In the Light of the Vedas: Advaita: Thirty-Three

The Advaita philosophers refute this argument by saying that it cannot be claimed that "since the Self is a void that pervades everything, it alone can be the cessation of suffering." In their view, 'selfhood' or self-consciousness is an intrinsic characteristic of the knower (cogniser). Emptiness itself is not a knower, nor does knowledge reside within emptiness. That is, if emptiness is seen merely as absence or non-presence, then it cannot be the repository of any positive quality, while the cessation of suffering is an extremely positive result. This analysis differs from the fundamental basis of Advaitic philosophy, which sees the Self as a positive reality.

Advaitic philosophy does not view the Self merely as the absence of something or as negation, but explains it as a supremely positive reality. This positive reality is the very foundation of liberation and the highest human goal. According to Advaitism, the Self is Brahman, which is sat (existence), chit (knowledge or consciousness), and ānanda (supreme bliss). It is not non-existence or emptiness, but rather the source of supreme existence and the substratum of everything. The cessation of suffering becomes possible only when there is true knowledge of this Self-reality and when the individual realizes their true nature. This realization destroys ignorance, which is the root cause of suffering.

At the root of suffering lies ignorance (avidyā), which sees the Self as identical with body, mind, and senses. When a person considers themselves identical with these transient and limited adjuncts, they become entangled in the web of suffering. When this false knowledge is removed and the individual realizes that they are different from these limited adjuncts—that they are the eternal and infinite Self—then suffering ceases. This realization is moksha or liberation, which is life's ultimate goal. Therefore, explaining emptiness as the means for cessation of suffering goes against the core concept of Advaitism. Advaitism sees the Self as such a complete reality that is itself the source of supreme peace and bliss, not any absence or negation. It is the ultimate truth of existence, beyond all duality.

If it is said—"this relationship between substratum and attribute is falsely imagined"—then even that false imagination must have a real substratum. For no illusion can occur without a substratum. Just as the illusion of seeing a snake in a rope has the rope as its substratum. If it is said—"emptiness is that substratum"—then humans should have been conscious of everything in a form mixed with emptiness (because as a substratum, emptiness would manifest in identical form with the involved object). But this does not happen in reality—humans know everything merely as "existing," not as emptiness. We ordinarily experience this world and its objects as present, not as empty or absent.

Moreover, if it is said—"the world is falsely imagined"—then some evidence of the substratum's existence must necessarily exist before the illusion occurs. If it is said—"this evidence establishes itself"—then emptiness cannot be considered merely as a substratum, because it has no self-evident being of its own. Emptiness depends on something else for its proof. If we claim emptiness to be self-evident, then it merely becomes a technical definition, which in effect presents the Self under a different name. Emptiness, in its true sense, does not contain anything or prove itself. It is a concept of non-existence, which does not depend on any real structure or element. It is itself a concept of non-being, which cannot prove itself.

When we understand the Self, it is axiomatic and self-evident. The existence of the Self requires no external element for proof; it is itself the proof of its own existence. If emptiness is presented as synonymous with the Self, it weakens the concept of the Self's inherent self-evidence. Emptiness is a conceptual state where nothing exists, but the Self is the fundamental basis of existence, which contains and manifests everything. There is a fundamental difference between these two concepts: one is absence, the other is presence and consciousness. Therefore, defining emptiness merely as another name for the Self diminishes the depth and distinctiveness of the Self and misinterprets the fundamental basis of Advaitic philosophy.

Therefore, in light of this argument, since the Self is a positive reality, it cannot merely be the cessation of suffering. Again, the Self is not happiness either. Because the Self is never produced as a result of knowledge of garlands or other pleasurable objects, as happens in the case of ordinary happiness. Yet happiness is the fruit of that knowledge. If this were not so, then pleasurable objects could never be called desirable—because desire is born for the sake of happiness. Humans are generally attracted to pleasurable objects because they create feelings of happiness within them.

The Self is not happiness either, because identity between the produced (happiness) and the unproduced (Self) is impossible. Happiness is a feeling that arises and disappears, while the Self is eternal and unproduced. Again, the relationship between happiness and the Self that is produced through the acceptance of pleasurable objects—that too is not the case. Because consciousness takes this form: "happiness has arisen for me." This makes it clear that happiness is an imposed condition that affects the Self, but the Self itself is not happiness. Furthermore, the samavāya (intimate relationship) conceived between happiness and the Self is considered eternal in Nyāya philosophy—therefore it is not a produced entity. But this makes happiness different from the Self in Advaitic explanation.

There is no evidence that happiness exists independently of the Self. The opponent also does not acknowledge this; they acknowledge only eternal happiness, which is identical with the Self. But if the Self and happiness were identical, then consciousness would take this form: "I am happiness"—which does not happen. We feel "I am happy," but not "I am happiness." This distinction is important.

Therefore, the Self cannot be taken as humanity's goal, because it is the absence of both happiness and suffering—different from both. And apart from these two, humans have no other goal, so that the Self could be taken as a goal even by those seeking liberation. The fundamental desire of human life is either toward happiness or the cessation of suffering. If the Self is beyond these two, then how can it be humanity's desired goal?

Again, it cannot be said—"selfhood is humanity's highest goal"—because this does not accord with ordinary human experience. Humans desire only these two things—happiness and the absence of suffering. Such as: "May I have happiness; may my suffering be removed." But no desire takes this form: "May I have my Self." And what is not desirable cannot be humanity's goal. Human fundamental nature is embedded in their experience.

It also cannot be said that the Self is a transcendental goal. Because the Vedas declare human goals without contradicting human experience. If this were not so, then heaven too (the celestial realm), being transcendental, could not be pleasant to humans. Humans see heaven as a repository of happiness, which is consistent with their experience.

Furthermore, how strangely this Vedantic opponent has gone beyond human experience! Abandoning all human goals of this world and the next and the means to achieve them, subjecting themselves to various collections of suffering including the student stage from birth to life's end, they are satisfied only with this bare statement—"the Self is a transcendental goal." This kind of severe practice and renunciation of worldly pleasures with "the Self is a transcendental goal" as the reason behind it is incomprehensible to ordinary people.

Consistent with our perspective is the poet's statement—"He who wishes to become a jackal in the solitude of Vrindavan is superior; but that liberation where nothing else remains desirable cannot be accepted, O Gautama!" This statement reflects the fundamental desires of human nature. Moreover, if the Self were humanity's goal, then why do all beings ignore the easily available Self and die at some beloved pilgrimage site in pursuit of sensual pleasures? It cannot be said that these are deluded. Because scripture too has approved this action. Such as—"Beloved! Do not break by human words or Vedic injunctions that resolve of yours to die at Prayāga." And it is commonly observed—lepers and other sufferers choose death hoping for freedom from suffering. This shows that humans want freedom from pain, and for this they choose paths that are apparently not the path of Self-realization.

Then the question—what is humanity's goal other than the Self? Certainly there is. Because there is no fault in accepting happiness, absence of suffering, and their means—such as sons, homes, cattle, etc.—as goals. Humans see these objects as means to their happiness and strive for them.

Now it might be said—some people ignore all present and future happiness and its means, and engage in Vedically prescribed practices like listening, keeping only the Self as their goal. Well, then according to the principle "the opinion of many is correct"—let these be considered deluded, because they are very few in number. According to this logic, what the majority of people want is natural and correct.

It might also be said—Vedanta has declared: "Brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss." Yes, that can be accepted; but this does not mean that the Self is humanity's goal. Because bliss is not a goal by itself, but becomes a goal when related to the Self. Otherwise, even an enemy's bliss would become humanity's goal. Again, bliss is not its own goal either (which the Vedantist says is identical with the Self). Bliss is a state that is experienced only when related to the Self.

You might say—"Since worldly happiness is mixed with various sufferings, it cannot be humanity's goal." This objection can be refuted, because apart from this suffering-mixed happiness, humans have no other recourse. Just as no one stops putting the cooking pot on the stove for fear of beggars, similarly despite the fear of suffering, humans still desire happiness. Humans know that life contains suffering, but they do not abandon hope for this mixed happiness.

You will say—"But suffering comes." We say—then let it be removed! But happiness is humanity's goal. Efforts to remove suffering are made in hope of happiness; the absence of suffering is one aspect of happiness.

Then the question arises—if happiness is humanity's goal, then why have the Vedas prescribed listening and other practices for Self-knowledge? The answer is—these are only for the cessation of suffering. Self-knowledge makes humans aware of the cause of suffering and shows the path to its cessation.

Therefore, according to this perspective—the Self is not humanity's goal, but rather happiness and the cessation of suffering are humanity's primary goals.