The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s3.t7: 7. Brahman as Free from Causality and Affliction

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s3.t7

Language: English

7. Brahman as Free from Causality and Affliction

Just as Kant declares theoretical speculation insufficient, and turns the human soul with its demands away from speculation back to the practical way, so already did Yâjñavalkya, in a highly remarkable passage in the Bṛihadâranyaka Upanishad 3, 4—5, the consideration of which we shall transfer from 3, 3, 35—36 into the present connection.

c6.s3.t7.3

(Bṛih. 3, 4:) “Then asked him Ushasta, the descendant of “Cakra. ‘Yâjñavalkya,’ said he, ‘the immanent, non-transcen- “dent Brahman, which as soul is innermost of all, that shalt “thou declare to me.’—‘It is thy soul, which is innermost of “all.’—‘Which, o Yâjñavalkya, is innermost of all?’—‘That “which inbreathes by inbreath that is thy soul, the inner“most of all, that which outbreathes by outbreath that is “thy soul, the innermost of all, that which interbreathes by “interbreath that is thy soul, the innermost of all, that which “upbreathes by upbreath that is thy soul, the innermost of “all,—this is thy soul, which is innermost of all.’—Then said “Ushasta, the descendant of Cakra: ‘It is only indicated by “this, as when one says: that is a cow, that is a horse; but “the immanent, non-transcendent Brahman, the soul, which is “innermost of all, that shalt thou declare to me!’—‘It is thy “soul which is innermost of all.’—‘Which, o Yâjñavalkya, is “innermost of all?’—‘Thou canst not see the seer of seeing, “nor canst thou hear the hearer of hearing, nor canst thou “understand the understander of understanding, nor canst “thou know the knower of knowing. He is thy soul, which “is innermost of all.—What is different from him is afflicted.’ “—Then Ushasta, the descendant of Cakra, was silent.”

c6.s3.t7.4

(Brih. 3, 5:) “Then asked him Kahola, the descendant of “Kushîtaka. ‘Yâjñavalkya,’ said he, ‘even that immanent, “non-transcendent Brahman, which as soul is innermost of “all, that shalt thou declare to me.’—‘It is thy soul which “is innermost of all.’—‘Which, o Yâjñavalkya, is innermost “of all.’—‘That which overcomes hunger and thirst, affliction “and madness, age and death.—Truly, after they have found “[Caṅk.: recognised] this soul, the Brahmans cease from long“ing after children, and longing after possession, and longing “after the world, and wander about as beggars. For the “longing after children is a longing after possessions, and “the longing after possessions is a longing after the world; “for both are mere longings.—Therefore after the Brahman “has put off his erudition, let him abide in childlike sim“plicity; and after he has put off both his learned and his “childlike estate, then he becomes a silent one (Muni); after “he has put off keeping silence and not keeping silence, then “he becomes a Brâhmaṇa.—By what does this Brâhmaṇa

c6.s3.t7.5

“live?—By whatever it may be, by that he lives.—Whatever
“is different from him is afflicted.’—Then Kahola, the descen-
“dant of Kushitaka, was silent.”

c6.s3.t7.6

Çañkara’s remarks on this passage are limited to showing that both extracts belong to the unity of the same Vidyâ (cf. above p. 99), which appears from the beginnings and endings containing the same words (p. 923, 14), from the use of the particle *eva* “even” (p. 923, 16) as introductory conjunction of the second piece, as also from the fact that in both cases the inner soul is treated of (p. 922, 7), as there are not two inner souls, but one (p. 922, 9). The repetition is due to the difference of the instruction (p. 923, 7): the first time the Âtman is depicted as lying beyond cause and effect (*kârya-kâraṇa-vyatirikta*), the second time as overcoming hunger and the other qualities of Samsâra (*aṣanâyâ-âdi-saṃsâra-dharma-atīta*) (p. 924, 2. 3).

c6.s3.t7.7

That the two extracts make up a harmonious whole is evident from their parallel construction; moreover a comparison of them may teach us whether, with our recollections of Kant, we have rightly hit the central thought. The Brahman, so teaches the first extract, is theoretically unknowable: for because, in all knowing, it is the knowing subject, it can never be an object of knowledge for us. To the mind which, not resting content with this, puts forward the same question anew, it is, in the second extract, pointed out that Brahman is to be grasped practically. This happens as one raises oneself step by step from the estate of erudition (*pâṇḍityam*) to that of childlike simplicity (*bâlyam*, cf. Matth. 18, 3), from this to the state of the Muni, from this to that of the Brâhmaṇa [in its emphatic meaning, as Bṛih. 3, 8, 10. Chând. 4, 1, 7], who renounces family, possessions and worldly pleasure, because these are different from the Brahman, and therefore subject to affliction.

c6.s3.t7.8

Touching the nature of the steps mentioned, and especially the meaning of Bâlyam one may compare the investigations in 3, 4, 47—50 (p. 1034—1041), from which we take only the following beautiful passage of Smṛiti (p. 1041, 8):

c6.s3.t7.9

“Whom no one knows as high nor lowly born, “No one as erudite nor yet not erudite, “No one as of good deeds nor evil deeds, “He is a Brâhmana, in very truth! “Given up to hidden duties well fulfilled, “In secrecy let all his life be spent; “As he were blind and deaf, of sense bereft, “Thus let the truly wise pass through the world.”

Linked texts (2)

Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit