Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c5.s6.t3: 3. Appendix: Çaṅkara’s Esoteric Philosophy

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c5.s6.t3

Language
English

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).”

Cites (10)