The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s8.t1: 1. Preliminary Remark
The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s8.t1
- Language
- English
1. Preliminary Remark
c6.s8.t1.1
However sublime are the ideas of the Brahman, which up to this we have gained from the Upanishads in pursuance of the selection made (not always quite happily) by Bâdarâyaṇa and Çaṅkara, yet, in their figurative character, they fall short of satisfactorily fathoming to the full the being of the Godhead. Because this was felt, to the theological part of the Brahmasûtras is added a supplement, which has as its subject the esoteric Brahman, and, along with two other (psychological) supplements, is found in the second Pâda of the third Adhyâya, that is, after the Cosmology, Psychology and doctrine of transmigration. Even if here and there a greater intelligibility is thereby gained, yet this gain is more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages inseparable from the treatment of the same subject in two widely severed passages; for this reason, we here, as frequently, in our arrangement depart from that of the original work.
c6.s8.t1.2
The fundamental thought of the esoteric theology (cf. above p. 102 ff. 115) is this, that Brahman strictly taken is without all differences (viçeṣa), attributes (guṇa), limitations (upâdhi) and forms (âkâra).—This undifferentiated Brahman, as we may briefly call it, has, however, two contraries: first the forms of the phenomenal world, as which Brahman, conditioned by Upâdhis, appears; then the imperfect figurative ideas, which we form of the Godhead, in order to bring it nearer to our understanding and our worship (upâsanâ). It is strange that between these two contraries of the undifferentiated Brahman, however wide apart they naturally are, Çankara draws no sharp distinction, and even if according to one passage (p. 807, 5) it seems as if he saw in the phenomenal forms the basis (*ālambanam*) of the presentation-forms, yet from the continual intermingling of the two, not only in the passage under consideration, but also in many other passages in the work ⁹¹ it follows that our author never became clearly conscious of the difference between them. Perhaps this was done more by other Commentators, who, of the one Adhikaraṇam 3, 2, 11—21, make two, of which the first (3, 2, 11—14) seems to have been directed against the manifoldness of phenomenal forms, and the second (3, 2, 15—21) against the plurality of the characteristics of Brahman, which Çankara (p. 812) discards as aimless (*vyartha*), without our having been able completely to gather the opinion of the Opponent from his words.
c6.s8.t1.3
⁹¹ Thus the same confusion is already found in the considerations which introduce the theological part (p. 110—114), and again very clearly p. 245, where in antithesis to the spaceless *param brahma* (p. 245, 7) appears as the *aparam brahma* the *prāṇa* which rules the body (p. 245, 10).
c6.s8.t1.4
Here, therefore, we are limited to reproducing Çankara's view, and the shortcoming indicated compels us to consider only from a certain distance the two contraries of the undifferentiated Brahman, which he confuses; this makes a clear insight into all details impossible. In other respects our course is such that we do not unnecessarily depart from the line of thought as arranged by our author.