Brahman and Atman
I
Question: “Certainly that Brahman == self-awareness == Atman is also a matter of direct experience, not of intellectual reasoning?”
Let me first begin with reason and then drift towards experience.
Suppose, as an expansion of the sentence that ‘Atman is Brahman’, it is said: “Atman and Brahman are identical to each other”. What kind of sense does it make and how do we explain that sense? Let us note that this sentence makes linguistic sense. Therefore, the question is, how do you parse this sentence to bring out that sense?
Consider the following statement: ‘A’ and ‘B’ are identical to each other. If they are identical, they are indiscernible, i.e, it is not possible to discern them as two different objects. (This is called ‘identity of the indiscernible’ and the formulation is attributed to Leibniz, the philosopher.) Therefore, there is only one object and not two. What then are ‘A’ and ‘B’? Parsing the sentence in such a way that it continues to be true, while remaining loyal to the surface structure of the sentence, we say: “‘A’ and ‘B’ name an object”, i.e. ‘A’ and ‘B’ are two different names for one and the same object. Thus, the sentence actually says: there is one object that is called both ‘A’ and ‘B’. (There is some research done on the notion of ‘logical identity’ and I accept the most coherent suggestion from the literature.)
Thus, the expanded sentence is a shorthand for the following: “There is an ‘object’ that is called both ‘Atman’ and ‘Brahman’. Actually, there is only one object with two different names.” This is what reason tells us.
What about experience? Actually, the experience appears unrelated (sort of) to the sentence that ‘Atman is Brahman’, even though it can be made compatible with the sentence and ‘reason’ without any effort. There is an experience of ‘self-consciousness’ as something that has nothing to do with the ‘I-hood’. This self-consciousness is ‘there’: it cannot be counted ( as ‘one’ or ‘two’ or whatever). It can be fully accessed without effort and it encompasses an entire group (when it is accessed in the presence of my students or when I receive guests I do not know or when I sit in a train amidst strangers, etc.), the environment (when I sit in the garden), or wherever I am. This ‘I’ is ‘full’, ‘complete’, and ‘everywhere’. In this sense, I experience neither ‘Atman’ nor ‘Brahman’, whatever they are. I use these words because they are the best I have to communicate. I can not only make perfect intellectual sense of these words but also relate them to experience. I now know why Shankara speaks of ‘neti, neti’ (not this, not that) when talking about ‘atman’ or ‘Brahman’. What is experienced also does not, strictly speaking, exist but it is real. (Also in the sense that I know I am not hallucinating.)
Thus, what I have done in the note is to attempt an understanding of my experience. I also want to know if what I experience is also what Indian traditions talk about. That appears to be the case because I seem to understand what all the different traditions talk about. (Based on what I know or remember.) Buddha is ‘right’ but so is Shankara. I understand where the disagreement is, what it is, and why, in one sense, it is justified, and why, in another sense, it is unimportant. I now emotionally understand the metaphor of blind men making judgements about the nature of the elephant while touching some of its parts. I see the truth in the ‘purnamidam’ verse from the Upanishads. So on and so forth.
In short, I can only give you an intellectual answer. However, I will not say anything that contradicts my experience.
II
One of the realizations: all of us, every human being, is enlightened but we do not realize (i.e., know through experience) that such is the case. There is delusion interfering between us (as we are in our daily life) and this ‘knowledge’. That delusion can be called the ‘I-hood’ (also called the ‘personhood’ in the third person reference to the ‘I-hood’), which is actually a false entity. ‘I-hood’ exists, but it is false. All that is required for enlightenment is that this false entity dies and that there is the ensuing experience of the death of this entity. Of course, a framework that makes sense of this death must also be available in some form or another. In more ways than one, all the Indian traditions have talked about this for millennia and thus the framework is available for all of us.
Many, many interesting philosophical questions arise from the above formulation. It requires thought and time to sort them out. In the meanwhile, know that true joy is always there with you. All you have to do is to realize this.