Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s5: Conclusion

Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s5

Language: English

Conclusion

v2.c26.s5.1

Bādarāyaṇa affirms a monistic view of the world. He will have nothing to do with polytheism or a plurality of independent and equally ultimate reals or unoriginate souls or a dualism between God and the Evil One. He accepts the two views of Brahman as the indeterminate intelligence (*nirviśeṣa* cinmātra) held by Bādari, Kāśakṛtsna and Auḍulomi, and determinate personal Lord (saviśeṣa) held by Āśmarathya and Jaimini. From the nature of the Sūtra, it is not possible to set forth the way in which these two accounts are reconciled in the mind of the author. The Upaniṣads declare that Brahman is avikārī or changeless, nityam or eternal. The world is changing and impermanent. How can such an effect issue from such a cause? The Sūtra simply asserts on the basis of śruti that Brahman develops itself into the universe and remains transcendent.¹

v2.c26.s5.2

¹ i. 4. 27.

v2.c26.s5.3

The attempt at a more adequate definition of the causality of Brahman (brahmakāraṇatā) leads to divergent views. Śaṃkara argues that Brahman produces the world without undergoing any substantial change, Rāmānuja and Vallabha believe that the world is the actual product of Brahman, i.e. Brahman is really transformed into the world. Again, Bādarāyaṇa says, though Brahman is in the individual soul, still, there is no pollution of Brahman by the defects of the individual on account of the difference in nature between the two.² He asserts both identity and difference between Brahman and the individual soul. There is no logical statement of this position. Śaṃkara finds it impossible to make the Sūtrakāra’s ideas of Brahman applicable to the nirguṇa, nirviśeṣa Brahman of the Upaniṣads, while the other commentators are willing to take the Sūtrakāra’s definitions as relevant to the highest Brahman. The latter argue that the Sūtrakāra is unaware of the theory of a twofold Brahman or of the unreality of the world. The author of the Sūtra could not have refuted the Sāṃkhya and discussed the theories of creation so seriously, if he had held that the world was an appearance, in which case its creatorship was out of the question. It may well be that Bādarāyaṇa believes in a really changing aspect of the Divine nature, a svagatabheda, which enables Brahman to manifest itself in various objects and under the limitations of individual life. A clear statement is, however, lacking.

v2.c26.s5.4

² i. 2. 8.

v2.c26.s5.5

The state of the released soul is one of non-separation (avibhāga) from Brahman. This simple formula of non-separation is capable of varied interpretations which it gets from the later commentators. Śaṃkara takes it to mean a complete identification with the universal self, while Rāmānuja interprets it as a partial assimilation to God. Room is found for both in Śaṃkara’s system. On the question of ethics, Bādarāyaṇa does not discuss the relation of renunciation to action and the efficacy of these to the attainment of the end. In religion, he looks upon Brahman as unmanifested (avyakts), and yet as an object of spiritual perception. The two require to be reconciled.

v2.c26.s5.6

The *Sūtra* of Bādarāyaṇa reflects the indecision and vagueness characteristic of the Upaniṣads, whose teachings it attempts to set forth, and harbours within it many seeds of doubt and discussion. Any attempt at a more precise characterisation of the views of the sūtras is bound to contain many rocks of offence and sources of spiritual disturbance. We shall see in the sequel how identical formulas give rise to various interpretations through the differences of spiritual setting into which they are received.

v2.c26.s5.7

THE ADVAITA VEDĀNTA OF ŚAṀKARA

v2.c26.s5.8

Introduction—Date—Life and personality of Śaṁkara—Literature—Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā—Buddhist influence—Analysis of experience—Causation—Creation—Ethics and religion—Relation to Buddhism—General estimate of Gauḍapāda’s position—Bhartṛhari—Bhartṛprapañca—Śaṁkara’s relation to the Upaniṣads and the Brahma Sūtra—Relation to Buddhism and other systems of philosophy—The reality of Ātman—Its nature—Theory of knowledge—Mechanism of knowledge—Perception, its nature and varieties—Inference—Scriptural testimony—Refutation of subjectivism—Criterion of truth—Inadequacy of logical knowledge—Self-consciousness—Adhyāsa—Anubhava—Scriptural authority—Higher wisdom and lower knowledge—Śaṁkara and Kant, Bergson and Bradley—The objective approach—Reality and existence—Space, time and cause—The world of phenomena—Brahman—Saguṇa and Nirguṇa—Īśvara—Proofs for the existence of God—Brahman and Īśvara—Personality—Creation—The phenomenal character of Īśvara—Being, not-being and becoming—The phenomenality of the world—The doctrine of māyā—Avidyā—Is the world an illusion?—Avidyā and māyā—The world of nature—The individual self—Sākṣin and jīva—Brahman and jīva—Avacchedavāda—Bimbapratibimbavāda—Īśvara and jīva—Ekajīvavāda and Anekajīvavāda—Ethics—Charges of intellectualism and asceticism considered—Jñāna and Karma—Karma and freedom—Mokṣa—Future life—Religion—Conclusion.

Cites (1)

Brahmasūtra — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit