How can the individual self be identical with the Universal Self?

Srimat Swami Tapasyananda Ji (1904 – 1991) was one of the Vice-Presidents of the Ramakrishna Order. His deeply convincing answers to devotees’ questions raised in spiritual retreats and in personal letters have been published in book form as Spiritual Quest: Questions & Answers. Pariprasna is a selection from this book.

QUESTION: Who is the individual self? Who is the Universal Self? How can they be identical and how can a statement like ‘Thou art That’ prove their identity?

MAHARAJ: The individual self is the centre of consciousness with reference to an individual person. To put it according to the Vedanta psychology, a person is an assemblage of several layers of bodies centring on a point of consciousness. There is first the gross physical sheath. Behind it, and permeating it, are the vitalistic sheath, intellectual sheath and causal sheath. The true Self is distinct from even this last. It is the centre of Self-consciousness which flows through and enlivens all the sheaths and integrates them into a whole, which we call the personality. In the state of liberation the Self is released from the hold of all these sheaths and becomes one with Brahman, while at the time of death it is temporarily released from the gross physical sheath alone, to be embodied in another afterwards. In release or Mukti the centre of consciousness gets united with the universal Self according to pure monists, or retains its individuality clothed in a divine body and participates in divine life, according to others.

The Universal Self is the Self of the whole universe. Just as our individual being is a physical body superficially, but basically a non-physical self-conscious entity, so also the gross totality we experience as the universe of matter and individual selves, is at the core of its being Sat-chit-ananda or absolute existence, awareness and bliss. Now this Satchidananda, the core of the reality, is the Universal Self.

According to the Vedanta the individual self and Universal Self are not two entirely different entities. According to some of the realistic schools of Vedanta, the individual self is a part of the Universal Self and, in that sense, one with it. When the limiting adjuncts of the sheaths are removed, the part becomes one with the whole. But according to the pure or idealistic Vedantins, there is no part and whole feature in the Universal Self. The one Self misconstrues itself to be the limited individual self. When this ignorance is removed by reflection on statements like ‘That Thou art’ what is called the individual self recognises itself to be the one Universal Self. It has indeed always been so, since the connection with the adjuncts is only apparent and not real. Liberation therefore means only this recognition of its inherent identity with the Universal Self, according to this school of thought. Identity is not something achieved, but has been always there; in bondage it is forgotten and in liberation it is recognised.

There is also another way of understanding the unity of the individual self with the Universal Self, which is more in line with the relation of part and whole with a pronounced stress on the permanence of individuality. Here the Universal Self or God is the whole Being who includes in Himself matter and Individual selves as organic parts or limbs of His Being. Every individual centre of consciousness is a cell, as it were, in His Being, and thus a part of Him, functioning entirely for Him and with His energy. Thus, as a part of Him in body and spirit, the individual is one with the universal whole, which is God, even while remaining an individual. Unlike in the part and the whole theory stated earlier, in which the part merges in the whole in liberation, here the part retains its individuality even in liberation. But by virtue of its organic relationship with the whole that is, by virtue of being its limb or cell, the distinction does not conflict with the unity of the whole. The doctrine of apparency of the distinction between the individual and the universal selves, is the view of the followers of Jnana discipline, while that of real distinction without a difference, whether as part and whole or as organ and organism, represents the outlook of the Bhakti school of thought.

In some Vedantic texts the examples of honey bee, deer, elephant, moth and fish are taken to explain the spiritual predicament of man. The text and its meaning may kindly be explained.

The reference is evidently to the following verse (76) of the Vivekachudamani, a famous Vedantic text:

The deer, the elephant, the moth, the fish and the honey bee these five have died, being tied to one or the other of the five senses, viz sound, etc through their own attachment. What then is in store for man who is attached to all these five!

Each of the creatures mentioned in the verse is noted for the strong hold which one or the other of the senses has over it, and they all come to destruction through the pursuit of the attraction offered by the senses.

The sense of hearing is very strong in the deer. The hunter taking advantage of it, whistles imitating the sound of a female deer, attracts it to come close and shoots.

The elephant, attached very much to the sense of touch, is drawn into imprisonment by using a female elephant to attract it.

The moth has great attraction for bright colour and fire is used to attract and destroy it.

The honey bee addicted to tasting honey, settles in the lotus flower in bloom during the day, but engrossed in sucking the honey, fails to get out even when the flower closes at dusk and thus gets imprisoned and destroyed.

The fish attracted by the smell of the bait used by the angler, swallows the fatal hook.

Thus each of these creatures is seen to come to destruction by the irresistible hold that each sense exercises on it. It is therefore pointed out that very precarious indeed is the fate of man in whom all these five senses are very strong.

It is true that the hold of all these five senses on man is very strong, and the chances of his becoming their victim are very great. But unlike these lower creatures, he is given the higher mind which can exercise control over the attraction of the senses. He has got the help of the scriptures and spiritual traditions which warn him against dangers and provide him with the advantage of disciplines to regulate the senses and ultimately gain mastery over them. But the first step in gaining mastery over them is to be aware of their dangerous presence, and so the predicament of a man is pictured graphically with the help of the examples of the lower creatures. These examples are cited not to discourage man, but to impress on him the need for being wary.