Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c7.s6.t3: 3. The Doctrine of Identity in the Vedânta System

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c7.s6.t3

Language
English

3. The Doctrine of Identity in the Vedânta System

c7.s6.t3.1

Sûtram 2, 1, 14.

c7.s6.t3.2

(a) The Extinction of plurality in Brahman

c7.s6.t3.3

For the Hellenic consciousness, the existence of the world has its purpose in itself. Christianity, inclining to the Old Testament, seeks to understand Creation through the love of God towards mankind, towards a thing to be created, though not yet existing. According to the Indian view, the creation of the world rests upon a moral necessity. The deeds done by the soul in an earlier existence must be atoned for. To be the place of this atonement, is the only purpose of this huge world. Its plurality originates solely from two factors, which are indicated by the two words bhoktar and bhogyam: on the one side, is the bhoktar, he who enjoys, that is, the (individual) soul, the subject of enjoyment and also of sorrow, and on the other side, the bhogyam, what is enjoyed, the fruit (phalam) of works done in an earlier existence, the object of the enjoyment and suffering of the soul. The world is this expansion of the Existent into the enjoying soul and the fruit to be enjoyed, and nothing else.

c7.s6.t3.4

This division into enjoyer and fruit, so Çankara explains, is true so long as we remain on the empirical (literally: practical, vyâvahârika) standpoint; it is no longer true, when we rise to the metaphysical (literally: absolutely real: pâramârthika) point of view (p. 443, 9); for it, the whole worldly action is one with Brahman, its cause. This is confirmed by the passage of the Chândogya-Upanishad, which we have just given. The comparison with the lump of clay (Chând, 6, 1, above p. 262) teaches that, just as all transformation of the clay into vessels only depend upon words (we might say: upon presentations) while in reality it is nothing but clay, and clay only. So all the transformations of the world, are Brahman alone, and beyond this can have no being (p. 444). In this sense, the Scripture (Chând. 6, 4—7, above p. 263) reduces all phenomena in the world to the three primitive elements, and the three primitive elements (Chând. 6, 2—3, above p. 263. 230) back to the Existent, to Brahman (p. 444, 13). And the same thing is expressed by the formula at the end of the sections Chând. 6, 8—16, that the world, and (in the words: *tat tvam asi*, that art thou) that the soul, (*tvam*) is identical with Brahman (*tat*). [This also is the meaning of *etad vai tad*, in Kâṭh. 4, 3. 5. 6 etc., above p. 155.] Thereby all plurality is declared to be unreal, as is expressly taught in the verse (Bṛih. 4, 4, 19, above p. 195):

c7.s6.t3.5

"In spirit musing shall they see:
"That here is no plurality.
"Their never-ending death they weave
"Who here a manifold perceive."

c7.s6.t3.6

As the space in a vessel is identical with cosmic space, as the mirage is identical with the salt plain, so that it disappears when we examine it more closely, and in itself (*sva-rûpeṇa*) is not perceptible, so too, the world-extension of enjoyer and enjoyed has no existence beyond Brahman (p. 445, 7).

c7.s6.t3.7

(b) The Relation of Unity to Plurality

c7.s6.t3.8

How are we to consider the relation between the unity of the Existent and the manifoldness of its developments? Is Brahman related to the many powers (above p. 227 ff.) as a tree is related to its branches, because, as a tree, it forms a unity, while, as it spreads into branches, it is manifold, or as an ocean to the manifoldness of its foam, waves, etc., or as the single clay to the plurality of vessels,—in such a manner that with the knowledge of unity, liberation is bound up, while worldly action and religious worship are connected with the knowledge of plurality?—By no means; rather, as in the simile of the lump of clay, only the clay is real, while all its transformations are only dependent on words, that is, unreal, so also in the world, the highest cause, that is, Brahman, is the one and only reality, and the embodied soul is no other than Brahman himself (p. 445, 10—446, 9).

c7.s6.t3.9

This Brahmanhood of the soul does not require to be called into existence by effort, but is already existent, therefore only the inborn idea of the separateness of the soul requires to be refuted by the Scripture, as (in the well-known simile) by the knowledge that it is a piece of rope, the opinion that it was a snake is refuted.¹⁰⁵ But if the separate existence of the soul be refuted, the whole worldly action which depends on it, and on account of which a plurality was assumed for Brahman is refuted at the same time. And this non-existence of the worldly action is not only conditional (in deep sleep and death), but, as the words *tat tvam asi* show, it is to be accepted unconditionally, and without restriction to any given circumstances. The simile of the thief also, *Chând.* 6, 16, above p. 266), as it shows that bondage follows from false speech, while freedom follows from truth-speaking, teaches that only unity is true in the fullest sense, and that manifoldness, on the contrary, proceeds from false perception. Were both unity and manifoldness real, we could not say of one whose standpoint is that of worldly action, that he is caught in untruth, and "weaves a never-ending death;" it could not then be said: "from knowledge comes deliverance," [*jñânân mokshaḥ*, —a sentence also found in *Kapila* 3, 23, *jñânân muktiḥ* and which, in two words, gives food for much thought]; moreover, then the knowledge of manifoldness could not be annihilated by the knowledge of unity (p. 446, 9 —447, 14).

c7.s6.t3.10

¹⁰⁵ The simile of a rope (Brahman) which is taken for a snake (the world), occurs on p. 268, 12. 432, 14. 446, 12. 817, 12. 822, 13 and with greater detail on p. 353, 7: "As in the dark, one takes a fallen rope for a snake, and flees from it in fear and trembling, and another says to him: 'Fear not; it is not a snake, it is only a cord;' and he, when he has understood this, ceases to fear the snake, to tremble and flee, and as there is not the slightest difference in the thing itself, at the time it was taken for a snake, and at the time this opinion disappeared,—just so is this also to be considered."

c7.s6.t3.11

(c) How is the Knowledge of Unity possible, from the standpoint of plurality?

c7.s6.t3.12

Only unity exists; plurality does not exist. This statement abolishes not only the empirical means of knowledge, perception etc., but also the Vedic canon of command and prohibition (compare above p. 56). But does it not also abolish the canon of liberation? For this certainly presupposes the duality of pupil and teacher, and thus rests upon untruth; and how can the teaching of unity from a false standpoint be true (p. 448, 5)?—

c7.s6.t3.13

To this, it is to be replied that all empirical action, until knowledge comes, is just as true as are all dream faces, until awakening comes. For every being has forgotten its original identity with Brahman, and takes the empirical "I" and "mine" for the Self and its qualities. This is true until the knowledge of identity with Brahman arises.—True, but not beyond this! A rope snake cannot bite, a mirage does not really quench thirst; and so it is in dream: the poison of a dream-snake does not really kill, and dream water does not really wet!—Certainly not! But as (in dream) we perceive the cause, the water and the bite, in like manner we perceive the effect, death and wetness.—But this effect is still not real! [How can the real Brahman be known by means of unreal teaching?]—The effect is unreal, but the perception of it is real, and it is not removed by awakening. For when a person wakes, he perceives it to be untrue that the snake and the water were there, but not that he perceived them. In just the same way, what is perceived in dream is untrue, but the perception of it is true (therefore, as Çankara remarks in passing, the opinion of the materialists, that the body is the Self, is refuted). It is also to be remembered that real events are often indicated beforehand by unreal dreams; does not the scripture say (Chând. 5, 2, 9), that love-adventures in dream betoken luck, and when we dream of a black man with black teeth, it signifies speedy death (according to Ait. âr. 3, 2, 4, 17). It is also well known that those who are acquainted with the rules and their exceptions (the interpreters of dreams) prophesy good and evil from dreams. Thus the true is known from the untrue, in the same way as from written signs which are soundless, the real sounds are perceived (p. 447, 14—451, 4).

c7.s6.t3.14

From these discussions, we are to understand that in the non-reality of the world of appearances, the soul remains real. The teaching is directed to the soul, and thus it does not cease when the world of appearances ceases.

c7.s6.t3.15

(d) The Value of the Doctrine of Unity.

c7.s6.t3.16

The perception of unity is final, for, as it contains everything in itself, it does not leave anything beyond itself to be desired, as do the ritual precepts; it is attainable, as the Scripture shows by its examples and exhortations; it is not aimless, for its fruit is the cessation of Ignorance; and it is infallible, for there is no further knowledge which could remove it, for the Brahman unlike everything else, is not a mere transformation; He is the Highest, free from all change, and all qualities; only by the knowledge of Brahman, not by that of his transformations, can liberation be attained (p. 451, 4 to 454, 1).

c7.s6.t3.17

(e) Criticism of Anthropomorphism.

c7.s6.t3.18

The Vedânta maintains, on the one hand, the unity and non-duality of Brahman, which permits of no Being beyond itself, and, on the other hand, it calls Brahman “the Lord,” and sets him up as ruler of the world. But the designations of Brahman as Ruler, Almighty, Omniscient, refer only to the extension in names and forms caused by Ignorance, and are not to be accepted in the highest sense. For we must distinguish between the two standpoints: the standpoint of worldly actions (*vyavahâra-avasthâ*) and the standpoint of the highest reality (*paramârtha-avasthâ*). From the latter standpoint, the Scripture teaches the non-existence of all worldly actions by sentences like: “But when all has become his own ‘Self for anyone, how could he see anyone else?” etc. (above p. 175). From the first standpoint, it admits the relation of ruler and ruled, etc.; as when it is said (above p. 195): “He is the Lord of the Universe, he is the Ruler of Beings, “he is the Guardian of Beings.” And these are precisely the two points of view admitted by the author of the Sûtras, since on the one hand he teaches identity, while on the other hand he allows the concepts of Brahman as an ocean (in contradistinction to its waves, foam, bubbles, 2, 1. 13; the inadequacy of this picture is repeatedly brought into prominence, p. 445, 13. 446, 4. 456, 8, cf. 515, 11) and similar ideas, which presuppose the existence of the world, and are to be regarded as belonging to the adoration of Brahman possessed of attributes (p. 454, 1—456, 10) (above p. 102 ff.).

c7.s6.t3.19

—Thus our authors confine the anthropomorphic ideas of God as a personality, which have their root in realism, to exoteric theology.

Cites (6)