|
The term "thou" which usually stands for the self here stands for Brahman ("that") who is the indweller of the self and of whom the self is the mode as a constituent of his body. The term "thou" does not mean the physical body or the individual self. Since Brahman has interpenetrated all matter and self, "thou" signifies Brahman in the ultimate analysis. The term "that" signifies Brahman himself as the ground of the universe and the soul of all individual selves. Hence in the identity of "that" and "thou" there is no rejection of the specific connotation of the co-ordinate terms. The upshot of the dictum is that the individual selves and the world, which are distinct and real attributes, are comprehended in Brahman. Brahman as the inner self of the jiva [soul, Self] and Brahman as the ground of the universe are one. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance.
Thus Sri Ramanuja upholds all the three streams of thoughts in the Upanishads, namely, unity, plurality and both. He himself clinches the argument:
We uphold unity because Brahman alone exists with all other entities as his modes. We uphold both unity and plurality, as the one Brahman himself has all the physical and spiritual entities as his modes and thus exists qualified by a plurality. We uphold plurality as the three entities ~ the individual selves, the world and the supreme Lord ~ are mutually distinct in their substantive nature and attributes and there is no mutual transposition of their characteristics.
Let us explore "I AM THAT," keeping in mind the language indication just referred to. In such being of and being distinct are held in a union of nondual Being.
"I" exists and is not "THAT." "THAT" exists and is not "I." "AM" separates "I" and "THAT." "AM" refers to Existence existing. "AM" is beingness being. In Christian terms this means there is no nondistinct-identification between the True Self and the Divine; these two are not simply interchangeable.
We have, then, concluded that the True Self and the Divine is not a sameness. This would read "I AM I" or "THAT IS THAT." In such a construct, only one of three conclusions can be true: (1) Only God exists, not the Self, (2) Only the Self exists, not God, (3) God and the Self are the same, to say one is to say the other, nothing more, nothing less.
"AM" speaks of a beingness in which a nondualism exists: or Existence is essentially nondual. This could lead us to say that "AM" refers to "God." "I" and "God," then, would be language-thought signifiers arising out of Divine Being, Who is Existence existing, Existence Itself. Therefore, the idea of I and God, as all ideas, exists in AM and AM is Source.
Continued... |
