BSB 2.1.21 to 2.1.23 The opponent argues that texts like “Thou art that” (Ch Up 6.8.7) declaring identity of Brahman and jiva and “Let me manifest name and form by Myself entering the individual soul” (Ch Up 6.3.2) lead to absurdity. The argument is in four parts. Brahman creates the world. Jiva has sufferings in the world. Brahman and jiva are identical. Therefore, Brahman creates sufferings for Himself which is ridiculous. The Vedantin accepts the first two parts with a rider that suffering faced by a jiva is at transactional level. As regards the third part, the identity of Brahman and jiva is from the Absolute standpoint. That is to say, when the limiting adjuncts of a jiva are removed, there is identity.
From the transactional standpoint Brahman is superior to the individual soul (jiva) as is evident from the text, “He is to be searched for, He is to be inquired into” (Ch Up 8.7.1) and,“O amiable one, he then becomes unified with Existence” (Ch Up 6.8.1). The individual soul (i.e., Brahman with limiting adjuncts) has sufferings. Brahman is without any limitations and question of any suffering does not arise. A metaphor explains. Stones of varying qualities from precious stone like diamond to insignificant pebble are produced from the same earth. Similarly, it is justifiable for non-dual Brahman to have such distinctions like God and embodied soul. It is supported by the text, “modifications have speech alone as their origin” (Ch Up 6.1.4).
BSB 2.1.26 and 2.1.27
Earlier it has been shown that Brahman is also the material cause of the universe. This view is contested by the opponent by citing the case of milk and curd. The milk gets destroyed when it transforms into curd. Similarly, Brahman is destroyed when it transforms into universe which violates the Vedantic view.
It is further argued that whether Brahman transforms into universe totally or partially, in both cases there is violation of Vedantic view that Brahman is without any parts. It would mean that Brahman changes into world as a whole. In such a case, there will be nothing outside the world to be realized for liberation.
The aphorist clarifies that scriptures are the valid means to know Brahman. Logic and reasoning which are valid in empirical field are inapplicable.There is no violation of the texts about part-lessness since part-lessness is accepted on account of its very “mention in the Upanishad”, and the Upanishads are the only authority about It.
According to vivaratavad according to which Brahman appears as Universe. Appearance is of lower order of reality as in the metaphor of rope and snake. Brahman is the Absolute reality, and universe is of lower order reality. And the two orders of realities are not interchangeable. In fact, higher order reality is changeless compared to lower order reality. It is like waking state and dream state.
BSB 2.1.34 to 2.1.36
The opponent argues that God cannot be the cause of the universe because in that case He will be charged with partiality and cruelty due to sufferings seen the world. It is clarified that the God cannot be so charged because He creates the world according to the merits and demerits of jivas. The Smriti also shows that God’s dispensation of favour and disfavour is contingent on the specific merit of the work done by each creature, e.g. “In whatever way men worship Me, in the same way do I fulfil their desires” (Gita, 4.11), and other texts of similar import.
The opponent counters that at the beginning of creation, there are no merits and demerits for non-differentiation is spoken of the following text,
“O amiable ones, in the beginning it but Existence, one without second” (Ch 6.2.1). It is only after creation that results of work, depending on the diversification into bodies etc., could be possible, and the diversification into bodies could be possible by depending on the results of work. This would lead to the fallacy of mutual dependence (logical seesaw).” Sankaracarya; Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Kindle Locations 4409-4410).
The aphorist refutes it on the ground that transmigratory state has no beginnings as is in the text, “Myself entering into this as the embodied soul (jivatma -living being)” (Ch. 6.3.2). The commentator goes on to show that since the text speaks of the embodied soul as the “living being” on account of its sustaining life, the creation has no beginning; Sankaracarya;Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Kindle Locations 4423-4427).
And it is logical for the transmigratory existence to have no beginning; for had it emerged capriciously all of a sudden, then there would have been the predicament of freed souls also being reborn here, as also the contingency of results accruing from non-existing causes, for the differences in happiness and misery would have no logical explanation.
Contd
Dear Bimal,
Very clearly explained again – really useful as these texts are not the easiest of reads!
One query: You say: “The aphorist clarifies that scriptures are the valid means to know Brahman. Logic and reasoning which are valid in empirical field are inapplicable.” Could you be explicit here about the ‘reasoning’ bit (i.e. provide Śaṅkara’s actual quote). I believe that he states somewhere (BG 18.66?) that we must always pay attention to reason and reject anything in shruti that contradicts experience or reason.
Incidentally, are the ‘Kindle locations’ valid for all devices and page sizes? I wouldn’t bother with these – most readers probably have the physical books anyway, if anything.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
The following are useful.
BS 2.1.27 reads as “But (this has to be accepted) on the authority of the Upanisads, for Brahman is known from the Upanisads alone.”
“The commentator elaborates: “There is no violation of the texts about partlessness. since partlessness is accepted on account of its very “mention in the Upanisads”, and the Upanisads are the only authority about It, but not so are the senses etc. Hence It has to be accepted just as It is presented by the Upanisads. The Upanisads prove both the facts for Brahman-the non-transformation formation of Brahman as a whole and partlessness” [Sankaracarya;Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Kindle Locations 4304-4307). Kindle Edition.}
In his commentary on BG 18.66, Sri Shankara says, “The validity of the Vedas holds good only with regard to matters concerning the relation between ends and means of Agnihotra etc., which are not known through such valid means of knowledge as direct perception; but not with regard to objects of direct perception etc., because the validity of the Vedas lies in revealing what is beyond direct perception. Therefore, it is not possible to imagine that the idea of egoism with regard to the aggregate of body etc., arising from an obviously false knowledge, is a figurative notion. Surely, even a hundred Vedic texts cannot become valid if they assert that fire is cold or non-luminous! Should a Vedic text say that fire is cold or non-luminous, even then one has to assume that the intended meaning of the text is different, for otherwise (its) validity cannot be maintained; but one should not assume its meaning in a way that might contradict some other valid means of knowledge or contradict its own statement.” [Swami, Gambhirananda. Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Shankaracharya, Advaita Ashrama. Kindle Edition.]
Best wishes,
Bimal