WHAT IS REAL? HOW DO WE KNOW IT?

VEDIC VISION: WHAT IS REAL AND HOW DO WE KNOW IT?

VEDIC ONTOLOGY

Vedānta defines real as that which never changes; for that which is ever changing cannot be real.  Put differently, the unreal has no existence; the real never ceases to exist (nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ: B.G. 2.16). The first part of the statement—the unreal does not exist—is easy to understand. The mirage in the dessert is not real and the city in the sky is not real either.  They are mere appearances and hence do not exist.

That brings us to the next part of the statement: the Real never changes. This part requires some elaboration.

It is our common experience that everything that we perceive is ceaselessly changing. Our body is constantly changing; our mind (thoughts/feelings) is constantly changing; and everything in the external world is continuously changing. They cannot be real according to the above definition of reality.

Does that mean that there is nothing really real (satyasya satya)?

Vedānta says that the Witnessing Consciousness in everyone that perceives the entire changing phenomenon is the only unchanging reality. Everything else that is constantly changing is a mere ‘appearance’ in the Pure Consciousness. This Pure Consciousness is the observer of all the changes; it is the substratum in which all changes appear and disappear! By definition, the observer has to be changeless to be able to perceive the changes. Vedānta calls it the inmost Self (pratyagātmā) of all beings.

Vedānta declares that You are the Self (tat tvam asi: Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7)—the unchanging Witnessing Consciousness that perceives the changes in the body-mind-senses, the three states (waking, dream, and deep sleep), and the phenomenal world.

This unchanging Consciousness is the Absolute Reality. It is called Brahman in its universal aspect. The same universal Consciousness experienced as the Self in all beings is called Ātman.[1] There is an absolute identity of Brahman and Ātman, for Reality is One, without a second (ekam evādvitīyam, Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1). Ātman and Brahman are two designations of the same Absolute Reality (Tad Ekam), the unchanging Witnessing Consciousness.  That One is denoted by the primordial sound ‘OM’ and is the only thing, which is really real: Om Tat Sat! This is the ontology of Vedānta.

To know this unchanging Pure Consciousness as our very own Self is to attain immortality (amṛt tattvam) — yaj jñātvāmṛtam aśnute: B.G. 13.12; knowing which one becomes free from all that is inauspicious (yaj jñātvā mokṣyaseśubhāt: B.G. 9.1). Anything other than the Self is ephemeral.[2] According to the Vedic vision, this is the summum bonum, the Supreme Goal (charma-lakshya) of human life.

WHO AM I, REALLY?

VEDIC EPISTEMOLOGY

First realize that your world is a reflection of yourself and then stop finding fault with the reflection. ~Nisargadatta Maharaj

The spiritual quest begins and ends with the question, Who Am I? The whole purpose of Vedāntic study is to discover our true nature, who we truly are. The simplest way to know who you are is to find out who you are not.

Almost everyone takes oneself to be the body-mind-senses complex. It is quite natural (naisargika) and necessary for functioning in the world (loka-vyavahāra).[3]

When someone asks you who you are, you tend to say, ‘I am so and so,’ referring to your name and some form of identity (related to your work or profession). We generally answer such questions from the standpoint of our personality or ego-entity. Is that who we really are?

As a starting point, it is important to understand the simple difference between the subject and the object. Can you be the subject (the perceiver) and the object (the perceived) at the same time?

The answer is no.

For example, I see/perceive my car. I cannot be the car. Similarly, I perceive this body. This body, like my car, appears as an object to me. I am the subject and the body appears to be as an object. And subject cannot be the object. They are of totally different nature, like light and darkness and cannot be present at the same place, same time (tama-prakāshavata viruddha-svabhāva ekatra samāvesha asambhava).[4] And yet, we all quite naturally mis-take our body, mind etc., to be our real self in our day to day affairs.[5] This mutual superimposition of the real Self and the unreal non-Self is called nescience, avidyā, in Vedānta. The only purpose of studying Vedānta is to remove this misconception about our true nature.

I cannot be this body—for, I am the subject, and the body is an object to me.

Vedānta says that the spiritual quest begins and ends with understanding this vital point—that, I am not this body.

Let us carry our self-inquiry a bit further.

I am aware of my thoughts and feelings. They ceaselessly come and go out of my awareness. I perceive my thoughts (as objects). Therefore, I cannot be my thoughts and feelings, a.k.a. my mind. But I remain, as the perceiver of their presence and absence. If I were the thoughts, then when they disappear, I will disappear too.

When you say, ‘My mind is calm or restless,’ you are referring to your mind as an “object.” You, the subject, are aware of your calm or restless mind, the object. Therefore, you are not the mind either.

What about the intellect, the seat of logic and reasoning?

Am I my intellect?

Let’s say a friend asks you, ‘Do you understand Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity?  You may reply, ‘No, it is too difficult or too complex for me.’ My intellect cannot grasp it or figure it out. When you say so, you, the subject, are objectifying your intellect.

Hence, you cannot be the intellect either.

Now we see the problem with Descartes’ famous assertion, “I think, therefore, I am.” (Cogito ergo sum)

Did the great French philosopher mean to say that, when he is not thinking, he ceases to exist? We hope not.

“I am, therefore, I think” (Sum ergo cogito) seems to more in line with the way the things are. I have to be there first, before I can think any thoughts. I experience my thoughts. The experiencer, by definition, is prior to the experience.

Let us recapitulate:

I am not the body, nor I am the mind or the intellect.

What about the ego? Am I my ego, the me-notion, the seat of my transactional personality?

Often, we refer to others as vain and proud and ourselves as humble. In this manner, we are unwittingly ‘objectifying’ our ego.

What is ego, anyway? Does it really exist? Or is it just a concept, an “I-notion” or “I-thought,” that appears and disappears in the mind, like any other thought.

If ego is just another thought appearing in the mind, then I cannot be the ego. Ego is the imaginary self that we mis-take ourselves to be. This, says Vedānta, is the root of all evil.

If I am not the body, nor the mind, the intellect, or the ego, who am I, then?

As is clear from the foregoing analysis, the body, the mind, the intellect and the ego—all are objects to ME. I am the Subject. They come and go. But I remain—I do not come and go with them. I am prior to them (agrayam). They ceaselessly change. I am the unchanging substratum, the witnessing Consciousness that lends existence to all objects, perceptions (of the body-mind and the world), thoughts, and feelings. Their existence depends upon me. My existence does not depend upon them. I exist, regardless.

What is the practical utility of this knowledge or understanding?

If I am not the body-mind-intellect-ego-complex, then I am not conditioned by them—I am not limited by them. Their limitations are not my limitations and I am not affected by them.

What are the limitations of the physical body? The body is born at a certain time, grows ill, old, and eventually dies.  If I am NOT the body, then birth, old age, death, etc., do not belong to me. They belong to the body. In my essential nature (svarupa), I am not affected by them.

As the Self, I am never born; as the Self, I never die. I am eternal (nitya) (B.G. 2.20), changeless, ever the same.

Since my true Self is of the nature of Pure Awareness, the limitations of the mind and intellect do not limit me either.

My true Self is all-pervading (sarvagatah) like space (vyōm-vat). Can space ever become impure? So, I do not need to “purify” my mind. How can you purify space, which is ever pure?

This puts an end to the whole self-improvement business!

I, the Self, do not need to be liberated. How can the space be bound?

Our “being” does not need any liberation or awakening because it is never bound, to begin with.

This puts an end to the whole enlightenment business.

I, in my true nature as the Witnessing-Consciousness, am ever pure and liberated (nitya-shuddha-bhudda-mukta-svabhāva).[6]

This is who I am, right now, and right here.

This puts an end to all spiritual seeking and existential suffering, once and for all!

Then one lives one’s life, naturally and spontaneously, without needing to be on the ceaseless treadmill of self-improvement or becoming enlightened.

Who wants to improve, to get better, or become enlightened? The imposter ego wants all these frills because it feels small, limited, and separate.

This knowledge frees us from the servitude of the commanding ego (nafs-e-ammaaraa). We welcome all and everything as it comes, choicelessly, without attachment or aversion (rāga-dveśa). The undue attachment with the objects has ceased; and the sense of separation, limitation is gone. There is only effortless joyful playfulness.

You go with the flow, with the Divine Play (līlā), without identifying with it or considering it as your play.

You have arrived HOME, which you had never left in the first place!

This is the promise, and the fulfillment, of Vedānta.
—————————————————

 

[1] Śaṅkara in his commentary to Brahma-Sūtra 1.1.6 remarks: आत्मा हि नाम स्वरूपम् । Ātman means one’s own nature.

[2] Bṛhadāraṅyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.23: ऽतोऽन्यदार्तं ato’nyadārtaṁ

[3] Śaṅkara in his introduction to Brahma-Sūtra.

[4] Brahma-Sūtra Bhaṣya 1.1.4.

[5] Ibid. सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य ‘अहमिदम्’ ‘ममेदम्’ इति नैसर्गिकोऽयंलोकव्यवहारः ॥ satyānṛte mithunīkṛtya ‘ahamidam’ ‘mamedam’ iti naisargiko’yaṁlokavyavahāraḥ || Human mind by virtue of its natural inclination is liable to mix up both the real ‘Self’ and the unreal non-self and instinctively thinks in the form of ‘I am this;’ ‘This is mine.’ Here the word ‘I’ refers to the real ‘Self’ and ‘this’ corresponds to the not-self such as the body. Man rarely suspects that this ‘me’ includes the real as well as the not-self, body etc. And ‘this is mine’ refers to everything, that is other than the self, including the mind, senses and the body, etc. See: Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswathi, Śaṅkara’s Sūtra-Bhāshya Self-Explained (Holenarasipura, Karnataka, India: Adhyātmaprakāsha Kāryālaya), 14.

[6] Śaṅkara in his introduction to Gītā-Bhāṣya.