Chapter IX - Who Attains Brahman?

The purpose of the sequel.

Arguments for the existence of Brahman have been clearly stated.^[1] The śruti now proceeds to answer the questions “Whether does any one who knows not, departing, go to that region? Or does any one who knows, departing, attain that region?” It is indeed the man of wisdom that reaches Brahman, in whom there is no fear, but who is the source of fear; for, the tamas, the darkness of ignorance, is the only obstacle to the attainment of Brahman; and certainly there exists no other obstacle. Whatever obstacle there may exist, it is caused solely by avidyā, and therefore avidyā alone prevents the attainment of liberation (mokṣa). Though the True Self within is the witness of avidyā, i.e., though Avidyā itself exists to us only as witnessed by the True Self within, whose light ever shines and never sets, still He is screened by avidyā; and this is due to the power of avidyā. The question as to why the ignorant one does not attain Brahman who is present in both the wise and the ignorant alike would arise only if it be held that Brahman could be attained without knowledge: but no such question could arise when we hold that knowledge alone leads to the attainment of Brahman, by removing avidyā, the cause of saṃsāra. We do not indeed deny that Brahman, who is the Self of all and is therefore present in the ignorant as well as the wise, is in fact attained as such by both alike. We have already said^[2] that, inasmuch as Brahman is the very Self of all, knowledge leads to the attainment of Brahman—who in Himself is ever present in us—by way of removing ignorance (avidyā). Accordingly the śruti now tries, in the following passage, to prove with great assiduity this truth, that it is the wise man, not the ignorant one, who attains Brahman.—(S).

The question as regards the ignorant man attaining or not attaining Brahman, though first in order, is for the moment set aside inasmuch as there is much to be said about it. The śruti first removes the doubt as to the wise man’s attainment of Brahman.

Even as the cause of the ignorant man’s fear and the wise man’s fearlessness, Brahman exists. It is only by resorting to an existing being that one can attain fearlessness. Cessation of fear cannot accrue from resort to a non-existent being.—How is Brahman the cause of fearlessness?—The śruti proceeds to answer:

 

True knowledge leads to fearlessness.

यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयनेऽभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दते । अथ सोऽभयं गतो भवति ॥ ४ ॥

yadā hyevaiṣa etasminnadṛśye'nātmye'nirukte'nilayane'bhayaṃ pratiṣṭhāṃ vindate | atha so'bhayaṃ gato bhavati || 4 ||

4. When in truth this (soul) gains fearless support in Him who is invisible, selfless, undefined, non-abode, then has he the Fearless reached.

When the aspirant finds his support in Brahman without fearing, i.e., when he finds that Brahman is his own Self, then, he attains fearlessness, inasmuch as he perceives in Him no duality^[3] generated by avidyā, the cause of all fear.

 

Brahman’s real nature.

(Question):—Of what nature is Brahman?

(Answer):—He is invisible, &c....

Invisible: Visible means what is capable of perception, i.e., a phenomenon (vikāra); every phenomenon subserves perception. Brahman is not visible, i.e., He is not a phenomenon, no object of perception. Self-less: formless, having no body. Because Brahman is invisible, He is formless. Because He is selfless, He is undefined. It is only a viśeṣa, a specific or particular thing, that can be defined; and every particular is a phenomenon (vikāra). But Brahman is not a phenomenon, because He is the source of all phenomena. Whence He is undefined. Because such is Brahman, He is the non-abode. He is no abode or substratum of attributes. This is tantamount to saying that Brahman is devoid of all attributes of the objects of creation.

According to the common usage, perception means the consciousness of objects obtained through any of the senses; and in interpreting the scripture we are to understand its words in accordance with their common usage. The visible or perceptible is a thing which possesses individuality; for, an individual or particular object alone can be an object of perception. Neither the Eternal Consciousness nor mere negation (abhāva) can be an object of perception. Brahman has nothing that is perceptible in Him and is therefore invisible. Self (in ‘selfless’) means what can be imagined to have self-existence, i.e., the universal (sāmānya) running through the particulars which are perceptible. Having no existence in itself, it exists to us only through the particulars. Selfless therefore means devoid of universal.—(S).

Or,—the visible or perceptible means the universe we perceive in the waking state—which is usually regarded as the perceptible,—the physical body, the Annamaya-kośa, the Virāj, the universe composed of the physical compounded or quintupled matter. The self in (self-less) refers to the Prāṇamaya, Manomaya, and Vijñanamaya kośas, which are all subservient to the Self; that is, it refers to the subtle body, the Sūtrātman, the universe composed of subtle, uncompounded, or unquintupled matter. Then remains the fifth one, the Ānandamaya-kośa, the repository of the experiences resulting from the other kośas, the jiva, the semblance of the One Consciousness, and this is here spoken of as defined. Brahman the Supreme is undefined, transcending the Ānandamaya, beyond the cause and the effect, the Pure Consciousness, referred to by the word ‘Thou’ in ‘That, Thou art.’—(S).

The abode means the unknown, the cause of the five sheaths, wherein the universe is merged (at pralaya) and whence the submerged universe come into being (at the time of creation). The non-abode means Brahman beyond the Cause, referred to by the word ‘That,’ the One who is Eternal, Pure, Intelligent and Free, and identical with the one referred to by ‘Thou.’—(S).

Or, these negative epithets such as ‘invisible’ are meant to deny what has been above spoken of as ‘the being and the beyond,’ and so on. It was said that Brahman became ‘the being and the beyond’; and from this one may suppose that the universe actually exists in Brahman. The removal here of this idea which is uppermost in the mind of the student is quite in its proper place. The two categories, namely, forms and the formless, have been spoken of as ‘the being and the beyond,’and so on; and it is the denial of these that is here meant, inasmuch as the śruti elsewhere makes the same denials. In this case we should understand ‘abode’ as meaning—not the Primary Cause, but—the antaḥ-karaṇa, the abode of all tendencies (vāsanās), inasmuch as the denial of the Primary Cause is included in the denial of ‘the formless.’ Thus, these being denied, one can directly see what is Brahman’s real nature.—(S).

I'or a firm knowledge of the Self it will not do merely to get an idea of what the Self is in Himself. The mind (buddhi) being drawn away from the Self when it is engrossed in the being and the non-being—in the not-self, in the objects of the external world, in causes and effects— the śruti denies the being and the non-being and thereby diverts the mind from them and causes it to dwell firmly in the Inner Self.—(S).

 

Brahman is the Self.

By denying the visible, the śruti means to teach that the Inner Self is one with Brahman, that Brahman is no other than the Self. How can anything other than the Self be absolutely real? Neither negation nor an illusory phenomenon is conceivable except through association with the Absolute Reality, the Immutable Eternal Consciousness—(S).

Brahman here described as invisible is in reality identical with the Self. It is because of this identity, that the śruti which starts with the words “The Knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme,” concludes^[4] with the words “when this soul gains his support in Brahman” etc. When a man intuitively perceives Brahman who is beyond perception, etc., ī. e,, when one realises the identity of the Self and Brahman by direct intuition “I am Brahman,” then, at that very moment, he is free from avidyā and attains the Supreme, the Fearless. The words “gains his support” shew that this passage refers to Brahman, who has been described as “Brahman, the tail, the support”—(S).

The four epithets beginning with ‘invisible’ qualify Brahman. He is invisible, cannot be reached by the senses. As having no specific marks He is unknowable through inference. Though the three bodies are the specific mark of jiva, as creatorship is of the īśvara, there are no specific mark or marks through which the real nature of Brahman transcending the universe can be inferred. Brahman cannot be fully described. There is no word that can denote the real nature of Brahman. Thus, Brahman cannot be reached through perception, inference and revelation. Brahman is therefore of a different nature from the whole universe of effects. Further, He is abodeless, inasmuch as the śruti speaks elsewhere of Him as being “established in His own greatness.”^[5] Though the Primary Avidyā cannot likewise be known through perception, inference or revelation, still, as it abides in Brahman, it is distinguishable from Him who has no abode. When the aspirant of Brahmavidya attains the firm conviction that this Brahman—the Brahman whose existence has been established and whom one can realise in one’s own experience—is identical with his own Self, then he attains Liberation, a state in which there is no fear of birth and death. His Liberation is coeval with knowledge: he attains Brahman at the very moment he knows Him,—a truth to which all sages bear testimony.

When the aspirant finds that Brahman is his own Self, he attains fearless state. For, then he is established in his True Self; then he sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else. Indeed one’s fear arises from some one else; it is not right to say that one’s fear arises from one’s own Self. Therefore it is something outside the Self that causes fear to the Self. Despite the sources^[6] of fear existing all around, the brāhmaṇas,—those who have known Brahman,—are found to be afraid of none anywhere. This cannot be explained in the absence of Brahman affording to them shelter from fear. Because we find them fearless, we conclude that Brahman does exist as the cause of their fearlessness.

(Question):—When does the aspirant attain the Fearless?

(Answer):—When he sees nothing else. When he sees no duality in the Self, then he attains the Fearless.

 

Knowledge of duality causes fear.

Now the śruti proceeds to explain clearly how the ignorant man, departing hence, does not reach the Supreme Goal.—(S).

The doubt regarding the wise man having been removed by the śruti asserting that he attains Brahman, the śruti proceeds now to remove the doubt regarding the ignorant man, by asserting that he does not attain Brahman.

यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नुदरमन्तरं कुरुते । अथ तस्य भयं भवति ॥ ५ ॥

yadā hyevaiṣa etasminnudaramantaraṃ kurute | atha tasya bhayaṃ bhavati || 5 ||

5. When indeed this (soul) makes in this One even the smallest break, then for him there is fear.

When, on the contrary, in the state of ignorance, the ignorant man sees ‘in this One,’ in the Atman, in Brahman, things set up by avidyā, as the timira- affected eye sees a second moon, when he sees even the smallest difference,—to make difference means to perceive it—then, because of that perception of difference, there is fear for the perceiver of the difference. Thus the Self is the cause of the Self’s fear.

 

Duality is a creature of avidyā.

Because ignorance makes what is ever attained appear as unattained, therefore, the śruti has emphatically asserted that the wise man alone attains Brahman. Such being the case, the ignorant cannot attain Him, the Īśvara; for, when screened by avidyā, what is actually attained becomes unattained. Though the One Self who transcends the visible ever remains one with Brahman, He is deceived by avidyā. Just as by ignorance one thinks an object in hand as unattained, so also, by ignorance one does not attain Brahman, one’s very Self. By ignorance, man separates himself from the One Consciousness, and regards himself as doer and enjoyer, in the same way that, by illusion, a rope itself becomes a serpent. On account of ignorance he makes a distinction between himself and Brahman, as the knower and the known, and regards that the Īśvara, the Lord, is one being and that he himself is another being, quite powerless. Thus making a distinction where there is no distinction, he comes by the evil of fear which arises from that distinction. Though in fact he has no cause of fear, still he imagines, through ignorance, the One Self as many, and is afraid of Him. Fear arises when there is a second object, as the śruti itself has loudly declared elsewhere “From the second, verily, fear arises.”^[7]—(S).

There is no real distinction of any kind between jīva and Brahman; and therefore when the man of the world sees the smallest difference between them, when he sees that Brahman is in any way distinct from himself, then he is subject to the fear of birth and death, as the śruti elsewhere says:

“From death to death he goes who here below sees seeming difference.”^[8]

“Whosoever looks for Brahman elsewhere than in the Self shall be abandoned by Brahman.”^[9]

Now one may suppose that a person who has mastered the ritualistic section of the Veda, or a person who has realised the Saguṇa or Conditioned Brahman by contemplation, attains liberation in virtue of the knowledge he possesses, in the same way that the knower of the Nirguṇa or Unconditioned Brahman attains liberation by his knowledge. This supposition is removed by the śruti in the following words:

तत्त्वेव भयं विदुषोऽमन्वानस्य ॥ ६ ॥

tattveva bhayaṃ viduṣo'manvānasya ॥ ६ ॥

6. That, verily, is fear to the knower who does not reflect.

Because the Lord is the source of fear to him who imagines himself to be subject to His control and distinct from Him, therefore the very Brahman in whom there is nothing to cause fear becomes the source of fear. Ah! None lies beyond the power of avidyā which causes fear even to Brahman whom Agni and other Devas fear. The Divine Lord is fearless and causes fear even to the Lords; even in Him avidyā generates fear. Nothing is beyond its scope.—(S).

Brahman, whom having known, the wise man attains fearlessness,—the very Brahman who thus causes fearlessness forms the source of fear to the Self owing to ignorance. That One who is invisible, etc., and in whom there is nothing to fear, proves, when screened by ignorance, when He becomes subject to the control of avidyā, a source of fear to Himself. If the knower of Brahman should, by ignorance, separate the Inner Self from Brahman to so small an extent as the tip of the hair, then his very Self proves a source of fear to himself—(S).

 

Brahman’s Existence as the source of fear.

Brahman Himself is the cause of fear to him who sees distinction, who thinks “The Lord is distinct from me; I am distinct from Him, a being of the world (saṃsāra).” When thus regarded as distinct, Brahman causes fear to him who makes the smallest distinction, not seeing the identity. Therefore, though knowing, yet ignorant is that man who sees not the one True Self that is identical with himself. It is by perception of the cause of distinction that one cherishes fear, regarding oneself as liable to destruction.^[10] It is he alone who is not himself destructible that can be the cause of destruction.^[11] In the absence of the Cause of all destruction who is not Himself liable to destruction, it would be hard to account for fear, which can arise only when the cause of danger is seen. In point of fact there is fear in the whole world. Wherefore, as there is fear in the world, we understand that there must certainly exist He who is the Cause of fear, who, being Himself indestructible, is the cause of all destruction, and of whom the whole world is afraid.

 

The non-dual Self.

The passage admits of another interpretation:—Brahman is the source of fear to the unreflecting knower of Brahman, to him who thinks that he has known Brahman, who regards Brahman as knowable by him and therefore distinct from himself. The True Self who is one with Brahman is neither the knower nor the knowable; and therefore, to regard oneself as the knower is an illusion, in the same way as it is an illusion to regard the mother-of-pearl as silver; and a person who so regards himself is therefore said to be unreflecting. The śruti says:

“He thinks of It, for whom It passes thought.”^[12]

“Other than known is That, beyond the unknown too.”^[13]

These passages mean:—It is quite distinct from the knowable, It is quite distinct from the unknowable; It is distinct from the knowable and the knower. It is words and nameable things that become either known or unknown. They are insentient and subject to transformation. So, too, is the knower of the known, the knower being a particular transformation of the mind (antaḥ-karaṇa with semblance-consciousness in it). But Ātman who is pure Consciousness cannot be the known or the unknown or the knower; otherwise He could not be one with the Immutable, Non-dual Brahman. Having separated the Self from the known and knowledge as also from the knower, which are all set up by ignorance, and having also separated Him from the unknown, from ignorance and the ignorant, one should know “I am Brahman” as taught in the śruti.—(S).

He who does not know the real nature of Brahman sees distinction between himself and Brahman, and therefore Brahman is the source of fear,—the fear of saṃsāra, of birth and death—as well to him (who knows the Conditioned Brahman) as to him who is quite ignorant. He does not attain liberation.

 

Brahman as the Ruler of the Universe.

To confirm the assertion that there is fear for him who has no knowledge of the real nature of Brahman, though he may possess other knowledge, the śruti quotes a verse:

तदप्येष श्लोको भवति ॥  ७ ॥
                      ॥ इति सप्तमोऽनुवाकः ॥

tadapyeṣa śloko bhavati || 7 ||
                      || iti saptamo'nuvākaḥ ||

7. There, too, there is this verse.

भीषाऽस्माद्वातः पवते । भीषोदेति सूर्यः । भीषाऽस्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च । मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति ॥ १ ॥

bhīṣā'smādvātaḥ pavate | bhīṣodeti sūryaḥ | bhīṣā'smādagniścendraśca | mṛtyurdhāvati pañcama iti || 1 ||

[Anuvaka VIII.]

1. From fear of Him does Wind blow, from fear of Him does Sun rise, from fear of Him Agni and Indra (act) and Death the fifth does run.

Wind and others here mentioned, who are very noble beings and lords in themselves, discharge their respective functions of blowing and the like, which involve much trouble, according to a certain law. This, their regular discharge of their respective functions, is possible only when there is a Ruler outside them. Therefore, we conclude that there is Brahman, their Ruler, of whom they are afraid, and from fear of whom they perform their functions like the servants of a king.

For want of the knowledge of unity described above, even the lords of lords do their respective acts, afraid of Brahman, the true Inner Self. Wind and others here mentioned are very powerful beings, self-reliant, full of physical strength and very mighty. They are still afraid of Brahman and discharge their respective functions from fear.—(S).

He who has in a former birth done very noble acts and practised a lofty contemplation is born in this birth as the Wind-God. Though endued with such greatness, and though he is a God, he is ever unweariedly engaged in the act of blowing, from fear of Brahman, the Antaryāmin,—of Him who rules all from within. So, too, do the Sun, Agni and Indra, perform their respective functions. Death is the fifth God, in reference to the four gods already mentioned. He runs always here and there towards those living beings whose life-period has been over, with a view to kill them. Though the Unconditioned Brahman, who in Himself is without attachment, cannot be the cause of fear, still, when associated with the upādhi of māyā, He may, as the Antaryāmin, be the cause of fear, as the Vārtikakāra says: “He, conditioned by Tamas or Avidyā, is the Ruler of the universe, which is subject to rule.” Elsewhere the śruti says:

“Who rules the air within, He is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal.”^[14]

“By the command of that Imperishable, O Gārgī, sun and moon stand apart.”^[15]

That Brahman is the Cause of fear, the Regulator, the Ruler from within, is settled in the following disquisition:

 

(Vedānta-sūtras. I. ii. 5.)

(Question):—In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad, Yājña-vafkya said to Uddālaka as follows:

“He who dwells in the earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, and who rules the earth within, He is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal”^[16]

Now the question arise?, who is the Ruler of the universe, comprising the earth, etc.? Is it the Pradhāna, or Jīva, or the īśvara?

(Prima. facie view):—Being the material cause of the whole universe, the Pradhāna may be supposed to be the Ruler of its emanations. Or, jīva may be the ruler, for, it is he who has done acts of merit and sin (dharma and adharma); and these acts bring the universe into existence so that their fruits may be reaped through that universe. Being thus the creator of the universe through his acts, jiva may be its ruler.

(Conclusion):—As against the foregoing, we hold as follows: In the words “He is thy Self, the Ruler within, the Immortal.........” the śruti teaches that the Ruler is one with jīva and immortal. So, as the śruti teaches that He is the Inner Ruler of the earth, the mid-air and all things, we learn that He is all-pervading. For these reasons, the Parameśvara, the Supreme Lord, is the Ruler. The Pradhāna cannot ba the Ruler, inasmuch as the śruti speaks of the Ruler as the seer and hearer, “Unseen, He is the seer; unheard, He is the hearer.”^[17] The insentient Pradhāna cannot be a seer or a hearer. Neither can jīva be the ruler, as he is classed among the ruled: “who, being Avithin, rules the self.”^[18] Wherefore the Supreme Lord is the Antaryāmin, the Inner Ruler. From this it will be seen that it is the ignorant alone who has to fear, not he who knows the Real.
 

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

in chapters II—VIII.

[2]:

Vide ante pp. 207-208.

[3]:

i.e., He does not perceive duality as real; for, it is admitted that even the wise man does perceive duality which, however, he regards as unreal.—(V).

[4]:

Thus shewing that to know Brahman is to gain Him, which will not hold good unless Self and Brahman are identical. None but the Self can be gained by mere knowledge.—(A).

[5]:

Chhā. 7-24-1,

[6]:

Such as serpents, tigers, &c.

[7]:

Bṛ. 1-4-2.

[8]:

Kaṭha. Up. 4-10

[9]:

Bṛ. Up. 2-4-6.

[10]:

It is indeed he who believes that Paramesvara will destroy him or cast him into the hell that has any reason to fear.—(A).

[11]:

To say that the Cause of destruction is destructible involves the fallacy of infinite regress (anavasthā),and therefore the cause of all destruction is eternal and cannot be other than Brahman.—(A).

[12]:

Kena. Up. 2–3.

[13]:

Ibid. 1–3.

[14]:

Bṛ. Up. 3-7-7.

[15]:

Ibid. 3-8-9.

[16]:

Op. cit. 3-7-3.

[17]:

Bṛ. Up. 3-7-23.

[18]:

Ibid. 3-7-22.