Oneness may be an enticing idea, yet it is only an “idea,” not what we normally see or experience every day. What we have to deal with in our daily lives is not oneness, but its polar opposite—many-ness. The world we breathe in, the world that we seek as well as shrink from, the world that both annoys and attracts us, is the world packed with the “many.” Oneness is simple, many-ness is complicated. Unity is peaceful, diversity is noisy.
From the moment we are born, we encounter a world filled with many objects, many trees, many animals, many people. Our eyes bring in a variety of forms and colors, the ears let in all kinds of sounds, the tongue is accustomed to a range of tastes, the nose is sensitive to various kinds of smells, and even touch is not just of one type. What is our world if not a random pool of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations, all connected and interconnected by the meaning assigned to them by the mind? What is our life if not the narrative built around all of our experiences of the “many”?
Our books uphold the experience of diversity in the world, our TV shows and movies do the same, as do the songs we sing and the games we play. Our conversations assume the reality of the diverse world and our conclusions depend on it. Our minds are filled to the brim with the “many” which the world serves us on a platter. We are so boxed in by it that it funnels our thinking, feeds our appetites, and limits our imagination.
An important byproduct of the many-ness surrounding us is the reinforcement of the idea that the world is “real.” The mind has a way to reason this out. The people around me see the same world that I see. The world therefore is not something that I am imagining. It’s really out there. If it didn’t have an objective reality, how could we all sense the world in exactly the same way?
All of this helps to affirm the “many” and relegate oneness to only an exotic idea, or an impossible ideal that one may pine for but never attain.
It is nevertheless possible to ask—does the world have to be real just because all of us see the same world? The answer is that it doesn’t have to be. All the people in my dream see the same world too. While they all believe that the world is real, when I wake up I realize that not only was it not real but that all the people I saw in my dream were also not real. Nothing in my dream was real. Only the dreamer—me asleep and dreaming—was real.
It was me, this one dreamer, who created this world of “many” and diminished myself, as it were, by becoming just one creature among the many in my dream. The creator-me forgot myself and became a creature. When I wake up, the dream vanishes along with the diminished-me. I once again know who I always was. The one—me!—was real all along. The “many”—all the people and everything else I saw in my dream—did not exist before my dream began and they did not exist after my dream ended. Did they really “exist” when the dream channel was on?
We read in the Māṇḍukya Kārikā (2.6):
आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा ।
वितथै: सदृशा: सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिता: ॥
Ādāvante ca yan-nāsti, vartamāne’pi tat tathā,
Vitathaiḥ sadṛśāḥ santo’vitathā iva lakṣitāḥ.
“That which exists neither in the beginning nor in the end is likewise (nonexistent) in the middle as well. In spite of being illusory, the objects are viewed as if they are real.”
Brahman alone existed in the beginning and Brahman alone exists in the end (after enlightenment). The mysterious appearance of the “many” between the beginning and the end is a dream which appears real until the “sleeping Brahman” wakes up. Brahman falls asleep (as it were), dreams of the world of “many” (as it were), and wakes up (as it were).
Everything is “as it were”—but because of ignorance, it appears real. It crushes us, torments us, grinds us to such an extent that we feel helpless and rudderless. It’s beyond belief that a dream could wreak such havoc! But it does and it’s still doing it. When shall we wake up and leave all this nonsense behind us?
If we keep this hide-and-seek of oneness and many-ness in mind, the following insights from the Upaniṣads may begin to make more sense:
एको देव: सर्वभूतेषु गूढ: ।
Eko devaḥ sarva-bhuteṣu gūḍhaḥ.
The one self-resplendent being is hidden in all beings. (Śvetāśvatara, 6.11)
एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम् एतदप्रमयं ध्रुवम् ।
Ekadhā-eva-anudraṣṭavyaṁ etad-apramayaṁ dhruvam.
“Unknowable and unchanging, it should be realized only as one.” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, 4.4.20)
मृत्यो: स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ।
Mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum āpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati.
“He goes from death to death who sees as if there are many in it (Brahman).” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, 4.4.19, Kaṭha, 2.1.11)
सलिल एको द्रष्टाऽद्वैतो भवति ।
Salila eko draṣṭā advaito bhavati.
“It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second.” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, 4.3.32)
नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन ।
Na-iha nānā-asti kiñcana.
“There are absolutely no ‘many’ in it (Brahman).” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, 4.4.19)
न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तम् ।
Na to tad-dvitīyam asti tato anyad-vibhaktam.
“There is then no second thing separate from the witness that it could see.” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, 4.3.23)
तत्र को मोह: क: शोक: एकत्वमनुपश्यत: ।
Tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śokaḥ ekatvam-anupaśyataḥ.
“What delusion, what sorrow, can there be for a person who experiences oneness?” (Īśa, 7).