Why 'You' Do Not Exist

I realise that I have made very few explicitly theological comments on this blog so far though I am, to be technically precise, a student in the Faculty of Divinity, an older term for 'theology'. So here is something theological to start with, a few reflections on that most intriguing and breath-taking of Hindu philosophies, Advaita Vedanta (AV). I am not, of course, going to launch into a full-scale exposition of AV here (there are plenty of websites around that do an excellent job at this); rather, I wish to bring out a certain aspect of its challenge to some of our contemporary ('western') beliefs about the 'reality' of the empirical world.

Think of a bomb lying down somewhere in your wine-cellar. Strictly speaking, this bomb does not exist as a bomb until the moment it explodes; till then, it is just a conglomeration of wires, combustible material and minute gadgets. Therefore, one might say, somewhat paradoxically, that a bomb attains its 'true existence' in that split-second when it destroys itself. Consequently, at that very moment when you think that you have grasped the 'real' bomb, it has already disappeared leaving behind no sign or mark of itself. This does not mean, however, that the bomb moves to a state of perfect annihilation into absolute nothingness. What has happened is that the bomb, in the moment of explosion, have given up (I feel tempted to say 'renounced') its previous empirical characteristics (nama-rupa). Earlier we could specify a certain bit of painted matter as being seven inches long, five inches wide, and three inches thick, and refer to this bit with the (English) word 'bomb'; now, however, it has dissolved into the fathomless sea of energy where 'it' cannot be pointed to with any such descriptions. (By the way, for those of you who may not be poetically inclined, I am not simply throwing poetic metaphors at you here : this is a 'scientific' metaphor allowed by the equivalence of mass and energy in terms of E=mc(squared). The bomb cannot be utterly annihilated, but it can be transformed into an equivalent amount of energy.)

The central claim of Advaita Vedanta (AV) is that the relation between 'you' and the ultimate reality (we shall call this Brahman) is of a similar nature. AV does not deny that at one level (called the vyavaharika level) you really exist : of course, it is 'you' who is reading these words of 'mine', 'you' who was trying to solve Fermat's Last Theorem this morning, 'you' who was playing badminton with 'your' three friends in the evening, 'you' who has just finished a long phone conversation with 'your' sister, and 'you' who is now trying to get 'your' head round these paradoxical statements that 'I' am pouring out onto this screen. AV, however, also says that this 'you' is very much like the bomb in the earlier example : 'you' exist, but not in the truest sense. To attain the highest form of existence, 'you' must realise that 'you' do not exist, and this realisation will come to 'you' only after a long period of meditation on scriptural texts, and a life of moral austerity and purification, usually lived under a teacher (guru).

At that moment of in-sight when 'you' realise that at the highest level of reality (called the paramarthika level) 'you' and 'I' are just an illusion (maya), 'you' shall just BE, and like the bomb that dissolves into the sea of energy leaving no trace of its specificities behind, 'you' shall flow into the supreme reality of Brahman which IS. In this Brahman, there is neither 'subject' nor 'object', neither 'time' nor 'eternity', neither 'speech' nor 'silence'; this Brahman IS, indeed, completely beyond all dualities, polarties, fragmentations, delusions, and oppositions which characterise our finite existence in the cycle of incessant rebirths (samsara).

Now hold on a minute. Yes, I can see your hand going up at the back, and you ask me that impeccably 'scientific' question : Where is your proof that the opposition between 'subject' and 'object' is dissolved in the moment of liberative insight?

To this question, I first point out that I am not an Advaitin myself (which is why I am using the words I and myself without the quotes in this sentence), at least not in the full-fledged sense of a person who has had the realisation that the I is an illusion. Nevertheless, this is how I shall speak on the behalf of an Advaitin.

Advaitin : 'Yes, 'I' appreciate 'your' demand for proof regarding this matter. However, it depends on what precisely 'you' mean by proof here. The insight that 'we' speak of in AV is something that can only be realised after a long period of training and meditative introspection. Therefore, if 'you' want proof, 'you' must come and live with 'us' and like 'us', and 'you' shall hopefully have the proof for 'yourself''.

Scientist : 'But that is not how we do things in science. Science is all about Do-It-Yourself. I do not accept anything in science unless and until I have first verified it for myself.'

Advaitin : 'What kind of a scientist are 'you'?'

Scientist : 'I am a biochemist, and I analyse the structure of protein molecules.'

Advaitin : 'Now, have 'you' verified for 'yourself' Einstein's theory of general relativity?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Have 'you' verified for 'yourself' the Josephson effect in superconductivity?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Have 'you' verified for 'yourself' Kepler's laws of planetary motion?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Have 'you' verified for 'yourself' Planck's law of black-body radiation?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Have 'you' verified for 'yourself' Faraday's law of induction?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Have 'you' verified for 'yourself' the Nash embedding theorem for Euclidean spaces?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Have 'you' verified for 'yourself' Godel's incompleteness theorem?'

Scientist : 'No.'

Advaitin : 'Okay then, if 'you' have not verified any of these, what gives 'you' the confidence that these scientists/mathematicians were actually correct? Just a little while ago, 'I' heard you saying that 'you' do not accept something unless 'you' have verified it for 'yourself'?'

Scientist : 'Well, I sort of trust the scientific community.'

Advaitin : 'But, then, the same applies to 'me'. 'You' trust 'your' scientific community, and 'I' trust 'my' own community which is centred around the Upanisads. If 'you' were to come and live with 'me' for five years, 'you' would see that the things that 'I' am speaking of, no matter how arcane they may seem to 'you' today, indeed point towards the highest reality.'

By allowing the Advaitin to have the last word on this matter, I am not trying to trivialise some disputed issues in the philosophy of science over whether or not science is taking us towards or away from 'reality'. The point here is simply that scientists cannot (for reasons of time, space, resources and energy) go around verifying each and every theorem, proposition, law, conjecture, or hypothesis that is put forward by other people : a basic trust in one another's judgment therefore plays a vital role in the scientific world. What my Advaitin is arguing is that just as scientists operate with a basic trust in some foundational texts (of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin) so too does 'he' (and, yes, this time it is a 'he', most Advaitins have been men, empirically speaking) carry out 'his' meditative reflections with a similar trust in 'his' basic texts which are the Upanisads.

The mutual discussion, consequently, should not be obscured by saying that scientists are 'rational' and that Advaitins are 'irrational', for the fundamental issue in this context is this : Why should we trust scientists more than Advaitins, or vice versa?

That is a juicy bone I shall leave you to gnaw on (believe me, we really are more canine than we think we are).