Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c9.s3.t3: 3. The subtle Body

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c9.s3.t3

Language
English

3. The subtle Body

c9.s3.t3.1

*Sûtras* 4, 2, 6—11. 3, 1, 1—6; cf. 1, 4, 1—7.

c9.s3.t3.2

The soul with the organs of conscious and unconscious life (*Indriyas, Manas, Prâṇa*) which have entered into it, further needs in order to be able to withdraw from the body a vehicle (*âçraya*) of material nature, since without such, without a material basis, as experience shows, nothing living can move or stand (p. 744, 9). This basis is the subtle body, *sûkṣmam çarîram* (p. 341, 3. 1097, 14), or, as Çaṅkara usually paraphrases it: *deha-vijâni bhûta-sûkṣmâṇi* (p. 740, 8. 741, 3. 744, 2; cf. 1095, 10. 1092, 10), that is, "the fine parts of the elements which form the seed of the body."¹²⁷ In order hereafter to attain a body consisting of the different elements, the soul must take with it the seed of this body, and this seed, not of heat alone, but of all the elements, is to be understood, when in the fundamental passage, Chând. 6, 8, 6, it is said: Life enters into heat. For the scripture says (Brih. 4, 4, 5): "(this "soul is) of the nature of earth, water, air, ether, heat" (p. 1093, 12), and the Smriti (Manu 1, 27) declares:

c9.s3.t3.3

¹²⁷ Cf. *bhûta-sûkṣmam* 206, 1. 207, 1. 341, 6. (plur.) 743, 1; and *bhûta-mâtrâḥ* 740, 13. 14; the expression *tanmâtrâṇi* is, so far as we know, not yet to be found in Çaṅkara's Commentary.—These fine parts of the elements, which form the seed of the body, are of like nature with the seed from which the world after its destruction comes forth anew each

c9.s3.t3.4

"The infinitely minute parts of the Five,
"From which arises all in order."

c9.s3.t3.5

Now these elementary germs of the future body, embraced by which the soul leaves the body (p. 741, 3), are also to be understood in the explanations in 3, 1, 1—6 by the term waters, which according to the doctrine of the Five Fires speak with human voice at the fifth offering, after having been offered five times in succession,—as Faith, Soma, Rain, Food, and Seed,—by the Gods in the Fires of Heaven, the Atmosphere, the Earth, Man, and Woman (p. 741, 6). True, only water is there spoken of (p. 742, 11), but under that name the germs of all the elements are to be understood (p. 744, 2) and these are called water, first, because according to p. 240 above water contains in itself (p. 743, 4) all elements (of which here, following Chând. 6, 2, three only are named; on this see p. 231 above), then because in the body, which likewise consists of them all (above p. 240ff.), water preponderates (p. 743, 9).

c9.s3.t3.6

These waters then, representing the totality of the elementary germs, are thus what forms the bridge from one human existence to another by being offered successively as Faith, Soma, Rain, Food, and Seed. The description of the last four as water is readily explained from the preponderance of the water element in these materials (p. 746, 1); but by faith,

c9.s3.t3.7

time (above p. 70, 228); they are both regarded as being alluded to by the avyaktam of Kâth. 3, 11 and the aksharam of Mund. 2, 1, 2; p. 341, 12 jagad idam anabhivyakta-nâmarûpam, vîja-âtmakam, prâg-avastham avyakta-çabda-arham—, tad-âtmanâ ca çarîrasya (that is, of the subtle body) api avyakta-çabda-arhatvam; and p. 206, 1: the aksharam is avy-âkritam, nâmarûpa-vîjaçakti-rûpam bhûtasûkshamam, îçvara-âçrayam (the material substratum in the creation of the world), tasya eva upâdhi-bhû-tam (only an Upâdhi of the Îçvara, not a pradhânam independent of him).

c9.s3.t3.8

which appears as the sacrificial element in the first offering the same waters are equally to be understood (p. 746, 6), first, because only in that way can question and answer harmonise with each other (p. 746, 10), then, because the first offering, being the cause of the subsequent ones as its effects, cannot be essentially different in nature from them (p. 746, 13). “Further it is not possible, in so far as Faith, being an idea (pratyaya), is a quality of Manas or the soul, to tear it away from the substance in which it inheres, like the heart, etc. of a sacrificial victim, to use it as an offering. By the word ‘Faith’ therefore the waters are to be understood” (p. 747, 1—3). This designation corresponds to the usage of the Veda (Taitt. saṃh. 1, 6, 8, 1: śraddhā vā’ āpaḥ), and is explained by the fact, that the waters as seeds of the body assume a subtlety like that of faith (p. 747, 5), somewhat as one might call a hero of lion-like courage, a lion (p. 747, 6).—We shall see shortly, how our author brings himself into palpable contradiction with this express explanation of “faith” as the elementary seed of the body.

c9.s3.t3.9

This “subtle body,” forming the seed of the body,—subtle, because it departs through the veins (p. 1097, 7)—has, according to its essential nature, on one hand extension (tanutvam) and so the capacity of locomotion (p. 1097, 8), on the other, however, transparency (svacchatvam), in virtue of which it meets with no obstacle in departing and also is not seen by those standing round (p. 1097, 8). The bodily warmth proceeds from it (p. 1097, 14; otherwise Chānd. 3, 13, 8, translated above p. 169); hence during life the body feels warm to the touch, after death on the contrary cold, while in other respects the body is yet unchanged (p. 1098, 1). Finally, it is owing to the subtle nature of this body, that it is not also injured when the (gross) body is injured: for example (p. 1097, 11) by burning (by which we must naturally not think of the burning of the corpse).

c9.s3.t3.10

Sūtram 4, 2, 8: “Until the entrance, because of the declaration as to Saṃsāra.”—Commentary: “When further on in the text (Chānd. 6, 8, 6, above p. 367) it is said: ‘the heat enters into the highest Godhead,’ this means that the “above-mentioned heat [meaning the subtle body] accompanied “by the Onlooker, by Prâna, and the host of the organs and “united with the other elements, enters at death into the “highest Godhead. But of what kind is this entrance? this “is to be considered. One might think it to be a final dis- “solution of the own being in the highest Godhead, from “which it came forth; for the origin of all existence, of all “that has become bodily is, as we have established, the highest “Godhead; and thus also this entering into non-separateness “would be final.—To this we reply: this subtle body formed “out of heat, etc., as it is the bearer of the organs, ear, etc., “continues to exist until the entrance, until liberation from “Samsâra, as that liberation follows upon the perfect know- “ledge; because of the declaration as to Samsâra, as it is given “in the words (Kâth. 5, 7):

c9.s3.t3.11

“The one attains a mother’s womb and takes a human form,
“Another animates a plant, as deeds and knowledge fate.”

c9.s3.t3.12

“For otherwise mere dying would be for everyone a dissolution “of the Upâdhis and a final entrance into Brahman; but then “the Canon of Law would be purposeless, and equally so the “Canon of Knowledge. But bondage has its ground in false “knowledge and can therefore be loosed in no other way than “by perfect knowledge. Hence, in spite of its origin from it, “this entrance of the soul there into the Existent, like that in “deep sleep and at the dissolution of the world, is such that “a seed remains over and persists” (p. 1096, 3—1097, 3).

c9.s3.t3.13

—In reality this entrance into Brahman, retained for the sake of the Vedic texts, is a mere passing through Brahman, and not even that: for the system, as such, knows nothing of it, but makes the souls pass immediately after death either by the Pitriyâna to the moon, or into hell, or finally by the Devayâna into the (lower) Brahman.

c9.s3.t3.14

Upon all these Paths the soul is accompanied by the subtle body: for the latter, as we saw, continues to exist as long as Samsâra, but Samsâra has existed from Eternity (above p. 280) and endures until liberation, whence it follows that as the soul is clothed from all eternity with the organs (above p. 312) so also it is clothed with the subtle body and so it remains until it gains perfect knowledge, that is, esoteric knowledge. On the other hand, the exoteric knowledge, as it leads upwards into the lower Brahman by the *Devayâna*, does not free the soul from the subtle body. True, as this subtle body is a support of the soul by the elements, this support is for the purpose of rebirth, but rebirth no longer takes place in one who has (exoteric) knowledge, since according to the scripture he attains immortality (which means that he is no longer subject to death, above pp. 149, 287), for these reasons one might think that only the Ignorance (p. 1094, 12) departs (clothed with the subtle body); but this is not so: rather it is exactly the same in the case of the ignorant and of the possessor of (exoteric) knowledge except the difference of the Paths which they respectively take; the ignorant passes with the subtle body to new embodiment, the (exoteric) knower passes on his own special path to immortality (p. 1095, 10); true, immortality in the full sense of the word is not the sojourn in a given place and thus requires no going thither and therefore no material substratum (p. 1095, 13); but the immortality of the (exoteric) knower, with which we are here concerned, is only relative (*âpekshika*), since he has not yet burned up all Ignorance; hence for it a going, and, in order that this may be possible, a subtle body as material vehicle, are required, as without it no going can occur (p. 1096, 1).

c9.s3.t3.15

4. Moral Determination of the transmigrating Soul.
(a) Prefatory Remark.

c9.s3.t3.16

All the Upâdhis hitherto discussed, clothed with which the soul departs (namely, *indriyâni*, *manas*, *mukhya prâna*, *sûkshmam çarîram*), are purely neutral, not individually determined principles, and the soul itself is the same, as, according to its nature, it is identical with Brahman and is only apparently different from him through its being clothed with the said Upâdhis. Thus the soul with all its organs is entirely neutral, bearing in itself no moral distinction,—quite consistently with the Indian and, indeed, with every other standpoint, which, like it, places the essential nature of the soul in Knowing not in Willing.

c9.s3.t3.17

But whence then the moral determinations, which condition the differences of character, the differences of Paths in the Beyond, the contrast of reward and punishment in the other world, and the form of the subsequent rebirth in this world?—

c9.s3.t3.18

We must assume for the departing soul, besides the just described elementary substratum (*bhūta-āśraya*) a second, viz. a moral substratum (*karma-āśraya*), and these two are expressly distinguished by Śaṅkara (p. 1094, 5) under these names.

c9.s3.t3.19

Now in what does this moral substratum consist, which conditions all differences of character and of destiny?

c9.s3.t3.20

Like all moral points, this important question is very inadequately dealt with by Śaṅkara (for reasons indicated above p. 59), and all that we find about it consists in occasional references to certain passages of scripture, which therefore we are to follow, according to the intentions of our author.

c9.s3.t3.21

(b) The Karma-āśraya

c9.s3.t3.22

Sūtram 4, 2, 6, p. 1094.

c9.s3.t3.23

In Bṛih. 3, 2, 13, the son of Ritabhāga questions Yājñavalkya: “‘Yājñavalkya,’ he said: ‘when after a man dies his speech enters into fire, his breath into the wind, his eye into the sun, his Manas into the moon, his ear into the cardinal points, his body into the earth, his Ātman into the Ākāśa, the hair on his body into plants, the hair on his head into trees, his blood and seed into water,—where then does the man remain?’—Then spake Yājñavalkya: ‘Take me, Ārtabhāga, dear one, by the hand; upon this we two must speak alone together, not here in the assembly.’—Then the two went out and conversed together; and what they spoke of, that was work, and what they praised, that was work.—Verily, through good work one becomes good, through evil work, evil.”

c9.s3.t3.24

“Then the son of Ritabhāga was silent.”

c9.s3.t3.25

Upon this remarkable passage, in which we seem to have the very birth of the doctrine of transmigration before our eyes, Śaṅkara merely remarks (p. 1094, 6), that it only lays stress upon works and does not thereby exclude the other, material-substratum of the soul, the *bhûta-âçraya*, that is, the subtle body, which is spoken of loc. cit. The contradiction that the organs, according to this passage, enter into the forces of nature, while in our system the soul withdraws them into itself, he puts aside in the manner indicated in note 126, above p. 370.—In another respect the circumstance that besides the *çarîram* the *âtman* also (according to Çaṅkara, it would be indeed the *âtma-adhishṭhânam hṛidaya-âkâçam*) dissolves, while the *karman* persists, is very remarkable, in its bearing on Buddhism.

c9.s3.t3.26

(c) Vidyâ-karma-pûrvaprajñâ

c9.s3.t3.27

Sûtram* 3, 4, 11.

c9.s3.t3.28

Of the soul after death it is said in Bṛih. 4, 4, 2 (translated above p. 193): "then their knowledge and their works "and their newly gained experience take them by the hand," —the last, as we read *apûrvaprajñâ* and find here already the conception of the *apûrvam*, which will be further spoken of shortly. Çaṅkara, indeed, reads (p. 740, 4. 1091, 9) *pûrva-prajñâ*, "previous experience" (which in the Com. on Bṛih. p. 843, he understands as *pûrva-anubhûta-vishayâ prajñâ*, "the "consciousness of what has been experienced before"). The contrast between knowledge and works he explains 3, 4, 11 at first following the Sûtram to mean that the former (those who go by the *Devayâna*) are taken by the hand by knowledge, the latter (those for whom the soul's transmigration continues by the *Pitṛiyâna*), are taken by the hand by works (p. 984, 4); but then he remembers that here it is not yet a question of liberation (to which the *Devayâna* also leads), but only of Saṃsâra, in harmony with his commentary on Bṛih. 4, 4, 2 that the question is only one of knowledge concerning Saṃsâra, that therefore by *Vidyâ* is to be understood here "ordained and forbidden knowledge" (Govinda cites as an example of the former the *Udgîtha*, of the latter *nagna-strî-darçanam*), as by *karman* the doing what is ordained and what is forbidden (p. 984, 9). By *Pûrvaprajñâ* in Bṛih. *l. c.* he understands, as already observed, "previous experience"

c9.s3.t3.29

and explains it as impressions (*vâsanâ*) which things leave behind in the soul, and upon which depend inborn gifts for artistic work (he gives as an example talent for painting) and perhaps also for moral conduct,128—the last if we may thus understand *vishaya-upabhogeshu* and *karmani* (on Bṛih. p. 844, 5, 7) where however this idea, so important for us, of an inborn determination of the moral character is only touched on casually, not distinctly developed.

c9.s3.t3.30

(d) The *Apûrvam*. Sûtras 3, 2, 38—41. 3, 1, 6.

c9.s3.t3.31

In the endless chain of transmigration, every new life is conditioned in its doing and suffering by the works of the preceding life; these therefore bring about the changes in the soul’s destiny, and these changes interpose as a new moment, as “something which was not there before” (*apûrvam*), (although they too, consistently with the system, cf. above p. 322, are necessitated by the life preceding them). This conception of the *Apûrvam* 129 belongs to the *Karmamîmânsâ* school and is for it the metaphysical link between work and its retribution, that which persists when work has passed away and its fruit has not yet appeared. The opinion of Jaimini is thus summarised on p. 841, 6 of our work: “It is not possible that “previous work should bear within it the fruit as yet hidden “in the future, unless it causes a given *Apûrvam* to proceed “from itself. Therefore certain subtle persisting elements of “the work, or preparatory elements of its fruit, are termed “*Apûrvam*.” Now this conception of the *Apûrvam* is disputed by Śaṅkara in the passage cited, in so far as the Vedânta places retribution in the hand of God (cf. on this point above pp. 279, 323); the Apûrvam is something non-spiritual and cannot therefore act without being moved by something spiritual (p. 840, 2); hence the fruit cannot be explained by the mere Apûrvam (p. 842, 1); “whether therein God has regard to the action, or to the Apûrvam, in either case the fruit comes from Him” (p. 842, 2).

c9.s3.t3.32

¹²⁸ On Bṛih. p. 844, 2—8: *Dṛiçyate ca keshâñcit kâsucit kriyâsu citra-karma-âdi-lakshaṇâsu vinâ eva iha-abhyâsena janmata’ eva kauçalam; kâsucid atyanta-saukarya-yuktâsu api akauçalam keshâñcit; tathâ vishaya-upabhogeshu svabhâvata’ eva keshâñcit kauçala-akauçale dṛiçyete; tac ca etat sarvam pûrvaprajñâ-udbhava-anudbhava-nimittam. Tena pûrvaprajñayâ vinâ karmani vâ phala-upabhoge vâ na kasyacit pravrittir upapadyate.*

c9.s3.t3.33

¹²⁹ Besides the passages cited above we find the *Apûrvam* only on p. 1139, 5 (on p. 1020, 6 it occurs in its etymological meaning). On the nearly allied conception of the *Adrishtam* compare pp. 697, 4. 9. 697, 12. 15. 698, 7. 699, 3. 7. 8. 703, 1. 2. 754, 10. 819, 10. 521, 2. 968, 8. 1074, 2.

c9.s3.t3.34

We must not see in this passage an unconditional rejection of the Apûrvam, if we do not wish to place ourselves in contradiction with 3, 1, 6, where the Apûrvam makes its appearance directly as a well known and admitted conception, in order to explain the Faith which, according to the doctrine of the Five Fires, is offered in the first fire, and this indeed in quite another way than that which we have considered in Chapter XXXI, 3, above p. 371.

c9.s3.t3.35

(e) The Çraddhâ. Sûtras 3, 1, 2. 5. 6.

c9.s3.t3.36

The explanation of Faith (çraddhâ) given above p. 372 as “the waters, as these represent the subtle parts of the elements which form the seed of the body,” appears indeed very forced; first, because, so far as we can see, the conception of the subtle body accompanying the soul, has as yet no existence whatever in Bṛih., Chând. or any of the older Upanishads; then because the Indian çraddhâ (just as, though wrongly most probably, by Lactant. inst. 4, 28 the Latin religio) is etymologically traced back to the conception of knitting together and means the link between man and the Beyond, thus appearing to require a moral explanation. Such an explanation is offered without forcing the meaning: for it is quite natural to understand by çraddhâ (which Śaṅkara, on Praçna, p. 250, 6 defines as çubha-karma-pravṛitti-hetu) in Bṛih. and Chând. loc. cit., the works of man produced by faith, as they condition his weal and woe in the Beyond; and this very explanation is also offered by Śaṅkara, whereby he brings himself into irreconcilable contradiction with himself. For after he has, on p. 747, given the explanation of Faith, quoted above on p. 372, as the Waters, meaning the subtle body, he then immediately on p. 747, 7 ff. explains Faith as the Waters, rising upwards in the sacrifice, they are the bearers of the works conditioned by Faith;—thus in the one case they were the garment of the dead, here they are the moral treasure, which the still living performers of the sacrifice lay up for themselves in heaven: "thus the Waters consisting of the sacrificial libations wherein "inheres the work conditioned by faith, these waters in the "form of the Apūrvam clothe the souls which bring the sacri"fice and lead them, to receive their reward, into the other "world" (p. 748, 10); in the same manner Çankara explains çraddhā, p. 743, 16 as the karma-samavāyinya' āpas and again two lines afterwards as the deha-vijāni bhūta-sūkshmāni. By this all the explanations in 3, 1, 1—6 are rendered very far from clear and the impression is produced not so much that they originated from two different hands, as rather that a single hand had endeavoured to preserve two mutually irreconcilable interpretations and work them up into an apparent whole.

Cites (7)