The Advaita in the Light of the Vedas: Twenty-Nine

Sage Vasishtha's profound declaration offers us an insight into the fundamental nature of our universe. He says, "Just as the reflection of trees by the riverbank falls upon a clear mirror, so too does this entire world of appearances reflect in that pure mirror of Brahman." This metaphor presents Brahman as a pure, formless being that forms the foundation of all existence. It is a medium in which the entire visible and experienced world is reflected, exactly as a clear mirror captures everything around it. Though this world arises from Brahman, Brahman's fundamental nature remains unchanged.

Vasishtha further declares, "All this world is Brahman's mental play." This statement portrays the world as a spontaneous creation or manifestation of Brahman, where everything is an expression of Brahman's consciousness or will. It is not created by any external force, but rather is a play of Brahman's inherent bliss. He adds, "Brahman, though one, becomes the world, yet loses not its unity-nature." This means that although Brahman manifests in many forms, many names, and many events, its essential oneness is never violated. This world actually arises from Brahman's ignorance (avidya), where ignorance is a delusion that makes the Self perceive itself in forms different from its own pure nature. The object of this ignorance is also the Self, the support is also the Self—meaning, the Self is both the center of this illusion and its resolution.

However, this Advaitic conception faces a powerful opposition, which accepts others' ideas and pushes them to their ultimate conclusion. The opponent's argument is that if the Self is taken as the object of ignorance, then there can be no human or divine proof (such as the Vedas) for the Self's existence. According to them, if the Self is a product of ignorance, then it has no independent existence, just like "a rabbit's horn"—which is absent in reality. Consequently, the very desire to gain knowledge of the Self through studying the Vedas becomes irrelevant, because there is no meaning in knowing a non-existent object. As a result, the need for arguments supporting Vedic statements about the Self also disappears, because the Vedas themselves then become meaningless. This is the opponent's main contention, which questions the very foundation of Advaita.

To answer this opposition, the Advaitic side presents firm arguments. They declare, "Here we proclaim through reason that truth—which is inherent in the Vedas, which is supreme bliss, which is the Self, which is the knower." The Advaitins emphatically state that the Self is self-evident in its own nature, existent, eternal. It is not non-existence, but rather is beyond proof, because proof (the method of proving) is possible only because of what lies at its foundation—and that is the Self. The Self is itself the basis of all proof, so it needs no proof by anything else. The Self is unrelated to anything else, it is truth, the minutest yet infinite. Liberation is the realization of this Self, and only liberation knows it. This realization is humanity's ultimate goal, where through Self-knowledge, freedom from all bondage is attained.

The Advaitins further explain that "a fraction of a fraction of this Brahman is this entire world." This means the world is but an infinitesimal part of Brahman, and its essence is solely the inner light, which is supremely benevolent. Though the opponent seeks to make the Self unreal, Advaita responds—"The Self/Brahman is existent, self-evident, beyond proof, eternal, and knowing it alone is liberation." This statement encapsulates the core message of Advaita: the Self is the ultimate truth, which is self-established and imperishable, and knowing it is the supreme fulfillment of human life.

Now the question arises: does the above argument (debate) suggest that because the Self has no proof, the Self's existence itself is impossible, or is it that knowledge of the Self is impossible? The answer is: not the first. Because the Self is naturally eternal, it is not dependent on anything else (from which it would need to arise). Proof cannot be the producer of that for which it gives proof. Proof merely indicates the existence of what already exists; it does not create it. The Self's existence is not dependent on proof, because the Self is itself the source of all proof.

Regarding the second alternative, it can be said that even if some proof for the Self is assumed, then a second proof would be needed to support that first proof. For if that second proof does not exist, then the first proof is entirely non-existent—like a "rabbit's horn"—and nothing can be its proof. This situation creates a logical fallacy called "infinite regress." That is, to support one proof requires another, to support that requires yet another—thus endlessly regressing, which is invalid. Therefore, the underlying assumption of this second alternative—that any object's existence can only be proven through (accepted) proofs (such as perception, inference, etc.)—is merely a kind of bold assumption. This assumption is itself dependent on proof, which makes it even weaker.

At this point, the opponent interjects, saying—proof is actually not dependent on any second proof, but rather establishes both its own existence and the existence of what it proves. According to them, proof is naturally self-luminous, so it needs no other light to illuminate itself and its object—just as a lamp's light needs no other light to illuminate it. Just as a lamp burns itself and illuminates everything around it, so too does proof prove itself and reveal the provable. And the opponent further says that the idea that whatever serves as proof/evidence must then be proven by something else is not logical. This argument highlights the autonomy and self-dependence of the proving process, which creates a kind of parallel with Advaita's concept of self-evidence, though their conclusions differ.

Our response—what a tragic conclusion!—for how can one say, facing this, that the Self, which is the proof of the entire known world and the instruments of knowledge, must then be proven by proof, yet that proof must also be supported by the Self? The Self surely existed before any kind of proof (otherwise proof could never have attained the status of proof, because then there would be no knower). And how can any proof reveal the Self, which is the knower of all things? Then the distinction between agent (knower) and object (known) would be obliterated (the Self would simultaneously become knower and known). And nothing other than the Self can ever be a knower, because that would not be the Self.

And for this reason, scripture has declared—"By what can the knower be known?" Therefore, since the Self is the knower, it is self-evident; and the absence of proof for it never proves its non-existence. We further ask—is this assertion of the Self's non-existence, as stated above, established by any accepted proof (pramāṇa), or is it naturally unknown, or is it self-evident?

Regarding the first alternative—because the rule is that if any proof indicates some non-existence, then it must also indicate the opposing existence; therefore any proof that declares the Self's non-existence must also prove the Self. Hence the Self's non-existence can never be proven.

The second alternative is also incorrect, because no affirmation is possible regarding a completely unknown subject; what has never entered any mind cannot be confirmed.

If the third alternative is accepted, then one must acknowledge that the Self alone is self-evident; and one must also accept that non-existence (since it is inert, like inert matter, without consciousness) cannot be self-evident. If this is denied (that is, if you consider non-existence to be conscious), then it means you have simply called the Self by another name—'non-existence.'

Next, the question arises—is the Self's non-existence known by the Self, or by the non-Self? Not by the non-Self, because the non-Self is not a knower. Certainly not by the Self—because this is self-contradictory. Let us explain our position—does the Self know its own non-existence when it itself exists, or when it is non-existent?

In the first alternative—when the Self exists, the question of its non-existence does not arise. Moreover, what would the Self then know, since the object of knowledge (the Self's non-existence) is not there?

In the second alternative—if the Self is non-existent, then it cannot know anything, because then it is not there.

If it is said—the Self, when existent, knows its future non-existence—then we say, according to this view, the Self exists now but will be destroyed later. And we have already refuted this concept of the Self's impermanence (anitya), because its logical consequence would be the destruction of the continuity of karmic results and individuals would have to suffer the fruits of actions they did not perform—which is impossible.

Therefore, does the person who claims the Self's non-existence deny their own Self, or another's Self? In the first case—since the denier is themselves (by assumption) non-existent, the other Self they intended to deny remains in reality. In the second case—the denier must be taken as real. Then how is it possible to maintain the Self's non-existence? Scripture supports our view:—"He who knows Brahman as non-existent becomes non-existent himself. But he who knows Brahman as existent, the wise know him as existent."

We return again to this fundamental question: does proof merely indicate the existence of being, or can it also reveal the non-existence of non-being? This question touches upon a deep philosophical debate.

Sattva (Being/Existence/Truth)—Word root: sat (existence, being, truth) + tva (condition/state). Its meaning: that which exists, which has being, which is true. Philosophically, sattva means—existent reality (Being, Existence), which is eternal, self-luminous, true. In Advaita Vedanta: Ultimate sattva is Brahman—which always exists, never perishes. Body, mind, world—these are not sattva in the ultimate sense, merely ignorance-born appearances. Example: The Self or consciousness—eternal sattva.

Asattva (Non-being/Non-existence/False)—Word root: a (negation) + sat (existence) + tva (condition). Its meaning: that which is not, which has no existence, which is false. Philosophically, asattva means—non-existence or non-being (Non-being, Non-existence), which is not true, not enduring. In Advaita Vedanta: Asattva is maya-born false appearance—like seeing a snake in a rope. The world too is asattva from the perspective of Brahman-knowledge, because it is changeable and not eternally true. Example: Mirage water—asattva.

If we accept that proof can also indicate asattva, then the consequences are far-reaching and complex. This would mean that proof does not merely give knowledge of existing objects, but can also establish the conception of what is not, what is non-existent. But this notion creates a serious problem. For instance, 'a rabbit's horn'—this is an example that is completely imaginary and has no basis in reality. A rabbit's horn does not exist; it is pure non-existence. If proof can indicate asattva, then such pure non-existences would also have to be considered 'proven.'