The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c8.s3.t3: 3. Subjection to and Freedom from Law

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c8.s3.t3

Language: English

3. Subjection to and Freedom from Law

c8.s3.t3.2

"If there is only one soul in all beings, how then are the worldly and Vedic prohibitions possible?"

c8.s3.t3.3

—So far as the individual soul is a part of God.

c8.s3.t3.4

"But the Scripture teaches also that it is not simply a part of him but also identical with him!"

c8.s3.t3.5

—The difference and identity consists exactly in its being a part of Him.

"But where the Scripture speaks seriously, it surely teaches the identity of God and the soul and reproves the natural view of difference! It still remains therefore to be explained how commands and prohibitions are possible."

c8.s3.t3.7

—Let us take commands such as: a man shall visit his wife at a fit time—a man shall ask his consent of the sacrificial animal—a man shall stand by his friend; and prohibitions such as: thou shalt not commit adultery,—thou shalt not kill,—thou shalt avoid thy enemy, such commands and prohibitions are valid in spite of the unity of the Âtman, on account of the connection with the body. For on this connection with the body depends the mistaken opinion that we see the Self in the body, which is and remains common to all creatures with the exception of such as attain to perfect knowledge. The commands and prohibitions refer to this distinction [of the Ego from the non-Ego] though it depends on Ignorance and is caused by the connection with the body and the other Upâdhis; and only for him who has attained perfect knowledge do they cease to hold good; as he has no further object to aim at, he has also no further obligations. For him there is nothing to be toiled after or avoided because there is nothing that reaches beyond his own Self (ātman); but a duty towards one's own Self is meaningless (na ca ātmā ātmani eva niyojyaḥ syāt). It is true he has a body, but he knows that its structure (saṃhalatvam) is a mere illusion. Only for him who is still subject to the illusion of the body does the illusion of duty still persist: how should it persist for him who has recognised the unity of the soul?

c8.s3.t3.8

"But if the sage has no duties, can he do what he will?"—Not at all! For it is only illusion that moves to action and it is just this illusion that exists no more for this sage.—But in spite of the unity of all existence, command and prohibition exist for him who has not attained knowledge. For as one shrinks from the fire which has burnt a corpse, though it is as much fire as any other—as one avoids sunlight in unclean places, though it comes just as much from the sun—as one flees from a human corpse though it consists of the same materials as the living body—so there are certain things to be avoided, though all things are one in the Ātman.

c8.s3.t3.9

4. How are the individual Souls separated from each other? Sûtras 2, 3, 49—50.

c8.s3.t3.10

The works of souls are individually different, and so are the fruits (reward and punishment in the succeeding existence) which correspond to the works in each case. How is this possible if the soul is in reality only one?—How can it happen that works and fruits of different souls (which at death return to unity and proceed out of it again to a new existence Chând. 6, 10, above p. 264) do not mutually intermingle?

c8.s3.t3.11

To this we have two replies:

c8.s3.t3.12

1) The soul is, it is true, as a result of its unity with Brahman (as we shall soon see more in detail) omnipresent (i.e. spaceless); but this omnipresence does not mean that the acting and enjoying soul also pervades every thing and is thus connected with all bodies. For this individual soul is only conditioned by the Upâdhis; as these Upâdhis are not all pervading, the individual soul is not so either, and no confusion of works and fruits happens (p. 694, 5—10).—Compare with this what has been said above pp. 228 ff. 276 as to the persistence of the power of differentiation after entrance into Brahman.

c8.s3.t3.13

2) Individual souls are to be regarded only as phantoms (*âbhâsa*) of the highest soul, comparable to images of the sun in water. Just as when one of these reflected suns quivers, the others do not quiver too, the deeds and fruits of one soul do not concern the others. These phantoms and with them the whole of *Samsâra* with its deeds and fruits depend on Ignorance (*avidyâ*). Only when this is removed, is unity with Brahman attained (p. 694, 12—695, 5) and thereby, as we may add, a point of view, from which questions as to works and fruits and consequently as to their intermingling, have no meaning.

c8.s3.t3.14

Of these two answers the one refers the plurality of souls to the Upâdhis, the others to *Avidyâ*. What is the relation of these two to each other? This question leads us to collect here the most important passages on the Upâdhis, a fundamental idea of the system, which is however nowhere treated connectedly by Çañkara.

Linked texts (1)

Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit