CHAPTER TWO

CONCEPT OF BRAHMAN

The whole Vedanta philosophy is summarized in a statement “Brahman

is true, the world is false and the Jfva and Brahman are not different.”1 According

to Samkara, Brahman is the highest transcendental truth. It is perfect and the only

truth, fhe ultimate truth is non-contradictory. It is existent, beginningless and

unchanging. It is the highest knowledge.

The Upanisad uses the world “Atman” to mean Brahman. Atman is the

universal self, the Absolute, the supreme Reality.

Brahman is the knowledge, the knower and the known. This distinction of

the process o f the knowledge does not apply to the case of Brahman. Brahman is

the essence o f all tilings. It is the only ultimate existence. It is unconditioned and

self illumined. Hence it is non-dual and attributelcss.

According to Jadunath Sinha “Brahman is o f the nature o f eternal knowledge.

It is not-dilTcrenl from its knowledge. Brahman is eternal knowledge or conscious­

ness devoid o f subject and object. It is the eternal, transcendental consciousness

devoid o f the distinction of knowledge, known and knower.”2

Brahman is the universal fact of life and is present in every man. The word

1. brahma satyamjagat milhya, jivo brahmaiva naparah.

2. OIP, p. 382.
 42

‘Brahman' is derived from (he rootWbrnh, which means prosperity or greatness.

» l

So, the meaning of the word Brahman is that which is the greatest and largest ot all.

Eternal purity and everfreeness is the meaning o f the word Brahman. One who

knows the Brahman in reality, he becomes the Brahman itself.3 That means the

knower o f Brahman is the Brahman itself.

The term ‘Brahma’ is commonly used to mean ‘sacred lore’ ‘holy inscription

and the like. But the fundamental idea o f Brahman, as the continuum of being

energy, indefinable and immeasurable as a whole, which sustains all finite forms

o f being and out o f which all forms spring, runs through the literature o f the Vedas

as Aditi, for example, in the Rgveda and as ‘Skambha’ in the Atharvaveda Here

Aditi is used to mean ‘the freedom from bonds or limitations’. , Sayana takes it to

mean the undivided, the continuum. The Brhadaranyahopanisad makes it the

consumer of all things - that is the ultimate ground in which all differentiations are

swallowed up.

But the word ‘Brahman’ is actually derived from Die root W brh\ according

to Samkara. Here Wbrh’ means evaluation.4 So literally .Brahman means all

transcending existence. Brahman is the substratum of the Universe, By this literal

meaning of the word, Samkara has tried to prove the existence o f Brahman.

Brahman has no genus, possesses no qualities, does not act and is related to

3. brahmabid brahmaiva bhavati - MU, 3/2/9

4. hrhaltvadbrmhanatvadva atmaiva brahmeti giyate. - Bha under -1 .1 .1 .

 43

nothing else. It is pure identity. It is absolutely undiffcrcnccd. Brahman is devoid

of homogeneous, heterogeneous and eternal differences. Homogeneous differences,

Sajaliyabheda, is difference between two homogeneous things, e.g. between one

tree and another. Heterogeneous difference, Vijatiyabheda, is the difference

between two different tilings e.g. a tree and a stone. Internal difference,

Svagatahheda, is the difference between the part of a whole e.g. between the leaves,

flowers and fruits of a tree5. Brahman is devoid o f all these differences. It is devoid

o f homogeneous difference, because, it is one and without the second. It is devoid

o f heterogeneous difference, because, there is no other reality dissimilar to it. As

Brahman is of the nature of consciousness which does not admit of part, so It has

no eternal variety.

Braliman is, therefore, Nirguna. This Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate truth.

The Upanisads have described Brahman both as Saguna and Nirguna. The former

is called Apara Brahman and latter is called Para Brahman, The Para Brahman is

unconditioned, without particulars and without qualities. The Apara Brahman is

conditional, with particulars and qualities,Existence, consciousness and bliss are the

characteristics o f Para-Brahman. O f these two Brahman Nirguna Brahman is only

true. Saguna Brahman appears before us because of ignorance. The ignorant people

cannot imagine the nature of Brahman and human heart cannot be satisfied

5. brksasya svagato bhedah patrapuspahaladibhih /

brksantatrat sajatiyo
0 m *
vijatiyah
* •
siladitah/ PD
*
 44

through Nirguna. Therefore, Samkara had to describe Saguna Brahman. After the

realization of Saguna Brahman, it becomes easier to realize the Nirguna also.

About the two types of Brahman Saguna and Nirguna, Jadunath Sinha says,

“The Upanisads speak of the higher Brahman (Para Brahma) and lower Brahman

(Apara Brahma). The former is unconditioned, indeterminate and attributeless,

while the latter is conditioned, determinate and qualified by attributes. The former

is trans-cmpirical and non-phenomenal, while the latter is empirical and

phenomenal. The former is transcendent, while the latter is transcendent and

immanent. Existence, consciousness and bliss constitute the essence of the

indeterminate Brahman. Brahman conditioned by cosmic nescience (Maya) is the

Lord , who is the creator, preserver and destroyer of the empirical world, and moral

governor. God is the determinate Brahman - a phenomenal appearance o f the

indeterminate Brahman or Absolute which is free from all conditions and

determinations. Indeterminate Brahman is the indefinable and inexpressible witness

o f all known phenomena, and, therefore, itself unknown. It is imperceptible by

sense organs ..... ....... God (Tsvara) is the determinate. Brahman. It is the omniscient

and omnipotent creator, preserver, destroyer and moral governor of the world.”6 He

also says, “Brahman is not both determinate and indeterminate. It is indeterminate

in itself, but appear to be determinate owing to the limiting adjunct cosmic

nescience and its products. Brahman is indeterminate and undifferentiated and

6. OIP, pp. 383-384.

 45

cannot assume different forms. It is in itself non-different but appears to be

different - God and the individual self, the worshipped and the worshipper for the

sake o f the prayer............... It is destroyed, when nescience is dispelled by right

knowledge”.78

So, Nirguna Brahman is the real Brahman. One who has gunas or quality,

cannot be the Brahman. Rightly says, Radhakrisnan, “When the absolute is said to

be Nirguna, this only means that it is transempirical, since gunas are products of

Prakrti and the absolute is superior to it. The gunas qualify the objective as such,

and God is not an object. The objects come and go, but the real persists as the

permanent in the midst o f all changes. So, it transcends the gunas or phenomenal

being. The absolute is not on that account to be regarded as a mere blank. So the
©

Upanisads says “ Nirguno guni.”

Nirguna in the words o f M. Hiriyana “when the Upanisads describe

Brahman as Nirguna and therefore as indefinable and unknowable. It is not in

every sense beyond the reach of words. To suppose that it is so, would be to

deprive the Upanisads of the whole o f their purpose. Even granting that the

negative definition is the only possible one, it does not follow that the Nirguna

Brahman is a blank. For all propositions directly or indirectly refer to reality and

negation necessarily has its own positive implication. As a matter o f fact, however,

7. Ibid, p 384.

8. IP (Vol. II), p. 536.

 46

the Advaitins assign IJpanisadic statements like ncti neti - “Not this nor that’ - a

secondary place while the primary place is given to those like “tat tvam asi", which

paint to the reality in us as the ultimate. That is, the natative statement is not to be

understood in isolation, but along with positive ones like ‘tat tvamasi’. Negation is

only a preliminary to affirmation. It means that the absolute is not conceived here

objectively - as merely inferred from outer phenomena, but as revealing itself

within us. This alters totally the significance of the negative description, for we are

thereby constrained to admit not only its positive character but also its spiritual

nature............... The Nirguna Brahma is not the negation or the antithesis of

Saguna, but is its veiy truth and is immanent in eveiything that goes to constitute it.

Hence every aspect o f experience, whether on the subject or object side, reveals it.”9

There is no distinction of space, time, qualities, movements and consequences

etc. in Brahman. It is beyond all the distinctions o f present, past, future, cause,

effect etc. It is beyond the physical world. Thus Brahman is beyond the senses,

mind and intellect, though it does not mean that He is unknowable. He is the

object o f immediate experience. It also gives the knowledge o f the knower, since

without the knower the knowledge is impossible..................

In this connection, Radhakrisnan says “To say that Brahman is reality, is to

say that It is different from the phenomenal, the spatial, the temporal and the

sensible. Brahman is what is assumed as foundational, though it is in no sense

9. OlPh, pp. 375-376.

 47

substance. It is not in any point of space, though it may be said to be everywhere,

since all things imply and depend on it. Since it is not a thing, it cannot have spatial

relation to anything else and is therefore nowhere. It is not a cause, for that would

be to introduce time relations. Its nature is inexpressible, for when we say anything

of it we make it into a particular thing. We may speak about it, though we cannot

describe it adequately or have any logical knowledge of it If the finite man can

comprehend Brahman, then cither our understanding must be infinite or Brahman

finite.”10

Brahman has two main definitions or Laksana. They are Svarupa and

Tatastha. Here Svarupa Laksana means the realor true nature of Brahman.

Existence (Sat), consciousness (Cit) and bliss (Ananda) are the true nature of

Brahman. These are not the attributes of Brahman. Brahman is Sat or real. That

means it is not unreal, Brahman is Cit or consciousness e.g., it is not unconscious.

Brahman is Ananda or bliss; e.g. not of the nature of pain. Therefore, Brahman is

called saecidananda. But this definition of Brahman according to Samkara is not

sufficient to express the real nature of Brahman. Another Laksana of Brahman is

Tatastha Laksana. Here Tata means bank of a river. The feature which applied to

someone accidentally is called Tatastha Laksana or secondary definition. It is an

indirect definition of Brahman. According to this Laksana Brahman is the cause of

10. IP. (Vol. 2), pp. 534-535.

 48

the Universe.11 Because of Avidya these attributes like ereatorship and rulership of

the universe is applied to him. We can explain these two features o f Brahman with

a simple example. An actor who will perform the role o f a king. Here the king of

the drama will conquer a lot of kingdom. He will also govern the subjects. But

from the real view, he is a general people. This character o f the man, as a general

people, is the Swarupa Laksana. And from the dramatic view he is a powerful king.

This is his Tatastha Laksna. This Tatastha Laksana does not effect the real nature

or the Svarupa Laksana of the king. Thus the Svarupa Laksana of Brahman is

existence (Sat), consciousness (Cit) and bliss (Ananda) and His Tatastha Laksana is

that Brahman is the creator and ruler o f this universe. But this is not the real

nature.12 He has no attribute or activity Svampa Laksana is his real nature.

In the word of Radhakrisnan, “Samkara denies Brahman both being and non-

being o f the type with which we are familiar in the world of experience. We can at

best say what Brahman is not and not what it is. It transcends the opposition of

permanence and change, whole and part, relative and absolute, finite and infinite,

which arc all based on the oppositions o f experience. The finite is always passing

beyond itself, but there is nothing which the infinite can pass into. If it did so, it

11. tatra laksanam dvividham svarupam tatasthaceti - VP, VII.

12. tatra svarupameva laksanam svarupalaksanam. Yatha satyam jnanamanantam

brahma, tatastha laksanam nama yavlaksakalamanavasthitatve sati yad vyavar-
takam tadeva. Yatha brahmano jagajjanmadikajanatvam. - VP, VII.
Also - janmadyasya y a ta h -B S , 1.1.2.
 49

would no longer be the Unite. If we call it infinite, it is not to be equated with a

mere negation of the finite. We cannot understand the nature of Brahman until we

let go the formal and the finite. Since personality eannot be realized except under

the limiting condition of a non-ego, the absolute is not a person. If we use the term

personality in a different sense, in which it does not demand any dependence on

another, then it is an illegitimate use”.13

Brahman is limitless and infinite. It is limitless in space, omnipresent, time

and in relation to objects. It is also infinite. It is the cause of all phenomena in the

sense that it is their substratum, which are non-different from it. “Brahaman only is

the reality. All else are mere false appearance. Brahman, expanded in the forms of

effects, appears as mere names and forms. It is the ground of the entire universe of

phenomenal-appearances. This entire universe is Brahman itself. Brahman is one,

One eternal Brahman appears to be manifold appearances owing to nescience. One

partlcss Brahman cannot be differentiated into the manifold world and a plurality

of empirical selves. If it docs, it ceases to be partless and imperishable. So duality

or plurality is not metaphysically real. Brahman is immortal by nature. It can never

be divested of its nature, even as fire can never lose its heat. Brahman is the

ontological ground of the manifold empirical world.”14

/
Dasgupta says, “Brahman according to Samkara is the cause from which

13. IP, (Vol. II), p. 536.

14. OIP, p. 381.

 50

(proceeds) the origin or subsistence and dissolution of this world which is extended

in names and forms, which includes many agents and enjoyers, which contains the

fruit of works specially determined according to space, time and cause, a world

which is formed after an arrangement inconceivable even by the (imagination of

th e ) mind. The reasons that Samkara adduces for the existence of Brahman may be

considered to be threefold : (1) The world must have been produced as a modi­

fication o f something, but in the Upanisads all other things have been spoken of as

having, been originated from something other than Brahman, so Brahman is the

cause from which the world has sprung into being. But we could not think that

Brahman itself originated from something else, for then we should have a regressus

and infinitum (Anavastha). (2) The world is so orderly that it could not have come

forth from a non-intclligcnt source. The intelligent source then from which this

world has come into being is Brahman. (3)This Brahman is the immediate consci­

ousness (Saksi) which shines as the self, as well as through the objects o f cognition

which the self knows. It is thus the essence of us all, the self and hence it remains

undenicd even when one tries to deny it, for even in the denial it shows itself forth.

It is the self of us all and is hence ever present to us in all our cognitions”.15

The Individual Self is the Brahm an :

z' ^

According to Samkara Brahman is the Self o f us all. There is no ontological

difference between the individual self and Brahman. Their difference is empirical

15. HIP, Vol. I, pp. 437-438.

due to the limiting adjuncts o f body, senses, Manas and Buddhi produced by
nescience. The purity of indeterminate. Brahman is the real nature of the empirical
self whose enjoyments, sufferings and the like are its accidental nature due to its
limiting adjuncts. Brahman is present everywhere in the form of the soul. As
rightly stated by Dasgupta, so long as we are in our ordinaty walking life, we are
!

identifying the self with thousands o f illusory things with all that we can call “1” or
mine, but when in dreamless sleep we are absolutely without any touch of these
phenomenal notions the nature o f our true state a pure blessedness is partially
realized. The individual self as it appears is but an appearance only, while the real
truth is the true self which is one for all, as pure intelligence, pure blessedness and
pure being.16
According to Jadunath Sinha, “Brahman is the only ontological reality. It is
supreme, perfect, absolute reality. The existence of Brahman is proved as the self of
all beings. Everyone knows the existence o f his own self. The existence of the self
(Atman) which is self existent and self-proved, proves the existence of Brahman.
The Atman is the ontological reality in the empirical self It is the foundational
consciousness, which is the transcendental ground o f the empirical self and which is
the '."'"r.-.ccnfjent'td ~~n-;nd empirical self and which is the transcendental
ground of the empirical universe. The Atman is Brahman. There is one eternal
universal consciousness which is the only ontological reality. Samkara give this

16. Ibid., VoI.I, p. 438.

 52

17
ontological proof for the existence of Brahman”.

Relation of Brahman with External World

According to the Taitiriyopanisad that from which all the physical world has

been bom, that from which all born living things, live and to which all these return,

that alone is Brahman. Brahman is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world.

He is infinite, omnipotent. He is the substratum of all die physical universe. But

Samkara explains that the world is only die reflexion o f Brahman. It is not the

creation or effect of Brahman. This reflexion does not effect Brahman, ft is due to

ignorance that the Brahman is seen as the world o f many names and forms, in fact,

the whole world is Brahman itself.

Dasgupta states that, “Brahman, the self is at once the material cause

(Upadana-karana) •as well as the efficient cause (Nimitta-Karana) o f the world.

There is no difference between the cause and the effect, and the effect is but an

illusory imposition on the cause - a mere illusion o f name and form. We may

mould clay into plates and jugs and call them by so many different names, but

cannot be admitted that they are by that fact anything more than clay; their

transformations as plates and jugs are only appearances o f names and form

(Namarupa). This world is as-much as it is but an effect imposed upon the

Brahman, is only phenomenally existent (Vyavaharika) as mere objects o f name and

17. OIP, p.380.

 53

form (N am arupa), but the cause, the Brahm an is alone the h u e reality

(Param arthika).18

A ccording to Radhakrishnan “A dvaita holds that the w orld is not other than

Brahm an. Sariikara distinguishes betw een the scientific principle o f causality

(K aryakaranatva) and the philosophical principle o f non-difference (Ananyatva).

B rahm an and the world are non-different and so the question o f the relation

betw een the tw o is an inadm issible one. T he w orld has its basis in Brahm an. B ut

Brahman is and is not identical w ith the world. It is because the w orld is not a part

from Brahm an; it is not, because B rahm an is not subject to the m utation o f the

world. B rahm an is not the sum o f the things o f the world. I f w e separate B rahm an

and the world, w e cannot bind th em except loosely, artificially and externally.
j
B rahm an and the w orld are one and exist as reality and appearance,, the finite is the
i

infinite, hidden from our view through certain barriers. T he w orld is B rahm an since,

i f B rahm an is known, all questions o f the w orld disappear. T hese questions arise

sim ply because the finite m ind view s the w orld o f experience as a reality in and by

itself. I f w e know the nature o f the absolute, all finite form s and lim its fall away.

The w orld is M aya, since it is n ot the essential truth o f the infinite reality o f

B rahm an.19

18. HIP, pp. 438-439.

19. IP, Vol, il, p.566.

 54

Samkara always tried to give systematic testimony to prove the existence of

Brahman. They arc as follows :

(1) Samkara hasdeveloped his philosophy on the basis of the Upanisads, Gita and

the Brahmasutra. The great sentences like “I am Brahman”20, “all is Brahman”21

etc. are found in these scriptures. So, these scriptures are the greatest proof to admit
,s

Brahman as the ultimate truth.

(2) Brahman is the substratum o f the Universe. The word Brahman is derived

from the root Brh. VBrs means evolution. So literally the word means ail

transcending existence. Samkara thus proves the existence o f Brahman by this

literal meaning.

(3) According to Samkara Brahman is the self o f us all. So Brahman is known to

all o f us. As everyone feels the existence o f his own self, so no one is ignorant o f it.

(4) The world is very systematic. So it’s origin cannot be admitted as material. It

must have a conscious cause. And that cause is the Brahman.

Thus Samkara tried to establish the existence o f Brahman. According to him

the Brahman is self existent and self-evident. It alone has an objective existence.

The empirical self (Jfva), the phenomenal world o f differences and the Lord (T/vara)

who creates, sustains and finally dissolves it into Himself have no objective reality.

As their existence is based on ignorance, they are ultimately unreal. They are

20. aluuh brahmasmi - Cha.Up, 1.4.10.

21. Sarvarh khalvidam brahma - Ibid, III. 14.1.
 55

merely imagined to exist in Brahman. Only by the perfect knowledge of Brahman

one can get the liberation from ignorance.

According to C.D. Sarma, “Brahman is devoid o f all characteristics. It

cannot be defined as mere existence and not as consciousness, for the Sastra says

that it is all consciousness (Vijnanaghana); nor it can be defined as mere

consciousness and not as existence, for the Shastra says : ‘it is, nor can it be defined

as both existence and consciousness, for to admit that Brahman is characterized by

existence different from consciousness or by consciousness different from

existence, is to admit duality in Brahman nor can it be defined as characterized by

existence non-different from consciousness, for if existence is consciousness and

consciousness is existence why should there be any controversy at all whether

Brahman is existence or consciousness of both ? Again to say that Reality exists

but is not knowii is a contradiction in terms, for at least Reality is known as

unknowable by intellect. It is like saying that ‘coloured objects exist, but there is no

eye to see them’. Reality therefore, must exist for us and it is only Pure

consciousness that can ultimately exist. We cannot know it by finite intellect but

we can realize it directly through Pure intuition. It is non-dual consciousness,

where all distinctions, all plurality, all determinations, all qualities, all charac­

teristics, all categories and all concepts are transcended. All determinations of

language and intellect are merged in this indeterminate unqualified Reality. Being

and non being, one and many, qualified and unqualified, knowledge and ignorance,

action and inaction, active and inactive, fruitful and fruitless, seedful and seedless,
 56

pleasure and pain, and not middle Shunya and Ashunj/a, sou l and God, unity and

plurality etc. etc. ,-all these determinations do not apply to the Absolute. Me who

wants to grasp the Absolute by any o f these determinations, indeed tries to roll up

the sky like a skin or tries to ascend space like a stair-case or wishes to see the

footprints of fish in water or of birds in the sky .” 22

Realization of Brahman is called Brahmanubhava. It is the direct realization

of one’s own self in its real nature. Sarftkara explains that it is not so, but

objectively true. Brahmanubhava is timeless and uncaused, for it is of the nature of

✓ #
Brahman and Brahman is eternal and uncaused. Samkara describes Brahmanubhava

as pure knowledge and pure bliss, not smitten with suffering like sense perception,

but supremely good, unique, spontaneous and homogeneous. Brahmanubhava is an

experience. Here subject-object duality is completely absent. Samkara uses the

word ‘knowledge’ (Jnana) to express Brahmanubhava. The word Jnana here

signifies the abstract sense. It is the basis of all empirical knowledge. This is the

direct experience. It is known as ‘liberation’ from the standpoint o f an individual

self. Brahmanubhava or Moksa is the highest end and the supreme consummation

of human life. The fruit of the knowledge o f Brahman is purely inward and
✓ #
supremely unique. Samkara says that as a matter of fact everyone becomes one

with Brahman in deep sleep and at the time of death and in ultimate dissolution of

the world.

22. CSIP, pp. 284-285.

 57

About this Brahmanubhava Radhakrisnan says “Brahmlnubhava gives the

' t 1 ,
I

highest insight into Brahman, and he who has it answers every questions o f the

nature o f Brahman by silence or negative marks. Vidya gives the highest positive

! . 1
conceptual account of Brahman >by equating it with the attributes of being
j ; ;
consciousness and bliss, which are self-sufficient.! Avidya or lower knowledge

applies attributes which imply relation such as creatorship and rulcrship of the

universe.”23

In this collection C.D. Sarnia also rightly says, Absolute can be realized

through knowledge and knowledge alone; Karma and Upasana are subsidiary.

They may help us in urging us to know Reality and they may prepare us for that

knowledge by purifying our mind (Sattasuddhi), but ultimately it is knowledge

alone which by destroying ignorance, the root cause o f this world can enable us to

be one with the absolute. The opposition o f knowledge and action stands firm like

a mountain. They are contradictory (Vipaffta) and are poles apart (Durameta).

Those who talk of combing knowledge with action, says ^amkara, have perhaps

not rend the Brhiulmanyaka nor are they aware o f the glaring contradiction

repeatedly pointing out by (ho Nruti and tho Siurti. Knowledge and notion are

opposed like light and darkness. Actions are prescribed for those who are still in

ignorance and not for those who are enlightened. Knowledge only removes

ignorance and then reality shines forth by itself. A liberated sage, however,

23. IP, Vol. H, pp. 539-540.

 58

performs action without any attachment and works for the uplift o f humanity.

Samkara’s own life hears ample witness to this fact.24

In fact Brahman is indescribable. Therefore, Upanisads have described it by

calling “Neti Neti’. Here indescribable means it cannot be described in the

pragmatic language, because it is beyond the senses, mind and intellect. But it is

not unknowable. Because Brahman can be realized. He is the knower, the light of

the lights. The conscious light and the soul of all. We can here compare Him with

the Sun. As the Sun illumines not only itself, but also everything in this universe,

thus the Brahman also illumines himself and everything else. Brahman is beyond

pleasure, pain, attachment, aversion, good and evil He is infinite. In him there is

no change or evolution. He is immutable. He is beyond the desire and purposes.

In Brahmasutra Bhasya it is said, “Brahman is experienced in two aspects - one is

i 1 s
i ,
held with limiting conjoint, composed by universal diversities, which comprise
I * <
i
i , - ,
I

with name and form. And the other is destitute with restricting factors and averse
I • '

to the earlier aspects. Though Brahman is one and the same, it is preached in the
i
Upanisads. It should be meditated o r fully known, respectively either with or with-
f * | ! .

out the help o f its connection with the conditioning fetors.”25

i ■ - ,
According to C.D. Sarma “If a man does not understand that he is a man,

when he is told that he is not a non-man, how can he be able to understand, then, if

he is told that he is a man ? The two ‘N o’es in the formula ‘Neti’ ‘Neti’ are meant

24. CS1P, p.286.

25. BSB, 1.1.12.
 59

lor emphasizing the fact that whatever can be presented as an object is ultimately

unreal. They cover the entire Held of objective. Existence and point out that it is not

real. There is no batter way of describing the Absolute than this negative method.

But it should be never missed that all these negations pre-suppose and point

towards the positive Brahman. The Absolute can be unknowable only for those

who are ignorant of the Vedanta tradition, who do not know the means of right

knowledge and who desperately cling to the world. True, the Absolute cannot be

known as an object by the intellect. But being the only Reality and being always

present and so not at all foreign, it is directly realized through spiritual experience
r

(Samyagjnana). The phrase ’Neti Neti’ negates all characteristics o f Brahman, but

it does noj negate Brahman itself., It implies that there is something about which

something; is denied. Appearances can be negated only with reference to Reality.

Effects alone can be negated, for they are unreal. But the, cause, the Brahman,

cannot be negated, for it is the ultimate ground on which all effects or phenomena

superposed.”26 . >.; , | .

Brajiman is not an active agent. Since it is eternal. It is eternally fulfilled. It

, is devoid o f merits and demerits. Therefore, it is not an experiencer o f , joy and

i * 1

sorrow. It is essentially blissful, as' it is finite.’ He is eternal and transcendental bliss.

Finite creatures feel empirical joy, due to nescience. When the nescience is

destroyed, the distinction o f subject and object vanishes and the Atman or Brahman

26. CSIP, p. 285.

 60

shines forth in its essential nature. Brahman is also eternally accomplished being.

So It does not increase, decrease, grow, develop or change.

Samkara does not make distinction between metaphysical and the epistemo-

logical reality. According to him Brahmanhood is the liberation. Samkara has

i ,
i ’ i

described Brahman, liberation and soul in the same terms. As a matter o f fact, all

these are one and the same. There are no distinctions o f Brahman. There is no
\ ' !
distinction o f the knower, knowledge and known in it, nor any distinction o f the
i ,

walking, dreaming and sleeping, consciousness, unconsciousness and subconscious­

ness etc. Brahman is beyond the world o f name and form. It has neither appear­

ance, nor disappearance. According to Samkara Brahman is not negation Brahman

is existent. Brahman is also impersonal. He is beyond personality. So, Brahman is

beyond pleasure, pain, attachment, aversion, good and evil. In Him there is no

change evolution. He is therefore, immutable. He is beyond desire and purposes.

According to Samkara, the intrinsic nature o f Brahman is pure existence

(Sanmatram), truth (Satyam), pure knowledge (Jnanam), infinitude (Anantam) and

pure bliss (Anandam). These are like the heat o f the fire. These are not the

attribute or qualities of Brahman, ,but the very nature of I t Brahman is pure

existence. It is the ultimate ground of everything. Brahman is also the ultimate

limit o f all negation. Negation is possible only when something that cannot be

negated is considered to exist ultimately. And also the very process o f negation

presupposes something whose existence cannot be refuted. Brahman is the truth,

pure knowledge and pure existence. That is why it cannot be unreal. Brahman is
 6 1

a lso p u re a w a re n e s s (S u d d h a -c a ita n y a ). It c a n n o t b e in s e n tie n t m a tte r, f o r m a tte r is

n o t k n o w n to e x is t fo r its e lf. I t is k n o w n to e x is t b e c a u s e o f c o n s c io u s n e s s .

B r a h m a n is n o t th e k n o w le d g e o f s o m e th in g o r o f s o m e o n e , b u t k n o w le d g e o f
! i ' ■ 1 ,

I I ’

its e lf, w h ic h is in fin ite . B r a h m a n is p u re b lis s . It is th e n e g a tio n o f a ll s u ffe r in g an d

m is e ry .
I
T h is b lis s
i
is n o t th e b lis s .w h ich is e n jo y e d . T h e b lis s w h ic h is e n jo y e d is

m o rta l, lim ite d a n d tra n sito ry . B u t p u re b lis s is fr e e fr o m lim ita tio n s . I t is e te rn a l

a n d p e r fe c t. , 1
' • j
| ; i
T h e | B r a h m a n th u s d e fin e d a s tru th ,, k n o w le d g e , b lis s e t c .,; is n o t th e r e a l

: 1 ! i/. i
1B r a h m a n o r B r a h m a n in its e lf. T h e s e a r e b u t th e c a te g o r ie s o f h u m a n u n d e r-

i
sta n d in g w h ic h a r e su p e rim p o se d o n it. S a m k a r a s a y s th a t B r a h m a n is s a id to b e
i :

tru th , k n o w le d g e a n d n o n -d u a l o n ly fr o m th e sta n d p o in t o f d u a lity , fo r t h e real

!

B r a h m a n n o th in g c a n b e sa id . In o th e r w o rd s , t h e d e s c r ip tio n o f re a lity in te r m s o f

k n o w le d g e , tru th e t c . is p o s s ib le fr o m th e s ta n d p o in t o f e m p ir ic a l s e l f o n ly , and

h c n c c its v a lid ity a n d m e a n in g o f fu lln e s s a r e c o n fin e d to th a t sta n d p o in t o n ly .

B e fo re it d ire c tly re a liz e d s o m e th in g p o s itiv e sh o u ld b e s a id a b o u t B r a h m a n ,

o th e rw is e n o -o n e c a n e v e r k n o w w h a t B r a h m a n is . B u t n o p o s itiv e d e fin itio n o f

B r a h m a n is a ll-in c lu s iv e a n d fr e e fro m d u ality .

T h e r e fo r e , it is tru e th a t B r a h m a n is u n k n o w a b le a n d in d e s c r ib a b le . N o th in g

c a n b e a ffirm e d o f it in p o s itiv e te r m s ; an d w h a te v e r th a t ca n b e k n o w n an d

d e s c rib e d in p o s itiv e te rm s is n o t B r a h m a n . T h e o n ly w a y to d e s c r ib e . It is to

n e g a te e v e ry p o s s ib le c o n c e p tio n o f It o r a ll th a t is s u p e rim p o se d on it, s o th at o n e

m ay com e to know It d ire c tly as th e su b stra tu m on w h ic h e v e ry th in g is

 {,2

superimposed. Similarly there can be no objective knowledge of It, for being the

basis of all the means of knowledge, including the scripture, It is beyond their
/
comprehension. Samkara says that those who think that they know Brahman, do

not really know It, for it is impossible and that It is known to those who have

realized the impossibility of Its being known as an object. This shows that

Brahman is beyond the comprehension of human understanding, and that it can be

known only when human understanding is completely withdrawn from its attempt

to know Brahman. But this does not mean that it is impossible to know Brahman in

any way, for it is known directly by being It; and that is the only way of knowing

what Brahman in itself is. In accepting the scripture as the only source of Brahman

as knowledge , Samkara never thinks, that Brahman is an object of scriptural

knowledge, or the scripture can present Brahman in positive terms as if It is there as

an object. T h e’only purpose which it serves, according to him, is to dispel

ignorance, because of which the self-evident reality of Brahman is veiled as it

were. With the removal of ignorance, Brahman which is by nature self-revealed, as

it were. All this clearly shows that Brahman is known not through any effort on the

part of man, but because of its very nature. Effort is required only to discovered

that fact which is seemingly veiled by ignorance. It is known when man, realizing

the utter incapacity of his understanding to reach Brahman, withdraws it or makes

it completely passive. Thus in a sense Brahmanubhava is given or received, for it is

there already, and man has only to discover it. It is not in any sense got by human

effort.