|
Brahmantaitt.
Up. 2.1 S.B.—br.hattamatvaat
Brahma---Being the greatest, it is known as Brahman. The
sentence - Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite- is meant to be the
definition of Brahman. A
thing is said to be satya
–true- when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be
its own; and a thing that deviates from the form in which it has been
once ascertained is said to be unreal. (This is the literal translation
of the statement in the Bhaashya. The gist of this is that, the meaning
of the word ‘true’ in Vedaanta is--- that which never undergoes any
change at any time. Brahman alone is true in this sense). Every
modification is therefore unreal. The s’ruti
says- all modification is mere name, created by words alone; what is
called clay is alone real. (Ch.up. 6.1.4). Various forms such as pot,
etc, made out of clay are all unreal. Their reality is only as clay.
Thus, by the word ‘truth’ the s’ruti distinguishes Brahman from all changing forms. By
the word ‘knowledge’ the s’ruti makes it clear that Brahman is not insentient like clay. By
the three words – truth, knowledge and infinite – it is made clear
that Brahman is different from everything in the universe which is
always subject to change, is insentient and limited by time, space and
other objects. Here
knowledge means ‘consciousness’ and not a particular knowledge,
which has a beginning and an end and is therefore finite. This
consciousness is not distinct from Brahman, but is its essential nature,
like the light of the sun or the heat of fire. This consciousness is
eternal and is present even during deep sleep. A specific act of knowing
takes place only when the mind functions in association with the
relevant sense-organ, but this must be distinguished from consciousness,
which is ever present. It is this consciousness which is known as
Brahman. Brahman, which is Pure Consciousness, becomes a ‘knower’
only when the intellect is superimposed on it.
Upades’a
saahas’rii-(Metrical portion)-Ch.18. Verse 65—The Self is looked
upon as a knower only because of the superimposition on it of the
knowership of the intellect. Similarly, the intellect is considered as a
knower only because of the superimposition of consciousness on it.
Since the words truth, knowledge, and infinite are only intended
to convey that Brahman is different from all that is subject to change,
all that is insentient and all that is limited, and since such an object
is not known to anyone, it may be argued that Brahman is non-existent,
like the objects mentioned in the following statement:- “Having
bathed in the waters of the mirage and adorned his head with sky-flowers
(i.e. flowers which grow in the sky), here goes the son of a barren
woman, carrying a bow made out of the horn of a hare”. The answer to
this is that, since the words are intended as a definition of Brahman
and a definition is given only for something that exists and not for
something non-existent, the argument is not tenable. Here Aanandagiri
says—The word truth connotes unfailing existence, the word
consciousness connotes self-luminous knowledge of all objects and the
word infinite connotes all-pervasiveness. Thus each of these words
conveys a positive idea, while excluding the opposite and does not mean
a mere negation.
The
words satyam, jnaanam, etc,
apply to Brahman only in their secondary sense (lakshyaartha)
and not in their primary sense (vaachyaartha)—see
Samkshepas’aariirakam Ch.1. verses 178 to 184. In
Brahma suutra 3.2.11 to 3.2.21, it is established that, though the
scriptures describe Brahman as both qualified (Ch.up.3.14.2) and as
unqualified (Br.up.3.8.8), Brahman is really attributeless. The
description of Brahman as qualified is only for the purpose of Upaasanaa
(meditation). Brahma
suutra 3.2.22. S.B.—In Br.up.2.3.1 it is said that Brahman has two
forms—gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited,
defined and undefined. Then it is said in Br.up.2.3.6 –“Now
therefore the description (of Brahman)—neti,
neti—not so, not so”. These two negatives deny the two aspects,
gross and subtle etc. By this the reality of all creation is denied. Two
kinds of definition of Brahman
There are two kinds of definition of Brahman—(1) svaruupalakshaNam—definition
with reference to the essential nature, e.g.
satyam jnaanam anantam brahma—taitt,up.
2.1. (2) taTasthalakshaNam—This
is based on an accidental feature, which helps to distinguish the object
defined. An example is the identification of a house by pointing out a
crow sitting on it. While the crow may fly away, it nevertheless helps a
person to know which is the house meant. In the case of Brahman, such a
definition is—yato vaa imaani
bhuutaani jaayante------That from which all these beings are born,
that by which they live and that towards which they move and into which
they merge. (taitt.up,3.1.1). How
the Self pervades all bodies—examples Br.up.1.4.7
S.B.—yathaa cha kshuraH
kshuradhaane---- As
a razor lies in one part of its case, as fire lies in wood, pervading
it, so does the Self dwell in the body, pervading it in a general and
particular way. There it is perceived as doing the functions of living,
seeing, etc. Br,up.
2.3.6.S.B.—aades’o
nirdes’o BrahmaNaH. KaH punarasau--------neti neti iti nirdes’aH. How
is it sought to describe Brahman , the Truth of truth? By the
elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words
“Neti, neti” refer to something that has no distinguishing mark,
such as name, form, action, heterogeneity, species or qualities. Words
refer to things through one or more of these marks. But Brahman has none
of these distinguishing marks. Therefore it cannot be described as,
“It is such and such “, as we can describe a cow by saying, “There
moves a white cow with horns”. Brahman can be described only by the
superimposition of name, form and action. When, however, we wish to
describe its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting
adjuncts, the only way is to describe it as –not this, not this.
Brahman
transcends all
qualities Br.up.3.5.1.S.B.—avivekibhiH
talamalavadiva gaganam ----- As
the sky, fancied by the ignorant as being concave and blue, is really
without these qualities, being untouched by them, so also Brahman-Aatman,
although thought of by the ignorant as being subject to hunger, thirst,
etc, really transcends all these qualities. The S’ruti says—“It is not affected by human misery, being beyond
it”- KaTha up. 2.2.11 Brahman,
the individual self and iis’vara Br.up.3.8.12.S.B.—kastarhi
bhedaH eteshaam? What
is the difference among them? It is only due to the difference in the
limiting adjuncts. Intrinsically, there is neither difference nor
identity among them, for all the three are in essence Pure
Consciousness, homogeneous like a lump of salt. When the unconditioned
Self has, as the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs which are
characterized by ignorance, desire and action, it is called the
transmigrating individual self. When the limiting adjunct is the power
of eternal and unlimited knowledge, which is Maayaa, the same Self is
known as iis’vara, who is
the antaryaamii or Inner
Controller. The same Self, free from all limiting adjuncts, is Brahman.
When the limiting adjuncts are the bodies of hiraNyagarbha,
the gods, men, animals and others, the same Self assumes those
particular names and forms. Br.up.4.4.5.S.B.—sa
vaa ayam ya evam samsarati ------as’anaayaadyatiitaH. The
transmigrating self is indeed Brahman, which is beyond hunger, etc. Br.up.4.4.25.S.B.—ya
evam yathoktam aatmaanam--------- He
who knows the self described above as the Brahman which is beyond fear
becomes Brahman. This is the purport of the whole Upanishad put in a
nutshell. It is to bring out this purport that the ideas of
creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe, as well as the
ideas of action, its factors and results were superimposed on the Self.
Then, by the negation of the superimposed attributes the true nature of
Brahman as free from all attributes has been brought out.
This is the method of adhyaaropa
and apavaada, superimposition
and negation, which is adopted by Vedaanta.
Br.
Up.5.1.1.S.B.—yadyapi
Brahmaatmaadis’abdaaH------- Although
the words ‘Brahman’, ‘aatman’ etc, are names of Brahman, we see
from the s’ruti that Om is
its most intimate appellation. Therefore, Om is the best means for the
realization of Brahman. Om is both a symbol for Brahman and its name. Brahman
is both the material and the efficient cause of the universe.
Panchadas’i-1.44—Brahman
becomes the material cause of the universe when it is associated with
that aspect of maayaa in which there is predominance of tamas. It becomes the efficient cause when associated with that
aspect of maayaa in
which there is predominance of sattva.
Brahman
is free from all the three types of differences Panchadas’i-2.20
and 21.—Differences are of three kinds. The difference of a tree from
its leaves, flowers, fruits, etc, is the difference within an object.
This is known as svagata bheda. The
difference of one tree from another tree is the difference between
objects of the same species. This is known as sajaatiiya
bheda. The difference of a tree from a rock is the difference
between objects of different species. This is known as vijaatiiya
bheda. None of these differences exists with regard to Brahman,
because there is nothing else of the same species or of a different
species and there is no internal difference because Brahman is
homogeneous. This is what is affirmed in the
Chhaandogya upanishad (6.2.1) by the words “ekam
eva advitiiyam”-one, only, without a second. The word “one’
negates sajaatiiya bheda, the word ‘only’ negates svagata bheda and the words ‘without a second’ negate vijaatiiya
bheda. Brahman
is free from all limitations Panchadas’i-3.35,
36, 37—Being all-pervasive, Brahman is not limited by space. Being
eternal, it is not limited by time. Since all objects in the universe
are merely superimposed on Brahman, Brahman is not limited by any
object, just as a rope is not limited by the illusory snake superimposed
on it . Back to contents
|