Chapter 7 Brahma Sutra Bhasya
7-4 BSB 3.2.22 to 3.2.30 Unconditioned Brahman and soul Neti neti means negation of two things and question is which are the two things negated. Purva Paksi argues that they are Brahman the substance and the attributes. According to Siddhanta negation of both leads to nihilism. Neti neti does not negate Brahman. It is negation of the attributes and not Brahman. Denial of Brahman is not reasonable, for that would contradict the introduction made with, “I will tell you of Brahman” (Br. 3.1.1), as also the condemnation contained in such texts as, “If anyone knows Brahman as non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent” (Tai. 2.6.1), and the affirmation, “The Self is to be realised as existing” (Ka. 2.3.13), “The knower of Brahman attains the highest”, “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinity” (Tai. 2.1.1). The text “Failing to reach which, words turn back with the mind” (Tai. 2.9.1) points to Brahman.
The idea expressed is this: Brahman is beyond speech and mind; It cannot be classed with objects of knowledge; It is one’s inmost Self. It is by nature eternal, pure, intelligent, and free. Hence the phenomenal expression alone of Brahman is denied, and Brahman Itself is left over. Use of two negations may have other explanations. They deny respectively the two aspects, gross and subtle. Or it may be that they deny totality of elements, and totality of impressions. Or denial of whatever is guessed on Brahman has no reality. When the “repetition” is used, all objects of knowledge become denied from which it follows that one’s inmost Self, that is not an object of knowledge, is Brahman. Then the curiosity to know further ceases. Hence the conclusion is that the phenomenal expressions, imagined on Brahman, are denied, and Brahman is outside negation. It is the only reality.
In the mind there are varieties of thoughts and emotions and when the meditator negates all of them at the time of meditation, what is left is not nothingness. Consciousness aspect of the meditator is left which is the witness of all negations. The meditator recognizes the light of consciousness (Katha 2.1.1). It is not yogic meditation. What is emphasized is that Consciousness is a positive entity left after all negations.
Purva Paksi argues that the Upanishad says that jivAtamA recognizes Brahman means Brahman is an object of recognition and jivAtmA is the cognizer, the subject. As subject and object cannot be identical, jivAtmA and ParamAtmA are different. Vedantic answer is that the differences are at empirical level. JivAtmA is Consciousness enclosed in the MBS, the adjuncts. When the adjuncts are removed, consciousness remains. Differences are due to adjuncts and incidental. Identity is the truth. Thou That Art is repeated nine times in 6th Chapter of Chandogya Upanishad.
There is a school of thought, namely, beda-abeda-bhava which tries to reconcile differences and non-differences on the ground that the scriptures mention both. Therefore, Brahman must be like a snake and its coil, the snake in itself is non-different, but it differs as it has a coil. Or like the relation of light and it its substratum as both are luminous. Beda and abeda can be accommodated by having guna guni dristi or amsa amsi dristi. Beda-abeda- bhava is refuted and truth declared in Sutra 25 is confirmed: the difference is illusory, and identity is the reality.
The answer is simple. A jiva who considers himself different from ParamAtmA suffers from sorrow [Mundaka 3.1.2]. If difference is real and therefore cannot be negated, there will be no liberation. Liberation with sorrow is no liberation. Therefore, Upanishad makes discrimination between the two. It negates beda and not abeda. In the beginning, beda is introduced ( adhyArope) because it is the experience. It is negated ( apavAda) later as it is mithyA. There is no other witness but Him (Br Up 3.7.23). ParamAtmA alone is in jivAtmA. Just as a waker enters the dream and becomes a dream experiencer, ParamAtmA enters the jiva and is jivAtmA.
Contd Part 39