43
no systematic treatises of a single hand, but are rather collations or compilations of floating monologues, dialogues or anecdotes.
There are no doubt here and there simple discussions but there is no pedantry or gymnastics of logic. Even the most casual reader cannot but be struck with the earnestness and enthusiasm of the sages. They run from place to place with great eagerness in search of a teacher competent to instruct them about the nature of Brahman. Where is Brahman? What is his nature?
We have noticed that during the closing period of the [email protected] there were people who had risen to the conception of a single creator and controller of the universe, variously called Praj.a.pati, Vis"vakarman, [email protected], [email protected] and Brahman. But this divine controller was yet only a deity. The search as to the nature of this deity began in the [email protected] Many visible objects of nature such as the sun or the wind on one hand and the various psychological functions in man were tried, but none could render satisfaction to the great ideal that had been aroused. The sages in the [email protected] had already started with the idea that there was a supreme controller or essence presiding over man and the universe. But what was its nature? Could it be identified with any of the deities of Nature, was it a new deity or was it no deity at all? The [email protected] present to us the history of this quest and the results that were achieved.
When we look merely to this quest we find that we have not yet gone out of the [email protected] ideas and of symbolic (_pratika_) forms of worship. [email protected]_ (vital breath) was regarded as the most essential function for the life of man, and many anecdotes are related to show that it is superior to the other organs, such as the eye or ear, and that on it all other functions depend. This recognition of the superiority of [email protected] brings us to the meditations on [email protected] as Brahman as leading to the most beneficial results.
So also we find that owing to the presence of the exalting characters of omnipresence and eternality _akas"a_ (s.p.a.ce) is meditated upon as Brahman. So also manas and aditya (sun) are meditated upon as Brahman. Again side by side with the visible material representation of Brahman as the pervading Vayu, or the sun and the immaterial representation as akas"a, manas or [email protected], we find also the various kinds of meditations as subst.i.tutes for actual sacrifice. Thus it is that there was an earnest quest after the discovery of Brahman. We find a stratum of thought
44
which shows that the sages were still blinded by the old ritualistic a.s.sociations, and though meditation had taken the place of sacrifice yet this was hardly adequate for the highest attainment of Brahman.
Next to the failure of the meditations we have to notice the history of the search after Brahman in which the sages sought to identify Brahman with the presiding deity of the sun, moon, lightning, ether, wind, fire, water, etc., and failed; for none of these could satisfy the ideal they cherished of Brahman. It is indeed needless here to multiply these examples, for they are tiresome not only in this summary treatment but in the original as well. They are of value only in this that they indicate how toilsome was the process by which the old ritualistic a.s.sociations could be got rid of; what struggles and failures the sages had to undergo before they reached a knowledge of the true nature of Brahman.
Unknowability of Brahman and the Negative Method.
It is indeed true that the magical element involved in the discharge of sacrificial duties lingered for a while in the symbolic worship of Brahman in which He was conceived almost as a deity.
The minds of the Vedic poets so long accustomed to worship deities of visible manifestation could not easily dispense with the idea of seeking after a positive and definite content of Brahman.
They tried some of the sublime powers of nature and also many symbols, but these could not render ultimate satisfaction. They did not know what the Brahman was like, for they had only a dim and dreamy vision of it in the deep craving of their souls which could not be translated into permanent terms. But this was enough to lead them on to the goal, for they could not be satisfied with anything short of the highest.
They found that by whatever means they tried to give a positive and definite content of the ultimate reality, the Brahman, they failed. Positive definitions were impossible. They could not point out what the Brahman was like in order to give an utterance to that which was unutterable, they could only say that it was not like aught that we find in experience. Yajnavalkya said "He the atman is not this, nor this (_neti neti_). He is inconceivable, for he cannot be conceived, unchangeable, for he is not changed, untouched, for nothing touches him; he cannot suffer by a stroke
45
of the sword, he cannot suffer any injury [Footnote ref 1]." He is _asat_, non-being, for the being which Brahman is, is not to be understood as such being as is known to us by experience; yet he is being, for he alone is supremely real, for the universe subsists by him. We ourselves are but he, and yet we know not what he is. Whatever we can experience, whatever we can express, is limited, but he is the unlimited, the basis of all. "That which is inaudible, intangible, invisible, indestructible, which cannot be tasted, nor smelt, eternal, without beginning or end, greater than the great (_mahat_), the fixed.
He who knows it is released from the jaws of death [Footnote ref 2]."
s.p.a.ce, time and causality do not appertain to him, for he at once forms their essence and transcends them. He is the infinite and the vast, yet the smallest of the small, at once here as there, there as here; no characterisation of him is possible, otherwise than by the denial to him of all empirical attributes, relations and definitions. He is independent of all limitations of s.p.a.ce, time, and cause which rules all that is objectively presented, and therefore the empirical universe. When Bahva was questioned by [email protected], he expounded the nature of Brahman to him by maintaining silence--"Teach me," said [email protected], "most reverent sir, the nature of Brahman."
Bahva however remained silent. But when the question was put forth a second or third time he answered, "I teach you indeed but you do not understand; the atman is silence [Footnote ref 3]." The way to indicate it is thus by _neti neti_, it is not this, it is not this.
We cannot describe it by any positive content which is always limited by conceptual thought.
The atman doctrine.
The sum and substance of the [email protected] teaching is involved in the equation atman=Brahman. We have already seen that the word atman was used in the @Rg-Veda to denote on the one hand the ultimate essence of the universe, and on the other the vital breath in man. Later on in the [email protected] we see that the word Brahman is generally used in the former sense, while the word atman is reserved to denote the inmost essence in man, and the
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: [email protected] IV. 5. 15. Deussen, Max Muller and Roer have all misinterpreted this pa.s.sage; _asito_ has been interpreted as an adjective or participle, though no evidence has ever been adduced; it is evidently the ablative of _asi_, a sword.]
[Footnote 2: [email protected] III. 15.]
[Footnote 3: [email protected] on _Brahmasutra_, III. 2. 17, and also Deussen, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, p. 156.]
46
[email protected] are emphatic in their declaration that the two are one and the same. But what is the inmost essence of man? The self of man involves an ambiguity, as it is used in a variety of senses.
Thus so far as man consists of the essence of food (i.e. the physical parts of man) he is called _annamaya_. But behind the sheath of this body there is the other self consisting of the vital breath which is called the self as vital breath ([email protected] atman_).
Behind this again there is the other self "consisting of will" called the _manomaya atman_. This again contains within it the self "consisting of consciousness" called the _vijnanamaya atman_. But behind it we come to the final essence the self as pure bliss (the _anandamaya atman_). The texts say: "Truly he is the rapture; for whoever gets this rapture becomes blissful. For who could live, who could breathe if this s.p.a.ce (_akas"a_) was not bliss? For it is he who behaves as bliss. For whoever in that Invisible, Self-surpa.s.sing, Unspeakable, Supportless finds fearless support, he really becomes fearless. But whoever finds even a slight difference, between himself and this atman there is fear for him [Footnote ref 1]."
Again in another place we find that Praj.a.pati said: "The self (_atman_) which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, whose desires are true, whose cogitations are true, that is to be searched for, that is to be enquired; he gets all his desires and all worlds who knows that self [Footnote ref 2]." The G.o.ds and the demons on hearing of this sent Indra and Virocana respectively as their representatives to enquire of this self from Praj.a.pati. He agreed to teach them, and asked them to look into a vessel of water and tell him how much of self they could find. They answered: "We see, this our whole self, even to the hair, and to the nails." And he said, "Well, that is the self, that is the deathless and the fearless, that is the Brahman." They went away pleased, but Praj.a.pati thought, "There they go away, without having discovered, without having realized the self."
Virocana came away with the conviction that the body was the self; but Indra did not return back to the G.o.ds, he was afraid and pestered with doubts and came back to Praj.a.pati and said, "just as the self becomes decorated when the body is decorated, well-dressed when the body is well-dressed, well-cleaned when the body is well-cleaned, even so that image self will be blind when the body is blind, injured in one eye when the body is injured in one eye, and mutilated when the body is mutilated, and it perishes
_
[Footnote 1: Taitt. II. 7.]
[Footnote 2: Cha. VIII. 7. 1.]
47
when the body perishes, therefore I can see no good in this theory."
Praj.a.pati then gave him a higher instruction about the self, and said, "He who goes about enjoying dreams, he is the self, this is the deathless, the fearless, this is Brahman." Indra departed but was again disturbed with doubts, and was afraid and came back and said "that though the dream self does not become blind when the body is blind, or injured in one eye when the body is so injured and is not affected by its defects, and is not killed by its destruction, but yet it is as if it was overwhelmed, as if it suffered and as if it wept--in this I see no good." Praj.a.pati gave a still higher instruction: "When a man, fast asleep, in total contentment, does not know any dreams, this is the self, this is the deathless, the fearless, this is Brahman." Indra departed but was again filled with doubts on the way, and returned again and said "the self in deep sleep does not know himself, that I am this, nor does he know any other existing objects. He is destroyed and lost.
I see no good in this." And now Praj.a.pati after having given a course of successively higher instructions as self as the body, as the self in dreams and as the self in deep dreamless sleep, and having found that the enquirer in each case could find out that this was not the ultimate truth about the self that he was seeking, ultimately gave him the ultimate and final instruction about the full truth about the self, and said "this body is the support of the deathless and the bodiless self. The self as embodied is affected by pleasure and pain, the self when a.s.sociated with the body cannot get rid of pleasure and pain, but pleasure and pain do not touch the bodiless self [Footnote ref 1]."
As the anecdote shows, they sought such a constant and unchangeable essence in man as was beyond the limits of any change.
This inmost essence has sometimes been described as pure subject-object-less consciousness, the reality, and the bliss. He is the seer of all seeing, the hearer of all hearing and the knower of all knowledge. He sees but is not seen, hears but is not heard, knows but is not known. He is the light of all lights. He is like a lump of salt, with no inner or outer, which consists through and through entirely of savour; as in truth this atman has no inner or outer, but consists through and through entirely of knowledge. Bliss is not an attribute of it but it is bliss itself. The state of Brahman is thus likened unto the state of dreamless sleep. And he who has reached this bliss is beyond any fear. It is dearer to us than
[Footnote 1: Cha. VIII. 7-12.]
48
son, brother, wife, or husband, wealth or prosperity. It is for it and by it that things appear dear to us. It is the dearest _par excellence_, our inmost atman. All limitation is fraught with pain; it is the infinite alone that is the highest bliss. When a man receives this rapture, then is he full of bliss; for who could breathe, who live, if that bliss had not filled this void (_akas"a_)? It is he who behaves as bliss. For when a man finds his peace, his fearless support in that invisible, supportless, inexpressible, unspeakable one, then has he attained peace.
Place of Brahman in the [email protected]
There is the atman not in man alone but in all objects of the universe, the sun, the moon, the world; and Brahman is this atman.
There is nothing outside the atman, and therefore there is no plurality at all. As from a lump of clay all that is made of clay is known, as from an ingot of black iron all that is made of black iron is known, so when this atman the Brahman is known everything else is known. The essence in man and the essence of the universe are one and the same, and it is Brahman.
Now a question may arise as to what may be called the nature of the phenomenal world of colour, sound, taste, and smell. But we must also remember that the [email protected] do not represent so much a conceptional system of philosophy as visions of the seers who are possessed by the spirit of this Brahman. They do not notice even the contradiction between the Brahman as unity and nature in its diversity. When the empirical aspect of diversity attracts their notice, they affirm it and yet declare that it is all Brahman. From Brahman it has come forth and to it will it return. He has himself created it out of himself and then entered into it as its inner controller (_antaryamin_). Here is thus a glaring dualistic trait of the world of matter and Brahman as its controller, though in other places we find it a.s.serted most emphatically that these are but names and forms, and when Brahman is known everything else is known. No attempts at reconciliation are made for the sake of the consistency of conceptual utterance, as [email protected] the great professor of Vedanta does by explaining away the dualistic texts. The universe is said to be a reality, but the real in it is Brahman alone. It is on account of Brahman that the fire burns and the wind blows. He is the active principle in the entire universe, and yet the most pa.s.sive and unmoved. The
49
world is his body, yet he is the soul within. "He creates all, wills all, smells all, tastes all, he has pervaded all, silent and unaffected [Footnote ref 1]." He is below, above, in the back, in front, in the south and in the north, he is all this [Footnote ref 2]." These rivers in the east and in the west originating from the ocean, return back into it and become the ocean themselves, though they do not know that they are so. So also all these people coming into being from the Being do not know that they have come from the Being...That which is the subtlest that is the self, that is all this, the truth, that self thou art O S"vetaketu [Footnote ref 3]." "Brahman," as Deussen points out, "was regarded as the cause antecedent in time, and the universe as the effect proceeding from it; the inner dependence of the universe on Brahman and its essential ident.i.ty with him was represented as a creation of the universe by and out of Brahman."
Thus it is said in Mund. I.I. 7:
As a spider ejects and retracts (the threads), As the plants shoot forth on the earth, As the hairs on the head and body of the living man, So from the imperishable all that is here.
As the sparks from the well-kindled fire, In nature akin to it, spring forth in their thousands, So, my dear sir, from the imperishable Living beings of many kinds go forth, And again return into him [Footnote ref 4].
Yet this world principle is the dearest to us and the highest teaching of the [email protected] is "That art thou."
Again the growth of the doctrine that Brahman is the "inner controller" in all the parts and forces of nature and of mankind as the atman thereof, and that all the effects of the universe are the result of his commands which no one can outstep, gave rise to a theistic current of thought in which Brahman is held as standing aloof as G.o.d and controlling the world. It is by his ordaining, it is said, that the sun and moon are held together, and the sky and earth stand held together [Footnote ref 5]. G.o.d and soul are distinguished again in the famous verse of S"vetas"vatara [Footnote ref 6]:
Two bright-feathered bosom friends Flit around one and the same tree; One of them tastes the sweet berries, The other without eating merely gazes down.