Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s8.t2: 2. The differentiated and undifferentiated Brahman

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s8.t2

Language
English

2. The differentiated and undifferentiated Brahman

c6.s8.t2.1

Sûtras 3, 2, 11—21.

c6.s8.t2.2

Concerning Brahman there are, so Çankara expresses himself, passages of scripture of two kinds; the passages of one kind teach Brahman as possessing differences, for example, when it is said: "All-working is he, all-wishing, all-smelling, all-tasting" (above p. 153), the others as devoid of differences, as in the passage: "That is not coarse nor fine, nor short nor long" (above p. 133). Now the highest Brahman in itself cannot be both, for it is not possible that one and the same thing in itself should be formed and formless (p. 803, 10). It is true that we might think that Brahman in itself is undifferentiated and becomes differentiated by Upādhis (under which is to be understood everything which brings Brahman 1. to phenomenal existence, 2. to presentation in the mind). But one thing cannot become another, by the fact that it appears to be connected with limitations: the crystal remains clear, even when it is painted with red colour (p. 803, 14); as it is only an error if it is taken to be red in itself, so in the case of Brahman also the limitation rests only on Ignorance (p. 804, 1). Therefore it is to be firmly held, that Brahman is free from all differences and perfectly unchangeable and not the contrary (p. 804, 3).

c6.s8.t2.3

How does it happen then, that, in many passages of scripture, manifold forms are attributed to Brahman, since He is called sometimes four-footed, sometimes of sixteen parts, sometimes dwarflike, sometimes having as body the three worlds, etc.? [p. 804, 9. Here and in what follows, the continual oscillation between phenomenal forms and forms of presentation should be noted.] Should we not perhaps admit that by the limitation a difference of form is actually brought about? For otherwise what is the purpose of the passages of scripture, which attribute differentiation to Brahman? To this it is to be replied first, that every time that limitations appear, it is further said that Brahman is not affected by them [p. 805, 1: for this an isolated example is adduced; in reality it is most frequently not the case]; and that in many passages (Kāṭh. 4, 11. Bṛih. 4, 4, 19. Çvet. 1, 12) it is expressly asserted that there is no plurality, and that he who is predestined, what is predestined, and he who predestines are one in Brahman (p. 805, 13). At the same time it is to be noted that only the passages concerning the undifferentiated Brahman have as their aim, to teach the Being of God (p. 806, 7), while the passages concerning Brahman possessed of forms have another aim, namely worship (p. 806, 10).

c6.s8.t2.4

A few similes may elucidate the relation of Brahman to His phenomenal forms. As the light of the sun or the moon, when it falls on the finger, shares in the finger's limitations, and in conformity with this, seems crooked when it is crooked, straight when it is straight, without in itself being crooked or straight, so also Brahman, when it is united with the limitation of the world of appearances, for example, of the earth, assumes its form, and on this is based (p. 807, 5) the apprehension of Brahman under different forms, as it is taught for the purpose of worship. It is therefore by no means purposeless; for all the words of the Upanishads have a purpose and are authoritative (p. 807, 8). But this does not prevent this view from resting on Ignorance all the same; for on inborn Ignorance depends worldly action as well as that prescribed by the Vedas (p. 807, 12).

c6.s8.t2.5

Another simile is found in the *Moksha-çâstras*:

c6.s8.t2.6

"Like as this sun, whose being is the light,
"Appears as manifold, in many streams,
"By limitation multiplied in space,
"E'en so it is with the unborn Âtman."

c6.s8.t2.7

And the following:

c6.s8.t2.8

"One soul of beings dwells in every being,
"One and yet many, like the moon in waves."

c6.s8.t2.9

It is true, that the sun and the moon are formed and separated in space from their mirrored images, the Âtman, on the contrary, is not formed (read *mûrto* p. 810, 7) and not spatially separated from the limitations, but omnipresent and identical with all (p. 810, 8), but no simile can be applied any longer, if we abandon the *tertium comparationis* (*vivakshitam aṅçam*); for if it were identical with the thing compared, there would be no more comparison (p. 810, 13). It only affirms that Brahman, which is in the true sense unchanging and a unity, when it enters into limitation like the body and the rest, takes part, as it were, in the qualities of these limitations (p. 811, 6).

c6.s8.t2.10

But if Brahman in itself is so perfectly devoid of differences, how are we to explain the passages of scripture concerning Brahman as possessing differences (p. 813, 12)?—Some think they also teach the undifferentiated Brahman, since the required annihilation of the phenomenal world must also be applied to the forms of Brahman taught by them (p. 814, 3). Yet this procedure is only permissible when they appear in a passage which treats of the esoteric teaching (*paravidyā*), (p. 814, 4), but not where precepts of worship are spoken of (p. 814, 8). The passages which teach the nature of Brahman and those which prescribe worship of Brahman, must be kept separate throughout (p. 815, 6). The former aim at liberation, the latter have as their fruit, according to the object, purification from sins, attainment of lordship, or gradual liberation (p. 815, 5). And while the latter passages belong to the canon of precept, the former exclude all imperative elements, and aim only at the knowledge of the subject (p. 815, 10).

c6.s8.t2.11

What should the precept prescribe in the case of knowledge of Brahman? Perhaps, to annihilate plurality, as one is ordered, by illuminating an object, to drive away the darkness (p. 816, 6)?—Then it must be asked: how is this annihilation of plurality to be thought of? Is it a real process, something like annihilating the hardness of butter, by putting it on the fire (p. 816, 10)?—But such an actual annihilation cannot be brought about by a mere man, and therefore cannot be ordered (p. 816, 15). Moreover in this case the whole plurality of earth etc. would have been annihilated by the first man who reached liberation, and the Universe would stand empty (p. 817, 2).

c6.s8.t2.12

It must therefore be assumed, that the purpose is only to annihilate Ignorance which attributes to the one Brahman the plurality of appearances. But Ignorance is got rid of through teaching alone and without command (p. 817, 6), while a hundred commands without the teaching cannot remove it (p. 817, 9). Therefore, neither for the knowledge of Brahman nor for the annihilation of plurality are commands of any use; on the contrary both are accomplished by teaching alone (p. 817, 12).

c6.s8.t2.13

And for whom should the command to annihilate plurality hold good? For the individual soul? But it is annihilated along with it! Or the highest soul? But it cannot be commanded (p. 818, 1—4).

c6.s8.t2.14

It is true that it is said in the higher knowledge also: "this is to be seen!" (above p. 174). But the command here only means that it is to be brought before the eyes, and made the object of attention, not that it is to be known (p. 818, 7). Whether the latter happens or not, does not depend on a command, but on the quality of the object and the capacity for knowledge (p. 818, 12). If this were not so, if knowledge depended on will, it would be inexplicable that any one should go astray (p. 819, 1); but it depends not on the man, but on the object, and can, therefore, not be commanded (p. 819, 4).

c6.s8.t2.15

If the scripture only commanded, then all in it that is not command, would have no meaning; it would, therefore, not explain (*avyâcakshita*, optative with a *privativum*, p. 819, 8), that the knowledge of Brahman as soul cannot be commanded, but would command it to the man: but by this not only would one canon of commandments follow two opposite aims (works and teaching) and therefore be in contradiction with itself [it is difficult to see exactly why], but also liberation would be assigned to the sphere of meritorious works (*adrishta*) and therefore to something transitory (p. 820, 1). Finally, if the whole contents of the Veda were included under the idea of commandment, this commandment would be in contradiction with itself, since on the one hand it would enjoin annihilation of plurality, and on the other a partial maintenance of it. Therefore the imperative passages concerning differentiated Brahman and the non-imperative concerning undifferentiated Brahman must be kept separate from each other (p. 820).

Linked texts (3)