Chapter 2.1 - Śaṅkarācārya on Jīva

This chapter is comprised of four sections. The three major philosophical concepts viz. jīva, jagat and Brahman, explained by Śaṅkarācārya, are considered here. Similarly, his viewpoint regarding the mokṣa is also discussed.

The concept of jīva is considered to be a limited being. It is an individual soul, particularized by the body. The jīva is a combination of the consciousness and the body. Naturally, it is a complex entity. Śaṅkarācārya defines the jīva as a conscious entity, which controls the body and holds the prāṇas viz. the organs together. This definition is based on the worldly usage and the derivation of the term jīva. The word jīva is derived from the root jīv, which means to hold the prāṇas. ^[1] The chief prāṇa viz. the vital energy, owing to which the body and the eleven prāṇas or organs are sustained, is not independent. It performs all the activities for the jīva, just like a minister managing all the activities for a king. The eleven prāṇas, namely five sense organs, five motor organs and mind, work as instruments for the agentship and the enjoyership of the jīva, just like the subjects work for their king. These prāṇas completely rely upon the jīva.^[2]

According to Śaṅkarācārya, the Self is bodiless in its nature. So, the embodiment of the Self means its identification with the body due to the absence of the discrimination in the form ‘I am the body and the body is I’. By the term body, the organs and the mind are also implied along with the gross body.^[3] In a secondary sense, the supreme Self itself is called śārīra, namely one who resides in the body. The ignorant people call it śārīra on account of its association with body, organs, mind and intellect. It is like the unlimited space appearing to be limited because of the adjuncts, such as pot, jar etc.^[4] Further, Śaṅkarācārya says that this connection between the body and the knower of the body is the adhyāsa (superimposition), which is of the nature of mithyājñāna (unreal ignorance).^[5] The superimposition of the notion ‘I am’ on the body, is nothing but avidyā (nescience). Owing to this superimposition, one loves the things convenient to the body and hates them if they are injurious or disrespectful to the body. Moreover, he fears and gets deluded by seeing the destruction of these things.^[6] The identification with the body is of the nature of the avidyā. It is not real. So, in the state of the removal of identification, there cannot be the body and thereby the saṃsāra (transmigration) also.^[7] While speaking of the reality of the assemblage of body etc., Śaṅkarācārya proclaims that the aggregate of body etc., resembling with the things like jar etc., are produced by the māyā of the Self. This is just like the bodies seen in the dream and the bodies created by a magician. They do not exist in the view-point of the ultimate Reality.^[8]

The jīva appears to be a limited being due to its connection with the assemblage of the body and the organs. Speaking of the antaḥkaraṇa (internal organ), Śaṅkarācārya says that the antaḥkaraṇa, which limits the soul, is discussed in various ways such as manas, buddhi, vijñāna and citta at various places. It is known by various names according to its different vṛttis (modes). It is called manas (mind) considering the modes of doubt etc. It is called buddhi (intellect) considering the modes of determination etc. The existence of the inner-instrument has to be admitted to avoid the problem of continuous perception or non-perception of the objects. In fact, it is the mind, owing to which the obstruction or the non-obstruction, the perception or the non-perception of the objects take place.⁹ The jīva is called vijñānamaya owing to its association with vijñāna. The vijñāna means internal organ, through which one knows. In more specific words, the vijñāna means buddhi. In the viewpoint of Ācārya, the suffix mayaṭ in the word vijñānamaya, suggests the sense ‘abundance’. So, the vijñānamaya means abundance of intellect. The Self can be attained in the intellect, it can be attained through the intellect and it perceives the objects by the means of intellect. Here, Śaṅkarācārya argues that the word vijñānamaya is seen to be used in this very sense in the Śrutis also, such as - ‘this very self, full of intellect, full of mind, is the Brahman’. Here, the suffix mayaṭ does not suggest the sense ‘modification’, since the jīva can never be the modification of the Consciousness. The meanings ‘being a part of’ and ‘resembling with’ are not possible in this context. So, only the remaining meaning ‘abundance’ is possible here.^[9] Further, Ācārya says that the intellect is transparent and nearer to the Self, so it becomes a reflected image of the Self. Hence, even the learned people, who have the ability of discrimination, identify themselves with the intellect first. The light of the Self illumines intellect, mind, organs and whole body successively and thus people identify themselves with intellect, mind etc.^[10] The jīva cannot be easily discriminated from the intellect. It is full of vijñāna. It is always perceived in association with the intellect, just as the planet Rāhu is seen with the moon and the sun. One perceives all the objects, only when they are connected with the light of the intellect, just like the things are perceived in the darkness with the help of a lamp. Other organs are only channels of the intellect.^[11] Moreover, this association of the soul with the intellect exists latently during the state of deep sleep and dissolution also. It is manifested during the waking and at the time of creation.^[12] The jīva is seen to be connected with the intellect due to the unreal ignorance, which can be removed only by the true knowledge. Therefore, as long as the unity of the jīva with the Brahman is not recognized, the contact of the intellect with the jīva does not end.^[13] The individuality and the transmigratory existence of the jīva appear continuously only till the association of the jīva with the intellect does not end. So, here, Ācārya particularly notes that there is no such thing as jīva, apart from the nature imagined due to its connection with the intellect.^[14]

About the creation of the jīva, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that the jīva is not created in real sense. The eternity, birthlessless and changelessness of the jīva are understood from the Śrutis. According to the Śrutis, the changeless Brahman abides as the jīva. The jīva is the Brahman in its essential nature. So, its creation is not tenable.^[15] Wherever the creation and the dissolution of the jīva are described, they should be understood as of the limiting adjuncts and not of the jīva. ^[16] While discussing the measurement of the jīva, Ācārya explains that the jīva cannot be of the measurement of the atom in primary sense. But, this is seen to be described in the Śrutis only in a sense that the Self is difficult to understand; or it is explained considering the limiting adjunct of the jīva. ^[17] The jīva is accepted to be the Brahman itself, so it is proper to say that the jīva has the measurement same as that of the Brahman. The Brahman is said to be omnipresent in the scriptures. Therefore, in this sense, the jīva too is omnipresent.^[18]

The body, which is accepted as a delimiting adjunct of the jīva, is of three kinds: sthūla (gross), sūkṣma (subtle) and kāraṇa (causal). Possessing these bodies, the jīva goes through three states daily. These states are: jāgrat (waking) svapna (dream) and suṣupti (deep sleep). While explaining the sequence of the experience of these three states, Śaṅkarācārya says that the jīva experiences the states of waking, dream and deep sleep successively. And then, from the deep sleep, it returns to the dream and the waking subsequently. The distinct nature of the jīva from the three states can be established by this travelling of the jīva through three states.^[19] In the waking state, the jīva perceives the objects of senses due to its connection with the various functions of the mind and identifies itself with one of those objects, namely with the body. The jīva is called a mind, when it sees the dreams under the influence of the vāsanās (residual impressions), collected from the waking state. In the deep sleep, when both the limiting adjuncts, namely subtle and gross cease to work, the jīva is said to be as if united with the Self, since it is no

more particularized by the limiting adjuncts.^[20] According to Śaṅkarācārya, all the discussions of travelling of the jīva through these three states are purposeful. They establish the existence of the light of the Self different from the organs and the external lights.^[21] These discussions show the changeable nature of the three states and the eternity of the Self. The Self, which is the witness of three states, unchangeable and non-dual, does not get affected by the changeable three states. The appearance of the supreme Self as being connected with the three states is illusory, like the false appearance of the snake on the rope.^[22] Furthermore, these descriptions logically prove that the soul does not have constant connection with the waking or the dream, since both these states contradict with each-other, i.e. when the soul goes through one of these states, the other one is cancelled. The prapañca (display of world) is not natural to the jīva and the jīva is always the supreme Self. This can be understood, because the jīva unites with the Self leaving the world in the state of deep sleep.^[23] In this way, the descriptions of passing of the jīva through three states serve a specific purpose. They show the distinct nature of the jīva from the three perishable states and its unity with the Brahman.

Jāgradavasthā:

The jīva experiences gross objects through the channel of the organs in the waking state. The salient feature of the waking is the perception of the objects through the senses, which makes the waking different from the dream.^[24] Śaṅkarācārya says that the light of the Self is combined with the functions of organs, intellect, mind and external lights in the waking, whereas it remains distinct and isolated from the organs and the external lights, like the light of the sun etc., in the dream. This is the distinction between the waking and the dream.^[25] Even if so, the objects in the waking are unreal just as the objects in the dream. This resemblance between these two states is stated especially in the Gauḍapāda-kārikās. Śaṅkarācārya too, elaborates this resemblance in the commentary on these kārikās. For instance, while explaining the utility of the food and the drink, Ācārya says that even if one has satisfactorily completed his needs of eating and drinking in the waking, he feels as if hungry and thirsty in the dream. Similarly, he fulfills his needs of food and drink in the dream, but he feels dissatisfaction in the waking. Thus, the objects of the waking are found to be contradicted in the dream, just like the dream-objects in the waking. So, the objects of the waking state are equally untrue just as the dream-scenario.^[26] In the commentary on the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, Śaṅkarācārya asserts the unreality of waking objects by explaining their mānasatva (dependence on mind). According to him, the waking objects are attained by the mental ideas alone, since these objects are made up by fire, water and earth, which are created by the vision of the Sat (Existence). According to the Śruti, the worlds are created from the will of the Īśvara. The world owes its creation, continuance and dissolution to the inner Self. So, there is a causal realationship between the mental and the external objects, just as a seed and a sprout. And, even if the external objects are none other than mental objects and the mental objects are none other than the external objects, both of them can never be false in themselves. The dream objects are false in relation to the waking and not in themselves. Similarly, the objects experienced in the waking are false in relation to the experience in the dream and not in themselves. All the unreal transformations are based on fire, water and earth. These three elements are also unreal, if their specific forms are considered. These are real in their nature as Existence. Thus, before the Self-realization, the objects in the waking are as real as those in the dream; and there is no contradiction in accepting this.^[27]

Svapnāvasthā:

The dreams are seen during the sleep, but the influence of the waking state on dreams can be clearly found. The dream state is called a sandhya-sthāna (intermediate state) in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (IV.3.9). On this word, Śaṅkarācārya comments that the dream state is a joint of two worlds i.e. this world and the other world, or it comes in between the two states i.e. the waking and the deep sleep.^[28] The duality continues in the dream also, but the external organs stop working. Only the intellect, namely the internal organ remains active in this state.^[29] Even if so, the intellect no more plays a role of karaṇa (instrument of knowledge) in the dream. On the other hand, the intellect, based on the vāsanās of the waking state, becomes the object of knowledge, just like a painting on a canvas.^[30] In the dream-state, the jīva withdraws the organs from their respective places seen in the waking and moves according to its will, in its own body and not outside. The jīva experiences the vāsanās, which are generated by desires and actions, and which are similar with the things experienced previously.^[31]

Regarding the reality of the dreams, Śaṅkarācārya says that the creation in the dream is not real in comparison with the creation of the space etc. Even the creation of the space etc. is also not absolutely real. It is none other than the māyā (illusion). However, the creation of the space etc. has a definite nature before attaining the realization of the nondifference between the jīva and the Brahman. On the contrary, the creation in the dream is sublated everyday. So, it is specifically said that the dreams are mere māyā. ^[32] In short, though Ācārya uses the simile of the dream to prove the temporal existence of the waking state, he accepts a different order of reality of the waking state and the dream state. He draws a boundary-line between these states. Further, he clearly states that the waking state too, is sublated in the transcendental state. It comes to an end after attaining the knowledge of absolute Brahman.^[33] Considering the impermanent nature of three empirical states and the absence of the Selfexperience in these states, at one place, Śaṅkarācārya explains that waking, dream and deep sleep are nothing but dream.³⁵ Furthermore, he says that the phenomena in the dream, such as the bite of a snake, bathing etc. are false, but the knowledge of these acts is true, since it continues even when one wakes up. By accepting this, the doctrine that regards the Self as the body is refuted. One leaves the dream-body and receives the gross body in the waking. If he would be identical with the body, the knowledge would not be continued after the annihilation of the dream body.^[34] In this way, the Self always remains different from the three bodies and thereby three states.

Suṣuptyavasthā:

The Upaniṣads declare that the jīva becomes unified with its own Self in the state of deep sleep.^[35] Explaining this unity, Śaṅkarācārya says that there are only three places of suṣupti denoted in the Śrutis. These are: nāḍīs (nerves), purītat (covering of the heart) and the Brahman. The Brahman is also well-known as hṛdayākāśa (the space in the heart). The nāḍīs and the purītat are only entrances, through which the jīva enters into the space in the heart. The Brahman alone is the true abode of the jīva in suṣupti. The nāḍīs and the purītat are the abodes of the limiting adjuncts of the jīva, since the organs of the jīva reside there. The abode of the jīva is told as the Brahman, only considering the intrinsic identity between them. And, it does not imply the relationship between the jīva and the Brahman in the form of ādhāra (locus) and ādheya (a thing that requires a locus). The jīva can never be seen to be separated from the Brahman in its very nature and one’s own nature can never be perished. The attainment of one’s own nature in the deep sleep is said here only expecting the cessation of the contact of the jīva with the limiting adjuncts existed in the states of waking and dream.^[36] In this manner, the Brahman is said to be the unchangeable abode of the jīva in the deep sleep. The purpose of this knowledge is to determine the identity of the jīva with the Brahman and also the freedom of the jīva from the dealings of the waking and the dream.^[37] According to Śaṅkarācārya, although the jīva unifies with the Self in the deep sleep, the individuality does not get totally destroyed. In the state of deep sleep and dissolution, the connection with the intellect remains latent and it manifests again during the waking and at the time of creation. Anything does not rise abruptly, i.e. in the absence of its cause, otherwise there will be a fault of atiprasaṅga (unwarranted possibilities). One gets up from the deep sleep, only due to the latent existence of avidyā in deep sleep. The Śrutis, such as -‘people do not know their unity with the Brahman, even after having united with it’ ([Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.9.2) etc. suggest the existence of the seed of avidyā in deep sleep.^[38]

In the state of deep sleep, one does not experience oneself and also any other internal or external objects. The experience of duality takes place only in the waking and the dream. After getting up from the deep sleep, one recollects that he knew nothing. Even if so, Śaṅkarācārya refuses to accept the deep sleep as an unconscious state. In his opinion, the unification of the jīva with the Brahman is the very reason of this ajñāna. ^[39] He argues that the jīva is none other than the Brahman in its very essence. The Brahman is declared in the Śrutis as of the nature of the eternal Consciousness. So, it follows that the jīva too, is consisting of the eternal consciousness. It is just like the possession of the heat and the light by the fire. The reason of the appearance of unawareness in the deep sleep is the absence of the objects of experience and not the absence of the Consciousness. The unmanifestation of the light in the space is because of the absence of the things in the space and not because of the absence of its own nature.^[40] Futher, Ācārya says that the organs of knowledge stay different for the sake of the relative experience of the jīva. But, in the deep sleep, the jīva becomes united with its own Self, like a man with his beloved wife. So, the organs along with their objects do not stay differently and the relative experience cannot take place in their absence. In this manner, the relative experience is produced through these organs. But, it appears to be a product of the Self. So, owing to the absence of the relative experience in deep sleep, one wrongly believes in the loss of the sight of the Self.^[41] While commenting on the word prajñāna-ghana in Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, Śaṅkarācārya says that the prajñānas, namely the conscious experiences in the waking and the dream are nothing else, but mental vibrations. They get accumulated or united in deep sleep and remain as if solidified and therefore undistinguishable. This state is called prajñānaghana (a mass of consciousness) due to the absence of any discrimination. It is like the whole assemblage of things appearing as a mass because of the nondiscrimination caused by the darkness of night.^[42] Thus, the unawareness in the deep sleep is caused by the unity and it is not because of the absence of the Consciousness.

One recollects the happiness of sleep after getting up. So, the deep sleep is a state of happiness. While describing the increase of happiness in three states successively, Śaṅkarācārya says that one obtains the impurities on account of the contact with numerous functions of the body and the organs in the waking state. Discarding these calamities, one becomes slightly happy in the dreams. But in the state of deep sleep, he becomes truly happy. So, the deep sleep is called samprasāda, i.e. a state in which one becomes pleased very well.^[43] Further, Ācārya describes the cause of the attainment of this happiness with the help of an illustration of a carpenter, which is mentioned in the Brahma-sūtras. In the empirical world, a carpenter becomes unhappy, when he works as an agent with his instruments, like adze etc. But, when he keeps away all his instruments and returns home, he becomes free from activity and feels satisfied and happy. In a similar way, the soul becomes unhappy in the states of waking and dream, when it becomes an agent and associated with duality, caused by avidyā. To remove that fatigue, the soul enters into its own Self in the state of deep sleep. Therein, it becomes free from the body and the senses and also from the agency and thus attains the happiness. Considering this happiness, Ācārya uses the analogy of deep sleep to explain the state of liberation, wherein the soul becomes non-dual, contented and happy by removing the darkness of avidyā by the means of the lamp of the vidyā.^[44] Śaṅkarācārya further clearly distinguishes the happiness in the deep sleep from the ultimate Bliss of the Brahman by saying that the happiness in the deep sleep is not absolute.^[45]

In this way, the jīva experiences three empirical states. In the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad the Self is asserted as having four pādas (quarters). The first three quarters of the Self are denoted as vaiśvānara, taijasa and prājña. These three quarters are successively related with jāgrat, svapna and suṣupti. The turīya (fourth quarter) is considered as unchangeable, auspicious and non-dual Self, whererin the whole world gets merged.^[46] In the commentary, Śaṅkarācārya says that the turīya is realized by merging the previous quarters in the next quarter respectively, i.e. by merging of visva in taijasa, taijasa in prājña and finally prājña in turīya. So, in the case of first three quarters, the word pāda is used in the sense of instrument, since the fourth quarter can be acquired by the means of merging of these states. And, in the case of turīya, the word pāda is used in the sense of object to be gained.^[47] In this manner, the turīya is the state of the Self, which transcends three phenomenal states of the jīva. So, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that the knower of the Brahman, who has experienced the ultimate truth, enters into the Self by destroying the third state, namely the seed of ignorance. The seed of the ignorance is accepted to be latent in the deep sleep. It is the very cause of returning of the jīva from the Brahman. The state of turīya has no seed of ignorance. So, the knower of the Brahman does not reborn.^[48]

In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (II.1-5), the adjuncts of the jīva are described in the form of pañcakośas (five sheaths). They are: annamaya (made of food), prāṇamaya (made of air), manomaya (made of mind), vijñānamaya (made of intellect) and ānandamaya (made of happiness). According to Śaṅkarācārya, all these sheaths are the conditioned selves, which are bhautika, namely made up of the elements. So, the suffix mayaṭ is used here in the sense of vikāra (modification). The ānandamaya, which is the innermost sheath, is also understood here as the conditioned self and not the absolute Self.^[49] Further, he says that the Brahman is the innermost Self of these conditioned selves, beginning with annamaya and ending in ānandamaya. The scripture commences the description of the sheaths to show the Brahman as the innermost Self by the means of the vidyā. The scripture reveals the innermost Self by negating the five sheaths created by avidyā, just like the rice is shown up by removing various husks covered round it.^[50]

According to Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy, the jīva is the Brahman by nature. So, it can never be a modification or a part of the Brahman. In the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the transmigration is not natural to the Self. It is only an illusory appearance on the Self, like an appearance of the redness on the crystal owing to its contact with the adjuncts, like red lac etc. The supreme Self is indivisible, so it is not possible to doubt that the jīva is a part, a modification or the power of the Self or it is different from the Self.^[51] The mahāvākyas, such as tattvamasi, ahaṃ Brahmāsmi etc. play an important role in removing the imposition of the limiting adjuncts of the jīva and denoting its intrinsic identity with the Brahman. About the instruction tattvamasi ([Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.8.7), Śaṅkarācārya says that the word tat (That) in this sentence denotes the Existence viz. the Brahman, which is the witness and the cause of creation, sustainment and dissolution of the world. This meaning of the tat, which is devoid of all mundane qualities and full of consciousness, is well-known to the knowers of the Vedānta. The word tvaṃ (thou) denotes the inner-self and the hearer in the context. The tvaṃ is the inner-most Self hidden in the five sheaths, beginning with the gross body. The meaning of tvaṃ is determined as the Consciousness itself. The mahāvākya ‘tattvamasi’ shows the intrinsic identity of both these entities denoted by the words tat and tvaṃ. ^[52] When the avidyā, having the nature of duality is removed with the help of the instructions of the Śrutis, the jīva realizes itself as being the eternal Self in the form ‘ahaṃ Brahmāsmi’ and thereby becomes free from the individuality.^[53]

Speaking of the difference between the jīva and the Brahman, Śaṅkarācārya says that the difference is seen due to the limiting adjuncts of the body and the senses created by the avidyā. It is not real. There is only one inner Self and not two. This innermost Self alone is regarded as different on account of the limiting adjuncts. It is like one indivisible space, which is distinctly known as the space in a pot and the cosmic space. Then only all the things, such as the Śruti-texts related to the division of knower and things to be known, the valid means of knowledge such as perception etc., the experience of the transmigratory world and the scripture proclaiming injunction and prohibition become appropriate.^[54] The concepts of jīva and Īśvara are also found to be imagined due to the limiting adjuncts. In the viewpoint of Śaṅkarācārya, the Self is called the transmigratory soul, when it is limited with the adjuncts of body and organs, specified by avidyā, kāma (desire) and karma (action). The very Self is called the Īśvara, when it has the limiting adjunct of eternal and limitless jñāna (knowledge) and śakti (power). And, the Self itself is called immutable supreme Self, when it is absolute, single and pure by its nature.^[55] The consciousness always remains same in the jīva and the Īśvara, like the heat in the fire and its spark.^[56] Thus, the difference between the jīva and the Īśvara is stated only considering the empirical dealings. However, in the state of supreme Self, the empirical usages, such as the ruler, the jīvas ruled over by the Īśvara etc. are seen to be absent.^[57]

Accepting the aupādhika-bheda namely the difference caused by the limiting adjuncts, the concepts of the Īśvara and the jīva are distinguished. For instance, the Īśvara has no experience of sorrow etc. like the jīva. The jīva is an agent and experiencer. It is a cause of merit and demerit and possesses the happiness and the sorrow etc. On the other hand, the Īśvara has exactly opposite characteristics, such as a quality of absence of sin etc.^[58] Although the jīva is not essentially different from the Īśvara, the characteristics of the Īśvara such as jñāna and aiśvarya (divine qualities), are seen to be concealed in the jīva. This is because of its association with the body. It is just like the qualities of the fire, such as burning and illumination remain concealed till the fire is latent in the araṇi (a wooden stick used to produce the fire in the sacrifice) or it is enveloped by the ashes.^[59] On account of the distinction caused by limitations such as intellect etc., the jīva cannot be called the creator of the world or the substratum of the heaven, earth etc.^[60]

Furthermore, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that the jīva is a mere ābhāsa (reflection) of the supreme deity, namely the Self. It arises owing to the association of the deity with the intellect etc. It is like a reflection of a man into a mirror and a reflection of the sun into the water. The deity does not get connected with the happiness or the sorrow related to the body, since it has entered as a reflection in the form of jīva. As the man and the sun entered into the mirror and the water in the form of reflections do not get affected by the defects of the mirror and the water respectively, so the deity also does not get contaminated by the defects of the adjuncts.^[61] In this connection, an opponent argues that the jīva has to be accepted as an unreal entity, if it is regarded as a mere reflection. Śaṅkarācārya answers that it cannot be a fault, since the jīva is accepted to be real in its essence i.e. the Existence.^[62] Furthermore, he asserts that the jīva is the ābhāsa of the supreme Self, just as the reflection of the sun into the water. It is not the Self itself and also not totally different from it. The ābhāsa is produced by the avidyā, so it follows that the saṃsāra, which is dependent on the ābhāsa, is also a product of avidyā. Hence, the instruction that the unity of the jīva and the Brahman can be attained by removing the avidyā becomes logical.^[63]

Further, Śaṅkarācārya says that the difference between the jīva and the supreme Self is none but the difference in the names. After realizing the unity of the jīva and the supreme Self, it can be understood that the jīva is none other than the Self and there is only difference of names. So, the obstinacy of the difference between the jīva and the supreme Self is futile. The people, who insist on the difference, obstruct the meaning of the Vedānata and also block the way to the true knowledge. They imagine the mokṣa as an effect and impermanent. Moreover, they go against the logic.^[64] Thus, both kinds of statements, i.e. about the difference and the non-difference between the jīva and the supreme Self, are found in the Śrutis. Removing the contradiction between them, Śaṅkarācārya makes clear that both the difference and the non-difference are possible, just as seen in the the maxim of the cosmic space and the space limited in the pot. When the non-difference is told by the statements like tattvamasi, the transmigratory existence of the jīva and the creatorship of the Brahman come to an end, since all the differences created by the unreal ajñāna are annihilated by the true knowledge. And when the dealings regarding the differences are not sublated, the superiority of the Brahman over the jīva continues as explained in the Śrutis, such as -‘The Self must be sought out…’ etc.^[65] In this way, Śaṅkarācārya reconciles both kinds of Śrutis regarding the difference and the non-difference between the jīva and the supreme Self.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.5.6 [Bhāṣya-ratna-prabhā Ṭīkā] on [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.5.6

[2]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.4.5.10

[3]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.12.1

[4]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.2.1.6

[5]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.26; cf. [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.4.4 [Bhāṣya-ratna-prabhā Ṭīkā] on [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.1 UpodghātaUpodghāta

[6]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.1.2

[7]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.66

[8]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.10 9 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.13.32

[9]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.16 cf [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.15.40

[10]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.7

[11]:

Ibid IV.3.7

[12]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.13.31

[13]:

Ibid II.3.13.30

[14]:

Ibid II.3.13.30

[15]:

Ibid II.3.11.17

[16]:

Ibid II.3.11.17; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.4.1.6, I.4.6.22, II.3.10.16; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] II.1.1

[17]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.13.29

[18]:

Ibid II.3.13.29

[19]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.18 Preface

[20]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.5.9; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.5.20

[21]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.6; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.7, IV.3.18 Preface

[22]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.3.9

[23]:

Ibid II.1.3.6

[24]:

See -II.21, p. 16; cf. [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] III

[25]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.10 Preface

[26]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] II.7

[27]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.5.4

[28]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.1.1

[29]:

Ibid II.3.15.40

[30]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.12.1

[31]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.18; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.1.6; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] IV.1; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] IV; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.19 Preface

[32]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.1.4; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.1.3

[33]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XVIII.66 35 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Aitareya Upaniṣad] I.3.12

[34]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.6.14

[35]:

[Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.8.1

[36]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.2.7

[37]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.2.7

[38]:

Ibid II.3.13.31; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.3.9, III.2.3.9;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.9.3, VIII.6.3

[39]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.21

[40]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.12.18;See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] VI.2

[41]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.23

[42]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] V

[43]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.15; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] III.12.9

[44]:

[Brahma-sūtra] II.3.15.40; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.15.40

[45]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] V

[46]:

[Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] II Ibid VII

[47]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] II

[48]:

Ibid 12

[49]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.5.1; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.6.19

[50]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.2.1; cf. TUSB II.1.1

[51]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.20; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.17.43, II.3.17.47; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.7; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XV.7

[52]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.1.1.2

[53]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.5.19

[54]:

Ibid I.2.5.20

[55]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] III.8.12; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.6.14

[56]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.17.43

[57]:

Ibid II.1.6.14

[58]:

Ibid I.2.1.8; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.17.46; MUSB III.1.1

[59]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.1.6

[60]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.7.22; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.4.9.20; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.1.7; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.1.4

[61]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.3.2

[62]:

Ibid VI.3.2

[63]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.17.50

[64]:

Ibid I.4.6.22

[65]:

Ibid II.1.7.22