Our ahaṅkāra is relentless. It never gives up and is one-pointedly devoted to itself. It only has a single-point agenda – “I am Supreme. There is no one like me.” Unfortunately, the first part is not true and not possible even theoretically. If it were true, then everyone would be supreme. Then being supreme would become worthless because the natural question would arise, “Supreme to whom?” The only way this can be resolved is by theorizing that we are all one and that one is Supreme Brahman. Even then the question still hangs in air: If there is only Brahman, then how can it be Supreme? The idea of “I am Brahman,” ahaṁ brahma asmi, makes no sense. It fails logically because “I am Brahman” means “I” = Brahman. But there is no such thing as “I.” If there is only Brahman, there cannot be any sense of “I.” “I” makes sense only when there is “you.” Without “you,” the “I” cannot stand. It has no legs to stand on. In fact, it has no body. It is nobody. The reason is that the sense of “I” implies that “I am distinct from everything else around me.” I am not “non-I.” But if Brahman is the only reality there is no “Non-I.” And without “Non-I,” there cannot be an “I.”
Imagine that you were sent to Jupiter or Mars by yourself. Elon Musk has made all the arrangements for you to live there. Now when you are alone there and you have no means to communicate with anyone on earth. There is no one else on that planet besides you. Would you ever use the word “I?” Certainly not verbally. You have carried a sense of “I” from Earth; thus, you may make sentences using “I.” But imagine a newborn child was left alone on Mars. Will she ever use the word “I?” No, she does not need it. But can we imagine the child growing up and not having a sense of “I?” No. She will have the sense although she would have no means to express it. She would definitely feel herself distinct from everything around her. This very feeling is the sense of “I.”
But in the case of Brahman, there is nothing else but Brahman – sarvaṁ khalu idaṁ brahma. Therefore, because Brahman is the only reality, it surely cannot have the sense of ”I.” That means from an Advaitvāda point of view there is no real “I.” And it is true. They say the sense of “I” is an acquired sense. The sense of doer-ship, knower-ship, etc. are not the inherent characteristics of the ātmā. They are acquired only in the conditioned state. Even in deep sleep, where there are no dreams, these things do not exist. This proposition, however, is dangerous.
Why? Because if there is no “I,” there is no Brahman. The very statement “I am Brahman,” becomes meaningless. If a=b and if “a” does not exist or is not real, then it naturally follows that “b” does not exist and thus is not real. So decimating “I” is equivalent to wiping out Brahman. That is called nihilism or śūnyavāda.
The Vaiṣṇava schools disagree with Advaitavāda. They accept a sense of “I,” ahaṁ-vṛtti, as the inherent characteristic of ātmā. It also matches our own experience. We never have any experience of an absence of our “I.” “I-consciousness” is our deepest thought. Everything hinges on it. Nothing has meaning without it. This is the most persistent thought. It persists even in dreamless sleep but because there are no instruments to express it, it remains in itself without any expression.
The question that may come to mind is: How do Vaiṣṇavas explain the great Upaniṣadic statements,mahāvākyas, such as ahaṁ brahmāsmi and tat tvam asi? Different acāryas have given various explanations. They do not accept absolute oneness between the individual self and Brahman but see the oneness as that of the part with the whole or that of the energy with the energetic. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī adds another explanation. He says that these statements indicate the intimacy of love between a bhakta and Bhagavān. There are numerous statements in the śāstra, especially the Purāṇas, where Bhagavān Himself calls His devotees as His very self. There are similar statements made by great devotees, especially the Gopīs of Vṛndāvana in relation to Kṛṣṇa.
