Original Position-1: Construction

Following is a constructive interpretation and application of Atman = Brahman in the dependency & subject-object framework:

Let B = “Brahman”, S = “Sentient Being”, C = “Consciousness”, U = “Universe including Body-Mind-Intellects [BMIs] of all sentient beings”.

Advaita's dependency principle is that there exists a self-established, independent B without which U cannot exist. That is, U is ‘totally’ dependent on B for its existence.

This principle gives us two immediate corollaries:

(1) B being self-established and (totally) independent is “non-relational”. It cannot be defined in relation to any-thing else. B is absolute.

(2) U being dependent on B for its very existence means that U is holistically “relational”. It cannot be defined in itself. It can be defined only in relation to (or relative to) something else – that is, U is “relative”.

Advaita uses the terms: (a) satya to denote that which is self-established and totally independent (non-relational); (b) mithyā (मिथ्या) to denote that which is totally dependent (relative, relational); and (c) jagat [जगत्] to describe U including BMIs. Thus, Advaita Vedānta's simple hypothesis of “independent B and dependent U” quickly gives us two straightforward corollaries: B is absolute, and U is relative [Brahma satya, jagat mithyā: ब्रह्म सत्य, जगन्मिथ्या]. 

U's aggregate indefinability is different from B's absolute undefinability. U relates to objects which are measurable (and hence definable) in relation to each other, but neither U as an aggregate (holistic) entity nor objects in themselves can be defined due to circularity of interdependence. For a theologian Advaitin, B is apophatic [neti neti, नेति नेति, via negativa, or anti-conceptual] inasmuch as B is non-relational or ‘self-referential,’ and U is indeterminate [anirvachanīya, अनिर्वचनीय] inasmuch as U is relational.

Where does C=Consciousness come into the picture?

According to Advaita, BMI of any 'S' is part of, or included in U. It is governed by the physical-empirical 'laws of U' [vyavahāra, व्यवहार] and is physical in that very sense. U is perceived ( - that is, U semantically or meaningfully exists) - only in the framework of duality. Here, the dependency framework transforms itself into the subject-object framework where object is either dependent on the subject or independent of the subject; but ultimately it is grounded in B. The Individual consciousness C forms the basis of subjective experience of S. Advaita theology postulates existence of God G as the “witness” to the entire U. If C provides the basis (meaning) to the experience of S, then B does the same for G's Universal or cosmic experience (as the witness) of U.

Thus, U (jagat) exists because B gives basis and meaning to the existence of U, similar to C giving basis and meaning to the subjective existence (experience) of S (jīva). Advaita postulates not only analogy of C and B in respective relation with S and G; it goes further and asserts that C is nothing but the manifestation (appearance) of B; in fact “B is C” [B=C] if we discard all the relational content from the apposition of S and G. This will tell us as to why Brahman is known as Consciousness. This identity B=C completes the traditional triadic aphorism: 

Brahma satyam; jaganmithyā; jīvo Brahmaiva nāparaH

(a) B is absolute (truth); (b) U is relative, relational; (c) B=C

After removing the last vestige of relativity from C we will get Ātman (inmost Self) and the familiar Atman=Brahman [A=B], though A, B, C all are one and the same (A=B=C)

Obviously, this construction is quasi-logical (not logical in the strict deductive sense that we normally associate with logic); it will not come into the realm of science because B or C can neither be measured nor be assigned any quantifiable properties other than the very general existential and experiential framework within which we are trying to place them as the unity A=B=C. In the end, for traditional Advaitin, A=B=C is an axiomatic truth. 

Is there any possibility of relating the non-relational A=B to our empirical transactions oxymoronically? Do scriptures provide any clue to this effect? We shall see that in part-2.