Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c5.s6: VI. Exoteric and Esoteric Vedânta Doctrine

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c5.s6

Language
English

Contents

VI. Exoteric and Esoteric Vedânta Doctrine

1. Justification of Exoteric Metaphysics

c5.s6.t1.1

ALL metaphysics has to battle with the great difficulty, unique in the whole province of science, that it must think in conceptions and express in words what is properly contrary to their nature, since all words and conceptions at last spring from that very base of empiric reality which metaphysics undertakes to transcend, in order to lay hold on the "Self" (*âtman*) of the world, the "ὄντως ὄν" the "thing in itself," which finds its expression and manifestation in all empiric reality, yet without being identical with it.

c5.s6.t1.2

So far, then, as metaphysics adapts itself to the form of empirical knowledge, in order thereby to express its own content, it necessarily assumes an allegorical, more or less mythical character; and, as this is the only form in which it can be grasped by the people, standing in need of it (ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται, St. Mark, IV, 11), is called exoteric metaphysics. So far as, on the other hand, it adheres to the path of exact science, in order to attain to a Whole, thoroughly demonstrable in all its parts, and equal to any opposition, metaphysics must often choose difficult by-paths, turning conceptions through many shades of meaning, with all kinds of reservations, and in many cases entirely renounce results that can be clearly represented.—And all this demands a great power and habit of abstraction, attainable only by few; therefore for this form of our science the name of esoteric metaphysics is to be taken.

2. Exoteric and Esoteric form of the Vedânta

c5.s6.t2.1

a) General Survey

c5.s6.t2.2

In accordance with what has been said, the metaphysics of the Vedânta also has two forms, a theological, exoteric, and a philosophical, esoteric form; both are present in the work which we have to analyse, running parallel, and being present in all the five provinces of the Vedânta teaching, namely, the theology, cosmology, psychology, the doctrine of transmigration, and that of liberation; they stand in a continuous contradiction which is necessitated by the nature of the matter. But the great difficulty for the philosophic understanding of the Brahmasûtras lies in the fact, that neither in the text nor in the commentary are the two conceptions clearly separated from each other, but rather meet us everywhere interwoven with each other, in such sort that the fundamental texture of the whole consists of a representation of the exoteric, or, as we may also call it (with an extension of the conception, whose justification will be given in what follows) the lower doctrine (*aparâ vidyâ*), which, however, is penetrated in every province by the esoteric or higher doctrine (*parâ vidyâ*), standing in contradiction to it, a relation which compels us to justify our general view here at the outset.

c5.s6.t2.3.1

As is shown by the analysis of contents at the conclusion of our first chapter, the doctrine of the Vedânta consists properly in a richly coloured picture of the world on a mythological ground. The first part contains, in Adhyâya I, the theology, which on the basis of seven times four passages of the Upanishads, discusses the essence of the Brahman, its relation to the world as creator, ruler and destroyer, its relation to the soul, and its various names and attributes. This is followed, in Adhyâya II, by the cosmology which is concerned with the relation of the world to the Brahman as cause, its gradual evolution from and re-absorption in it, and, from II, 3, 15 on, the psychology, in which are thoroughly discussed the nature of the soul and its organs, its relation to God, to the body, and to its own deeds. In Adhyâya III comes first the doctrine of transmigration, then a supplement to the psychology (III, 2, 1—10), another to the theology (III, 2, 11—41); the rest of the Adhyâya contains a miscellaneous assemblage of discussions, for the most part exegetic in character, as the chief content of which we can, in any case, with Çankara (p. 1049, 3), consider the teaching of the means (sâdhana) to attain the higher and lower doctrine, that is the knowledge and worship of the Brahman.

c5.s6.t2.3.2

For the most part these discussions deal with the strange question whether certain passages of the Veda are to be comprehended in one “Vidyâ,” or to be separated, a question which has a meaning only for the lower doctrine, with its aim of worship. Finally, the conclusion of the work, Adhyâya IV, contains the eschatology; it sketches in detail the departure of the soul after death, and how some souls follow the way of the Fathers (pitriyâna) to a new incarnation, while, on the contrary, others, the worshippers of the Brahman, are led along the way of the gods (devayâna) higher and higher upwards to the Brahman, “whence there is no return”—according to the Upanishads, but not without further conditions, according to the reasoning of our system: for this Brahman is only the “lower” Brahman, that is, as considered as possessing attributes (guṇa), it is the object of worship, and not of “perfect knowledge” (samyagdarçanam); only after this latter, that is, the esoteric doctrine, is imparted to the pious in the world of Brahman, is he also liberated; until then, although he is in the world of Brahman, and a partaker of Lordship (aiçvaryam), “his darkness is not yet driven away” (p. 1154, 9), “his ignorance not yet destroyed” (p.

c5.s6.t2.3.3

1133, 15), that is, he possesses only the lower doctrine (aparâ vidyâ), whose content consists of all that has hitherto been mentioned, not the opposed higher doctrine, the parâ vidyâ or samyagdarçanam, that is, the pure philosophic, esoteric doctrine, which, in every part of this picture of the world with its empiric colouring, crops up in contradiction with it, and whose results, according to the metaphysical standpoint which we occupy, we may find strange, or admirable. In the department of Theology it teaches that the Brahman is not thus or thus, but altogether without attributes (guṇa), distinctions (viṣesha) and limitations (upâdhi), and therefore in no way capable of being defined or conceived. And this Brahman, devoid of all limitation, is the only being, outside which nothing is; therefore, in the department of Cosmology, there can be as little question of the origin of the world as of its existence, but only of there being neither anything different (nânâ) from the Brahman, nor any plurality of things (prapañca), and that the world extended in names and forms is non-existent (avastu), is only a glamour (mâyâ) which Brahman, as master-magician (mâyâvin), projects (prasârayati), as the dreamer projects dream forms (p. 432, 8). In the same way all Psychology falls away, after the saying “tat tvam asi” (that thou art), is comprehended according to which the soul of each human being is not an emanation, not a part of the Brahman, but fully and completely the Brahman.

c5.s6.t2.3.4

For him who knows this, there is no more migration of the soul, nor even liberation; for he is already liberated; the continued existence of the world and of his own body appears to him only as an illusion, the appearance of which he cannot remove, but which cannot further deceive him, till the time when, after the decease of the body, he wanders not forth, as the others, but remains where he is and what he is and eternally was,—the first principle of all things, “the originally eternal, pure, free Brahman.”

c5.s6.t2.4

This is the Samyagdarçanam, the Vidyâ in the stricter sense of the word, distinguished on the one side from empiric cosmology, and psychology, Avidyâ, and on the other from the doctrine of the aparam, saguṇam brahma, of its worship and the entering into it by the way of devayâna; this is the aparâ vidyâ, saguṇâ vidyâ, whose possessor can, however, also on occasion be called vidvân (p. 1095, 11. 1134, 11). Strictly viewed, this aparâ vidyâ is nothing but metaphysics in an empiric dress, that is Vidyâ as it appears, considered from the standpoint of Avidyâ (the realism innate in us). This definition is not, however, found in Çaṅkara, as in general the distinction of the esoteric and exoteric doctrine and the inner connection of the latter, as well as of the former, does not attain the clearness with which we express it and must express it here, unless we have to renounce a full comprehension of the system. What prevented our author from connecting together—as he did in the case of the parā vidyā—the aparā vidyā also, with his doctrine of the creation of the world and Samsāra, in the unity of an exoteric system, was firstly the excessive attention which, in Indian fashion, he paid to theological and eschatological questions, and, on the other hand, the apprehension of injuring the letter of the Veda, in which esoteric and exoteric teaching are interwoven, by a recognition of the contradictions between them. For this reason, for instance, he takes endless pains to maintain the teaching of the creation of the world through the Brahman, and to unify it with his better insight into the identity of the two, by trying to show that cause and effect are identical, and then constantly (e. g., p. 374, 12. 391, 10. 484, 2. 491, 1) asserting that the doctrine of creation had only the aim of teaching this identity of the world with the Brahman, a view which cannot be brought into harmony with the ample and realistic treatment which he himself bestowed on it.

c5.s6.t2.5

Naturally we shall do no violence to our author, and where, in the organism of his system, we note a false connection, we shall only indicate it, and not remedy it; but, on the other side, we have the right to exercise philosophic criticism and this will be the better, the more it is done entirely from within, that is, from the principles of the system itself. For in every philosophical system lies something more than its originator put into it; the genius reaches further than the individual, and it is the task of the historian to indicate where the thinker has lagged behind the full scope of his thoughts.

c5.s6.t2.6

To this end we must be allowed here, at the outset of our exposition of the system, to bring together the passages which justify our general view of it; they will be the beacons to which we have to look for guidance on our laborious and dangerous journey, and from them we shall take the standard to test where our author has fallen short of the greatness of his own point of view.

c5.s6.t2.7

b) Exoteric and Esoteric Theology.

c5.s6.t2.8

Quite clearly and consciously, if not everywhere carried out in detail, do we find the contrast made between exoteric and esoteric doctrine in the province of Theology, under the names of the lower, attribute-possessing (*aparâ, saguṇâ*), and the higher, attributeless doctrines (*parâ, nirguṇâ vidyâ*); the former is the doctrine of the lower, attribute-possessing Brahman, the latter of the higher, attribute-free Brahman (*aparam, saguṇam, saviśeṣam, also kâryam, amukhyam brahma, and param, nirguṇam, nirviśeṣam, also avikṛitam, mukhyam, śuddham brahma*); the former is the object of worship, the latter of knowledge; in the case of the former doctrine the fulfilment of duties is commanded; but not in the latter (p. 1077, 7); the former has many different rewards, the only fruit of the latter is deliverance.

c5.s6.t2.9

The most important passages are as follows:

c5.s6.t2.10

(p. 111, 3:) "The Brahman is known in two forms, [1.] as "qualified by limitations (*upâdhi*) which are derived from the "multitude of his metamorphoses in respect of names and forms, "and [2.] on the contrary as free from all limitations."

c5.s6.t2.11

(p. 803, 3:) "There are passages of twofold character (*liṅgam*) "referring to the Brahman; the one, as e. g. 'all-working, all-wish"ing, all-smelling, all-tasting,' etc. [Chând. 3, 14, 2, cf. p. 50 above] "indicate that it is affected by difference (*viśeṣa*); the others, "e. g., 'not coarse, not fine, not short, not long,' etc. (Bṛih. "3, 8, 8), indicate its freedom from all differences... But "it is not admissible to assume from the passages of twofold "character that the highest (*param*) Brahman has itself "(svatas) this double nature; for one and same thing cannot "in itself be affected by differences such as form, etc., and "not be affected by them, for this is a contradiction... And "by being connected with limitations (*upâdhi*) a thing of a "one kind cannot assume another nature; for when rock crystal "is transparent, it does not become opaque by being connected "with limitations such as red colour and the like; on the con"trary it is only an illusion (*bhrama*) that opaqueness per"meates it; what adds the limitations to it is ignorance "(avidyâ). Therefore, whichever character is assumed, the “Brahman must be conceived as unchangeably free from all differences, and not the reverse. For everywhere in the scriptures where it is a question of teaching the proper nature of the Brahman, it is taught by such passages as ‘not to be heard, not to be felt, without form, eternal’ (Kâth. 3, 15), that the Brahman is completely above all change.⁵⁹

c5.s6.t2.12

⁵⁹ Cf. p. 806, 9: “Therefore the Brahman must in these passages according to the Scriptures be regarded as quite without form (*nirâkâram*); but the other passages which refer to the Brahman as possessing form (*âkâravat*) are not concerned with it but with the enjoining of worship (*upâsanâ*).”

c5.s6.t2.13

(p. 133, 7:) “For where in teaching the nature (*rûpam*) of the highest Lord all differences are excluded, the scriptures use such expressions as: ‘not to be heard, not to be felt, without form, eternal’ (Kâth. 3, 15). Because the highest Lord, however, is the cause of all, He is exhibited to us as distinguished by certain qualifications of the changeable world [of creation, which is a transformation of Him], when we read ‘all-working, all-wishing, all-smelling, all-tasting’ (Chând. 3, 14, 2); and the case is the same when He is termed ‘[man in the sun] with the golden beard’ (Chând. 1, 6, 6), etc.”

c5.s6.t2.14

(p. 1121, 1:) “As the lower (*aparam*) Brahman is closely connected with the higher (*param*) Brahman, it is no contradiction to apply the word Brahman to the former also. For the fact of the matter is this: the higher Brahman itself is the lower Brahman, so far as it [the former] is now and again for the purpose of worship described as possessing certain qualities of the changeable world, such as ‘Manas is what it is formed of’ (Chând. 3, 14, 2) etc., qualities which depend on the ascription to it of pure limitations (*viçuddha-upâdhi*).”

c5.s6.t2.15

(p. 867, 12:) “These qualifications too [from Taitt. 2, 5: ‘Love is his head’ etc.] are only assumed in the highest Brahman as a means of turning the thoughts to it (*citta-avatâra-upâya-mâtratvena*), not with a view to knowledge . . . and this rule [that such qualifications have only local not general validity] is applied elsewhere, when it is a question “of certain qualities of the Brahman which are inculcated for “the purpose of worship... For a ‘More’ and ‘Less’ of “attributes in which continues the [empirical] action of the “manifold (sati bheda-vyavahâre) exists in the attribute-possess- “ing (sagunam) Brahman, not in the attribute-less (nirgunam) “highest Brahman.”

c5.s6.t2.16

(p. 112, 2:) “In a thousand passages the scripture teaches “the double nature of the Brahman, distinguishing between “it when it is the object of knowledge and ignorance (vidyâ- “avidyâ-vishaya). From the standpoint of ignorance (avidyâ- “avasthâyâm) all occupation with Brahman has the distinguish- “ing mark that it, as object of worship, and its worshipper “are distinguished; and in this case certain ways of worship- “ping the Brahman have as their end an exaltation (abhyud- “aya); the end of others is gradual deliverance (kramamukti); “others again have as their aim the success of the work of “sacrifice;⁶⁰ and they vary according to the attributes (guna), “differences (viçesha) and limitation (upâdhi). Now though “the God to be honoured, the highest Âtman, distinguished “by this or that attribute and difference, is one, still the “rewards [of worship] are different according to the attributes “worshipped.”

c5.s6.t2.17

⁶⁰ Cf. p. 815, 5: “The fruit of the same [the worship of the sagunam “brahma] varying with the instruction, is sometimes annihilation of sin, “sometimes attainment of [heavenly] lordship (aiçvaryam), sometimes “gradual deliverance; so it is to be understood. It is thus correct to “assume that the words of the scripture about worship and the words “about the Brahman [as object of knowledge] have not a single but “different purposes.” 61 Cf. p. 1047, 7: “Where no difference of teaching exists, there cannot

c5.s6.t2.18

(p. 148, 2:) “For where the highest Brahman (param brahma), “free from all connection with differences, is indicated as soul, “there is, as is to be seen [from the scripture], only one single “fruit, namely liberation; where, on the contrary, the Brahman is “taught in its connection with different attributes (guna-viçesha), “or in its connection with different symbols [pratîka-viçesha, “on which 4, 1, 4. 4, 3, 15—16], there are produced high and “low rewards only limited to Samsâra (samsâra-gocarâni eva).”61

c5.s6.t2.19

c) Exoteric and Esoteric Eschatology

c5.s6.t2.20

As already made clear by the passages quoted, this two-fold nature of the lower Brahman, as the object of worship, and of the higher, as the object of knowledge, corresponds exactly to the two-fold eschatological theory of our system. The names *parâ* and *aparâ vidyâ* comprehend, for Çankara, not only the philosophical and theological theories of the Brahman, but also the doctrine of the destiny of those who adhere to the one or the other; the *parâ vidyâ* teaches how he who knows the *param brahma*, by this very knowledge, becomes identical with it, and accordingly stands in need of no departure of the soul and further advance towards it, in order to reach it; on the other hand the *aparâ vidyâ* comprehends the theory of the Brahman as object of worship, and at the same time the theory of the rewards which fall to the lot of the worshipper; these are, as we saw, partly temporal, partly celestial, partly even the gradual liberation of the *Devayâna*, but always limited to the *Samsâra* (p. 148, 5), from which it follows that, like the *Pitriyâna*, the *Devayâna* also belongs to the *Samsâra*, namely, as its termination. According to this, as we are expressively assured, the whole teaching of the *Devayâna* (the ascent of the pious to the Brahman) belongs to the *aparâ vidyâ* (p. 1087, 3); to the attribute-possessing worship (*saguṇâ upâsanâ*) of the Brahman, not to the *Samyagdarçanam* (p. 909, 8. 10); heaven and the like, with its lordship (*aiçvaryam*) is the ripened fruit of the *saguṇâ vidyâḥ* (p. 1149, 13); for him who, on the contrary, knows the *param brahma*, as is developed in the episode

c5.s6.t2.21

"be, as in the case of fruit of works, a difference of fruit either. For in the case of that doctrine [the *nirguṇâ vidyâ*], which is the means of liberation, there is no difference as in the case of works. On the contrary, in the case of attribute-possessing doctrines (*saguṇâsu vidyâsu*), as, for example, 'Manas is his material, Prâṇa his body' (Chând. 3, 14, 2), and so on, there exists a difference, in consequence of the admixture or separation of attributes, and accordingly, as in the case of the fruit of works, a difference of fruit according to the given peculiarity. And a token of this is the scripture, when it is said: 'whatever he adores him as, that he becomes;' but it is not so in the case of the attributeless doctrine (*nirguṇâyâm vidyâyâm*), because [in it] no attributes exist."

c5.s6.t2.22

concerning the *parâ vidyâ* 4, 2, 12--16 (*prâsaṅgikî paravidyâ-gatâ cintâ* p. 1103, 12), there is no more departure from the body, nor any entering into the Brahman (p. 1102. 1).

c5.s6.t2.23

d) Exoteric and Esoteric Cosmology and Psychology.

c5.s6.t2.24

At first sight, the matter stands somewhat differently in the province of Cosmology and Psychology. The question is here no longer the contrast between *aparâ* and *parâ vidyâ*, but another, the contrast between two standpoints, which, p. 456, 1, are distinguished as the standpoint of worldly action (*vyavahâra-avasthâ*) and the standpoint of the highest reality (*paramârtha-avasthâ*). The former is that of the *Avidyâ* (p. 455, 6), the latter that of the *Vidyâ*. The former teaches a creation of the world by the Brahman who is endowed with a plurality of powers (*çakti*), and the existence of a plurality of individual souls, for whose activities and enjoyments it is the stage from the latter standpoint, the possibility of a creation and a transmigration ceases along with plurality, and in place of both comes the doctrine of the identity of Brahman with nature and with the soul.

c5.s6.t2.25

(p. 491, 1:) “This scripture-doctrine of the creation does
“not belong to the highest reality (*paramârtha*), for it lies in
“the province of worldly action (*vyavahâra*) in name and form
“admitted by *Avidyâ*, and has, as its highest aim, to teach
“that the Brahman is the soul; this must not be forgotten!”

c5.s6.t2.26

(p. 473, 13:) “When, through declarations of identity like
“‘*tat tvam asi*’ (that thou art), identity has become known,
“then the soul’s existence as wanderer, and Brahman’s
“existence as creator have vanished away.

c5.s6.t2.27

That the *paramârtha-avasthâ* of Cosmology and Psychology forms a whole with the *parâ vidyâ* of Theology and Eschatology, may be concluded from the explanations of Çankara himself, in the single passage in which he lays down the esoteric teaching connectedly, and which is translated at the end of this chapter. Here we will prove only, what Çankara was not so clearly conscious of, that quite analogously, the *vyavahâra-avasthâ* of the doctrines of creation and transmigration are to be connected with the *aparâ vidyâ* of an attribute-possessing, that is, to speak in our language, of a personal God and a soul which departs to him after death, in the unity of an exoteric metaphysics, which treats the Beyond from the standpoint of innate realism (avidyâ), since the aparâ vidyâ cannot exist without the vyavahâra-avasthâ, nor the vyavahâra-avasthâ without the aparâ vidyâ.

c5.s6.t2.28

1) The aparâ vidyâ cannot exist without the vyavahâra-avasthâ; for the devayâna of the aparâ vidyâ demands, as its complement, the pitṛiyâna; but this is the path of Saṃsâra, and Çaṅkara himself has told us (above p. 106), that the reality of Saṃsâra and the reality of the creation stand and fall together; therefore the aparâ vidyâ demands, as its complement, the realism of the doctrine of creation; as also, conversely, the devayâna, and, along with it, the aparâ vidyâ, disappear only for him who has recognised the unity of his Âtman with Brahman, and therewith the illusion of the manifold world and the wandering soul.

c5.s6.t2.29

2) In exactly the same way the vyavahâra-avasthâ of the teaching of creation cannot exist without the aparâ vidyâ of saguṇam brahma; for, in order to create, Brahman requires a plurality of çaktis, or powers (p. 342, 6. 486, 10); but these stand in contradiction (p. 1126, 2) to a nirviçeṣam brahma, from which it follows that only a saguṇam, saviçeṣam, not a nirguṇam, nirviçeṣam brahma can be a Creator.

c5.s6.t2.30

The inner necessary connection between the vyavahâra-avasthâ and the aparâ vidyâ, here demonstrated, often enough comes more or less clearly to Çaṅkara's consciousness: thus, when he describes the saguṇam brahma as avidyâ-viṣaga (p. 112, 2), for which the bheda-vyavahâra exists (p. 868, 7); when he views the upâdhis attributed to it as resting on avidyâ (p. 804, 1); when he explains the fruit of its worship as saṃsâra-gocaram (p. 148, 5), the aiçvaryam of the aparâ-brahmavid as saṃsâra-gocaram (p. 1133, 14) and those who have entered into the lower Brahman as still subject to Avidyâ (p. 1154, 9. 1133, 15), that is, with the same word with which he everywhere else describes the realism of the doctrine of creation and transmigration. And on occasion he expresses it openly, that the cosmological distinction of īçvara and prapañca belongs to the saguṇā upāsanā (p. 456, 10), and, conversely, that the teaching of saguṇam brahma presupposes the prapañca (p. 820, 12).

c5.s6.t2.31

From these facts we justify the weaving together of the teaching of the saguṇam brahma, of a world thereby created and of an individual soul which moves in this world, and finally enters into that brahma, into a whole of exoteric metaphysics. And Çaṅkara also, if we were to ask him—"Is, then, "that saguṇam brahma and the devayāna leading thither real, "although from the standpoint of the highest truth neither "exists?" He would certainly answer: "They are precisely as "real as this world; and only in the sense that the prapañca "and saṃsāra are unreal, are the saguṇam brahma and the "devayāna unreal; both are the aparā vidyā, that is Vidyā "as it appears from the standpoint of Avidyā" (avidyā-avasthāyām p. 112, 3. 680, 12. 682, 3).⁶²

c5.s6.t2.32

⁶² The thought that the exoteric doctrine aims at accommodating the truth to the comprehension of the masses, can also be pointed out in Çaṅkara; thus the spatial conception of the Brahman is formed upalabdhi-artham, p. 182, 8. 193, 4; the measurement of Brahman is buddhi-artha', upāsana-arthaḥ, 835, 4; na hi avikāre 'nante brahmaṇi sarvaiḥ pumbhiḥ çakyā buddhiḥ sthāpayitum, manda-madhya-uttama-buddhitvāt puṃsām, iti, 835, 6. The propædeutic character of the exoteric doctrine is very clearly laid down in the Commentary to Chând. 8, 1, p. 528, and this passage (which we shall translate in Chapter XI, 1, d) is before all to be considered, when the rightness of our comprehension of the Vedānta system comes in question.

c5.s6.t2.33

But it must still be borne in mind that Çaṅkara did not reach full clearness as to the necessary connection of the exoteric doctrines, and this will often become clear enough from his discussions, which we shall reproduce faithfully and unaltered; but, as regards the esoteric doctrine, on the contrary, there is found at the end of his work a passage from which his consciousness of its inner necessary connection comes out as clearly as possible, and which, as a compendium in nuce of Çaṅkara's Metaphysics, and, at the same time, as an example of the style and character of thought of the work with which we are occupied, we here translate word for word.

3. Appendix: Çaṅkara’s Esoteric Philosophy

c5.s6.t3.1

a) Do the liberated go to the Brahman?

c5.s6.t3.2

“Some maintain that the passages of scripture as to going [to the Brahman] refer to the higher [not to the lower, attribute-possessing Brahman]. This cannot be, because a going to the Brahman is impossible. For to the all-present highest Brahman, inmost of all, who is the soul that is within all, of whom it is said: ‘like the ether [p. 1125] omni-present, eternal’ (cf. above p. 32, l. 9)—‘the perceptible, not supersensible Brahman, that as Self is the innermost being of all’ (Bṛih. 3, 4, 1),—‘Self only is this universe’ (Chând. 7, 25, 2),—‘The Brahman only is this universe, the most excellent’ (Muṇḍ. 2, 2, 11),—to this Brahman whose character is determined by passages of scripture like these, there cannot now or ever be a going in. For we cannot go to a place where we already are; but on the contrary, according to common acceptation, only to another place. It is true experience shews, that we can also go to that, in which we are already, so far as we distinguish different places in it. Thus a man is on the earth, and yet goes to it, in so far as he goes to another place. So also the child is identical with itself, and yet reaches puberty, which is its own self, separated by time. In the same way, one might think, there may be a way of going to the Brahman, so far as it is endowed with all kinds of powers (çakti). But this is not so; on account of the negation of all differences (viçeṣa) in Brahman: ‘Without parts, without action, restful, faultless, stainless’ (Çvet. 6, 19),—‘Nor gross nor fine, nor short nor long’ (Bṛih. 3, 8, 8),—‘For he, the unborn, is without and within’ (Muṇḍ. 2, 1, 2),—‘Verily this great unborn soul (ātman), that neither grows old nor fades nor dies, that is without fear, is the Brahman’ (Bṛih. 4, 4, 25),—‘He is not thus, not thus’ (Bṛih. 3, 9, 26);—according to these rules of scripture and tradition no connection of the highest soul with spatial, temporal or other differences can be assumed, so that one could go to it as to a part of the earth or to an age of life; but a spatially and temporally [p. 1126] determined going to the earth and to the age is possible⁶³ because they are differentiated by locality and circumstances.”

c5.s6.t3.3

⁶³ It is in the highest degree attractive and instructive, to observe, how here and elsewhere the spirit of man in antiquity toils and struggles to reach the eternal fundamental truth of all metaphysics, which it was reserved for the genius of Kant to set forth in perfect clearness and to prove beyond contradiction: the truth that Being-in-itself must be spaceless and timeless, because space and time are nothing else but subjective forms of our intellect.—As here space and time are denied for the Brahman, so in the sequel will causality of creation be interpreted as identity.

c5.s6.t3.4

b) Esoteric Cosmology

c5.s6.t3.5

"If you assert, that the Brahman must have manifold powers (çakti), because, according to the scripture, it is the cause of the creation, subsistence and extinction of the world, we say no! for the passages of scripture which deny differences to it can have no other sense [but the literal one]. But the passages of scripture about the creation and so on can likewise have no other sense?—This is not so; for their aim is [only] to teach the identity [of the world with Brahman]. For when the scripture, by the examples of lumps of clay and the like,⁶⁴ teaches that 'the Existent", the Brahman, alone is true, but that [its] transformation [into the world] is untrue, it cannot have the aim of teaching a creation and the like.—But why should the passages of scripture about the creation and the like be subordinated to those about the negation of all differences, and not conversely the latter be subordinated to the former?—To this we answer: because the passages of scripture about the negation of all differences have a meaning which leaves nothing more to be wished for. For after the unity, eternity, purity, and the like, of the soul are recognised, nothing more remains to be desired, because thereby the knowledge, which is the aim of man, has been obtained: 'where can error or sorrow be, for him who beholds unity?' (Îçâ 7)—'Fearlessness, verily, o Janaka, hast thou attained' (Bṛih. 4, 2, 4),—'The wise has no fear of any one at all' (Taitt. 2, 9),—'Him verily the question troubles not, what good he has not done [p. 1127], what evil he has done' (ibid.),—thus teaches the scripture. And while in this way it shews that the wise are conscious of satisfaction, it also forbids the untrue assertion of a transformation [creation], since it says: 'From death to death he is ensnared who difference sees' (Kâṭh. 4, 10). Consequently it cannot be assumed that the passages of scripture which deny difference are to be subordinated to the others. Not so is it with the passages of scripture about creation and the like. For these are not able to teach a sense which leaves nothing more to be wished for. On the contrary, it is evident, that these have another aim [than that, immediately put forward, of teaching a creation]. For after it is first said (Chând. 6, 8, 3): 'Of this growth which has spring up, dear one, learn that it cannot be without a root,'—the scripture in the sequel teaches, how the one thing, which is to be known, is 'the Existent', as the root of the world. And thus it is also said: 'That, whence these beings come forth, whereby they, coming forth, live, wherein they, departing hence, enter again, that seek, for that is the Brahman' (Taitt. 3, 1). Thus the passages of scripture about the creation &c., have the aim of teaching the unity of the Âtman, so that no connection of the “Brahman with manifold powers [is to be assumed], and consequently a going to it is impossible. And also the passage: ‘His vital spirit withdraws not, Brahman is he, and into Brahman he is resolved’ (Brih. 4, 4, 6), forbids us to think of an end to the higher Brahman (param brahma). This we explained in discussing [Sûtram 4, 2, 13] ‘clearly according to some’ [passages, it is the body, not the individual soul, out of which he who has reached liberation withdraws].”

c5.s6.t3.6

⁶⁴ Chând. 6, 1, 4: "Just as, dear one, by a lump of clay everything that consists of clay, is known; resting on words is the transformation, a mere name, in truth it is only clay," etc.

c5.s6.t3.7

c) Esoteric Psychology

c5.s6.t3.8

“Further, when a going to the Brahman is assumed, the Jîva (the individual soul) which goes is either [1.] a part of the Brahman, or [2.] a modification, or [3.] different from the Brahman. For in the case of absolute identity with him, a going is impossible. If this be so, which of them is right?—We answer: if [according to 1.] that [Jîva] is a part [literally: a separate place] [in the Brahman], then he has already reached that [Brahman] consisting of the parts, and consequently even in this case a going to the Brahman is impossible. [p. 1128] But the assumption of parts and of that which is composed of them has no application to the Brahman, because, as everybody knows, the Brahman is without members. It is much the same if [according to 2.] we assume a modification. For the modification is also already in that from which it is modified. For a vessel of clay cannot exist, if it ceases to be clay; if this happened, it would cease to exist. If we could understand [the soul] as a modification or member [of the Brahman], the soul must remain inherent [in the Brahman], and a going of the wandering soul [reading samsârigamanam] to the Brahman is absurd. But perhaps [according to 3.] the Jîva is different from the Brahman? Then it must be either [a.] the size of an atom, or [b.] all-pervading, or [c.] of middle size. If it is [according to b.] all-pervading, no going can be possible. If it is [according to c.] of middle size, it cannot [cf. above p. 68, note 43] be eternal [which was, however, proved 3, 3, 54]; if it is [according to a.] the size of an atom, then it is inexplicable that sensation exists throughout the whole body. We have moreover proved above [2, 3, 19—29] fully, that it can neither be of the size of an atom nor of middle size. But that the Jîva is different from the Highest is altogether contrary to the canonical words: ‘tat tvam asi’ (‘That thou art,’ Chând. 6, 8, 7). The same error occurs, if we assume that it [the Jîva] is a modification or a part of it [the Brahman]. If you assert, that the error does not occur, because a modification or a part is not separate from that of which they are [modification or part], we contest this, because the unity in the main point would be wanting. And in the case of all these assumptions, you cannot get over it that either no cessation of transmigration is possible, or that in case it ceases, the soul, unless its Brahman-selfhood be assumed, must perish.”

c5.s6.t3.9

d) Esoteric Morality

c5.s6.t3.10

“But there are some who come and say: ‘Suppose someone practised the regular and occasional [good] works, in order to escape the fall [into transmigration], and avoided at the same time those springing from the desire [for reward], as also the forbidden [works] in order to go neither to heaven nor hell, and exhausted the works [of his former existence] which are to be expiated in the present body [p. 1129] by the expiation itself, there would thus, after the dissolution of the present body, exist no further cause for incurring a new body; and thus the liberation of such a one, being only a continuation in his own essence, would be reached even without identification with Brahman.’—But this is not so; for there is no proof of it. Because by no canonical scripture is it taught, that he who seeks liberation should proceed in this wise. On the contrary, they have evolved it out from their own intellects, thinking thus: because Saṃsāra is caused by the works [of an earlier existence], therefore it cannot exist, where there is no cause. But the calculation falls to the ground, because the non-existence of the cause cannot well be known [cf. the detailed statements p. 673, 9 ff.]. For of each single creature it must be admitted, that it has accumulated many works in an earlier existence, which ripen to desirable and undesirable fruits. As these bring contrary fruits, they cannot both be expiated at the same time; therefore some of them [the works] seize the opportunity and build up the present existence, others, on the contrary, sit idle and wait until space, time and cause come for them. As these which remain over cannot be exhausted by the present expiation, it cannot therefore be determined with certainty, that, for one who leads his life in the prescribed way, after the dissolution of his present body, no further cause should exist for another body; on the contrary the existence of a residuum of works is proved by passages of the Śruti and the Smṛti like (Chānd. 5, 10, 7): ‘Those whose conduct here is fair,’ and as it is further said [‘for them there is the prospect that they enter a fair womb, a Brahman womb, or Kṣatriya womb, or Vaiśya womb;—but those whose conduct here is foul, for them is the prospect of entering a foul womb, a dog’s, or pig’s, or Caṇḍāla’s womb’].—But if this be so, still [p. 1130] those [residual fruits of works] can be got rid of [kṣepakāṇi; perhaps here and in the sequal kṣapakāṇi, kṣapya, etc. ‘exhausted’ would be better; cf. p. 909, 12] by regular and occasional good works?—That cannot be; because no contrast [between them] exists. For if they were contraries, then the one might be wiped out by the others; but between the good works heaped up in an earlier existence and the regular and occasional [ceremonies] there is no contrast, because the one and the other are of morally meritorious nature. In the case of evil works, since they are of immoral nature; the contrast exists indeed, and accordingly a wiping out might very well take place; but still it will not result in there being no cause for

c5.s6.t3.11

“a new body. For in case of the good works, it still happens that they “remain as cause, and for the evil works, it cannot be ascertained that “they have been completely paid for [by pious ceremonies]. It can also “not be proved that by performing the constant and occasional [cere“monies] only avoidance of the descent [into transmigration] and no “other fruits besides are obtained; for it is quite possible, that yet other “fruits result therefrom, in addition. At least Âpastamba [dharma-sûtra “1, 7, 20, 3] teaches: ‘For, as in the case of the mango-tree, which is “planted for the sake of the fruit, also shadow and sweet scent result as “well, so also, when duties are performed, other beneficial ends also spring “therefrom.’ Moreover no man, who has not *Samyagdarçanam* (perfect “knowledge), can be sure that, with his whole self, from birth to death, “he has avoided all forbidden practices and those aiming at enjoyment “for, even in the most perfect, small lapses can be perceived. But even “if we could be in doubt about this, in any case it cannot be known “that no cause [for a new birth] exists. And without the Brahman-hood “of the soul having been brought to consciousness, by the way of know“ledge, the soul, whose nature it is to act and enjoy, cannot reach liber“ation, for it cannot renounce its own nature, any more than fire can “[cease to be] hot.—[p. 113] This may be, it may be objected, but the “evil lies only in the acting and enjoying as effect, not in its potentiality “[in the deeds, not in the will, from which they proceed], so that, even “while the potentiality remains in existence, liberation is possible through “avoiding the effect. But this also cannot be the case. For if the poten“tiality remains in existence [reading: *çakti-sadbhâve*], it cannot possibly “be prevented from producing its effect.—But it might still be, that the “potentiality, without any further causal moment, [the will without an “efficient motive] may not produce any effect; hence [the potentiality] “by itself, even when it remains in existence, commits no transgression. “—This also cannot be; for the causal moments are always connected “[with the potentiality] by a connection referred to the potentiality.⁶⁵ “So long, therefore, as the soul possesses the natural tendency to act “and enjoy, and so long as the Brahman-hood of the soul, which is to “be gained by knowledge, is not attained, there is not the faintest prospect “of liberation. And the scripture also, when it says: ‘There is no other ‘way to go’ (Çvet. 3, 8), admits no other way of liberation but the way of knowledge.—But from the fact that the Jiva is identical with the Brahman, will not all worldly action be annihilated, since the means of knowledge, like perception etc., cannot be employed?—Not so; on the contrary, it goes on just as well as the action in dreams before awaking [cf. above p. 55, note 31]. And the canon also, when it says: ‘For where there is a duality, as it were, one sees the other’ and so on (Brih. 4, 5, 15), explains with these words the action of perception, and the like, for the unawakened, as valid, but on the other hand declares it as not valid for the awakened; for it is said further: ‘But when for anyone all has become as his own self, how should he then see any other?’ and so on. Therefore because for him who knows the highest Brahman, the idea of going and the like has ceased entirely, any going [to the Brahman after death] is quite impossible for him.”

c5.s6.t3.12

⁶⁵ *çakti-lakshanena sambandhena nityasambaddha*; whether the sense of these rather obscure words has been caught above, or not, in any case it is clear that our author misses the main point of the matter, so far as he does not see that the real guilt lies only in the quality of the *çakti* (that is, the will), it being all the same, whether the will, instigated by the chance occurrence of *nimitta* (motive), unfolds its being in deeds, or whether this unfolding remains latent.—To have recognised this clearly and expressed it, is the service which Jesus has rendered to philosophy; compare Matthew v, 21 ff., xii, 33 ff.

c5.s6.t3.13

e) Esoteric Eschatology

c5.s6.t3.14

“But where do the passages of scripture belong which speak of a going [to the Brahman]?[p. 1132] Answer: they belong to the region of the attribute-possessing doctrines (*saguṇā vidyāḥ*). Accordingly a going is spoken of partly in the doctrine of the five fires (Chând. 5, 3—10. Brih. 6, 2), partly in the doctrine of the throne (Kaush. 1), partly in the Doctrine of the All-soul (Chând. 5, 11—24). But where in reference to the Brahman a going is spoken of, for example, in the passages: ‘The Brahman is life, the Brahman is joy, the Brahman is amplitude’ (Chând. 4, 10, 5; translated Chap. XI, 2, below p. 164) and ‘Here in this city of the Brahman [the body] is a house, a small lotus blossom’ (Chând. 8, 1, 1; translated Chap. XI, 1 d, below p. 160)—there also, in consequence of the attribute ‘bringing love’ and so on (Chând. 4, 15, 3) and ‘having true wishes’ and so on (Chând. 8, 1, 5) it is only a question of worshipping the attribute possessing [Brahman], and therefore a going is in place; but nowhere is a going taught with reference to the highest Brahman (*parabrahman*). As therefore in the passage: ‘His vital spirits withdraw not’ (Brih. 4, 4, 6; translated Chap. XII, 4), a going is denied, as also in the case of the words: ‘The knower of the Brahman reaches the Highest’ (Taitt. 2, 1); for even if the word ‘reaches’ implies a going, yet it indicates here, where, as shewn, a reaching of another place cannot be understood, only the entering into one’s own being, with regard to the annihilation of the extension of names and forms ascribed by Ignorance [that is, empirical reality]. ‘Brahman is he, and into the Brahman is he resolved’ (Brih. 4, 4, 6); this saying must be kept in sight. Further: if the going had reference to the highest [Brahman], it might be taught either for the purpose of attracting or for meditation. Now an attraction through the mention of the going [p. 1133] cannot happen in the case of those who know the Brahman; for he becomes this solely because, through knowledge, his “unveiled original selfhood comes to consciousness; and a meditation on “the going also has not the slightest reference to the knowledge which “is conscious of an eternally perfected bliss, leaving no further goal to “be reached. Consequently the going refers to the lower [Brahman]; “and only so far as the difference between the higher and lower Brahman “is not kept steadily in view, will the passages of scripture concerning a “going referring to the lower Brahman be falsely made to refer to the “higher.”

c5.s6.t3.15

i) Esoteric Theology

c5.s6.t3.16

“Are there then two Brahmans, a higher and a lower?—There are “certainly two; as is seen from the words: ‘In truth, o Satyakâma, this “sound *Om* is the higher and the lower Brahman’ (Praçna 5, 2).—What “then is the higher Brahman, and what the lower?—To this we answer: “Where, by discarding the differences of name, form and the like, ascribed “by Ignorance, Brahman is indicated by the [purely negative] expressions “ ‘nor gross [nor fine, nor short, nor long]’ and so on (Brih. 3, 8, 8) it is “the higher. But where, on the contrary, exactly the same [reality], for “the purpose of worship, is described as distinguished by some difference “or other, for example, in words like: ‘Spirit is his material, life his “body, light his form’ (Chând. 3, 14, 2), it is the lower.—But does that “not contradict the word of the scripture, that it is ‘without a second’ “(Chând. 6, 2, 1)?—Not at all! [The contradiction] disappears, because “ascribed limitations like name and form spring from Ignorance. But “the fruit of the worship of this lower Brahman is, according to the “context ‘If he desires the world of the fathers’ and so on (Chând. 8, “2, 1) a world-lordship (*jagad-aiçvaryam*) belonging to Samsâra, since “Ignorance is not [yet] destroyed. Now this [fruit] [p. 1134] is connected “with a given place; therefore a going, in order to gain it, is no con- “tradiction. It is true the soul is all-present; but as space [ether] enters “into the vessel and the like, it also enters into connection with ascribed “limitation (*upâdhi*) like Buddhi and the rest, and so far a going is “assumed for it, concerning which we have spoken, with reference to the “Sûtra: ‘because it [the soul in the condition of Samsâra] is the nucleus “of its [Buddhi’s] qualities [love, hate, desire, sorrow, etc.]’ (2, 3, 29).”

Linked texts (11)