Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c10: The Fifth and Last Part of the Vedânta System:

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c10

Language
English

Contents

The Fifth and Last Part of the Vedânta System:

c10.2

M O K S H A OR THE TEACHING OF LIBERATION.

XXXV. The Path of Liberation

1. Definition of Liberation

c10.s1.t1.1

(p. 64, 7:) “That [entity] in the absolute sense real, highest of all, eternal, all-penetrating like the ether, exempt from all change, all-sufficing, undivided, whose nature is to be its own light, in which neither good nor evil has any place, nor effect, nor past, nor present, nor future,—this incorporeal [entity] is called Liberation.”

c10.s1.t1.2

As may be seen from this passage, the conception of Liberation contains the same characteristics as serve as a rule to define Brahman; and indeed Brahman and the state of liberation are identical terms (p. 1046, 4: *brahma eva hi mukti-avasthâ*); for liberation is nothing else than the becoming one with Brahman, or rather, since the identity of the Soul with Brahman has always subsisted and has only been hidden from it by an illusion, liberation is nothing else but the awakening of the consciousness that our own Self is identical with Brahman. Accordingly, in liberation there is no question of becoming something which does not already exist, but only of the attainment of the knowledge of what has existed from all eternity. It is because of this, that liberation is not accomplished through any sort of work, nor through moral improvement, but by knowledge alone (as the Christian redemption is by faith alone, *sola fide*, which comes very near to the metaphysical knowledge here spoken of).

c10.s1.t1.3

We shall now consider more closely Çañkara’s explanations of these points.

2. Liberation impossible through Works

c10.s1.t2.1

All works, good as well as evil, demand their retribution in the following existence. Hence no performance of works, of whatever kind it may be, ever leads to liberation, but only back again ever to Saṃsāra.—But granted, thus Śaṅkara proceeds in the passage translated on above p. 112 ff. that a person abstains from all works, then there would be no material left for a new life for him, and thus after death liberation would be attained?—Not so! For in the first place one is never certain that there may not be works demanding for their atonement several lives (a conception analogous to that of Exodus xx, 5); and even if one were successful in getting rid of the evil works by ceremonies, yet the good works would still be left, and even these same ceremonies may possibly also bring with them not only this annihilation but in addition, positive fruits to be enjoyed in a future life. And, further, it is practically impossible to avoid all works throughout an entire existence, so long as the natural disposition of the soul to action and enjoyment persists; for actions continually come forth afresh from this inborn nature, through causes which are always potentially inherent in the soul, just as much as its natural disposition to action. So long, therefore, as this natural disposition is not removed through perfect knowledge (on which see above p. 317 ff.), there is no hope of liberation.

c10.s1.t2.2

The discussions of this same question go still deeper in 1, 1, 4. Here Śaṅkara first explains (p. 61, 5 ff.) that works are of two kinds: ordained and prohibited, good and evil, and accordingly bear also two kinds of fruit, namely, pleasure and pain, which, in order to be experienced, demand a body ("the place of the enjoyment of the fruit of the various kinds of works," p. 501, 3), which body, according to the quality of the works, may be that of a god, man, animal, plant. But then our author recalls (p. 63, 6) the passage, Chānd. 8, 12, 1 (translated above p. 184) according to which pleasure and pain pertain only to corporeal and not to incorporeal Being, and shews that, as Liberation is such an incorporeal Being, and is thus untouched by pleasure and pain, it cannot be produced by works which demand these as their atonement (p. 64, 3). Further, he urges the fact, that liberation, if it were dependent upon works, would necessarily be: (1) transitory (owing to the consumption of the works), (2) graduated (because of their different value), both of which contradict the conception of liberation as an eternal and paramount condition (admitting neither less nor more) (p. 65).

c10.s1.t2.3

3. Liberation impossible through moral Improvement.

c10.s1.t2.4

(p. 71, 9:) "But also for this reason is liberation not conditioned by any action, that it is not attainable by [moral] purification (*saṃskāra*). For all improvement takes place in him who is to be purified by the addition of virtues or the diminution of faults. Liberation does not come about by the addition of virtues: for it consists in identity (*svarūpatvam*) with Brahman, who is incapable of any augmentation of perfection; and just as little by the diminution of faults: for Brahman, in identity with whom liberation consists, is eternally pure — But if, according to this, liberation is a quality (*dharma*) of our own Self, which however remains hidden from us, can it not then be made visible by the purification of the Self through our own efforts, just as brightness, as a quality of the mirror, becomes visible through the action of cleaning? — That cannot be so, since the Self (*ātman*) is no object of action. For an action cannot realise itself otherwise than by altering the object to which it relates. If now the Self, the Ātman, were altered through any action, it could not be eternal and phrases such as ‘changeless is he called’ would be incorrect, which is not admissible. Consequently there can be no activity which relates to the Self as object; but if it relates to some other object, then the Self is not touched thereby and consequently also not improved."

c10.s1.t2.5

Observation. Christianity sees the essence of man in Will, Brahmanism in Knowledge; therefore, for the former, salvation consists in a transformation of the Will, a new birth whereby the old becomes the new man; for the latter in a transformation of Knowledge, in the dawning of the conscious.

c10.s1.t2.6

ness that one is not an individual but Brahman, the totality of all Being.—In this respect, we think the Christian view the more profound, but for that very reason the more incomprehensible; for a transformation of the Will (of that which is fundamental in us and in all being) is totally beyond our understanding. It we desire to understand it, we can do so only as it manifests itself as phenomenon, that is, upon the superficies of our intellect (on which the entire phenomenal world is based). Now the innate fundamental form of the intellect, to which an understanding is fettered, is Causality; and in it all human action without exception appears as the product of an Egotism which is determined by motives. While the intellect forces even moral action into this form of intuition, morality also seems to result from Egotism, which, however, enlarging its natural boundaries as the result of a new mode of knowledge (*Vidyâ*), draws the not-Ego within the sphere of the Ego and treats it accordingly: even the good man (according to the law of Causality) loves only his Ego, and yet he loves "his neighbour as himself," just because he has recognised him as his own Self. This is the direct consequence of the Indian doctrine that the world is Brahman, and Brahman is the Soul; and we do in fact find this conclusion drawn, though not in Çankara and indeed nowhere to the extent we should have expected; compare the verse of the Bhagavatgîtâ translated in note 36, above p. 59. This is, we believe, the deepest explanation of the essence of morality, which can be reached with the plummet of the intellect (bound to causality). Yet even this remains inadequate; for in truth morality lies beyond Egotism, but therefore also beyond causality and consequently beyond comprehension. Thus it is in Christianity: therefore Christianity demands, not like Brahmanism Self-knowledge (destruction of error), but Self-denial (destruction of Egotism). This is verified by experience and felt by us to be the highest attainable; but regarded from the standpoint of the intellect, it remains something unintelligible, unthinkable, impossible: βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι' ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι.

c10.s1.t2.7

Hence there would remain to Christianity the merit of having more profoundly grasped morality, to Brahmanism, on the other hand, that of having set forth the highest attainable explanation of it.

4. Knowledge without Works liberates

c10.s1.t3.1

Sûtras 3, 4, 1—17. 25. 1, 1, 4.

c10.s1.t3.2

The goal of man, liberation, is to be gained through Knowledge of Âtman, attainable by the Vedânta (that is, by the Upanishads). This knowledge is independent (svatantra) of performance of works and in itself alone (kevala) suffices for liberation (p. 973—974). — When on the contrary Jaimini maintains that this knowledge is an Appendix to works (p. 974, 12) and only serves the purpose of proving the immortality (vyatireka) of the Soul, because without this proof the theory of retribution would not hold good (p. 976, 5), the answer is this: if the Vedânta had only the purpose of proving the continuance beyond this bodily existence of the transmigrating, individual, acting, and enjoying soul, then it most certainly would (as Jaimini contends) be subordinate to the doctrine of works (p. 980, 7); but in fact it goes further and teaches us to know the highest Soul, which stands above the individual, is God (îçvara, here used in the esoteric sense) and remains freed from all the qualities of Samsâra, such as activity etc., as well as untouched by all evil; and this knowledge does not impel to works, but rather abolishes them (p. 981, 1). — If it is further objected, that even the knowers of Brahman, as for instance Açvapati (above p. 156) who makes known the Vaiçvânara-vidyâ (Chând. 5, 11 —24), still perform works and that they would not do this if the goal of man could be reached through knowledge alone (p. 978, 1), then one can oppose to them as of equal weight (tulya, p. 982, 9) the conduct of those in whose case knowledge makes its appearance unconnected with works; for thus says a passage of scripture (Ait. âr. 3, 2, 6, 8): "Knowing this of a truth the Rishis of "the family of Kavasha spoke: 'What good is it for us to "read the Vedas, what good is it for us to sacrifice!' know"ing this of a truth the ancients did not offer the fire-sacri- “fice.” And Brih. 3, 5, 1 (above p. 142): “Verily, after they “have found this Soul (viditvâ in the sense of vittvâ), the “Brahmans cease from desiring children, from desiring possessions, from desiring the world, and wander about as beggars.” Further it is to be remembered that the Vaiçvânaravidyâ, in which knowledge appears accompanied by works, is an exoteric passage (sa-upâdhikâ brahmavidyâ), (p. 983, 7).—Finally, to pass over the other objections, when in Îçâ-Up. 2 it is said:

c10.s1.t3.3

“Let him perform whatever works he will,
“And wish to live a hundred years below,”

c10.s1.t3.4

yet the following proves in what sense this is meant:

c10.s1.t3.5

“If he knows Brahman works are of no weight,
“To him there cleaves no stain of earthly woe;”

c10.s1.t3.6

that is, even though thou performest works all thy life long, yet in so far as thou hast knowledge, they cannot stain thee (p. 986, 6).—Whether the knower shall perform works rests with himself to choose (p. 986, 8); no necessity for so doing, for example, for begetting offspring, exists (p. 986, 10), hence it is written (Brih. 4, 4, 22, above p. 195): “This our forefathers knew, when they did not desire offspring and said: “Wherefore do we need offspring, we whose soul is this “universe”” (p. 986, 12). For the fruit of knowledge does not, like the fruit of works, consist in something future, but is anubhava-ârûdha, based upon immediate (inner) perception (p. 987, 1; cf. 66, 7).—To this must be added that this whole extension of the world which as the requital of works on the doer, is the cause of the duties of works, is based only upon Ignorance and for the Knower has been annihilated in its very essence (p. 987, 6); even as also, by those who live under the vow of chastity (ûrdhvaretas = parivrâjaka, according to Ânandagiri on p. 989, 13), Wisdom indeed is sought, but no longer the works prescribed by the Vedas (p. 988, 3).

c10.s1.t3.7

But is not the knowledge itself, which conditions liberation, a work in so far as it is still an action of the intellect (manas) (p. 74, 6)?—By no means! For an action is always dependent upon the will of the agent, by whom it can be done, be left undone, or be done otherwise; every sacrificial work is such an action, such too is meditation (p. 75, 2). Knowledge on the contrary cannot like a work be done in one way or another, indeed it entirely depends not upon any human action, but upon the quality of the object to be known (p. 75, 4). When therefore it is said, for instance in the Pañca-agni-vidyâ (Chapter XXX): “man is a fire,” “woman is a fire” (above p. 362), this is an invitation to conceive of man, or woman as a fire and its realisation depends upon the choice of the conceiver; on the contrary the knowledge of actual fire as such depends not upon any invitation or action of man, but only upon the object which lies before the eyes, and thus it is knowledge and not action (p. 75). Similarly the cognition of Brahman is dependent upon the nature of Brahman, but not upon any invitation (p. 76, 1). “Hence, all imperatives, even those found in the Scripture, when they refer to the knowledge of Brahman, which is not the object of any command, become blunt, as the edge of a razor when applied to a stone” (p. 76, 2).—But then what meaning have such expressions as: “Âtman truly is to be seen, to be heard, to be sought for, to be known” (Bṛih. 2, 4, 5, above p. 174), which at any rate appear to contain a command?—Their purpose is only to divert man from the natural drift of his thoughts. For everyone is by nature turned to external things and anxious to attain the objects of his desire and to avoid the objects of his aversion. In this way he can never reach the highest aim of man. In order to attain it, the stream of his thoughts must be diverted from natural objects and turned towards the inner soul, and to this end serve such commands as those quoted. To him who has turned to the investigation of Âtman on account of them the true nature of Âtman, which can neither be sought after nor avoided, is pointed out in such phrases as: “this whole universe is what that Soul is” (Bṛih. 2, 4, 6). Thus the knowledge of Âtman is neither an object to be sought for nor avoided, as also its purpose is liberation from all that is to be done; “for that is our ornament and our pride, that after having recognised the soul as Brahman all obligation of action ceases, and the goal (kṛita-kṛityatâ) is reached” (p. 76—77).

c10.s1.t3.8

5. How is this saving Knowledge brought about?

c10.s1.t3.9

Liberation as the fruit of knowledge is distinguishable from the fruit of works in that the former is not, like the latter, produced only in the future, but is produced at once and simultaneously with the knowledge (p. 987, 1). In this sense it is said (Muṇḍ. 3, 2, 9): “He who knows Brahman, becomes “Brahman,” as also (Muṇḍ. 2, 2, 8):

c10.s1.t3.10

“In him who sees the One both high and low,
“His heart’s strong fetters bursting, fall apart;
“For him all doubts are solved,
“All works are naught,”

c10.s1.t3.11

and (Bṛih. 1, 4, 10): “That knew itself and said: ‘I am Brahman’; thereby it became this universe,”—these and like passages of Scripture imply that simultaneously with Brahmavidyā, and without any other effect intervening between the two, liberation results (p. 66, 5); to behold Brahman and to become the Soul of the Universe occur simultaneously (p. 66, 7); for liberation is nothing else but our true Self, existent from all eternity, but it is hidden from us through Ignorance; whence also the knowledge of Ātman has not to produce anything new whatever as its fruit, but only to remove the obstacles of liberation (p. 67, 5).

c10.s1.t3.12

This knowledge of Ātman is thus not a becoming anything, not doing anything, not occupying oneself with any work (p. 68), is altogether independent of human activity, and like the knowledge of every other object, it also is dependent upon the object itself (p. 69, 8; cf. 819, 4). Therefore it cannot be brought about by the action of investigating (p. 69, 10) or of adoring (p. 70, 3), and even Scripture produces the knowledge only so far as it removes the obstacles to it, that is, the division into knower, knowledge and thing known, which springs from Ignorance (p. 70, 9). Therefore also the Scripture says (Kena-Up. 11):

c10.s1.t3.13

“He only understands who understands it not,
“From him who understands, ’tis evermore concealed,
“For it is not disclosed to him who knowledge hath
“But unto him who hath it not the secret is revealed,”

c10.s1.t3.14

and teaches (Bṛih. 3, 4, 2), that one cannot see the Seer of seeing, nor hear the Hearer of hearing, nor know the Knower of knowing (p. 71, 1).

c10.s1.t3.15

We here perceive most clearly the impossibility of attaining liberation by any effort on our part. True, liberation consists only in Knowledge, but in Knowledge of a special kind, in that there is no question of an object which investigation could discover and contemplate, but only of that which can never be an object, because in every cognition it is the subject of cognition: everything can be seen, but not "the Seer of seeing." Since in all empirical knowledge the Ātman is the subject and for that very reason unknowable, the first condition of its attainment is, that all empirical knowledge separating subject and object, should cease: "he who knows not, alone doth know it." For all empirical knowledge is from its very nature directed to external things, therefore turned away from the inner Soul and consequently, where it is a question of comprehending the latter, is actually an obstacle. To destroy this obstacle is the object of the teaching of scripture; it turns the stream of thoughts away from external things and towards Ātman; but to impart the knowledge of Ātman, that even scripture is not able to accomplish unconditionally; therefore it is written (Kaṭh. 2, 23):—

c10.s1.t3.16

"Not by instruction can he be attained,
"Not yet by understanding, nor the word:
"Whom he elects, by him will he be gained;
"To him reveals himself the eternal Lord."

c10.s1.t3.17

According to this, the knowledge of Ātman is attainable neither by thinking, nor by investigating the scripture, nor by any effort whatsoever of our will: for the latter, that is, "the acting and enjoying soul," belongs only to our phenomenal form, the removal of which is what is required, in order that knowledge may arise:—and yet again, on the other hand, the attainment of knowledge must depend solely and entirely upon ourselves: for the knowledge of Brahman can be conditioned by nothing else except that which in it is at once object and subject, by the Ātman, the Self; and this is our own real, metaphysical Ego. This metaphysical Ego appears in the exoteric doctrine personified as God (īçvara, saguṇam brahma), and corresponding to it this knowledge, which depends upon him, appears as Grace of God, concerning which we have already collected together the leading passages in Chapter IV, 4. What corresponds to this “Grace of God” in the esoteric system it is difficult to say, and we look in vain for a satisfactory solution. We may compare what was said in Chapter XIV, 4, on the knowledge of the esoteric Brahman. The metaphysical knowledge, in which the Self comes back to itself from its absorption in the contemplation of the external world and thereby comprehends all else as non-Self, non-Ego, non-Being, this knowledge does arise as a matter of fact; but we cannot enquire into its cause because, as already clearly appears in the Vedānta, it is not within the sphere of causality; the Ātman lies beyond Cause and Effect (anyatra asmāt, kṛta-akṛtāt, Kāṭh. 2, 14), and therefore into the knowledge of it, a knowledge of which the Ātman would be the cause, no further enquiry is possible: it arises, when it does arise; how, why, whereby it arises, remains an insoluble problem.

c10.s1.t3.18

As we saw above p. 318, the impossibility of bringing about liberation by any means whatever has been expressly emphasised; under these circumstances we must regard it as a deviation from the logical structure of the system and a concession to practical demands when we treat of the means (sādhanam) of knowing of Brahman, and these means refer not only to the exoteric, but also to the esoteric Brahman, which two are in general not separated in respect of this question. Of these means there are two, with which we may compare the requirements of those who are called to this knowledge, Chapter IV, 2, namely, first Works, and secondly devout Meditation. We have now to examine according to our sources these two kinds of means of attaining the saving knowledge.

6. Works as Means to Knowledge

c10.s1.t4.1

Although, as is once more repeated in 3, 4, 25, the goal of man is to be reached only through knowledge, not through works (p. 1007, 2), yet religious works, such as Sacrifice etc., are very far from being without significance in this connection (1008, 3); true, when once that knowledge is realised they have no further importance, but they are nevertheless auxiliary to its attainment (p. 1008, 5). For thus says the scripture (Bṛih. 4, 4, 22, above p. 195): "Him the Brahmans seek to 'know by Vedic study, by sacrifice, by alms, by penance, by 'fasting," from which it may be gathered that pious works are a means to the attainment of that knowledge (p. 1008, 8). The works named cease when knowledge is attained; certain other obligations, however, still persist for the knower; for the scripture says (Bṛih. 4, 4, 23, above p. 196): "Therefore he who 'knows this, he is calm, subdued, resigned, patient, and collect-'ed;" the former (Vedic study, sacrifice, alms, penance, fasting) are the more outward (*vâhya*), the latter (tranquillity, self-restraint, renunciation, patience, concentration, cf. above p. 81) are the "closer" (*pratyâsanna*) means to knowledge (p. 1012, 4). [The concentration (*samâdhi*) here mentioned must be distinguished from the Meditation (*dhyânam, upâ-sanam*) of which we shall presently have to speak; for Meditation ceases, as we shall see, after the attainment of knowledge, while concentration still continues even in one who has attained knowledge.]

c10.s1.t4.2

Still the works named do not, strictly speaking, produce knowledge as their fruit, because knowledge is subject to no prescribed rule, and because its fruit (liberation) cannot be brought about by any means (p. 1018, 8). These works are only auxiliaries (*sahakârin*) to the attainment of knowledge, in as much as the man who leads a life of holy works is not overpowered by affections (*kleça*) such as Passion, etc. (p. 1021, 2). According to this their rôle in the scheme of salvation would be not so much meritorious as ascetic; cf. 1082, 12.¹³⁴

c10.s1.t4.3

¹³⁴ The question of the value of pious works for liberation is again ventilated in an Appendix to 4, 1 (4, 1, 16—18), which is perhaps a later addition, with the tendency to reconcile Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa (cf. p. 1083, 7). Works, it is there stated, are auxiliary to liberation, just as even poison may serve as medicine (p. 1082, 5); they may further liberation from a distance (p. 1082, 7), by bringing about knowledge and, through the latter, liberation (p. 1082, 8). In the nirguṇa vidyā they cease with the attainment of knowledge, in saguṇa vidyāḥ, which are not yet exempt from activity, they continue (p 1082, 11). This effect belongs to works whether connected with knowledge or not; only that in the former case the effect according to Chānd. 1, 1, 10 is vīryavattara, more powerful, whence it follows that even works without knowledge must be to a certain extent powerful (p. 1085, 6).

c10.s1.t4.4

However works are not indispensably necessary as a condition of wisdom, since scripture shows by the examples of Raikva (note 37, above p. 61) and others, how knowledge may come even to such as from poverty (p. 1021, 8) cannot perform the works of the Āçramas (above p. 16); in consequence of common human actions, such as the muttering of prayers, fasting, worship of the Gods, or perhaps in consequence of works performed in some former existence by them the grace of knowledge is vouchsafed to them (p. 1023, 1. 6); yet a life in the Āçramas is to be preferred as a means of knowledge (p. 1024, 2).

c10.s1.t4.5

Knowledge as the fruit of these means ensues either here and now or in the succeeding birth; here, if no hindrance exists, that is, if no other works with greater supersensuous power come to ripeness (p. 1044, 1); for even the hearing of the Veda, by which knowledge arises, is only effective in so far as it succeeds in overcoming those obstacles (p. 1044, 4), which according to Kāth. 2, 7, is not always possible (p. 1044, 5);—otherwise knowledge ensues as the fruit of these means in the following life, when it may occasionally, as in the case of Vāmadeva, exist from birth onwards (p. 1045, 1); and the Smṛiti too teaches a gradual ascent to perfection, when it says (Bhagavadgītā 6, 45):—

c10.s1.t4.6

"By many a new birth made pure,
"He treads at last the highest Path."

c10.s1.t4.7

Of course such a gradual progress, is only admissible for the exoteric branches of knowledge (p. 1047, 9), not for the esoteric, which knows no differences, no "more" or "less," and brings forth as its fruit the liberation which is an absolutely uniform state and nothing else than the undifferentiated Brahman Himself (p. 1046, 4).

7. Devout Meditation (upâsanam) as Means to Knowledge

c10.s1.t5.1

Sûtras 4, 1, 1-12.

c10.s1.t5.2

When it it said: "Âtman verily is to be beheld, is to be "heard, is to be tought upon, is to be meditated upon" (Brih. 2, 4, 5),—"him shall ye investigate, him shall ye seek to know" (Chând. 8, 7, 1), then the question arises: is the conception (*pratyaya*) with which worship is concerned, to be called forth once only or repeatedly?—To this is to be answered, as the accumulation of expressions shows, this meditative conception is to be made repeatedly (p. 1050, 8), that is, until intuition occurs (p. 1051, 2), just as one must go on threshing until the grain is freed from the husk (p. 1051, 3). Here, search and worship have to alternate; sometimes worship follows search, and sometimes search worship, as the examples of scripture show (p. 1051, 8).

c10.s1.t5.3

One might object: Such a repetition of the conception is thinkable, where we are concerned with a result which is capable of being increased (p. 1052, 9); but what end can this repetition serve in the case of the highest Brahman, who is eternal, pure, wise, and free? If this Brahman is not comprehended at the first hearing of scripture then no repetition can be of any use (p. 1053, 1); and how can he who does not understand the first time, the words: *tat tvam asi* (that art thou) grasp it through repetition? And the case is just the same, if we are concerned, not with a single notion, but with a combination of notions (p. 1053, 6). Or is one perhaps to assume, that through once hearing, knowledge in abstract form (*sâmânya-vishaya*) is attained, like that of the sufferings of another, while through repetition knowledge in intuitive form (*viçeṣa-viṣaya*), is gained like that of one’s own sufferings (p. 1053, 7)?—This cannot be so either: for if the intuitive knowledge is not brought about through a single hearing, then one fails to see how it can be brought into existence even by hundredfold repetition (p. 1053, 13). Such repetition may be serviceable in respect of a worldly object, which consists of many parts and comprises abstract and intuitive characteristics (p. 1054, 4) or again in the study of a longer treatise, but not in respect of the undifferentiated Brahman, who is free from abstract (general, common to others) characteristics and consists of pure spirit (p. 1054, 6).

c10.s1.t5.4

To this is to be answered: Only for such as grasp the identity of the Soul and Brahman from once hearing the *tat tvam asi*, is the repetition superfluous, but not for those who are unable to do this and in whom first one doubt and then another must be removed (p. 1054, 8). Here a repetition is most certainly suitable, as is proved by experience with scholars of slow understanding (p. 1055, 2). Further, the sentence *tat tvam asi* consists of two concepts (*padārtha*): (1) *tat*, the Existent, the Brahman who is called the ruler and the cause of the world and is described by the scripture as seeing, not seen, knowing, not known, unborn, not aging, immortal, neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long; and (2) *tvam*, the inner Self, that which sees and hears in us, which with the body [the outer Self] as a starting-point is grasped as the inner Self and retained as purely spiritual. Now to understand the words *tat tvam asi*, it is necessary for many first to lay hold on the two concepts of which it consists.—Further: The Self which is to be grasped is indeed without parts; but the false knowledge of it as though it consisted of Body, Senses, Manas, Buddhi [which here, as is often the case, is inconsistently named along with Manas], has many parts and requires for its gradual dissipation repeated devout contemplation, so that for many, even in this knowledge, a gradual advance takes place (p. 1055). Others again, whose minds are quicker and have not to battle against Ignorance, doubt and contradiction, can grasp the *tat tvam asi* on hearing it once only.

c10.s1.t5.5

But can it really be possible that anyone ever completely grasped this doctrine? Granting even, that he came to the consciousness that all else outside Brahman is not real, yet he must take as real the pain which he feels (p. 1056, 10)?— "By no means! For the feeling of pain like the entire body, "is based on illusion. For the feeling that, when my body is "cut or burnt, I myself am cut and burnt, is a delusion, like "the delusion that I myself suffer, when other persons, for "instance my children or friends, suffer. The case is just the "same with the delusion of feeling pain: for like the body, "all feeling of pain lies outside the spirit; wherefore also it "ceases in deep sleep, while the activity of the spirit is not "interrupted; for 'when he does not see then, yet he is see"ing, though he sees not,' as the Scripture says (Bṛih. 4, 3, 25, "above p. 191). Thus the knowledge of the Self consists in "this that I am conscious of myself as pure painless spiritual"ity; and he who possesses this knowledge for him there "remains nothing more to do; therefore the scripture says "(Bṛih. 4, 4, 22, above p. 195): 'What shall we do with off"spring, we, whose soul is this world,' and the Smṛiti says:—

c10.s1.t5.6

"The man who in the Self hath his delight,
"Who in the Self contentment finds, and peace,
"For him no duty more hath binding force."

c10.s1.t5.7

But how are we to understand the identity of God and the soul which is taught by the Vedānta, since the two are different? For God is free from evil, but the soul is entangled in it. Now if God is the transmigrating soul, then he cannot be God; if on the contrary the soul is God, then the duty imposed upon the soul by the canon of scripture is superfluous; moreover this view is contradicted by perception (p. 1058, 10).—To this is to be replied: One must conceive of the soul as God; for thus it is said in a passage of the Jābālas (which is not found in our Jābāla-Upanishad): "Verily, "I am Thou, O holy Godhead, and Thou art I;" further Bṛih. 1, 4, 10: "I am Brahman;" Bṛih. 3, 7, 3: "He is thy "soul, thy inner Ruler, thy Immortal;" Chānd. 6, 8, 7: "That "is the real, that is the soul, that art thou," etc.; and again it is written Bṛih. 1, 4, 10: "But he who worships the God"head as another, and says: 'that Godhead is one and I am ‘another,’ he knows it not;” Brih. 4, 4, 19: “His never-ending death he weaves, who here plurality perceives;” Brih. 2, 4, 6: “The universe shuts out him, who regards the Universe as outside the Self,” etc.—Thus God and the soul are not different, since their difference rests only on illusion; if the soul is stripped of its Samsâra state, it is God and hence free from evil, and what contradicts this is mere illusion. But as regards the duties of the canon of scripture and perception, they both continue to exist as long as Samsâra, that is, until awakening. This being attained perception becomes naught; and if you base on the objection, that with it the Veda is also annihilated, then it is to be noted that according to our own teaching, “then the father is not father, the Veda not Veda” (above p. 191):

c10.s1.t5.8

“But who then is the not-awakened?”

c10.s1.t5.9

—Thou, who askest.

c10.s1.t5.10

“But I am God, according to the teaching of scripture!”

c10.s1.t5.11

—When thou knowest that, then art thou awakened, and then there exists no unawakened more (*na asti kasyacid aprabodhah*).¹³⁵

c10.s1.t5.12

¹³⁵ Compare with this logical consequence of the System my “Elements of Metaphysics,” § 292, p. 305: “The saint to whom true knowledge has arisen, knows himself as the entire Will to life. Accordingly he is filled with the consciousness that he removes the sufferings of the whole world in removing his ego which he knows is the bearer of these. And this consciousness indeed does not lie, for the saint, in removing and delivering the Will in himself, has removed and delivered this whole world. For him, who is enlightened by transcendental knowledge, there remains of it nothing but an unsubstantial phantom, a shadow-play without reality. To us alone it will not seem so, just because we are still on the empirical standpoint of affirmation, and only so far as transcendental knowledge awakes in us, can we take part in his deliverance.”—§ 174, p. 131: “Thus the regenerate saves himself and the groaning creation: and yet affirmation still continues, even after he has found the way out of its circle; also this world for ever and aye will exist, will affirm, will suffer,—but again all time in the light of denial is nothing, and all that it contains fades away as the shadow-play on the wall for the Will, when it has turned.”

c10.s1.t5.13

So much concerning the inner nature of devout meditation. As regards outward attitude, the position of the body is a matter of indifference both in those meditations which are undertaken for the purpose of attaining perfect knowledge, as well as in those meditations which are connected with the service of works (p. 1070, 14). In the remaining kinds of worship (that is, presumably, in those used in the exoteric knowledge) one should not walk, run or stand, because this distracts, nor lie down either, because one might then be overtaken by sleep, but sit (p. 1071, 7). Moreover in regard to direction, place and time, one need only be careful about them, so far as they promote the undivided concentration of the mind as much as possible (p. 1072, 9).—The forms of worship which lead to perfect knowledge come to an end with the attainment of this knowledge (p. 1073, 8); those on the contrary, whose fruit is felicity (as it seems not only those of the *Pitriyâna*, but also those of the *Devayâna*), must be continued until death, since the attainment of their fruit in the other world is dependent on the thoughts at the moment of death (p. 1074, 2; cf. 112, 8). For the scripture says (Çatapathabr. 10, 6, 3, 1): "with whatever mind a man departs from "this world, with the same mind he enters into the other "world, after death," and the Smriti declares (Bhagavadgîtâ 8, 6):—

c10.s1.t5.14

"The nature that he thinks upon, when he departs this life,
"E'en this he will put on whene'er he reaches the Beyond."

c10.s1.t5.15

In the exposition of these means no distinction is maintained between the esoteric and the exoteric doctrine; so much the more, however, does this distinction dominate the liberation which appears as their result. We turn next to consider the man who has fully and unconditionally reached the goal of humanity, the man of esoteric knowledge, the Sage possessing *Samyagdarçanam*, to study his condition in Life, Death, and in the Beyond. After we have come to know in him the essence of liberation in its purity and completeness, we shall in conclusion have to consider the Path, upon which the Devotee, the man who has recognised and adored Brahman in his exoteric form, is led to the same goal by means of *Kramamukti*.

XXXVI. Condition of the Sage in this Life

1. Characteristics of the Sage

c10.s2.t1.1

IN contrast to the Devotee, who knows and worships Brahman in the exoteric, theological form, we understand in this and in what follows by the term Sage, him to whom has come *Samyagdarçanam*, perfect knowledge, that is, esoteric knowledge of the higher, attributeless (*param, nirguṇam*) Brahman, and who in consequence of this possesses an immediate consciousness¹³⁶ on the one hand of the identity of his own Self with Brahman, on the other of the illusory character of all that is different (*nānā*) from the Soul, from Brahman, therefore of the whole extended world (*prapañca*), his own body and the other *Upādhis* of the Soul (*indriyas, manas, mukhya prāṇa, sūkṣmam śarīram, karman*) included. For such a one there is no longer any world to be perceived nor any perception, and even his own suffering, since it depends upon perception, is no longer felt by him as pain; on which point compare the fuller treatment above p. 299 and p. 415. Further since all works have only the purpose of attaining pleasure and avoiding pain, while pain and pleasure concern not bodiless, but only embodied Being based upon illusion (above p. 402), for him who has seen through this illusion, all works (Vedic study, sacrifice, alms, asceticism, fasting) are abolished, as also all the injunction of the Veda which command them. And not only does the Part of Works become superfluous, but also that Part of the Veda which treats of knowledge, above p. 21; for this is also only a means to an end: "Thinking and meditating have like hearing (only) "attainment as their purpose;" when that purpose is attained, the scripture has fulfilled its object; as there exists for the awakened neither perception, nor pain, nor action, so there exists for him no Veda either; to him "the Veda is not Veda" as the scripture says (above p. 416). In a word: everything outside Brahman, that is the Self, the Soul, has no more reality for him and can no longer disturb him, just as little as the rope which he mistakenly held to be a snake (note 105, above p. 269) or the trunk, in which in the darkness of his ignorance, he thought he saw a man (p. 86, 12).

c10.s2.t1.2

¹³⁶ *anubhava*; p. 917, 5: "The fruit of Knowledge depends upon immediate consciousness; for the scripture says (Bṛih. 3, 4, 1, translated above p. 141): 'the immanent, not transcendent Brahman;' and the words 'That art thou' (Chānd. 6, 8, 7) denote something already existing and must not be understood as if they meant only: 'That wilt thou become after death;' ... consequently for the knower of Brahman liberation is absolutely accomplished." Cf. p. 987, l. 66, 7. 1055, 10. 1057, 2.

c10.s2.t1.3

(p. 84, 5:) "And yet experience shows how, even for one "who knows Brahman, Samsâra still persists, so that he has "not attained his goal, as in the simile of the rope?--To this "we reply: It must not be maintained that for him who has "recognised that the Soul is Brahman, Samsâra persists as "before, because the knowledge of the Self (the Soul) as "Brahman contradicts this. For so long as he held the body "etc. to be the Self, so long was he affected by pain and "fear, but after that delusion has been destroyed by means of "the knowledge (produced by the Veda), of the Self as Brah"man, then it can no longer be maintained that he is affected "by pain and fear since that depended upon erroneous know"ledge. For so long as for instance, a rich householder has "the consciousness of his wealth, pain arises for him from its "loss; but after he has gone away as a hermit into the forest "(above p. 16) and has freed himself from the conciousness of "his wealth, then there can arise for him no more pain from "the loss of it. And so long as one wears ear-rings, pleasure "arises from the consciousness of wearing them; but after "one has laid them aside and freed oneself from the conscious"ness of wearing ear-rings, then the pleasure in wearing them "no longer exists for him. Therefore the scripture says (Chând. 8, 12, 1): ‘Verily, the bodiless is not touched by pain and pleasure.’ If you maintain that bodilessness is only attained after the dissolution of the body, not during life, then we do not admit this, because being clothed with the body depends (only) upon false cognition. For the circumstance of the Self's being connected with a body can be understood in no other way, than by conceiving it as erroneous knowledge, consisting in the delusion of the body being the Self. For we have seen that [for the Self] the condition of bodilessness is an eternal one, and this because it is not conditioned by action [only what belongs to the fruit of works is perishable]. If however you maintain that being embodied is the consequence of good and evil works done by it [the bodiless Âtman], then we deny this; for since its union with the body is untrue, therefore the assertion is also untrue that the Âtman has done good and evil. For the assertions that it is clothed with a body and has done good and evil works are always supported by each other and therefore lead to the assumption of a regressus in infinitum; and this is comparable to a chain altogether of blind persons each holding the other, since it is impossible for the Âtman to be affected by works, the Âtman being no acting principle.”—(p. 87, 5:) ‘Consequently being clothed with a body depends only upon a false conception, and thus it is proved that the knower of Brahman is, in his life time, already bodiless. Therefore the scripture says (Bṛih. 4, 4, 7, translated above p. 194): ‘As the slough of a snake dead and cast off lies upon an anthill, thus lies this body then, but the bodiless, the immortal, the life is pure Brahman, is pure Light;’ and [where is unknown to me]: ‘with eyes as if without eyes, with ears as if without ears, with speech as if without speech, with Manas as if without Manas, with life as if without life,’ and the Smṛiti shows in the passage: ‘What is the essence of him who is firm in knowledge?’ etc. (Bhagavadgîtâ 2, 54) where it enumerates the characteristics of one who is firm in knowledge and reckons as such that he is set free from all work.—Thus for one who has recognised the Brahmanhood of the Soul, Saṃsâra does not continue “as before, and he for whom it still continues, has in truth “not yet recognised that the Soul is Brahman; that is cer- “tain.”

2. The Destruction of Sin

c10.s2.t2.1

Sûtram 4, 1, 3.

c10.s2.t2.2

Existence without works is, as we have seen repeatedly, (above pp. 112. 390. 402) impossible. But it lies in the nature of works to have as purpose the production of a definite fruit, and without its having brought forth this fruit—one might think—no work can be annihilated, provided that the authority of the scripture is to be maintained (p. 1075, 9). That liberation thereby becomes impossible, need not be admitted; only one would have to incorporate liberation, like the fruit of works in the chain of Space, Time, and Causality (p. 1075, 17; that is, regard it equally as a fruit of works).—But that is not so! On the contrary, when once Brahman is known, sin committed is annihilated, and future sins cannot cleave to such a one (p. 1076, 2). For the scripture says (Chând. 4, 14, 3, translated above p. 165): “As water does not cling to the lotus “leaf, so no evil deed clings to one who thus knows;” and (Chând. 5, 24, 3; translated above p. 157) “as burns the leaflet “of the bulrush when thrust into the fire, so are burnt up all “his sins;” and yet again (Muṇḍ. 2, 2, 8):

c10.s2.t2.3

“For him who sees the One, both high and low
“His heart’s strong fetters, bursting, fall apart,
“For him all doubts are solved, all works are naught.”

c10.s2.t2.4

We do not thereby deny the fruit-producing power of works; such a power certainly exists; but we assert that it is checked in its development by a cause of another kind, namely, by knowledge (p. 1076, 14). For the canon of the doctrine of works holds good only on the assumption, that the power of the works exists; where the power is checked, the canon then loses its validity (p. 1076, 15). When then the Smṛiti says: “no work can be lost,” this remains the rule and implies that no work, without having borne its fruit, can be annihilated, and even the penance (prâyaçcittam) prescribed for certain deeds forms no exception, in that it is itself a kind of retribution (p. 1077, 1). The case is otherwise, on the contrary, with knowledge. If one takes exception to the fact that this (knowledge) is not, like penance, prescribed as a means of purification from sin (p. 1077, 6) then it is to be noted that the attribute-ascribing forms of knowledge (*saguṇā vidyāḥ*) do likewise also belong to the doctrine of works and in consequence are also accompanied by promises of heavenly lordship and release from evil (p. 1077, 9); in the attributeless knowledge, on the contrary, the prescription does not hold good, and yet the "burning up" of works is accomplished by it, and this by the knowledge that the Ātman is not an acting principle (p. 1077, 12). This knowledge that the soul is by nature a non-agent brings about in the first place the result that future works no longer cleave to the knower of Brahman who is no longer an agent, and further, that the former works which he performed under the false delusion of being an agent are annihilated through the dissipation of this delusion by the power of knowledge (p. 1078, 1). For the knower of Brahman says: "That Brahman the nature of which is opposed to the nature of formerly held to be true, being an agent and enjoyer, that Brahman which is in its very nature in all time past, present and future not-agent, not-enjoyer, that Brahman am I, and therefore I never was either agent or enjoyer, nor am I such now, nor shall I ever be one" (p. 1078, 4).—Only thus can liberation take place; in any other way the destruction of the works which have been taking their course from eternity in the past, and therefore liberation itself also, becomes impossible. "Hence liberation cannot, like the fruit of works, be conditioned by Space, Time, and Causality, for then the fruit of knowledge would be transitory and would lose its transcendent character (*parokshatvam*)” (p. 1078, 10).

3. Destruction of Good Works also

c10.s2.t3.1

When knowledge arises, past sins, as we have seen, are annihilated, and future sins can no longer cleave to the Soul. But how about the good works? For these indeed are commanded by the same scripture which is the source of knowledge and it cannot contradict itself. Must not good works therefore be excepted from annihilation?—We reply: annihilation and non-cleaving apply equally to good works and evil, for the following reasons: 1) good works also bring their own fruit and thereby hinder the fruit of knowledge; 2) the scripture teaches that both, the good and the evil works, disappear at the appearance of knowledge (Brih. 4, 4, 22, translated above p. 196): "[Who thus knows] him both overcome not whether he therefore [because he was in the body] has done evil or has done good; but he overcomes both; him neither what he has done nor what he has not done burns;" 3) in the destruction of works resulting from the knowledge that the Soul is not an agent, good and evil deeds are of equal value (tulya); of both it is said indifferently (Mund. 2, 2, 8) "and his works are naught;" 4) where evil works only are mentioned, good works must be understood as well, because their fruit, in comparison with that of knowledge, is inferior; 5) when the scripture says (Chând. 8, 4; translated above p. 162): "this bridge day and night traverse not, nor old age, nor death, nor pain, nor good, nor evil works, and from it all sins turn back," then in the words "all sins" both the good and evil works just mentioned are included (p. 1079).

c10.s2.t3.2

—We may compare with this, the explanations of the Apostle Paul in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians as to the impossibility of a redemption through the law. According to Paul the law, if fulfilled, would set us free; but, in consequence of the sinfulness of our nature, it cannot be fulfilled; according to Çankara the law can be fulfilled, but its fulfilment does not bring liberation, but only reward on the path of transmigration. The former has the deeper consciousness of the sinfulness of our nature, the latter the more correct estimate of the value of the works of the law;—both combined give the philosophical truth. The law (for instance the Vedic or Mosaic) can unquestionably be fulfilled, but, in consequence of our innate egotism can be fulfilled only from selfish motives; hence its fulfilment has no moral value; lawful and unlawful actions both depend upon egotism, and are therefore, morally considered, both equally valueless and do not lead to liberation. This is only accomplished through that transformation of our Ego, which according to the Christian view proceeds from Faith, according to the Hindu view consists in Knowledge.—Both, Faith and Knowledge, are at the bottom one and the same,—that metaphysical consciousness which lifts us above the world and raises us above all possibility of sin. Whether this consciousness, assuming its genuineness, leads over into Quietism as among the Indians, or, as among us, is realised in deeds of love, touches only its form of appearance and establishes no difference in the value of what appears here.

4. Why the Body, in spite of Liberation, still continues to exist

c10.s2.t4.1

Sûtras 4, 1, 15. 19.

c10.s2.t4.2

Knowledge burns up works, but only works whose retribution has not yet begun, whether they originate from this life as led before the awakening (*prabodha*), or consist in a balance from some previous life which could not come to realisation in the present existence (above pp. 112. 390). But knowledge does not destroy those works whose seed has already germinated, that is, those from which the present life, serving as basis for dawning knowledge, has been fashioned (p. 1080, 9; the same predestination of the course of life as we find in Plato's Republic 10, 15, p. 617 E). For if this were not so, if all works without exception were annihilated by knowledge, then quiescence (*kshema*) would not arise only after death, but immediately upon the attainment of knowledge, since there would be no further cause for the continuance of life [no further work to be atoned for] (p. 1080, 12). For this fact certainly startling in our system, that in spite of liberation the body still continues to exist for a while, Çañkara gives two explanations, of which the one is more realistic, the other more idealistic. (1) As the vessel which is being formed requires the potter's wheel to support it, so liberation requires a life as a substratum; and as the potter's wheel continues for a time to revolve, even after the vessel has been completed, so also life continues after liberation, since it contains no cause to check the impetus already gained (p. 1081, 2); hence only after works, like the velocity of the flying arrow, have expended themselves, does liberation become an accomplished fact for all who possess knowledge; therefore it is said (Chând. 6, 14, 2; translated above p. 266): "To this [worldly action] I shall belong only until I am liberated, then shall I go home" (p. 916, 8). (2) As when a man suffering from eye disease, continues to see two moons even after he has attained the conviction that there is only one moon there, owing to the force of the impression (saṃskâra-vaçât), so too the impression of the sense-world persists, after a man has attained the knowledge of its non-existence (p. 1081, 5).—In view of the questionable character of these explanations, our author falls back upon the inner certainty of liberation: "Here, he remarks, no discussion at all is admissible; for how could anyone who is convinced in his heart that he is Brahman, be refuted by another, even when he is in the body?"

First 62 of 149 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)