions we develop about Brahman in the light of the scriptural knowledge will remain in the level of phenomenal experience. As Brahman is beyond the phenomena, so is it beyond empirical knowledge. This is the reason why we find contrary characteristics attributed to Brahman. In Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad, we read that Brahman is "light and not light, desire and absence of desire, anger and absence of anger, righteousness and absence of righteousness."³³ Kaatha Upanishad speaks of Brahman as "smaller than the small, greater than the great, sitting yet moving, lying and yet going everywhere."³⁴ Brahman is light and not light in the sense that it is only because there is Brahman that there is light and darkness. Again there exist small and great only because Brahman exists.

At the same time the word `existence' cannot be attributed to Brahman and to the empirical world in the same way, for Brahman's existence is of a different nature. The existence of Brahman is opposed to all empirical existence, so that in comparison with this it can just as well be considered as non-existence. Brahman is the Being of all beings.³⁵ The nature of Brahman is so transcendent that it cannot be compared with anything in the world we know. At the same time, Brahman is present in all its manifestations, for without the Being of Brahman nothing can exist. Yet the empirical experience of Brahman is not possible. Thus, Brahman is that unalterable and absolute Being, which remains identical with itself in all its manifestations. It is the basis and ground of all experience, and is different from the space-time-cause world. Brahman has nothing similar to it, nothing different from it, and no internal differentiation, for all these are empirical distinctions. It is non-empirical, non-objective and wholly other, but it is not non-being.³⁶

Shankara repeatedly speaks of and strongly defends the absolute, unchangeable and attributeless nature of Brahman, alluding to many texts in the scripture, which point to the nirgunaa Brahman.³⁷ Shankara, commenting on the Upanishadic text, "as a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire and purely saline taste, even so is the self (Brahman) without interior or exterior, entire and pure intelligence alone",³⁸ points to the oneness of Brahman. In the lump of salt there is nothing other than salt, so too Brahman is nothing other than itself. It is the absolute being without a second.³⁹ Shankara uses the example of the sun reflecting on water and appearing as many, in order to express the same truth. He says that the self is just like the reflection of the sun on water which increases with the volume of water and decreases with its reduction, which moves when the water moves, and which differs as the water differs. The sun seems to conform to the characteristics of water, but in reality the sun never has these increasing or decreasing qualities. So also, from the highest point of view, Brahman always retains its sameness; it seems to conform to such characteristics as increase and decrease of the limiting adjunct, owing to its entry into such an adjunct as a body.⁴⁰

We can give a few more illustrations to indicate the unitary, unchanged and unaffected nature of Brahman. Many candles can be lit from the flame of a single candle. The flame of the first candle is not less because it has given light to many candles. In the same way, though infinite names and forms are drawn out of Brahman, it remains ever the same. Likewise, cotton is made into thread and cloth. Thread is drawn from cotton and is woven into cloth. But the reality of cotton is in both of these forms, viz., thread and cloth. Similarly, the projections of names and forms of this material world on Brahman do not alter the nature of Brahman. It remains as it is without any change. We can also illustrate the uniqueness of Brahman by analyzing the phenomenon of dreams. Dream objects and dreams are an internal projection upon the mind of a person. Varieties of things emerge from a person's mind and form the dream. The emergence of the dreams does not make any difference to the mind. The mind remains unchanged and unaffected by the dream, even though both the dream objects and the dreams are aspects of the mind. The dreamer would not realize that dream objects and the dreams are simply aspects of the mind unless he wakes up from the dream. Once the dreamer wakes up, he realizes that the unchanging reality behind the external manifestations is the mind. In the same way varieties of beings are nothing but different aspects of Brahman. As long as a person is caught up in the phenomenal existence, he does not see the unity behind the multiplicity. When one wakes up to the noumenal level he experiences the one, non-dual Brahman.⁴¹

Thus, Brahman is supreme. It is the reality. It has no beginning and end. It is eternal and beyond the reach of pain. Brahman is indivisible, unmeasurable, without names and forms. It cannot be avoided, as it is present everywhere. Brahman cannot be grasped, as it is transcendent. It cannot be contained in anything, as it contains everything. Brahman is indefinable, for it is beyond the range of mind and speech. Thus, Brahman is reality itself, pure and absolute consciousness.⁴² Parthasarathy sums up the nature of Brahman as follows:

Therefore, Brahman 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, which would make it changeable and transitory. Though Shankara uses logic and arguments to understand the nature of Brahman and to speak of it, still, for him, Brahman, in its reality, is not a metaphysical postulate that can be proved logically, but it must be experienced in silence. ⁴⁴ Thus, Brahman is one: It is not a `He', a personal being; nor is it an `It', an impersonal concept. It is that state which comes about when all subject-object distinctions are obliterated. Ultimately, Brahman is a name for the experience of the timeless plentitude of Being.⁴⁵ 

The term `Aatman' comes from the Sanskrit root `an', which etymologically means "to breathe". So `Aatman' is the breath of life. In the course of the usage, it means life, soul, self or the essential being of an individual. Shankara derived `Aatman' from the Sanskrit root which meant `to obtain', `to eat or enjoy' or `to pervade all'. So for Shankara, `Aatman' is the principle of an individual's life, the soul that pervades his being, his breath (praana) and his intellect (prajnaa), and that which transcends all these. A negative sense, Aatman is that which persists and remains when the non-self is removed. In the Rig-Veda there is a reference to the unborn (ajo bhaagah) and the immortal element in man. This element in man is Aatman. The body, the mind, the life and the intellect are forms and external expression of the Aatman.⁴⁶

The reality and existence of Aatman, the most fundamental being of the individual, cannot be questioned, for this truth is self-evident. In fact, the self does not need any proof. Even the Vedas do not prove the existence of the self; as they only reveal the unknown or implied meaning of the scriptural texts. Thus, the self is self-evident, and no one can deny its existence for it is the basis of all individual actions. Everyone is conscious of the existence of his self and never thinks that he is not.⁴⁷ To doubt the existence of the self would be a contradiction in terms because then one would doubt the existence of the very doubter who engages in doubt. The doubter of the self is often compared by the Advaitins to a person who searches for the necklace while wearing it or to a person who wears the spectacles on his face and at the same time looks for them elsewhere. Without the existence of the self, it is impossible for us to entertain the idea or even to be capable of refutation. Because the knowledge of the self is not established through the so-called means of right knowledge, it is self-established.⁴⁸ Thus, the very existence of understanding and its functions presuppose the intelligence known as the self, that is self-established, different from these functions and on which they depend.⁴⁹ Both the possibility of knowledge and the means of knowledge (pramaanas) have relevance if there would be the self that is the source of all knowledge. Therefore, Aatman is beyond all doubt, "for it is the essential nature of him who denies it."⁵⁰ Therefore, Shankara believed that it was the nature of the self, not its reality or existence, which is to be proved. "The self must seek itself in order to find what it is, not that it is."⁵¹

Having established the existence of the self, we can turn to the discussion of the nature of Aatman. Shankara, speaking of the nature of Aatman, gives the following description:

Therefore, for Shankara, Aatman is the deathless, birthless, eternal and real substance in every individual soul. It is the unchanging reality behind the changing body, sense organs, mind and ego. It is the spirit, which is pure consciousness and is affected by time, space and causality. It is limitless and without a second.⁵³ In order to understand the true nature of Aatman one must discriminate the innermost self from outer physical and mental coverings just as one separates the rice from the husk or exposes the pure white kernel from the coconut by removing the outer husk.⁵⁴ Aatman is distinct from the body, sense organs, the mind, intellect and desires (vasanaas), and at the same time is the substratum of all activities that emanate from these physical and mental faculties. Though Aatman is the activity principle, it ever remains detached and independent of these activities. It is a witness to all these activities. In the same way, the all-pervading Aatman directed all the three states of consciousness, namely, the waking state (vishva), the dream state (taijasa), and the deep-sleep state (praajna). The basic underlying principle, which witnesses all three states of one's existence and the activities of the physical and mental faculties, is the pure consciousness (chaitanyam), the self. It is because of the presence of this ultimate substratum that the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect function properly. At the same time, the self is not identified with any of these and not affected by the changes that take place in the body, senses, mind and intellect. Thus, the self belongs to a level higher than these three states, i.e., the Fourth State. In the Fourth State, the self is pure consciousness like a homogenous piece of gold. The Fourth State is nothing else but the witness of the three states, being unaffected by the changes that take place in these states.⁵⁵ Therefore, Aatman is the "unrelated witness of the experiences of the three states, which include a man's diverse activities."⁵⁶

Shankara gives a number of illustrations to clarify the nature of the self, especially in its role of being the witness to all activities of body, senses, mind and the intellect. Firstly, Shankara gives the analogy of a king's court. In the court, the king sits in his high throne as the observer of the activities of his ministers, councilors and all the others present. Because of his majesty as the king, he is unique and different from all. So, too, the self, that is pure consciousness, dwells in the body as a witness to the functions of the body, mind and other faculties, while at the same time it is different from them by its natural light. Thus, the witness is the absolute consciousness, the unchanging intelligence that underlies the finer and the gross bodies. It is neither Iisvara nor the jiiva, but it is Aatman, which is untouched by the distinction of Iishvara and jiiva.⁵⁷

To those who come with the objection that the self is not only a mere observer or a witness, but also participates in the activities of the body, Shankara replies, using the analogy of the moon and the clouds. The movement of the clouds on a moonlit night suggests that the moon is moving, whereas in fact the clouds move. Likewise, the activities of the senses and the mind create the illusion that the self is active.⁵⁸ The reason for the illusion is the focus of attention either on the clouds or on the moon. If our attention were fixed on the clouds, then we would notice the moon as moving. On the other hand, if we shift our attention from clouds to the moon, we will see the clouds moving. In the same way, one experiences the Aatman as active because his attention is centered on the physical and mental faculties. If one shifts the attention from these faculties to the Aatman, he would realize that the activities belong to the physical and mental faculties, not to the self.⁵⁹ Commenting on this analogy Parthasarathy says:

To those who would say that the activity belongs to the senses or other faculties and would consider the self as powerless, Shankara gives the following illustrations. Just as the iron filings become active at the presence of the magnet, so also the presence of the self activates the body, the senses and all the other faculties. It is the fire that makes the iron ball red-hot. The mind, the intellect and the body, all combined cannot make the self, rather, the self is the source of all their activities. A man works with the help of the light that is inherent in the sun and does so without ever affecting the sun. In the same way, the mind, the body, the intellect and the senses engage in their respective activities with the help of the self, but without exerting any influence on the self. ⁶¹ 

Shankara also gives a number of other illustrations to show the absolute nature of Aatman. An ignorant person may identify the clay with the pot and gold with an earring, forgetting that the pot and the earring are not clay and gold, respectively; rather, they are only manifestations of clay and gold. Similarly, one may identify the empirical ego with Aatman, ignorantly without knowing the real nature of Aatman.⁶² Again out of a person's ignorance, he may attribute blueness, concavity and similar qualities to the sky, even though the sky does not have any such qualities. In the same way, a person walking in a desert may perceive water in a mirage by wrong perception. Likewise, in semi-darkness one can perceive a human figure in a post. All such perceptions are illusory. So also the perception of Aatman as identical with the elements of this world is illusory.⁶³ Just as perceptions of a castle in the air and a second moon in the sky are illusory, so also the perception of Aatman as identical with the world is unreal.⁶⁴

All these illustrations point to the basic and absolute nature of Aatman. The following Upanishadic statement bears witness to this fact: "That imperishable is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the ununderstood understander. Other than It, there is naught that hears; other than It, there is naught that thinks; other than It, there is naught that understands."⁶⁵ Thus, Aatman is the absolute consciousness, the source of all knowledge.

Shankara, in his celebrated work Aatmabhooda gives a number of brief descriptions of Aatman that clearly point to its absolute nature. These descriptions tell what Aatman is in itself. There are three verses that contain these descriptions about the nature of Aatman. We could briefly state these verses and clarify each of these descriptions of Aatman.

The first verse considers the essential nature (swaabha) of Aatman in comparison with that of the sun, water and fire. The essential nature of the sun, water and fire are luminosity, coolness and heat respectively. Similarly, the nature of Aatman is existence-knowledge-bliss (Satchitaananda), eternity (nitya) and purity (nirmala). Satchitaananda describes Aatman as manifesting through the equipments of the gross, subtle, and causal bodies. Through the gross body the Aatman expresses itself as mere existence (sat), and thereby brings existence to the infinite variety of inanimate realities spread over the universe. Through the subtle body Aatman manifests itself as intelligence (chit) to awaken that one. Aatman manifests itself in the causal body as the bliss (aananda) in beings that are asleep and enjoy relative peace. Thus, the entire cosmos is nothing but the aspects of Aatman expressed in the totality of the material bodies as Sat-chit-aananda. Again as eternal (nitya), Aatman has its existence in relation to the totality of time, i.e., it has existed from the infinite past, is existing in the present and will continue to exist in the ages to come. Aatman is spoken of as nirmala. This word is opposite to `mala' which means `dirty'. So nirmala refers to the absence of every type of vaasanas, which pollute Aatman. Thus, Aatman is the spiritual core of an individual, and that beyond every sheath consisting of vaasanas.⁶⁹ 

The second verse gives a number of descriptions about the all-pervading Aatman. Firstly, Aatman is `without attributes' (nirgunaa). These descriptions point to the fact that Aatman is not at all touched by the influence of the threefold gunaas, viz., sattva (pure and noble); rajas (active and agitated); and tamas (dull and inactive). The self is distinct from the gunaas because the former is imperishable, while the latter is perishable. Secondly, the self is described as `without activities' (nishkriya). Though Aatman causes the body, the mind and the intellect to act, it is without any activity. Just as electricity makes a fan rotate, while it itself is running motionless, so also Aatman while moving the physical and mental faculties, remains without any activity. Thirdly, Aatman is `without doubt' (nirvikalpa). It is the opposite of `vikalpa', which means `doubt', `uncertainty' or `indecision' of the mind. It is Aatman that enlivens the mind, by illuminating thoughts, when it is in moments of doubt and indecision. Therefore, Aatman is nirvikalpa. Fourthly, Aatman isunsullied (niranjaana). `Anjaana' means `dirt' or `stain' and, in fact, is nothing else but vaasanas. They are inherent tendencies that mark the empirical personality (jiiva). So niranjaana means that Aatman is beyond the coverings of the vaasanas. Fifthly, Aatman is changeless (nirvikara). The physical and mental faculties are ever-changing. Aatman, the pure self, is that changeless substratum upon which all the changes of the body, mind and intellect take place. Just as the sun remains steadfast and causes the earth and other planets to move around it, so also Atman remains steadfast amidst the changes of the body, mind and intellect, and causes these changes in them. Finally, Aatman is ever free (nitya mukta). Unlike the physical body that is limited by its perceptions, the mind by its emotions and the intellect by its thoughts, the Aatman is independent of these faculties and their activities. Thus, self remains ever free. The Aatman is like the sun; it shines above and thus is ever free from any type of limitation.⁷⁰

The third verse compares Aatman to space on two points. Firstly, both space and the self are all pervading. Secondly, space allows things to exist in it without itself being conditioned by them. In the same way, though the self is the substratum of bodily perceptions, mental emotions and intellectual thoughts, it is not contaminated by them in any way, as a higher spiritual reality can never be limited by a gross or a subtle body. Therefore, Aatman is not fallen or is perfect (achyuta). Self is the unchanging reality amidst the various activities of the physical and mental faculties in various states of existence. Though it may appear that self is limited by individuality, it never falls into the limitation of the individual. Again Aatman is the same for all (sarvasama). One may falsely conclude that there are many Aatmans who function in the variety of living creatures. But the Aatman is the same for all living beings. Just as the same electricity functions and expresses itself in the working of the different electrical equipment differently, so also the one and the same Aatman works heterogeneously in different human faculties. Aatman is the final state of accomplishment, completion and fulfillment (siddha). Attainment of Aatman is the state of highest perfection. There is nothing beyond Aatman because it is the highest state of human evolution. Aatman is unattached to anything (nissanga). It is not attached to the body, mind, intellect and the three states of existence. It is the silent and detached witness of the functioning of the body, mind, intellect and the experiences of the jiiva in the three states of existence. Finally, Aatman is motionless (achala), as it is an all-pervading reality that is omnipresent and eternal. As there is no place that is without Aatman and no time -- the past, the present and the future -- without the reality of Aatman, it is motionless.⁷¹ 

All these descriptions of Aatman clearly speak of its nature, as the self-existent reality, pure and eternal consciousness, birthless and deathless supreme Being, that is the source and foundation of all that exist. Now that we have analyzed the nature of Brahman and Aatman, we can spell out the relationship between them, in the next section.

From the Advaitic perspective of Shankara, the terms `Brahman' and`Aatman' basically denote one and the same underlying principle: the former stands for the underlying and unchanging principle of the universe; while the latter refers to the unchanging reality in the individuals. Both of these terms are used in the Upanishads and understood by the interpreters as synonyms. They are even interchanged in the same sentence to mean each other. Commenting on the Upanishadic statement "Who is Aatman? What is Brahma?" ⁷² Shankara remarks: "By Brahman, the limitations implied in the Aatman are removed, and by the Aatman the conception of Brahman as the divinity to be worshipped is condemned."⁷³ Thus, for Shankara, both Brahman and Aatman are one and the same. He comments on this point in his Brahma-Suutra Bhaashya as follows:

Shankara again reiterates this fact in his book Viveekachuudaamani as follows:

Both of these declarations of Shankara clearly indicate the fact that he perceived Brahman and Aatman as one and the same. Following the comment of Shankara very closely, S. Radhakrishnan speaks the following regarding the relationship between Brahman and Aatman:

This Advaitic teaching is not a mere fabrication of the ingenious mind of Shankara, but it has a foundation in the Upanishads. The Upanishads teaches that Aatman is the principle of individual consciousness, while Brahman is the super-personal foundation of the cosmic universe. But this separation soon vanishes in the Upanishadic teaching and both of these principles are identified; Brahman, the first principle of the universe, is known through Aatman, the inner self of man.⁷⁷ Chaandoogya Upanishad states this truth: "Verily this whole world is Brahman. . . . This soul of mine within the heart, this is Brahman."⁷⁸ Again the Upanishadic sayings indicate the identity of the Aatman with Brahman "That person who is seen in the eye, He is Aatman, that is Brahman",⁷⁹ "This is your self that is within all",⁸⁰ "This is the internal ruler, your own immortal self"⁸¹ and "That is truth, that is the self and That thou art."⁸² From what we have said it is clear that the Brahman-Aatman doctrine is deeply founded in the teaching of the Upanishads from the earlier times and reached its culmination in the teachings of Shankara.⁸³

Thus, we can conclude that these two terms fundamentally refer to one and the same reality which is the ground of everything. In other words, these two terms stand for two different descriptions of the same ultimate reality, from the points of view of the universe and of the individual. The ultimate reality represented by these two terms is the goal of self-realization, which is our concern in the next section.

1.2. NATURE OF SELF-REALIZATION

We have analyzed the goal of self-realization in the preceding section. Here we must attempt to clarify its nature, in which Brahman-realization is attained by the seeker. We elaborate the nature of self-realization by looking into its meaning, clarifying the identity between Brahman and Aatman and by describing the state of self-realization.

Self-realization is the ultimate state of man. It is a state in which one realizes Brahman as one's own innermost self. So it is also called Brahmaamubhava. The term `Brahmaanubhava' is a compound word, which consists of two Sanskrit words, viz., `Brahman' (absolute reality) and `anubhava' (intuitive experience or knowledge). The term `anubhava' means not a mere theoretical or intellectual knowledge, but the knowledge obtained through an integral experience. Anubhava is not the immediacy of an uninterrupted sensation, where the existence and the content of what is apprehended are separated. It is related to artistic insight rather than to animal instinct. It is an immediate knowledge.⁸⁴ Thus, literally the term `Brahmaanubhava' means the `integral and intuitive experience of the absolute reality'. When we speak of the intuitive experience of Brahman, from the Advaitic point of view there arise many basic questions as to the nature of Brahmaanubhava. How is it possible to have an experience if there is no subject to experience and no object to be experienced? Besides, if there is no duality in an experience, how can it be described? If Brahmaanubhava is an experience, and if it has no duality in itself as an experience, then what is the nature of the experience involved in Brahmaanubhava? These questions stem from the fact that the Advaita philosophy of Shankara does not permit the possibility of duality in this fundamental experience. As we move on with the clarification of the nature of self-realization, some of these questions will be answered.

In order to attain self-realization one must first possess intellectual knowledge about the nature of Brahman, Aatman and Brahmaanubhava. Obtaining intellectual knowledge by studying the scriptures, especially by understanding the meaning and import of the Vedaantic statements (mahaavaakyas) like `That art Thou', is necessary for self-realization. In knowing the nature of Brahman and Aatman intellectually, one can work towards the attainment of Brahmaanubhava. When we speak of the attainment of Brahmaanubhava, we use the term `attainment' (labdha) in the figurative sense (upachara).⁸⁵ In the empirical experience we attain some new knowledge, i.e., knowledge which had not previously existed as far as we were concerned. In self-realization, however, one does not attain anything new, but only realizes what one is, i.e., his identity with Brahman. According to Shankara, self is Brahman, and self-realization is that experience by which one realizes one's own real nature.

Many texts in Shankara's works point to the fact that the attainment of Brahmaanubhava consists in the recognition and the realization that one's real and true nature is Brahman. "The state of being Brahman is the same as the realization of the self."⁸⁶ "Perfect knowledge . . . is the realization of the Aatman as one with Brahman."⁸⁷ "When a man knows the Aatman and sees it inwardly and outwardly as the ground of all things animate and inanimate, he has indeed reached liberation."⁸⁸ "No man who knows Brahman to be different from himself is a knower of truth."⁸⁹ "My self is pure consciousness, free from all distinctions and suffering."⁹⁰ Thus, Brahmaanubhava, which is the experience of identity of the Aatman with the Brahman, is an attainment only from the point of view of the aspirant or the seeker of truth. From the absolute (paramaartha) point of view there is no attainment, as nothing new is attained, for it is only a self-realization.

From what we have said about the nature of Brahmaanubahva, there arises the question of the possibility of having any knowledge about this experience, as no empirical knowledge (pramaana) can help us in this regard. Only scriptural knowledge can help us to enter into the realm of Brahmaanubhava. Though scriptural knowledge is limited to duality, still it provides the knowledge about the reality of Brahman and Aatman and an intellectual understanding of Brahmaanubhava. Shankara affirms the authority of the scriptural testimony in our intellectual understanding of Brahman. Nothing but the scriptures can reveal the nature of self-realization, as Shankara clearly asserts. He does not substitute any pramaana for the scriptural testimony to attain intellectual knowledge about Brahman. He uses other pramaanas, but only to elucidate, clarify and demonstrate what he accepts on the basis of scriptural authority about Brahman, Aatman and Brahmaanubhava. He says: "The fact of everything having its self in Brahman cannot be grasped [intellectually], without the aid of scriptural passage `That art Thou'."<sup>91</sup> For the word `Upanishad' (scripture) derives its meaning from its capacity to lead to the truth those of us who, having been thoroughly dissatisfied with the things seen and unseen, seek liberation from ignorance, which is the source of bondage and suffering. The Upanishads are capable of accomplishing all these, for in them the highest end of life is embodied.⁹² The scriptural knowledge of self-realization is contained in the Upanishadic statements, i.e., Vedaantic aphorisms: self-realization consists in the experience of the identity of Brahman and Aatman. In the next section, we study self-realization in terms of the exegesis of the Vedaantic aphorisms regarding identity.

Many texts of the scripture speak of Brahman, Aatman and Brahmaanubhava, of which four Vedaantic aphorisms (mahaavaakyas) point to the nature of self-realization. These four statements are found, one each, in each of the Vedas. They are:

Consciousness is Brahman (Prajnaanam Brahmaa)⁹³ 

That art Thou (Tat tvam asi)⁹⁴ 

This Self is Brahman (Ayam Aatma Brahman)⁹⁵ 

I am Brahman (Aham Brahma Asmi)⁹⁶ 

Shankara is of the opinion that these mahaavaakyas are essential, not merely figurative, statements about Brahman. That assert the absolute identity between Brahman and Aatman which alone constitutes self-realization. We could briefly explain the import of these Vedaantic statements and, thereby attempt to clarify the nature of Brahmaanubhava.

This aphorism appears in the Aitariya Upanishad of the Rig-Veda. This mahaavaakya declares in a general way that the consciousness, i.e., the Aatman, is Brahman. In other words, it pronounces that the consciousness in the individual is the same as the universal consciousness that underlies the universe. Thus, this Vedaantic aphorism announces that consciousness is the fundamental substratum of both the microcosm and the macrocosm. Consciousness can be compared to space. The individual consciousness is like a space in a pot or in a room, but universal consciousness is like the total space. Even if we separate space into different spaces due to our perception, we cannot really segregate the space in the pot or in the room from the total space, since space is a homogeneous entity. In the same way, we can give various names to consciousness in relation to different embodiments. But consciousness is a homogeneous and all-pervading absolute reality, which is identical with Brahman. As this mahaavaakya gives a general declaration or definition of self-realization, as consciousness is Brahman, it is called `the statement of definition' (lakshana vaakya).⁹⁷

This mahaavaakya is found in the Chaandoogya Upanishad in Saama Veda. It is a universal pronouncement to humankind that the core of each person, i.e., the Aatman, is Brahman, the supreme reality. In other words, this aphorism explains to each one that his own self pervades everywhere as the absolute Brahman. The analogy of water can explain the import of this statement from the scripture. Water from the sea evaporates and forms clouds, and returns to the earth as rains. The rainwater is collected and the form a river, which in the course of its flow assumes individual names. But the water in all these conditions is the same. In the same way, Aatman is the all-pervading reality, viz., Brahman. This aphorism, thus, pronounces the oneness of the infinite Brahman and Aatman in the individual. Moreover, it advises the seeker of self-realization to recognize his Aatman as identical with Brahman; it is called `the statement of advice' (upadeesa vaakya).⁹⁸ Since this mahaavaakya "Tat tvam asi' is an important identity statement, we analyze the meaning of the words contained in it.

Before entering into the discussion of the meaning of this Vedaantic statement, we need to consider the type of meanings a word or a sentence can have or the different senses in which it can be used, which according to Advaitins, can be of three types. Firstly, the primary or direct meaning (vaachyaartha) is conveyed by the word. Secondly, the implied meaning (lakshana or lakshyaartha), is conveyed by way of implication. Thirdly, the suggested meaning (vyakthaartha), is hinted by association.⁹⁹ Having clarified the various senses in which a word can be used, we could examine the meaning of the words contained in the mahaavaakya, viz., `tat' (`That'), `tvam' (`Thou') and `asi' (art).

According to Shankara the word `tat' (`That') in its primary sense refers to Iisvara, the sagunaa Brahman,endowed with qualities of omniscience and omnipotence, who has lordship over the gross, subtle and causal bodies, which are the result of collective maayaa. In other words, the term `That' in its direct meaning refers to the personal God who is the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of the universe.<sup>100</sup> The word `tvam' (`Thou') directly refers to the willing hearer of the scriptures as taught by the Guru. Thus, `Thou' refers to the individual ego (jiiva) which is associated with the individual body and everyday existence. Jiiva, referred to by the word `Thou' is conditioned by threefold miseries, viz., the misery of the body and the mind, the misery arising from perishable creatures and the misery arising from the action of gods. As a result, the jiiva is characterized by the limitations, such as birth and death, hunger and thirst, pain and pleasure. Besides, its existence is marked by the three states of existence, viz., waking, dream and deep sleep, and a multiplicity of other activities of phenomenal existence. Thus, the primary meaning of the word "tvam' is jiiva, which is limited by the gross, subtle and causal bodies, has partial knowledge of the self and the universe, and is conditioned by individual ignorance. The term `asi' (art) merely states a complete identity of `That' and `Thou. Thus, in the direct meaning the Vedaantic saying `tat tvam asi' (That art Thou) points to the identity between Iishvara and jiiva.¹⁰¹

But explicit meaning of the saying `That art Thou', namely, the identity between Iishvara and jiiva does not seem to agree with the actual fact, since such an identity is not possible. Iishvara and jiiva are too separated and different from each other, for the former is the powerful and supreme Lord, while the latter is the limited worshipper of Iishvara. Therefore, absolute identity between them seems to be impossible. Nevertheless, identity is a realized fact as is seen in the direct and immediate experience of the great teachers. Since identity is a fact and the identity between Iishvara and jiiva seems an impossibility, the scriptural statement `tat tvam asi' cannot be interpreted in the explicit meaning, because such interpretation would falsify the scriptural statement. Therefore, it has to be interpreted in a meaning other than the primary meaning, though it must be related to the primary meaning of these terms. Shankara clearly speaks of this point in his Brahma-Suutra Bhaashya as follows: " If God becomes identical with the transmigrating soul, God will cease to exist; and as a result, the scripture will become useless. Similarly if the transmigrating soul becomes God, there will be none to follow the scriptures, which will certainly become useless. This will also contradict such means of proof as common experience."¹⁰² Since this identity cannot be established in the level of the primary meaning of the words `That' and `Thou', Shankara attempts to explain these words in the their implied meaning, that is related to the direct meaning.

In order to clarify the implied meanings of the `tat' and `tvam,' Shankara uses negative method and direct positive method,¹⁰³ both proposed by the Upanishads.¹⁰⁴ The implied meaning of the word `tat' refers to the all-pervading being that is absolutely free from all the impurities of the transmigratory existence. This being is neither gross nor subtle, but is ever-free from the taint of darkness, having no greater bliss than itself, embodiment of existence-knowledge, and is by definition the universal self, i.e., Brahman. This universal being is the efficient and material cause of the universe. So, Brahman alone exists, and everything is known when it is known. Since everything originates in Brahman and finds its existence in it, nothing can limit it. Just as a jar that originates from the earth cannot limit the earth, in the same way the whole universe, including time and space which originates in Brahman, cannot limit it. Just as a jar is nothing but the earth, so also the universe is nothing but Brahman. On the contrary, Brahman is the source of everything, and everything is under its control.<sup>105</sup> Thus, "the unassociated consciousness, which is the substratum of the limiting adjuncts and of Iishvara which they limit, is the implied meaning of `That'."¹⁰⁶

What is meant by the word `tvam' in the implied meaning is the inner self, the Aatman. It is different from the gross body, just as the seer of a jar, in all respects, is different from the jar. Aatman is also distinct from the subtle body consisting of the senses, the mind, the vital forces and the intellect. It is the self that illuminates and modifies the functions of the various physical and mental faculties. Self also is distinct from the three states, as it is that which witnesses these states. Thus, we comprehend the implied meaning of `tvam' only when we negate the body, the senses, the mind, the vital forces, the intellect and the ego; just as the reality of the rope is known only when the snake is negated from the rope-snake. When this negation is done, we come to know that the `Thou', i.e., Aatman, is free from phenomenal existence, birth, growth, passing from one state to another, decline and death, and the `Thou' is the changeless self, the dearest of all and one without a second.¹⁰⁷ Thus, for Shankara, "the unassociated transcendent consciousness -- the inward bliss -- which is the substratum of the limiting adjuncts and of the jiiva which they limit, is the implied meaning of `Thou'".¹⁰⁸ 

Thus the implied meaning of `That' is the nirgunaa Brahman, the pure consciousness, who is absolute and without attributes. `Thou,' by implication, refers to the self, the Aatman, the pure consciousness, which is the reality underlying the mind-body system. Hence, the aphorism `tat tvam asi' means that Brahman and Aatman are absolutely one and the same.

Now that we have clarified the implied meanings of `That' and `Thou', we can analyze the mahaavaakya, `That art Thou'. The sentences in general can be classified into two groups. The first shows the connection between its terms, which denote distinct things. For example, the sentence, `Bring a cow,' connects two terms that are distinct from each other. The second group deals with identical propositions that establish genuine relationship between the terms. For example, in the statement `This is that Devadatta', a genuine relationship is established between the two terms. The Vedaantic aphorism `tat tvam asi' belongs to the second group of sentences.¹⁰⁹

In the second group of sentences, there are basically three types of relations that can be spoken of as existing between two terms in a sentence. Firstly, relation between two words having the same substratum or locus is called saamaanaadhikaranya. Let us illustrate this relation with the help of the sentence, `This is that Devadatta'. In this sentence the word `that' signifies Davadatta associated with the past and the word `this' signifies Davadatta associated with the present. These two words, `that' and `this', have the same substratum or locus, viz., the persona of Devadatta. Secondly, there is the relation between the imports of two words qualifying each other, so as to signify a common object (visheshana-visheshyabhaava); in the sentence, `This is that Devadatta', the meaning of the word `that' is Devadatta existing in the past, and the meaning of the word `this' is Devadatta existing in the present. Though they are contrary ideas, they qualify each other so as to signify a common object, i.e., the person of Devedatta. The third, the lakshya-lakshanabhaava, consists in the relation between two words and an identical thing implied by them. In the illustration `This is that Devadatta,' the words `this' and `that' or their meaning, by elimination of contrary associations of past and present time, stand in the relation as the implier and the implied with Devadatta, who is common to both. Though the words `this' and `that' have their temporal differences, yet they both imply the same thing, viz., Devadatta. Such a relationship is also called bhaagalakshana.¹¹⁰

The meaning of the mahaavaakya `That art Thou' cannot be explained by way of saamaanaadhikaranya and visheshana-visheshyabhaava relations because they only establish the relation of connection and the relation of qualification between the two words in a sentence, respectively. Let us take for illustration the sentence, `It is a blue lotus'. Here the words `blue' and `lotus' are in the same case ending. The sentence, therefore, means that the lotus is blue and not any other color, such as yellow or red. It also means that the blueness does not belong to any piece of cloth or to anything else, but only to the lotus. Thus, this sentence does not mean all lotuses, nor all blue things, but only that particular lotus which is blue and that blue color which is associated with this particular lotus. In this manner, a relation of mutual connection (sansarga) is established between the two words `blue' and `lotus'; they both refer to the same substratum, namely, the blue lotus in question. Again, the same sentence, `It is a blue lotus,' can be viewed as a lotus having the qualification of blueness. Here the word `lotus' is qualified by the word `blue', and the word `blue' is qualified by the word `lotus'. Thus, the sentence `It is a blue lotus,' establishes a relation of mutual qualification. Because saamaanaadhikaranya and visheshana-visheshyabhaava establish only a mutual connection between two terms and thereby refers to the same substratum and mutual qualification between two terms so that they can signify a common object, respectively, they cannot explain the Vedaantic aphorism `tat tvam asi', which implies the notion of identity.<sup>111</sup> Therefore, we need the third relationship, viz., lakshya-lakshanabhaava or bhaagalakshana which involves a reference to identity by understanding the implied meaning of words in a sentence, to explain the mahaavaakya `That art Thou'.

There are three kinds of meaning in the implied sense. The first is exclusive implication (jahallakshanaa) which consists in discarding the direct meaning of a sentence or a word completely in favor of its indirect meaning. For example, in the sentence `The Cowheard village is in the Gangaa,'<sup>112</sup> the phrase `in the Gangaa' is used to mean `on the bank of the river Gangaa'. This is the case of jahallakshanaa because the explicit meaning `in the Gangaa' is discarded in favor of the implied meaning `on the bank of the river Gangaa'. Thus, in this case the direct meaning is totally excluded in the implied meaning. The second meaning by implication is a non-exclusive implication (ajahallakshanaa). In it the direct meaning is not completely given up, but the sentence in question hints at the real meaning of the sentence. Here we obtain the meaning of the sentence not by excluding the direct meaning but by associating it with some object related to the idea expressed in the sentence. For instance, in the sentence, `The red color is running', the direct meaning of the sentence is not fully discarded but is hinted at. Its true meaning can be obtained by associating it with the red object that runs, for example, a red horse. The third meaning by implication is an exclusive-non-exclusive implication (jahadaajahallakshanaa). It consists in giving up one part of the direct meaning but retaining the other part. In the example, `This is that Devadatta', the association of place, time and conditions of the meeting of Devadatta now and then are given up, and the Devadatta, who is one and the same in both instances, is accepted.¹¹³

Now we can see which of these lakshanaa is applicable in the case of the interpretation of the Vedaantic aphorism `That art Thou'. Jahallakshanaa is not applicable in case of the interpretation of this aphorism because by using this lakshanaa we can derive the meaning by implication, since the implied meaning is not contained already in the original sentence. For instance, the sentence, `Cowheard village is in the Gangaa,' does not contain the phrase `on the bank of the river Gangaa,' and thus this meaning is not explicit. So by using jahallakshanaa one could derive the phrase `on the bank of the river Gangaa' by implication. But in the statement `That art Thou' the words `That' and `Thou' have their direct meanings and they are explicitly stated, i.e., they refer to Iishavara and to jiiva, respectively. Hence, it is not proper to discard the direct meaning of `That' and `Thou' and give them implied meaning by using jahallakshanaa. Ajahallakshna, as mentioned above, consists in not wholly discarding the real meaning of the sentence, but instead hinting at it. For example, in the sentence, `the red color is running,' the direct meaning is absurd. This absurdity can be removed not by abandoning the direct meaning of the sentence, but by associating it with an object of red color that runs, for instance, a red horse. The Vedaantic sentence `That art Thou' cannot be interpreted using this second lakshanaa. The terms `That' and `Thou' clearly express their direct meaning and in fact nothing of the direct meaning is excluded from the `That' and the `Thou'. Hence, there is no reason to bring some element that is not excluded from the direct meaning of `That' and `Thou'. Therefore, ajahallakshanaa is not applicable in interpreting the sentence, `That art Thou'. Jahadaajahalakshanaa is precisely applicable in interpreting the identity statements like `That art Thou'. In this kind of implied meaning, a part of the sentence is given up, while the other part is retained. In the example, `This is that Devadatta,' the part that involves contradictions, namely, his life in the past and the present, is given up, but the person of Devadatta is retained. Likewise, in the mahaavaakya, `That art Thou,' the conflicting imports, namely, immediateness, remoteness and differences, are given up, and the absolute, pure consciousness which is common to both `That' and `Thou' is retained.<sup>114</sup> It is according to this lakshanaa that one must interpret the Vedaantic aphorism, `That art Thou,' that points to the identity between Brahman and Aatman.

The mahaavaakya `tat tvam asi' is not tautological or superfluous. It is the concrete representation of a movement of thought from the ontological level of particularity to another of universality and yet to another of unity. When the latter state of unity is attained, the distinctions between the former are negated. One begins with the individual consciousness, passes on to 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 multiplicity and individuality.<sup>115</sup> We arrive at this unity by stripping away the incompatible and contradictory elements of the terms `That' and `Thou', and by looking for the common element or basis.<sup>116</sup> In the illustration, `This is that Devadatta', the Devadatta seen now is identified with the Devadatta seen years ago, despite all the accidental differences like physical conditions, mental states and places of meeting. What makes one identify the person of Devadatta as the same is the elimination of the differences. In the same way, the negation of the apparent contradictions of `That' and `Thou' would lead to the fundamental and absolute reality.

In fact, in recognizing the person of Devadatta now, one has learned nothing new about the person of Devadatta except the accidental qualities, but has only recognized Devadatta whom one had already known. In the same way the Upanishadic statements do not reveal anything new about Brahman or add anything new to its nature. Nevertheless, they are of immense value since they remove the false notion of difference between the individual self and the Brahman. When ignorance, on which is based the difference between `That' and `Thou,' is removed, they cease to be different, and we are able to experience their identity. In other words, the intrinsic nature of `That' and `Thou' is one and the same. The words `That' and `Thou' in their implicit sense (lakshanaa) point to the same reality, as the terms `I' and the `tenth' indicate one and the same person in the sentence `I am the tenth'.<sup>117</sup> Thus, the identity statement, `That art Thou,' clearly shows that Brahmaanubhva or self-realization is a non-dual and unique experience of identity of Brahman and Aatman, which is the absolute and fundamental reality behind both the universe and the individual.

The third mahaavaakya `Ayam Aatma Brahmaa' is found in the Maanduukhya Upanishad of the Atharva Veda. The three words in the aphorism mean the following: `ayam' means `this'; `Aatma' refers to the self within that is the underlying substratum that witnesses all the activities of jiiva; and `Brahmaa' refers to Brahman which is the underlying principle that is the foundation of the manifold phenomenal existence. Thus, this Vedaantic statement affirms that the activating principles behind the individual ego and the vitalizing principle of the entire universe are one and the same. This mahaavaakya, therefore, in a practical way restates the truth of unity between Brahman and Aatman. Since this aphorism provides a practical tool for the aspirant's reflection and practice and thereby helps to discover the oneness between Brahman and Aatman within oneself, it is called `the statement of practice' (abhyaasa vaakhya). ¹¹⁸

The last of the four Vedaantic statements is `Aham Brahmaa Asmi' which appears in the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad in the Yajur Veda. The words `aham' (`I') and `asmi' (am) and Brahman indicate that the aphorism is the conclusive pronouncement of a person of self-realization. The self-realized man declares in this aphorism the union of his consciousness with the absolute consciousness. The `I' (aham) referred to here is not that of the individual ego, prior to the self-realization, who is the waker, the dreamer and the deep-sleeper, and the subject of the bodily, mental and the intellectual functions. But, the aham here is the real `I', the self, i.e., the `Thou' (tvam) referred to in the mahaavaakya `That art Thou'. The aphorism `I am Brahman' expresses the deep and intuitive experience of the seeker in which he realizes his oneness with Brahman. Thus, the seeker proclaims that `I am Brahman'; `my pure self is Brahman'; `my pure, unconditioned and native `I' is Brahman'; and `I am the all-pervading reality'. Since this aphorism is the ultimate declaration of the aspirant who has realized his oneness with Brahman, it is called `the statement of experience' (anubhava vaakya).¹¹⁹

Our study of the four mahaavaakyas clearly shows that self-realization (Brahmaanubhava) consists of the intuitive experience of Aatman as Brahman. The apparent dualism present in these aphorisms gives way as the direct meanings of the words in these aphorisms, viz., `prajnaanam' (`consciousness') and `Brahmaa' (`Brahman'), `tvam' (`Thou') and `tat' (`That'), `ayamaatma' (`this self') and `Brahmaa' (`Brahman'), `aham' (`I') and `Brahmaa' (`Brahman') refer to jiiva and Iishvara respectively. Since such an identity of jiiva and Iishvara is not possible, the meaning of these words must be understood by way of exclusive-non-exclusive implication (jahadaajahallakshanaa). Therefore, the pairs of words in each of these mahaavaakyas refer by implication to Aatman in the level of the microcosm and to Brahman in the level of macrocosm. In fact these both are the same infinite all-pervading reality. Self-realization consists in the experience of the unity between Brahman and Aatman that is implied by the four mahaavaakyas. Now that we have analyzed the nature of self-realization by way of the four Vedaantic aphorisms, we could proceed in the next section to describe the state of self-realization (Brahmaanubhava).

Maanduukya Upanishad describes the state of self-realization in the following words:[Brahmaanubhava is] not that which cognizes the internal (objects), not that which cognizes the external (objects), not what cognizes both of them, not a mass of cognition, not cognitive, not non-cognitive. [It is] unseen, incapable of being spoken of, ungraspable, without any distinctive marks, unthinkable, unnameable, the essence of knowledge of the one self, that into which the world is resolved, the peaceful, the benign, the non-dual.. . .¹²⁰ 

This particular Upanishadic description of the state of self-realization is expressed in the negative form because in human language every direct affirmation is necessarily particular and determinate and so imposes a limitation on the object thus affirmed. Therefore, only when we negate a determination, do we truly affirm it. So the negative terms used in the descriptions of self-realization in the above-quoted Upanishadic statement are preeminently affirmative.¹²¹ This is especially true when the description is about the state of self-realization, which is beyond the level of phenomenal experience. In our attempt to describe Brahmaanubhava, we basically follow a similar approach, clarifying it by moving from negation to affirmation.

1.2.3.1. Self-realization is an experience in which the non-dual Brahman is realized as the substratum (adhisthanam) of the phenomenal world (jagat). The term `jagat' refers to the three worlds of our experience, viz., the gross world of objects and beings, the subtle inner world of emotions and feelings, and the vacant world of deep sleep. Thus, jagat refers to the gross, the subtle and the causal bodies and their experiences in the state of waking, dream and deep-sleep. The experience of the jagat is the result of ignorance. Brahman, identical with Aatman, is the substratum of the world marked by ignorance. Brahmaanubhava is an experience in which one experiences the passing nature of the jagat and Brahman as the adhisthanam of its existence. Vedaantins compare self-realization and what happens in it to the illusion of silver in an oyster shell. In a moonlit night an oyster shell produces the illusion of silver. The illusion remains as long as the true substratum behind the illusion, viz., the oyster shell, is not recognized. The unseen oyster shell is the adhisthanam of the illusion of silver. In the same way in Brahmaanubhva one realizes that the unseen Brahman is the adhisthanam of the pluralistic world (jagat). Substratum is that from which everything originates, in which everything exists and to which everything returns. For example, the ocean is seen as the adhisthanam of the waves, as they come from it, exist in it and go back to it. In the same way, in the state of self-realization Brahman is experienced as the adhisthanam of the pluralistic world, in that it arises from, exists in and merges into the non-dual Brahman.¹²²

1.2.3.2. In the state of self-realization, the seeker discards all type of distinctions, such as, form, color, caste, status and position, in the process experiencing the unity of Brahman with Aatman. In the worldly experience human beings are classified under various categories. Firstly, we have the four castes: the thinker-class (brahmins) the leader-class (kshytriyas), the trader-class (vaisyas) and the labor-class (suudras). Secondly, we have colored races: the white (European), the yellow (Mangolian), the brown (Indian) and the black (African). Thirdly, there are four stages of life (aashramaas): the celibate (brahmachaari), the householder (grahasti), the recluse (vanaprasti) and the sage (sanyaasi). We can add more divisions. All these categorizations are based on the quality, texture and various combinations of gross, subtle and causal bodies, and are due to the difference in physical structure, emotional texture and intellectual caliber. In the state of Brahmaanubhava one experiences the true self within, i.e., Brahman, the infinite consciousness and bliss, who functions through all such categories, is one and the same, is unchanging, ever remaining unaffected by the distinctions such as caste, color, and status. Then one realizes that the world of names and forms, caste and color, race and creed is but the one unchanging supreme reality, the all-pervading real self. A simile is used to illustrate this point. Water is tasteless and colorless and it retains this quality even in a mixture. Yet color and taste is attributed to it because of its association with such substances. In the same way, though Aatman is ever unchanging and pure in all things, due to ignorance one associates it with gross, subtle and causal bodies. The state of self-realization frees the seeker from all these impurities and lets one experience the identity with pure self.¹²³

1.2.3.3. Brahmaanubhava is an experience bereft of attachment (raga), desire (iccha), joy (sukha) and sorrow (dukha). All these four experiences mentioned above are related to each other. When a person lacks something in his life, he feels incomplete and unfulfilled. This feeling of lack makes the intellect of this person work out some plan in relation to which his incompleteness can be remedied. When the scheme is set, there emerges in the person an attachment to his plan. As this attachment gets intensified, it becomes a desire. If the desire is fulfilled the person feels joy and, if not accomplished, it causes him sorrow. All these four experiences are related to the person's intellect. In fact, it is the intellect which is attached, desires and feels pain or joy. In other words, it is the intellect that experiences all these conditions. Self-realization is a state that is beyond these states conditioned by ignorance, as Aatman identical with Brahman is neither a doer nor an enjoyer. Therefore, in Brahmaaunbhava one moves beyond these limiting intellectual conditions and experiences the eternal, pure and self-illumined Brahman as his true self.¹²⁴ 

1.2.3.4. In self-realization all distinctions in the level of knowledge cease to exist because the `knower,' who is `knowing' the world of objects, realizes his true self as Brahman. All such distinctions, such as, `the knower', `the knowing' and `the known' exist only in the phenomenal experience because here knowledge is attained through the media of body, mind and intellect. Brahmaanubhava experience goes beyond these faculties of knowledge in which the seeker becomes the absolute knowledge (Brahman); in the process all distinctions in the level of knowledge vanish. There is no need for any of the faculties to experience Brahman, as it is self-illuminating. All that is required is the elimination of those faculties of knowledge, so that the pure consciousness can shine forth. Just as a lamp, which illuminates other objects, does not need any other lamp to manifest itself, in the same way, the self-effulgent consciousness manifests itself. Thus, self-realization is an experience of oneness in the inner depths of the seeker.¹²⁵ 

1.2.3.5. Self-realization cannot be achieved by the finite efforts of a human individual. It can never come to be as the direct result of one's efforts or due to the effectiveness of one's spiritual practices. The purpose of one's study and spiritual practices is to get rid of the negative tendencies, such as lust (kaama), anger (krodha), greed (lobha), delusion (moha), intoxication (mala) and envy (matsanya), and thereby to bring in an inner tranquillity wherein the self can reveal itself. The realization of the self is like the sun rising in the morning. As the sun rises, it dispels the darkness, and the entire darkness is removed when the sun manifests itself fully. Similarly one attains self-realization when Aatman reveals itself.¹²⁶

Again in Brahmaanubhava nothing new is attained, as Aatman is an ever-present reality. It is the very nature of the seeker and the inner core of his personality. In fact, Aatman was never lost from the person, so one need not to get back to it by one's efforts. When the person works toward removing the limiting adjuncts (vaasanas), Aatman is realized. It is like a dreamer waking up to the state of consciousness. A dreamer has not gained anything which he did not possess by waking up to the state of consciousness, but rather has regained the identity with the conscious state, which he lost while dreaming. In the same way the seeker, who lost sight of his identity with Brahman due to ignorance, now experiences his true nature. Another example would illustrate this aspect of self-realization. A woman wearing an ornament around her neck thinks that she lost it and makes a long search. At the end of the search she recognizes that she herself is wearing it. She may think that she got the ornament back. But, in fact, the ornament was not obtained from anywhere else, but rather she was always in possession of it. Similarly Aatman is an ever-present reality in the core of the seeker's being. When ignorance is destroyed, he discovers his inner core as Aatman.¹²⁷

1.2.3.6. In the state of self-realization one loses sight of the awareness of the `I' (aham) and the `mine' (mama), and experiences the entire universe in one's own self and one's self everywhere. Caught up in the delusion of ignorance, one identifies oneself with his physical and mental faculties and considers oneself as the thinker, feeler and perceiver, i.e., as a subject or an `I'. In this manner comes about the individuality of the person, which, with the help of its contact with sense objects, emotions and thoughts, develops a sense of possessiveness that is expressed in words, such as, `my' and `mine'. In the state of self-realization, due to the emergence of true knowledge of Aatman, the individuality is dissolved along with the notions of `I', `my' and `mine'.¹²⁸ 

The scriptures make use of three analogies to describe this loss of individuality, by the total merger of the transcendental consciousness at the time of self-realization with gross, subtle and causal bodies and the physical and mental faculties associated with them. The first metaphor compares the merger of individuality with the Aatman to the mixture of water with water. Two containers of water have their own separate existence. But when they are mixed together they lose their individualities and become the same mass of water. This mixture refers to the merger of the physical body with the self at the time of self-realization. Before self-realization the physical body is known to be fully different from the Aatman. After self-realization, the self, the all-pervading reality, takes hold of the body, so much so that it loses its independent existence. In other words, the bodily dimension no longer matters in the state of self-realization. Second comparison, viz., the merger of light with light refers to the loss of mental and intellectual faculties and their functions in the ultimate self in Brahmaanubhava. When two distinct lights from two different sources merge, they become one mass of light. Before self-realization, the mind and the intellect were like lights coming from two sources distinct from the self. But during self-realization, they both become one with the self, and the functions of the mind and the intellect are overshadowed so much so that there is no mind and intellect, but only the transcendent self. The third analogy of space uniting with space refers to the ultimate realization of the self by union with Aatman with all-pervading Brahman. Space can never be conditioned because of its subtle nature. Even when we see space as limited by a pot (pot-space) or a room (room-space), in fact, space is one and the same in spite of the apparent conditions, such as, pot and room limiting it. This is also true of the Aatman, the inner self. Though physical, mental and intellectual conditions apparently limit the self, it is limitless reality, which is forever one with Brahman, whether before, during or after its realization.¹²⁹ These analogies clearly show that in the state of self-realization the individuality of a person is destroyed, the self is recognized as the ultimate core of oneself, and identity with the absolute Brahman is experienced.

This loss of individuality and unity with Brahman, experienced by the person in the state of self-realization, brings about a significant change in the perspective of the realized person. He begins to perceive the whole universe as a projection or expression of his self, which is the same as absolute Brahman, one without a second. This is because the true knowledge of the self not only destroys his ignorance, but also the totality of reality. The example of a traveler who lost direction on his journey can illustrate this point. A traveler loses his direction and the direction is pointed out to the east. Instantly he not only understands the east, but also the west, the north and the south, besides the other sub-directions. This example shows that the knowledge of one reality can remove the ignorance regarding other entities as well. Since in self-realization one attain the knowledge of the absolute Brahman, which is omniscient, it, in turn, removes the totality of ignorance. As a result, in Brahmaanubhava one experiences the Aatman in all and all in Aatman, just as the different types of pots, jars and vases are nothing else but the clay in essence. Thus, in the state of self-realization, one not only loses one's individuality, but also experiences the multiplicity of the world in the unity of the self.¹³⁰

1.2.3.7. Self-realization is a state "beyond the attainment of which there is no greater attainment, beyond whose bliss there is no greater bliss and beyond whose knowledge there is no greater knowledge."¹³¹ This particular quotation declares that self-realization is a state of absolute perfection, which is the final goal of human existence. It is a negative statement about the state of self-realization, as it eludes a direct and positive description. The method used in this description of Brahmaanubhava is called tatastha lakshanaa. It is a technique by which an unknown permanent object is pointed out by means of an impermanent object. For example, an unknown house in a row of houses is pointed out by calling one's attention to a bird that sits on its roof. Here the bird is an impermanent reality, but it helps one to identify the unknown, permanent house. The quoted statement describes the unknown state of self-realization in terms of the known experiences of the physical body, mind and intellect. It describes Brahmaanubhava as a state of the greatest attainment, the greatest bliss and the greatest knowledge. The physical body attempts to attain all kinds of achievements by seeking objects of its pleasure. This process goes on until it reaches the transcendental experience, where there can be no greater attainment possible. In the same way the mind seeks the joys of this world until the state of self-realization, where one experiences an absolute state of bliss. The intellect probes the world and acquires a variety of knowledge until it reaches a state in which no greater knowledge is possible. Thus, self-realization is described, in the above statement, as a state beyond the final limit that one can arrive at by one's physical, mental and intellectual functions. It is a state of absolute fulfillment, beyond which there can be no greater experience.¹³² That is why self-realization is again described as ". . . [The state] having seen which there is nothing else to be seen; having become which there is no rebirth; and having known which there is nothing else to be known."¹³³

1.2.3.8. Brahmaanubhava, the non-dual state of unbroken bliss, is attained only when the seeker negates the ephemeral pleasures of the world. Only by way of identification with objects of sense, is a person attached to the world. This attraction to the world becomes so real that one feels secure only in peripheral and terrestrial states created by the mental and physical faculties. When such a state of mind holds a person, he would never be able to know his true nature, and so self-realization can never take place. In order to experience the true realization of Brahman as Aatman one must negate the world, transcend one's perceptions, emotions and thoughts, and surrender one's body, mind and intellect to the experience of the self. Once self-realization emerges, the totality of experiences conditioned by the physical and mental faculties merges into the unbroken bliss of the eternal Brahman. This experience can be compared to the dream world and its experiences merging into the mind of the waker when the dreamer awakens to the waking state. When the dreamer wakes up from the dream, he realizes that the totality of his dream is nothing else but an aspect of his mind. It is this negation of the contents of the dream as non-real that makes the dreamer experience the reality of the waking state. In the same way, unless one negates this terrestrial existence, Brahmaanubhava will not dawn on one.¹³⁴ 

1.2.3.9. Self-realization is a non-dual experience in which the seeker experiences Brahman as pervading the whole universe. Permeating the universe, Brahman manifests itself on four levels. On the level of gross and inert objects, Brahman manifests itself as existence (sat). In the waking and dream states of living beings, Brahman gives itself as intelligence (chit). In the deep-sleep condition of animate beings, Brahman gives itself as the bliss (aananda). The fourth level is the state of self-realization where Brahman is experienced in its purest and unmanifest existence. The analogy of the iron ball in the fire illustrates this truth. When the iron ball is placed in the fire, it acquires the qualities of the fire, such as, heat, light and ability to burn. The fire permeates the whole ball and exists above and over it. Similarly Brahman permeates the whole universe in the level of existence, intelligence and bliss, besides existing beyond these levels as the unmanifest Brahman.¹³⁵

Thus, in Brahmaanubhava one realizes that there exists nothing other than Brahman; whatever is seen and heard cannot be anything other than Brahman, and at the same time Brahman is other than the universe, ever present and permanent. This point is better explained with the help of the example of a mirage in a desert. The traveler who journeys through the desert sees water where nothing other than the hot sand of the desert exists. So his experience of water in the desert is an illusion, and in a similar manner a person who is caught up in the state of ignorance perceives the universe. The non-dual and eternal Brahman is seen as the limited and perishable world. Thus, his perception of Brahman as identical with the world is as much an illusion as a traveler seeing water in a desert. This analogy of the mirage in the desert sand clearly shows that the mirage has no independent existence apart from the desert. The desert is the substratum of the illusion of mirage. That which is real is the desert. In the same way the universe is an unreality based on the substratum of Brahman, which only is really real. This illustration also points to the fact that Brahman is other than the universe and is ever permanent, just as is the desert in relation to the mirage. It is this truth that makes the scriptures declare Brahman as Satyam (reality) and the universe as mithya (illusion). Satyam is that which is permanent, enveloping the whole range of time, viz., the past, the present and the future. But mithya is a temporary reality seen in the present, which does not have roots in the past and which may pass away in the future.¹³⁶ Thus, the state of self-realization is an unique experience, in which the seeker experiences everything that exists in Brahman and at the same time sees Brahman as something other than the universe that gives permanence and unity to every level of existence.

Even though all these descriptions we have attempted to provide may not fully clarify the state of self-realization, they do give us diverse insights about this unique state, which cannot be understood in terms of the categories of the phenomenal existence.

Now that we have analyzed, so far in this chapter, the nature of Brahman, Aatman and Brahmaanubhava, we could proceed to look into some of the characteristics of this state in this section. The study of the characteristics of self-realization would elucidate the concept of this state further. We can speak of four basic characteristics of self-realization, as follows: experience of oneness, immediate and direct experience, indescribable experience and uncaused experience. We will elaborate on each of these characteristics.

Self-realization does not have an object of experience, nor does it have a subject of experience in the empirical sense, as Brahman is neither a subject nor an object. Shankara speaks of Brahmaanubhava as "pure knowledge and pure bliss, not smitten with suffering like sense perception, but serene (prasana), ever content and homogeneous or undifferentiated (ekarasa).¹³⁷ Since self-realization is pure existence (avagatimarta) and pure knowledge (keevala jnaana), there is no possibility for the Aatman or Brahman to become its subject or object.

Brahman cannot be the knower of self-realization, because if Brahman is constantly aware of its bliss, that is its nature. Hence there is no sense in maintaining that Brahman cognizes its own bliss. If, on the other hand, we suppose that Brahman knows its bliss in an interrupted manner, then in the intervals when it does not cognize itself, it must do something else. The result of such a view would lead to the consideration of Brahman as changing and non-permanent.¹³⁸ So either way, Brahman cannot be the subject of Brahmaanubhava. It, therefore, is "neither Brahman-consciousness nor self-consciousness; it is pure consciousness without subject-object duality."¹³⁹ Shankara uses the example of fire and light to illustrate the impossibility of Brahman being the subject of self-realization. Fire cannot burn itself, but burning is the very nature and essence of fire. Neither does light enlighten itself, but, enlightening other objects, is the very nature of light. In the same way Brahman is essentially knowledge and being. So, we cannot say that Brahman knows itself, for its very nature is knowledge. "As the fire does not burn itself", says Shankara, "so the self does not know itself."¹⁴⁰

Shankara likewise holds that Brahmaanubhava is an objectless experience. When speaking of it, one thinks that it is an experience of Brahman by the self. This way of looking at self-realization stems from ignorance. In fact Brahman is none other than one's own self, and Brahmaanubhava does not mean experiencing Brahman as an object, but the realization of the real nature of one's own self.¹⁴¹ Unlike empirical experience, Brahmaanubhava is not an experience of Brahman as an object, for it is not different from Brahman. When one attains self-realization one does not experience Brahman objectively (vastu) but recognizes his true nature, which is Brahman. "In Brahmaanubhava", says Shankara, "the differences between the experiencer (labdha), the experienced (labdhya) and the experience (upalabdhi) are totally absent."¹⁴² Thus, self-realization is a non-dual and unique experience, which in no way involves the distinction between the subject and the object.

Though Shankara strongly defends the non-dualistic nature of Brahmaanubhava, many scriptural texts seem to contradict his position. Some passages in the scripture refer to Brahman as `all-knowing' and `eternal'.¹⁴³ Besides, Shankara himself speaks of Brahman as a witness (saakshi) of all actions that take place in the world of phenomena.¹⁴⁴ Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad gives an analogy of the union of two lovers as an illustration to clarify the notion of Brahmaanubhava. A man fully embraced by his beloved wife does not know anything, either internal or external, and is fully absorbed in the one whom he loves; so the infinite being, fully embraced by the supreme self, does not know anything at all, either internal or external.¹⁴⁵ Again, in the same Upanishad, there is another illustration pointing to duality in Brahmaanubhava. When a lump of salt, which is a product of sea water, falls into the sea it becomes fully dissolved in the water and becomes one with it, to such a degree that it can never again be separated from the sea water. In the same way, in self-realization the individual self enters into the supreme self, loses its separate identity and becomes one with the supreme self.¹⁴⁶ Mundaka Upanishad states: "As the flowing rivers disappear in the ocean quitting names and forms: so the knower, being liberated from name and form, goes into heavenly person (Brahman), the higher than the high."¹⁴⁷

All these illustrations, whose intent and purpose is to describe the nature of self-realization, seem to point to a duality between Brahman and the self in Brahmaanubhava. They portray self-realization as that experience by which the self attains Brahman. The ideas of Brahman as the witness and as the eternal knower suggest that Brahman is a subject distinct from the self as the object. The ideas -- that the self is embraced into Brahman like a lover is embraced by the beloved, that the self is dissolved into Brahman as the salt is dissolved into the sea water and that the self enters Brahman as rivers merge into the ocean -- indicate that in Brahmaanubhava there is a union of two distinct realities. They also point to the fact that the self's oneness with Brahman is as the result of its union with Brahman. This means that Brahman is the goal of the self and the object of higher realization.¹⁴⁸ As a result, self-realization amounts to an experience of Brahman by the self, i.e., the self is the subject whose object of experience is Brahman.

This description of Brahmaanubhava is incompatible with Shankara's Advaitic understanding of self-realization. He considers it as an experience which involves no duality. If Brahmaanubhava is the experience of the self whose object is Brahman, then this experience cannot be absolute, but rather only transitory and limited, because the individual self or the experiencer is limited. According to Shankara, the dualistic consideration of self-realization is a result of ignorance, which consists in mistakenly accepting the phenomenal (vyavahaara) as the transcendental (paramaartha). As long as one is under the sway of ignorance, one is not going to see the true nature of self-realization. In reality Brahman is neither a knower nor a witness. The word `knower' is used of Brahman figuratively, to indicate pure knowledge, which is the nature of Brahman.<sup>149</sup> For Shankara says "the immutable consciousness that is Brahman is spoken of as the `eternal knower' by a figure of speech (upachara), just as, by virtue of its heat, fire is regarded as the agent of heating."¹⁵⁰ All concepts of duality enter only if these texts are interpreted from the phenomenal point of view. But Shankara holds that if the Upanishadic texts are given the right interpretation, they in no way conflict with the tenets of Advaita Vedaanta.

Commenting on the illustration in which the self is spoken of as being embraced by the supreme self, Shankara argues that the supreme self is not different from the individual self. In fact, they are one and the same self, pure consciousness. Due to ignorance we see the supreme self as the individual self. The individual self is embraced by its own real nature, which is the supreme and infinite. Therefore, what is embraced and what embraces are one and the same. They are not two different realities, but are identical. However, the empirical self, before it has realized its real nature, thinks of the supreme self as something different from it. The idea of embracing is meaningful only from the point of view of an empirical self. But what actually happens in Brahmaanubhava is that the self realizes its real nature by giving up ignorance.¹⁵¹ The words used in the illustrations like `entering' (preveesa), `merging' (aapti) and `attaining' (labdha) are figuratively used, similar to the words `witness' or `the eternal knower'. They have meaning and significance only from the relative point of view. Shankara clearly points to this truth in his commentary on Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad in which he says:

Therefore, for Shankara, these problems -- whether self-realization has an object or not; if it has an object how can it be non-dual; and if it does not have an object how can it be considered an experience of Brahman -- arise only when Brahmaanubhava is understood and explained from the stand point of empirical experience. From the point of view of absolute knowledge there are no such problems. True knowledge is non-dual. Brahmaanubhava is nothing but Brahman itself. One can attain self-realization only by directly and immediately being Brahman. In Brahmaanubhava there is no distinction between Brahman and the experience of Brahman. Direct and immediate experience of Brahman is Brahmaanubhava.¹⁵³ Thus, it is a non-dual, subject-objectless experience.

Since self-realization is non-dual, subjectless and objectless experience, it must be immediate and direct experience.¹⁵⁴ So, unlike the empirical experience, it cannot be obtained through senses, mind and intellect. It is immediate and direct because it consists in recognizing and realizing one's own true nature. There is no need of any mediation for the self to know it's own self. For Shankara says: "The consciousness of objects (which arise out of the functioning of the eye and other faculties) is mediately known: for it depends on an intervening reflection of the self (in order to be known). As it is the self of the phenomenal consciousness, Brahman is immediately known."¹⁵⁵

In order to demonstrate the immediate and direct nature of Brahmaanubhava, Shankara alludes to the Upanishadic illustration of a group of people crossing the river. When they had crossed the river, in order to ascertain whether all in the company had arrived at the other side of the river, one person began to count the members of the group. He counted everyone except himself. Each time he counted and found one person missing from the group, until he came to realize that he himself was the missing person, for whom he had been looking. In such realization, neither was there any effort involved, nor was there any intervention or mediation of any other factor, for the missing person and the one who was looking for the missing person are one and the same, and are identical with each other. Hence there is no need for any mediation to recognize one's own self.¹⁵⁶ All that is needed in the direct realization is recognizing one's own self as the true self (Brahman). Therefore, self-realization is the direct experience of the reality of oneself. It is direct and immediate experience and is never obtained through any media like the senses, the mind or the intellect.

Since Brahmaanubhava is without subject-object duality and is immediate and direct experience, it is indescribable. The very notion of description involves duality. In the empirical realm any experience, however small or great, can be given at least some description. What can be known through various means of empirical knowledge (pramaanas) can also be expressed in words, using our own everyday or philosophical language. What is not known or experienced through empirical means of knowledge cannot be expressed in words. As Brahmaanubhava is trans-empirical, non-dual and undifferentiated, it is indescribable. As Brahman is beyond all phenomena, the experience of Brahman also is beyond the realm of phenomenal language. Shankara says: "It is only to the object of knowledge and not to the non-objects that a word or the idea can be applied. Brahman, which is the self of them and also of the ego is not within the scope of the word or an idea."¹⁵⁷ Maanduukya Upanishad speaks of the indescribable nature of Brahman in the following passage:

Since Brahman is indescribable and unknowable, Brahmaanubhava is also indescribable. A thing can be defined when it can be distinguished from other things, because of its distinguishing characterization. But there is nothing different from Brahman, from which it can be distinguished. Nor can anything be said about Brahman, so that it can be distinguished on that basis. Therefore, one can speak of self-realization only by way of negation, by denying qualities of the empirical experience superimposed on Brahmaanubhava by ignorance. In the empirical realm, any experience small or great can be given at least some kind of description. Brahmaanubhava is trans-empirical and cannot be described because of the very fact that it is non-dual and undifferentiated. The words and languages we use refer to the phenomenal world and to the relative realities. As Brahman is beyond all that is phenomenal, self-realization cannot be described in ordinary language. For Shankara says: "It is only to the object of knowledge and not to the non-objects that a word or an idea can be applied. Brahman, which is the self of them all and also of the ego is not within the scope of a word or an idea."¹⁵⁹

Yet the Upanishads do attempt to define Brahman as `reality' (satyam), `knowledge' (jnaanam) and `infinitude' (aanandam).<sup>160</sup> In fact, this description is not true of Brahman, for it does not elevate our conception of Brahman to a higher level, or remove our conception of finitude. It only negates the qualities of `unreality', `ignorance' and `finitude' superimposed upon Brahman. The description of Brahman as `reality-knowledge-infinitude' is a logical impropriety. By this very impropriety this description of Brahman serves to show the logical uniqueness of Brahman and that of Brahmaanubhava. By its striking oddness the phrase preserves as well as reveals, to some extent, the great mystery of Brahman. It preserves the mystery of Brahman because we have no idea what infinite knowledge is, though we know what knowledge is. It reveals the mystery of Brahman because it effectively shows the uniqueness of Brahman by differentiating it from all objects and empirical subjects.¹⁶¹ 

Self-realization is of the nature of Brahman. Since Brahman is eternal, Brahmaanubhava is an eternal experience. Therefore, one cannot speak of it as taking place in some particular moment in time. Unlike empirical experiences, self-realization is an experience, which is without a beginning or an end. In empirical experience there is the distinction between `the knower', `the known' and `the knowledge'. In self-realization there are no such distinctions, for Shankara says, "knowledge is eternal knowledge. The known and the knowledge are not different"¹⁶² in Brahmaanubhava.

Thus, Brahmaanubhava is the knowledge of an ontological state of absolute oneness and unity between Brahman (the unchanging, eternal reality in the universe) and Aatman (the unchanging, eternal reality in the individual).¹⁶³ Therefore, Brahmaanubhava is as eternal as Brahman and Aatman. It is not something that is caused by the individual who is striving to reach this state of unity. It is not an experience that takes place in time and which has Brahman for its object. For Shankara, the attainment of the self or Brahman cannot be obtaining of something, which has not been obtained before, for in Brahmaanubhava there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained.¹⁶⁴ If Brahman is said to attain something other than itself, it becomes the attainer and the non-self, i.e., the object of attainment, because Brahman, the pure consciousness and eternal knowledge, is the one absolute reality.¹⁶⁵

As eternal Brahmaanubhava is uncaused. There is nothing that can cause self-realization directly; it is an experience, which cannot be effected (asaadhya). Any attempt to cause self-realization is meaningless since the finite and limited cannot cause the trans-empirical and transcendental experience. As Brahmaanubhava is pure consciousness, it is essential for the attainment of anything, and therefore the very attempt to attain it indicates its attainment. In other words, all means of attainment are based on pure consciousness and so nothing can be attained without presupposing it. Therefore the self or Brahman is the basis of knowledge and in attaining Brahmaanubhava everything else is attained.¹⁶⁶ For Shankara says that just as one may get to the missing animal, by searching for it through its footprints, similarly when the self is attained everything is attained. The very knowledge of the self is its attainment.¹⁶⁷ Brahmaanubhava is so transcendental that there is no direct means of attaining it. According to Shankara looking for means to attain Brahmaanubhava would be like swimming on land under the impression that it is water, or searching for footprints of birds in space.¹⁶⁸ Thus, self-realization is eternal, uncaused, and identical with absolute reality. It consisting in recognizing that one is Brahman.

1. Cf. Radhakrishnan, S., The Principal Upanishads, 3^rd impression, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1969), pp. 52-53.

2. Cf. Swami Gambhrananda, trans., Brahma-Suutra Bhaashya, 3^rd ed., (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1977), I, i, 1, pp. 11-12 (Hereafter: BSB). Cf. Also Radhakrishnan, S., The Principal Upanishads, p. 52.

3. Ramkant A. Sinari, The Structure of Indian Thought, (Illinois: Charles E. Thomas Publisher, 1970), p. 67.

4. Swami Virswarananda, trans., Brahma-Suutra, (Mayavata: Advaita Ashrama, 1948), I, i, 2, p. 26 (Hereafter: BSB, Virswarananda).

5. Cf. BSB, Thaibaut, pp. xxiv-xxv.

6. Cf. BSB, III, ii, 37.

7. Cf. ibid., III, ii, 26.

8. Cf. ibid., I, iii, 10; III, iii, 33.

9. Cf. ibid., II, i, 26.

10. Cf. ibid., III, ii, 13.

11. Cf. ibid., III, ii, 11.

12. Cf. ibid., I, iii, 8.

13. Cf. ibid., III, ii, 12.

14. Cf. Ch.U., VIII, vii, 1.

15. Cf. BU, III, iv, 1.

16. Cf. ibid., III, v, 1.

17. Cf. ibid., III, viii, 8.

18. Cf. ibid., III, ix, 26.

19. Cf. TU, II, vii. 

20. Cf. BU, IV, iv, 22. 

21. Cf. MU, II, i, 2. 

22. Cf. ibid. 

23. Cf. BU, II, iv, 12. 

24. Cf. Ke.U., I, iii. 

25. Cf. Radhakrishnan, S., trans., Bagavad Giita, (London: Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1949), II, 20 (Hereafter: BG). 

26. Cf. ibid., V, 15. 

27. Cf. ibid., IX, 6. 

28. Cf. ibid., XIII, 12. 

29. Cf. ibid., XIII, 31. 

30. Cf. ibid., XIII, 27.

31. Cf. ibid., XV, 17. 

32. Cf. Shankara, Aatmabhoodha [Knowledge of the Self], trans. A. Parthasarathy, 3^rd ed., (Bombay: Vedaanta Life Institute, 1960), no. 36, pp. 74-76 [Hereafter: AB, Parthasarathy]. Cf. Also A. Parthasarathy, Vedaanta Treatise, 3^rd ed., (Bombay: Vedaanta Life Institute, 1989), pp. 304-307. 

33. Radhakrishnan, S., The Principal Upanishads, p. 272. 

34. Ibid., p. 617.

35. Cf. Paul Daussen, The System of Vedaanta, trans. Charles Johnson, (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., 1912), pp. 211-212. Cf. Also BSB, II, i, 20. 

36. Radhakrishnan, S. and Moore C.A., eds., A Source Book in Indian Philosophy, 5^th printing, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 507.

37. In interpreting the Upanishadic texts, Shankara is of the opinion that one must accept only those texts which speak of Brahman without qualities and forms. "But other texts speaking of Brahman with form", he says, "have the injunctions about meditations as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to some contradictions, their apparent meaning should be accepted. But, when they involve contradictions, the principle to be followed for deciding one or the other is that those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are more authoritative than the other which have not that as their main purpose. It is according to this that one is driven to the conclusion that Brahman is formless and not its opposite." Cf. BSB, III, ii, 14, p. 612. 

38. BU, IV, v, 13. 

39. Cf. BSB, III, ii, 16, pp. 613-614. 

40. Cf. ibid., III, ii, 18-20, pp. 615-617. 

41. Cf. A. Parthasarathy, Vedaanta Treatise, pp. 303-304. Cf. Also Shankara, Aprokshaanubhuuti(Self-realization) of Sri Shankaraachaariya, trans. Swami Vimuktananda, (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1977), no. 64, p. 36 [Hereafter: AI]. 

42. Cf. VC, pp. 67-69, 101-102. 

43. A. Parthasarathy, Vedaanta Treatise, p. 304. 

44. Baskali asked Bhava three times about the nature of Brahman. The latter remained silent all three times, but, finally he replied: "I have already spoken, but you cannot comprehend that self is silence". BSB, III, ii, 17, p. 614.

45. Cf. Eliot Deutsch, Advaita Vedaanta -- A Philosophical Reconstruction, 2^nd ed., (Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1962), p. 9. 

46. Cf. Rathakrishnan S., The Principal Upanishads, p. 73. 

47. Cf. BSB, I, i, 1, p. 12. Cf. Also Shankara, Aatmajnaanoopadesha Vidhi, trans. Swami Jagadananda, (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1979), no. IV, 10-11 (Hereafter: AV). 

48. Cf. BSB, II, iii, 7, p. 455.

49. Cf. ibid., p. 456. 

50. Ibid., p. 457. 

51. Organ Troy Wilson, The Self in Indian Philosophy, (London: Mouton & Co., 1964), p. 104. 

52. AV, no. II, 1. 

53. Cf. Shankara, Self-knowledge (Aatmabhooda), trans. Swami Niilananda, (New York: Ramakrishana Vivekananta Center, 1980), p. 118 (Hereafter: AB, Swami Nihilananda). 54. Cf. AB, A. Parthasarathi, no. 16, pp. 34-37. 

55. Cf. ibid., no.18, pp. 39-40. Cf. Also AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. 133. Cf. Also AV, nos. III, 1-9; IV, 1-12. 

56. Cf. AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. 133. 

57. Cf. ibid., p. 136. Cf. Mahendranath Sircar, The System of Vedic Thought and Culture,(New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 1987), pp. 156-157. 

58. Cf. AB, Swami Nihilananda, pp. 136-137. 

59. Cf. AB, A. Parathasarathy, no. 19, pp. 41-42. 

60. Ibid., p. 42. 

61. Cf. AB, Swami Nihilananda, pp. 137-138. 

62. Cf. AI, no. 60, p. 43. 

63. Cf. ibid., no. 61, pp. 34-35. 

64. Cf. ibid., no. 62, p. 35. 

65. BU, III, viii, 1. 

66. AB, Parthasarthy, no. 24, p. 49. 

67. Ibid., no. 34, p. 68. 

68. Ibid., no. 35, p. 71 

69. Cf. ibid., no. 24, pp. 49-50. 

70. Cf. ibid., no. 34, pp. 68-70. 

71. Cf. ibid., no. 35, pp. 71-73.

72. Ch.U., V, ix, 1. 

73. Paul Deusen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1966), pp.86-87.

74. BSB, I, i, 1, pp. 11-12. Cf. Also BU, II, v, 19. 

75. VC, p. 66. 

76. Radhakrishnan S., The Principal Upanishads, pp. 73-74. 

77. Cf. ibid., p. 77. 

78. CU, III, xiv, 1. 

79. BU, I, iv, 10.

80. Ibid., III, iv,1.

81. Ibid., III, vii, 3.

82. CU, VI, viii, 7.

83. S. Radhakrishnan, basing himself on the authority of A.B. Keith, claims that no one can deny that the Brahman-Aatman doctrine has a long history, originating from the Rig Veda, developing in the Brahmanas and culminating in the Upanishads. Cf. Radhakrishnan S., The Principal Upanishads, p. 77, fn. 3. 

84. Cf. Radhakrishnan S., Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 513.

85. Cf. Shankara, Brihdaaranyaka Upanishad Bhaashya, trans. Swami Madhvananda, 5^th ed., (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1975), VI, v, 6 (Hereafter: BUB).

86. Shankara, Gaudapaadakaarika Bhaashya and Maanduukya Upanishad Bhaashya, trans. Swami Nihilananda, (Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama, 1955), IV, 85 (Hereafter: GKB).

87. VC, p. 65.

88. Ibid., p. 89.

89. Shankara, Upadeshasaahasrii, trans. Swami Jagadananda, 6^th ed., (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1979), II, xvi, 70, p. 189 (Hereafter: UI).

90. BSB, IV, i , 2, p. 815.

91. Cf. ibid., I, i, 4, p. 23.

92. Cf. Ramamurthi A., Advaitc Mysticism of Shankara, (West Bengal: The Center for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Vishva Bharati, Shanti Niketan, 1974), p. 116.

93. AU, III, i, 3.

94. CU, IV, x, 4.

95. Ma.U., I, 2.

96. BU, I, iv, 10.

97. Cf. Parthasrathy A., Vedaanta Treatise, pp. 329-330. Cf. Also AB, Parthasarathy, no. 30, pp. 60-61.

98. Cf. A. Parthasarathy, Vedaanta Treatise, p. 330. Cf. Also AB, Parthasarathy, no. 30, p. 61.

99. Cf. Sadananda Yogindra, Vedaantasaara (The Essence of Vedaanta) of Sadananda Yogindra, trans. Swami Nihilananda, (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1968), no. 144, p. 90 (Hereafter: VSS). 

100. Cf. ibid., no. 144, pp. 89-90. Cf. Also Shankara, Vaakyavritti of Shankaraachaarya, trans. Swami Jaagadananda, (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1979), no. 45. Cf. Also AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. 89 (Hereafter: VV). 

101. Cf. VV, nos. 3-4, 22, 44. Cf. Also AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. 90.

102 BSB, IV, i, 3, p. 818. Cf. Also AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. 90. Cf. Also T.M.P. Mahadevan, Superimposition in Advaita Vedaanta, (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Ltd., 1985), p. 67.

103 Negative method attempts to arrive at the truth of a word by negating those attributes that are not in that word. The formula used by this method is `neti neti' (not this, not this). Cf. BU, II. Cf. also Shankara, Upadeshasaahasrii of Shankarachaarya, trans. Swami Jagadananda, (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1979), I, i, 18, 21-23 (Hereafter: UI). The direct, positive method attempts to describe positive attributes that are contained in the word. Cf. TU, II, i, 1; III, vi, 1. 

104. Cf. VV, no. 28. 

105. Cf. ibid., nos. 29-36. 

106. Cf. VSS, no. 145, pp. 91-92. 

107. Cf. VV, nos. 11-27. 

108. VSS, no. 147, p. 91. Cf. Also VV, nos. 39-41. 

109. Cf. VSS, no. 148, pp. 91-92. 

110. Cf. ibid., nos. 149-154, pp. 92-96. 

111. Cf. ibid., nos. 155-158, pp. 96-98. Cf. Also VV, no. 38. Cf. Also Shankara, Panchadaasi, trans. Hari Prasad Shastri, (London: Shanti Sadan, 1956), 7. 75 (Hereafter: PI).

112. Gangaa is the Sanskrit name for the river Ganges.

113. Cf. VSS, nos. 153, 159-169, pp. 95, 98-105. 

114. Cf. ibid. 

115. Cf. Eliot Deutsch, p. 49. 

116. Cf. ibid., p. 50. 

117. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 39. 

118. Cf. A. Parthasarathy, Vedaanta Treatise, pp. 330-333. Cf. Also AB, Parthasarathy, no. 30, p. 61.

119. Cf. A. Parthasarathy, Vedaanta Treatise, p. 331. Cf. Also AB, Parthasarathy, no. 30, pp. 61-62.

120. Radhakrishnan S., The Principal Upanishads, p. 698. 

121. Cf. Rene Guenon, Man and His Becoming according to Vedaanta, trans. Richard Nicholson, (London: Luzag & Co., 1945), pp. 112-113. 

122. Cf. AB, Parthasarathy, no. 7, pp. 14-15. 

123. Cf. ibid., nos., 11,40, pp. 22-23, 82-83. 

124. Cf. ibid., no. 23, pp. 47-48. 

125. Cf. ibid., no. 41, pp. 83-84. 

126. Cf. ibid., no. 43, pp. 87-88. 

127. Cf. ibid., no. 44, pp. 88-89. 

128. Cf. ibid., no. 46, p. 91. 

129. Cf. ibid., no. 53, pp. 105-107. 

130. Cf. ibid., nos. 47-48, pp. 92-96. 

131. Ibid., no. 54, p. 108. 

132. Cf. ibid., no. 54, pp. 108-109. 

133. Ibid., no 55, p. 109. 

134. Cf. ibid., no. 57, p. 113.

135. Cf. ibid., no. 62, pp. 121-122. 

136. Cf. ibid., nos. 63-64, pp. 122-125. 

137. BUB, III, xxviii, 7. 

138. Cf. ibid. 

139. Ramamurthi A., p. 19. 

140. BUB, II, iv, 14. 

141. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 99. 

142. Ibid., p. 101. 

143. Cf. BSB, I, i, 4, p. 22. 

144. Cf. AB, Swami Nihilananda, p. 136. Cf. Also BUB, IV, iii, 23. 

145. Cf. BUB, IV, iii, 21. 

146. Cf. ibid., II, iv, 12. 

147. MU, III, ii, 8. Cf. Also PU, VI, 5. 

148. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 103. 

149. Cf. BUB, III, iv, 2. 

150. Shankara, Bhagavat Giita Bhaashya, trans. Mahadeva Sastri, (Madras: V. Ramaswami Sastrulu & Sons, 1961), XIII, 2 (Hereafter: BGB). 

151. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 104. 

152. BUB, IV, iv, 6. 

153. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 115. 

154. Cf. BUB, III, v, 1. 

155. UI, II, xvii, 40, p. 203.

156. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 22.

157. Cf. UI, II, xviii, 24, p. 225.

158. Ma.U., VIII.

159. UI, II, xviii, 24, p. 225. Cf. Also Ramamurthi A., p. 23.

160. Cf. TUB, II, 1.

161. Cf. Satchidananda Murthi, Reason and Revelation in Advaita Vedaanta, (Waltair: Andhra University Press, 1959), p. 64.

162. UI, I, ii, 79, p. 51.

163. Cf. AB, Swami Nihilananda, no. 1, p. 118.

164. Cf. BUB, I, iv, 7.

165. Cf. ibid.

166. Cf. Ramamurthi A., p. 58.

167. Cf. BUB, I, iv, 22.

168. Cf. ibid., IV, iv, 22. Ch