The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s8.t4: 4. On the Possibility of Knowing the esoteric Brahman

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s8.t4

Language: English

4. On the Possibility of Knowing the esoteric Brahman

However much we may agree with the Vedânta, when it holds that a fathoming of Being-in-itself is only possible in our own "I", and, in its metaphysics, pushes aside everything objective, and relies on the Subject only, we can as little agree with it when, disregarding the objections of the opponent, which we became acquainted with above p. 135 ff. it finds the last basis of Being in the Subject of Knowledge. The consequence is, that the Vedânta denies itself an immediate insight into the essence of things; for the subject of knowledge can never become the object for us, precisely because in every cognition it must take the place of subject.—We shall see now how, notwithstanding this, the Indian was able to find a way of perceiving the subject, the spirit, Brahman.

c6.s8.t4.3

At first our authors admit the objections thus raised as to the perceptibility of Brahman: Brahman is the Unmanifest (*avyaktam*), not perceptible, because in all perception it is assumed as the witness (*sâkshin*), that is, the knowing subject of knowledge (p. 827, 3). Yet there remains a possibility of knowing God: the *Yogin*, that is, here, he who has become one with God, sees him in the condition of *Samrâdhanam*, literally: perfect satisfaction, which Çañkara explains as a sinking oneself (*pra-ṇi-dhânam*) in pious meditation (p. 827, 10). This condition the scripture (Kâṭh. 4, 1) describes as follows:

c6.s8.t4.4

“The Self-existent pierced the openings
“Of senses outwards, therefore a man looks
“On outward things, not on the inner soul;—
“A wise man saw, with backward-turned eye,
“The inner Self, longing for deathlessness.”

c6.s8.t4.5

But does not the division of subject and object exist here also, between him who sinks himself, and that in which he sinks himself (p. 828, 6)?—Our authors answer this question with a negative, but, as the basis of their view, can only bring forward similes and passages of scripture. They begin by reminding us that this division only exists in virtue of the limitations (*upâdhi*) (p. 828, 11), and that these rest on Ignorance, after the dissipation of which the individual soul is identical with the highest soul (p. 829, 3); they compare this identity with that of the serpent and its coils (p. 830, 1), the sun and its light (p. 830, 5), they insist that the liberation, which consists in thus becoming one, would be impossible, if we held the separation to be in the strictest sense real (p. 830, 13) and conclude from the scripture, that, with the annihilation of plurality, only the knower in us, and therefore the Âtman, remains as the unit (p. 831, 7);—but an explanation of this unification of subject and object (as it actually takes place in the phenomena of æsthetic contemplation and religious devotion) cannot be obtained from their discussions.

c6.s8.t4.6

5. On certain figurative Expressions used of Brahman.

c6.s8.t4.7

For sake of completeness, we may here briefly touch on the section 3, 2, 31—37, in which, in the form of an appendix, are discussed certain expressions, which apparently do violence to the negation of all Being outside Brahman, and to Brahman’s permeating all, and being omnipresent.

c6.s8.t4.8

¹ Brahman is called “the bridge which holds these worlds asunder,” (above p. 162, cf. p. 133), and by a bridge is generally understood an aggregate of wood and earth, for the

c6.s8.t4.9

purpose of crossing a continuous mass of water (p. 832, 2); even a traversing of this bridge is spoken of, and all this seems to presuppose something else outside Brahman (p. 832, 4).—To this it is to be answered, that Brahman is only compared to a bridge, because He holds asunder (p. 834, 12) the world and its boundaries (or orders, such as castes, Âçramas, etc., p. 258, 1), as the bridge does the banks [according to the primitive idea just quoted, however, it does not]; and the traversing of the bridge (above p. 162) means only the attainment of Brahman, as it is said: "he has gone through the grammar," in order to express the fact that he has gained mastery of it (p. 834, 15).

c6.s8.t4.10

2. Further, Brahman has numbers and measures repeatedly applied to Him, such as "four-footed, eight-clawed, of sixteen parts," which seems to presuppose a limitation, for everything that can be measured is of limited size (p. 839, 9).—But this is only to bring it nearer to our [limited] understanding, as Bâdarâyaṇa says, our worship, as Çaṅkara adds in explanation (p. 835, 1. 4); for it is not possible for man to seize the unchanging, the endless (p. 835, 7).

c6.s8.t4.11

³ A connection between the highest and the individual soul and again (in the passage discussed in Chap. IX, 6, above p. 140) a division (conditioned by it) within Brahman is repeatedly spoken of, in virtue of which two parts of it are defined along side of each other like the kingdoms of Mâgadha and Vaideha (p. 832—833).—But both exist only from the point of view of the Upâdhis, the relation of which to Brahman has already been discussed (p. 836, 7). The connection of the individual soul with Brahman is in reality an entering of the soul into its own Self (p. 836, 15), and the division within Brahman is no more real than that between cosmic space and the space within the body (p. 837, 5). Therefore it is proved that outside Brahman nothing is (p. 837, 10), that Brahman is in everything (p. 837, 16) and omnipresent (p. 838, 3).

Cites (1)

Kaṭhopaniṣad — Sanskrit