Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2: II. The Search for Brahman

The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2

Language
English

Contents

II. The Search for Brahman

1. The Âtman (Brahman) as the Unity

c9.s2.t1.1

As early as the times of the Ṛigveda a perception of unity had been reached, to which expression was given in hymns like Ṛigv. I. 164, X. 129. After this, however, there remained the further task of defining more closely the eternal unity which underlies all the phenomena of nature. Of such inquiry the hymn Ṛigv. X. 121 is the chief example, which, to the nine times repeated question, " Who is the god to whom we are to offer sacrifice ? " in the tenth verse gives the answer : " *Prajâpati*! It is thou and no other, who holdest in thy embrace all that has come to be." We have already traced in detail¹ how this search was prosecuted through the period of the Brâhmaṇas, how Prajâpati was gradually displaced by Brahman, and how finally the most definite expression for the object of man's search was found in the conception of the âtman. Âtman is the Indian expression for that which we are accustomed to call "first principle," and is distinguished from the latter only by its defining in a clearer and more striking manner than any Western equivalent the one eternal problem of all philosophical research; for it invites us to lay hold of the individual self of man, the self of the universe, and to strip off from man and from nature everything which does not approve itself as this self, as the peculiar, most profound, and ultimate essence of things. At the same time, the less definite Brahman is often enough employed to express the first principle. This is the case in the passages to be discussed immediately, Bṛih. 2. 1. 1 (Kaush. 4. 1), Bṛih. 4. 1. 2–7, Chând. 5. 11. 1. Similarly S'vet. 1. 1 opens with the question,—"What is the first beginning, what is Brahman?"—and according to Pras'na 1. 1 and in the Ârsheya Upanishad, wise men come together in order to search for "Brahman."

c9.s2.t1.2

¹ *Einleitung und Philosophie des Veda*, p. 132 f.

c9.s2.t1.3

The terms Brahman and âtman both denote, therefore, the first principle of the universe, and in this sense are ordinarily employed in the Upanishads as synonymous, and are interchanged with one another in the same text or stand side by side, as in the question proposed in Chând. 5. 11. 1:—*ko na' âtmâ, kim brahma?* where S'ankara remarks that Brahman denotes the term to be defined, *vis'eshyam*, and âtman that which defines it, *vis'eshanam*, (which is true in general, if not precisely so here), that by Brahman the limitation implied in âtman is removed, and by âtman the conception of Brahman as a divinity to be worshipped is condemned. Both expressions however are, as this remark already shows, of indefinite connotation. The conception of Brahman is very complex, and the conception of the âtman is a negative and relative idea, which declares to us rather wherein the essence of man and of the universe is not to be sought, than affords us any positive information as to its real nature. Precisely in this its philosophical value consists. For the essence of things remains, as far as its nature is concerned, eternally unknown; and every attempt to make it an object of knowledge compels us to impose upon it definitions which are borrowed from that sphere of experimental knowledge that alone is accessible to our intelligence, and these again do not penetrate to the essential reality of things. From this realistic tendency the many false or imperfect attempts to explain Brahman and the âtman arise, which are rejected by the teachers of the Upanishads themselves, and which we have now to discuss.

2. Bâlâki's Attempts at Explanation

c9.s2.t2.1

According to a narrative preserved in a twofold recension, in Bṛih. 2. 1 and Kaush. 4, the learned, famous, and proud Brâhman Bâlâki Gârgya approached the king Ajâtas'atru with the offer:—"Allow me to explain to you the Brahman." He then endeavours twelve times in succession (in Kaush. sixteen times) to define the Brahman as the soul (*purusha*) in the sun, moon, lightning, ether, wind, fire, water, etc.; and in each case the king confutes his definition by pointing to the subordinate position which the corresponding purusha occupies in the whole of nature. The Brâhman is silenced, and the king proceeds to instruct him, using the illustration of a deep sleeper. That in which his vital breaths (*prâṇâḥ*) lie dormant, and from which they issue on his waking, and with them all worlds, gods, and living creatures, is the âtman. This is the Brahman that Gârgya undertook in vain to explain. The reader's expectation of a more precise account of the relation of Brahman to the purushas of Gârgya is not fulfilled in either recension. They both are satisfied to show how on waking the prâṇas (speech, eye, ear, manas) proceed from the âtman, and as being dependent on them all worlds, gods, and living creatures.

3. S'âkalya's Attempts at Explanation

c9.s2.t3.1

In a similar way, in Bṛih. 3. 9. 10–17, 26, Vidagdha S'âkalya attempts to define Brahman as forming the climax of all that the word âtman denotes (*sarvasya âtmanaḥ parâyaṇam*). After, however, having eight times in succession propounded a one-sided view that represents the earth, love, forms, ether, etc., as its basis, he is corrected by Yâjñavalkhya, who points out to him that that which he explains as the climax of all the word âtman denotes (*sarvasya âtmanaḥ parâyaṇam yam âttha*) is, on the contrary, only a subordinate purusha that rules in the bodily forms, in love, the sun, sound, etc. “He however,” Yâjñavalkhya proceeds in Bṛih. 3. 9. 26, “who oversteps these purushas (is superior to them), separating them one from another and turning them back (*i.e.* inciting them to activity and recalling them), this is the purusha of the Upanishad doctrine concerning which I ask thee.” S'âkalya is unable to name it, and for the error of having passed off a subordinate purusha as *sarvasya âtmanaḥ parâyaṇam* must atone by his death.¹

c9.s2.t3.2

¹ This is the meaning of the passage as I propose to assign the dialogue. The traditional view, which is less satisfactory, represents Yâjñavalkhya as raising the question with regard to *sarvasya âtmanaḥ parâyaṇam*, and indicating as its basis, earth, love, forms, ether, etc. ; and the error of S'âkalya would then consist in his naming in answer not the âtman that Yâjñavalkhya expects in answer, but only a subordinate purusha that rules in the bodily forms, in love, the sun, sound, etc.

4. Six Inadequate Definitions

c9.s2.t4.1

Precisely as in Bṛih. 2. 1 twelve defective (*ekapâd*) definitions of Brahman are criticised, in Kaush. 4 sixteen, and in Bṛih. 3. 9. 10–17 eight, so in Bṛih. 4. 1 there are six; and here Janaka approaches Yâjñavalkhya after having fortified his soul with mystic doctrines, *upani-shads*, as the traveller provisions his ship or waggon.¹ These "*upanishads*" consist in six definitions of Brahman enunciated by other teachers, as speech, breath, eye, ear, *manas*, and heart. All these definitions may still be found in the extant texts, if not always exactly under the names assigned. For instance, for *vâg vai brahma* see Pañc'av. Br. 20. 14. 2, Chând. 7. 2. 2; for *prâṇo vai brahma*, Bṛih. 1. 5. 23, 3. 7. 1–2, Chând. 4. 3. 3, 7. 15, Taitt. 3. 3, Kaush. 2. 1, 2, 2. 13, Pras'na 2. 13; *c'akshur vai brahma*, Chând. 1. 7. 4, 4. 15. 1, 8. 7. 4, Kaush. 4. 17, 18, Bṛih. 2. 3. 5, 5. 5. 4; *s'rotram vai brahma*, Taitt. 3. 1, Kaush. 4. 14; *mano vai brahma*, Chând. 3. 18. 1, Ait. 3. 2; *hṛidayam vai brahma*, Chând. 3. 12. 4, 8. 3. 3, Bṛih. 5. 3; cp. also in general Chând. 3. 18, where *vâc'*, *prâṇa*, *c'akshuḥ*, *s'rotram* form the four feet of Brahman, and Chând. 4. 8. 3, where *prâṇa*, *c'akshuḥ*, *s'rotram*, *manas* are one of his four feet. These and all similar definitions, whether they are historical or only invented to give colour to historical tendencies, arise from the endeavour to know that which is essentially unknowable; for which purpose no resource is open but to conceive it with conscious or unconscious symbolism under the form of some one of its phenomenal appearances. The criticism to which Yâjñavalkhya subjects these six definitions of Brahman as *vâc'*, *prâṇa*, *c'akshus*, *s'rotram*, *manas*, and *hṛidayam* consists in explaining them as mere "supports" (*âyatana*), by means of which six corresponding attributes that are assumed to belong to the divine Being as *prajñâ*, *priyam*, *satyam*, *ananta*, *ânanda*, *sthiti*, manifest themselves in the space which is common to all six as basis (*pratishtha*). If, however, we seek to ascertain further the nature of these six attributes, we are referred back again to their six manifestations in space as *vâc*, *prâna*, *c'akshus*, *s'rotram*, *manas*, *hridayam*. And so, thrown backwards and forwards between the phenomenal forms of experience, and the empirical attributes of the divine Being which find expression in them, we learn that phenomena can only be explained by phenomena, and that it is not in this way that we can arrive at a knowledge of the nature of the Godhead. Yâjñavalkhya accordingly himself adopts another way,¹ and, starting from the question what becomes of the soul after death, first of all sketches a picture of the individual soul as it dwells in the heart encompassed and nourished by the veins, and extends its feelers, as it were, in the two eyes; then suddenly draws aside, like a veil that hides it, this entire individual soul, so that before and around and in us we see only the one omnipresent supreme soul. And thus the question concerning the future existence of the individual receives its answer in that it is deprived of all justification, and falls to the ground meaningless. Nor have we even to-day any better reply to give.

c9.s2.t4.2

¹ Bṛih. 4. 2. 1.

c9.s2.t4.3

¹ Brih. 4. 2.

5. Definitions of the Âtman Vais'vânara

c9.s2.t5.1

Owing to the ambiguity of the word the conception of the âtman, like that of Brahman, gives rise to several misunderstandings. One of these was due to the fact that beyond the cosmical meaning of the âtman as first principle of the universe there was discerned its psychical meaning, the embodiment of this principle in the self. It is thus with the five Brâhmans, who in Chând. 5. 11 meet and propound the question :—" What is our âtman, what is Brahman?" They betake themselves with this question to Uddâlaka Âruṇi, who they know is even now engaged in studying the Âtman Vais'vânara, i.e. the âtman as the all-pervading first principle of the universe. Uddâlaka mistrusts (rightly, as his later answer proves) his ability to satisfy them, and all six proceed according to king As'vapati Kaikeya for instruction concerning the Âtman Vais'vânara. The king first asks the six Brâhmans in succession what it is that they "worship" as the âtman. He assumes, as this expression shows, that the Brâhmans who apply to him for instruction are still entangled in the error of regarding the âtman as an object of worship existing outside of themselves, like a new kind of divinity. This assumption is confirmed, inasmuch as the six inquirers explain the âtman in succession as the heaven, the sun, the wind, space, water, and the earth, therefore as something objective. The king rejoins :—" You all, to judge from your answers, conceive of this Âtman Vais'vânara as though it were something separate from yourselves, and thus you consume your food. He however who worships this Âtman Vais'vânara thus (placing his outstretched hand on his head from the forehead to the chin) as a span long (prâdes'amâtram abhivimânam), he consumes the food in all worlds, in all beings, in all selves. And of this very Âtman Vais'vânara (measured on the head as a span long) the bright (heaven) is the head, the all-pervading (sun) is the eye, the (wind) on its lonely path is the breath, manifold (space) is its trunk, its bodily frame, riches (water) its bladder, the earth its feet." The suggested movement of the hands, without which the passage is unintelligible, may with certainty be inferred from the original of our text in S'atap. Br. 10. 6. 1, where they are actually made. In other respects also the original passage referred to possesses several advantages, especially in its discussion not of the *Âtman Vais'vânara*, but of a symbolical interpretation of *Agni Vais'vânara*, "the all-pervading fire," as a first principle of the universe. In this light the defective answers of the six interlocutors are far more intelligible than if they inquire, in the first instance, as is the case in the secondary representation of the Chândogya, concerning the âtman as "Brahman" (first principle). The question in this form and the inquiry for the *Âtman Vais'vânara* would, strictly speaking, exclude from the very beginning such erroneous answers as were given by all six Brâhmans.

6. Gradual Instruction of Nârada

c9.s2.t6.1

It is not always opponents or pupils who betray their entanglement in incorrect or defective conceptions of Brahman. We repeatedly meet with a Brâhman inquirer who, like Sanatkumâra in Chând. 7 or Bhṛigu in Taitt. 3, makes his way through a succession of inadequate conceptions in order step by step to rise to an ever purer and more refined knowledge of the Brahman or âtman. The most complete example of this kind is Chând. 7, where Sanatkumâra begins his instruction of Nârada by declaring the whole of the experimental knowledge that he has acquired to be mere name. Speech is greater than name, manas greater than speech, and in this way the inquirer, ever advancing, is led upwards from the conditioned to the conditioning, from great to greater by successive stages, in which Brahman is apprehended as *nâman, vâc', manas, saṅkalpa, c'ittam, dhyânam, vijñânam, balam, annam, âpas, tejas, âkâs'a, smara, âs'â* up to *prâna* (the individual soul); and from this last to *bhûman*, the absolutely "great," the "unlimited," beyond which there is nothing, that comprehends all, fills all space, and yet is identical with the self-consciousness (*ahaṅkâra*), with the soul (*âtmàn*) in us. The greatness of this final thought impresses us as in strange contrast to the laborious series of conceptions by which we ascend to it. It was probably intended for more patient readers than are to be found at the close of the nineteenth century, and was evidently meant, by passing from the visibly great to a still greater, to serve the purpose of exciting expectation to the highest pitch. Otherwise, in this transition from name to speech, from this to the intellectual faculties (mind, judgement, thought, intuition, knowledge), from these through the intermediary of force to the four elements (food, water, heat, space), and from these through memory and expectation to prâṇa, it is impossible, in spite of the rich poetic ornament with which these ideas are set forth, to discern a satisfactory reason for this progressive advance; and the question is perhaps justified, whether the author himself was entirely in earnest, or whether these ideas from name right up to prâṇa were not all more or less intended to serve as mere foil, in order to set in so much clearer light the absolute unconditioned and unlimited nature of the âtman, as lying above and beyond all thought. It is on other grounds remarkable that, in connection with all the members of the series that precede prâṇa, rich reward is promised to the man who “worships as Brahman” name, speech, mind, etc. The author therefore admits the possibility of “worshipping as Brahman” all these things, and in the case of many of them this may actually take place in a more or less consciously symbolic manner. For ordinary men, relying on their empirical consciousness as though on a rope, prefer to worship rather than to know. To such an end the absolute is naturally only with difficulty or not at all adapted. The use of symbols therefore for its expression is inevitable, and these in the hands of the multitude very readily become idols. The manner also is remarkable in which our author passes from prâṇa, the individual soul, for which the distinction of subject and object still exists, to *bhûman*, the supreme soul, for which these like all distinctions have no meaning. We seek, he says, the truth. This depends on knowledge, this again on thought, this on faith, this on self-concentration, this on productive power, this on pleasure (*sukham*, more usually *ânanda*, the so-called bliss), which exists in the unlimited, the *bhûman*. Gradually, therefore, from the sphere of the intellectual in which differences obtain, we are led upwards through an ever-increasing blending of subject and object to a region in which all distinctions are lost in the All-one.

7. Three Different Âtmans

c9.s2.t7.1.1

The âtman is, as has often already been pointed out, an idea capable of very different interpretations. The word signifies no more than “the self,” and the question then arises what we regard as our self. Three positions are here possible, according as by the âtman is understood (1) the corporeal self, the body; (2) the individual soul, free from the body, which as knowing subject is contrasted with and distinct from the object; or (3) the supreme soul, in which subject and object are no longer distinguished from one another, or which, according to the Indian conception, is the objectless knowing subject. The narrative in Chând. 8. 7–12 furnishes an illustration of these three positions. “The self (*âtman*), the sinless, free from old age, from death, and from suffering, delivered from hunger and thirst, whose wish is true, whose decree is true, that ought we to seek, that endeavour to know.” Impelled by this craving, the god Indra and the demon Viroc'ana set off, and betake themselves to Prajâpati for instruction. His first lesson is as follows:—The self is that which is seen in looking into the eye of another, into a brook of water or a mirror, which is reflected again in an image complete even to hairs and nails, which decked with fair clothing appears fair, in a word, the body; “that is the self, that is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman.” The answer satisfies both pupils, and they depart homewards;

c9.s2.t7.1.2

but Prajâpati looking after them says:—“So they depart, without having perceived or discovered the self.” Viroc’ana and the demons rest content with this answer, and therefore all demon-like men, seeing the self in the body, deck the human frame with all kinds of finery, as though it were destined for a future life, a world beyond. Indra, on the contrary, reflecting that this self is exposed to all the sufferings and imperfections of the body, and perishes at death, feels (what everyone may feel) that no change which passes over us can affect us, and returns to Prajâpati. Prajâpati now communicates to him the second answer:—the self is that which roams about untrammelled in dreams; “that is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman.” But even with this answer Indra cannot remain satisfied. The dream-self is not, it is true, affected by the injuries which the body experiences from objects, but yet it is virtually affected by them, seeing that it proceeds to create an objective world over-against itself.

c9.s2.t7.1.3

The third answer of Prajâpati now follows:—“When a man is so completely wrapped in slumber, has reached so perfect a rest, that he does not perceive any dream-image, —that is the self,” thus he spake, “that is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman.” A further objection on the part of Indra, that this amounts to entrance into a state of annihilation, Prajâpati removes by showing that the cessation of the distinction of subject and object, as this is attained in deep sleep, is rather an entrance into the fullest light, a personal identification with the supreme spirit, which as the knowing subject in us is unaffected by any change of organs or objects. The meaning of this narrative is clear. In response to the question, What is the self? three answers are possible, according as we adopt the standpoint of materialism, realism, or idealism. (1) The *material* (demoniac) answer runs,—the self is the body, and perishes with it. The theologians of the Vedânta understand even here the individual soul, and do violence to the text by transforming the man who "is seen" in the eye (mirroring himself) into one who "sees" in the eye, because otherwise Prajâpati "would have been a deceiver," since he says in fact even of this first self,—"that is the immortal," etc.

c9.s2.t7.1.4

Prajâpati, however, is here the representative of nature, which never speaks falsely, and yet shows itself in a certain sense double-faced, inasmuch as to the two most important questions which we can put, the question concerning freedom and the question concerning immortality, it gives to the ordinary empirical consciousness two answers, which appear to be in contradiction with one another. If we regard our actions, we see that they all necessarily proceed from their causes (character and motive) in harmony with the law of causality; and yet we bear within ourselves the invincible indestructible consciousness of freedom and responsibility for these actions. Similarly with the question of immortality. If we look without, we see our entire self entering into existence as body and perishing; and yet we are invincibly conscious within of the eternity of our being: *sentimus experimurque nos aeternos esse*, as Spinoza says. It is on this consciousness, and not on personal longings, that all proofs of the immortality of the soul depend. This consciousness it is which, clothed in empirical forms, (2) from the *realistic* standpoint exhibits the self as the individual soul, and to this the second answer of Prajâpati refers.

c9.s2.t7.1.5

Very beautiful is his illustration of this consciousness of a soul, free from the body and yet real and individual, by means of the dream-state, as being the only state of which we have experience, in which the soul may be observed bound by corporeal conditions but not under the limitations of individuality. This entire individual soul, however, is a false conception arising from the fact that we transfer the forms of our intellectual judgements, and especially the most general of them, the necessary existence of an object for a subject, into a region where they have no validity. From this point consciousness leads on (3) to the *idealistic* standpoint, which recognises only the one supreme soul, existing in everything, and embodied in each in its entirety. In it there is no duality, no subject and object, and consequently no consciousness in an empirical sense. Thus far it may be compared to a deep dreamless sleep. Later on we shall learn to recognise besides waking slumber and deep sleep a fourth (*turîya*) state of the soul, in which that unification, which ensues unconsciously in deep sleep, is to be realised in a consciousness which is perfect though not resting upon experience, or directed towards objects external to itself.

8. Five different Âtmans

c9.s2.t8.1

As in the passage from the Chândogya discussed above three âtmans are distinguished, the corporeal individual and supreme, so a paragraph in Taitt. 2, which occupies a more advanced and developed position, assumes five âtmans (or purushas) by further division of the intermediate individual âtman into the principles of life, of will, and of knowledge. Thus are constituted the *âtmans annamaya, prâṇamaya, manomaya, vijñâna-maya,* and *ânandamaya*, which are manifested alike in mankind and in nature as a whole. The first four of these, like sheaths or husks (termed later *kos'as*), surround the fifth as the true kernel. Stripping off these sheaths one by one, and gradually penetrating deeper, we finally reach the inmost essential being of a man and of nature. (1) The *annamaya âtman*, “the self dependent on food,”

c9.s2.t8.2

is the incarnation of the âtman in the human body and in material nature; the bodily organs are its constituent parts. (2) Within this is contained the prâṇamaya âtman, “the self dependent on the vital breath,” the âtman as the principle of natural life. Its constituent parts are the vital breaths in man (inhalation, inter-halation, exhalation), but also in a cosmical sense the whole of space is its body, the earth its foundation. By stripping off this âtman also as a sheath we reach (3) the manomaya âtman, “the âtman dependent on manas” (volition), whose constituent parts are stated to be the four Vedas with the Brâhmaṇas (âdeśa). According to this definition we are to understand by it the principle of the will (manas) embodied both in men and in gods, i.e. of purpose directed to selfish ends. For it is this that on the human side is expressed in the Vedic sacrificial ritual.

c9.s2.t8.3

(4) Deeper still is found the vijñânamaya âtman, “the self dependent on knowledge,” which, as the accompanying verse declares, offers knowledge in place of sacrifice and works, while recognising and worshipping the deity as a separate and independent being. This position also we must abandon like a sheath, in order finally to penetrate (5) to the ânandamaya âtman, “the self dependent on bliss,” as the innermost kernel of man and of nature as a whole. This âtman dependent on bliss, “before whom words and thought recoil, not finding him,” is no longer an object of knowledge. It is, in contrast with the reality of experience, that which lies beyond on the other side, unutterable, unfathomable, an unconsciousness, a not-reality. “For it is he who creates bliss. For when a man finds resting-place and peace in that invisible, unreal, unfathomable one, then has he attained to peace. When, however, a man assumes therein an interval, a separation (between himself as subject and the âtman as object), then his unrest is prolonged. Moreover, it is the unrest of one who deems himself wise (while making Brahman an object of knowledge).”¹

c9.s2.t8.4

¹ Taitt. 2. 7.

Linked texts (11)