Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s8.t3: 3. Characteristics of the esoteric Brahman

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s8.t3

Language
English

3. Characteristics of the esoteric Brahman

c6.s8.t3.1

Sûtras 3, 2, 16. 17. 22.

c6.s8.t3.2

When Vâshkali besought Bâhva to teach Brahman to him, the sage was silent. A second and third time this request was repeated. At last Bâhva said: "I am teaching it to thee, "but thou understandest it not; this Âtman is silent."

c6.s8.t3.3

This narrative which Çañkara p. 808, 11 gives as Çruti, though its origin is unknown to us (cf. note 24, above p. 37), finds its elucidation in different passages of scripture quoted along with it (p. 808); thus when it is said (Taitt. 2, 4):

c6.s8.t3.4

"From him all words turn back
"And thoughts, not finding him,"—

c6.s8.t3.5

and in another passage (Kena 1, 3):

c6.s8.t3.6

"Other is it than all we know,
"And higher than the unknown, too;"

c6.s8.t3.7

as also when the *Smṛiti* (Bhag. G. 13, 12, echoing Rigv. 10, 129, 1) indicates Brahman as "neither the Existent, nor the non-Existent." But the full unknowableness of the original basis of things is most sharply expressed by the formula: "*Neti, neti!*"—"it is not thus, it is not thus",⁹² which occurs in the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka-Upanishad* no less than five times (2, 3, 6. 3, 9, 26. 4, 2, 4. 4, 5, 15 and in a slightly different application 3, 2, 11). In the first of these passages it follows a statement of the two phenomenal forms (*rūpe*) of Brahman, of which one is called "formed, mortal, at rest, being," the other "formless, immortal, in motion, belonging to the Beyond." The latter comprises the wind and the atmosphere, breath and the space within the body, the former everything else in nature and man. Both, according to *Śaṅkara* (who subjects this passage to a lengthened consideration at 3, 2, 22 p. 821—826), are denied of Brahman by the formula "*neti, neti*"; the knowledge of its true form consists in this, that all forms are denied to it (p. 824. 12), whether we refer the repeated *na iti* to the two already adduced phenomenal forms (p. 825, 9) or to the phenomenal forms and the presentational forms (p. 825, 10) or in general to everything that can be perceived (p. 825, 11). Therefore all objective existence is negatived of Brahman and only its non-objective existence as the inner Soul remains (p. 825, 14). This negation of all distinctions in Brahman means, however, [as Brahman alone is true being] a negation of the whole phenomenal world falsely imposed on Brahman (p. 825, 15); therefore the formula *neti, neti* in Brih. 2, 3, 6 is explained by the words: "for outside him—therefore it is said 'it is not so'—there is no other 'beyond;" but he himself is not not (p. 826. 6).

c6.s8.t3.8

⁹² *itir idam-arthe*: "*idam na, idam na*" (Govindānanda p. 78, 21).

c6.s8.t3.9

Accordingly Existence remains as the sole characteristic of Brahman, and an Existence which is opposed to all empirical Existence, so that, in comparison with this, it can just as well be indicated as Non-existent (cf. above p. 129).

c6.s8.t3.10

But what are the positive characteristics of this esoteric Brahman which presupposes the negation of all differences? The later Vedānta names three of them, which form the famous name of Brahman: Sac-cid-ānanda, that is “Existence, Intelligence, and Bliss;” this compound which, as far as I know, occurs first in the Nṛisiṁha-tāpanīya-upaniṣad (Ind. St. IX, 60. 84. 143. 147. 148. 154) is nowhere found in Ṣaṅkara’s Commentary, and appears to be as yet unknown to our author. It is true that he repeatedly explains that, where Brahman is spoken of as Bliss, this limitation refers to the esoteric, attributeless Brahman (p. 127, 16. 868, 11), but here, in the strictly esoteric part, this is not spoken of, perhaps, because Ṣaṅkara counts it among the negative limitations as freedom from suffering; thus besides Existence, as the only positive quality of the esoteric Brahman, remains intelligence; p. 808, 2: “The scripture explains, that the undifferentiated Brahman is “pure intelligence and free from all that is different from it, “for it says (Bṛih. 4, 5, 13): ‘as a block of salt has no [dis- “tinguishable] inside nor outside, but through and through “consists only of salt taste, so also this Ātman has no [dis- “tinguishable] inside and outside but consists throughout “altogether of intelligence.’ That is: this Ātman is through- “out nothing but intelligence; intelligence is its exclusive “(nirantara) nature, as the salt taste is, of the lump of salt.”

c6.s8.t3.11

What relation have the only two remaining characteristics of Brahman, Existence and Intelligence (bodha), to each other?—The treatment of this question, expounded by other Commentators of the Brahmasūtras, Ṣaṅkara dismisses as purposeless (p. 812, 10) and on this point remarks as follows: (1) Brahman cannot be Existence without Intelligence, because this contradicts the passage of scripture (just quoted), and because otherwise he would not be the self of the individual soul, which is by nature intelligent; (2) not Intelligence without Existence either, because this is impossible; (3) and just as little Existence and Intelligence in their separate characters, because this would give rise to a plurality, which cannot exist in the case of Brahman; it therefore only remains that (4) Existence is the same as Intelligence, and Intelligence the same as Existence (*sattâ eva bodho, bodha' eva ca sattâ*, p. 813, 7), so that between the two there is no mutual exclusion. "Thus one might say," adds Çaṅkara, passing over, as secondary, this question which is so interesting for us.

c6.s8.t3.12

We may, however, point out in connection with this, that both ideas in the End are resolvable into that of Force. All existence, in its essence, is nothing but a manifestation of Force and all Knowledge may be considered as a reaction against the crowd of impressions, and therefore as an activity of Force. That the Indian *caitanyam* comes very close to this idea, we have already remarked above (p. 59), and we shall encounter the proofs of it again in the course of the work.

Linked texts (6)