Part 24.7 - The Theory of Nirvisesha Brahman

Some (Vedantins) say that if the truth about Brahman is to be realized, if one is to obtain freedom from pasu and pasa (i.e., worldly ties), he should be understood as nirvisesha Brahman and not as saguna Brahman. (In the text nirvisesha Brahmajnana is referred to as opposed to saguna jnana, i.e., saguna Brahmajnana). The qualities of Brahman are always spoken of as of a conflicting kind, as enunciated in texts like Athata adeso neti neti ||| But in the text Etad vai tadaksharam gargyasthula mananva hrasva etc., the Immortal (Aksharam) is stated to be devoid of quality of every kind. In texts like Ekamevadvitiyam Brahma " Neha nanasti kinchana etc., it is said that Brahman has no equal (advitiyatva). Similarly in texts like Sakshi cheta kevalo nirgunascha etc., it is said that Brahman should be understood as gunanishedha (i.e., devoid of all gunas or qualities). It should not, however, be so understood. Because all the Srutis decidedly taken together declare that Brahman has both the murta and amurta forms and that he should be understood as such. No qualities of Brahman (Brahmadharmanam) should be set aside (anishiddhatvat). Likewise is the import of the Sutra (III. 2. 21) Prakrutaitavatvam hi pratishedhati tatobraviti cha bhuyah etc., which declares that Brahman should be considered as having ananda of an exceptional quality (anyatha anandadinam). Even texts which declare the oneness of Brahman such as, Sadeva saumyedamagra asit, etc., state that prior to srishti (creation), there was this unrivalled One. So the Sruti texts that declare Brahman as nirguna evidently include Brahman possessing all qualities (sarvagnatadishu). The word guna is used (here) in connection with Brahman as meaning "devoid of satva and the rest of the three gunas", and so should not be taken as denoting "without attributes" (guna sabda prayogabhavena satvadi gunatrayabhava paratvat). Similarly other Sruti texts like Yas sarvagnas sarvavit (He

(Brahman) who is all wisdom and all-knowing) etc., also contradict the statement that Brahman is nirvisesha. The ancient Acharyas (Purvacharyas) possessed of Vedic knowledge, such as Revana Siddha, Marula Siddha and others, affirm that prior to Creation, there was no manifestation of either Vyakta or Avyakta (the Seen or the Unseen). Therefore it is that we suggest that all the Srutis (Brahma vakyas) which refer to the Advaita Brahman, simply mean that the all-knowing Brahman, the great unrivalled Being who has no second, alone existed at first and not that the Brahman is attributeless. Thus states the Svetasvatara:-Yada tamastan nadivana ratrih na san nachasat Siva eva kevalah Similarly the following text from the Atharva-siras:-Ahamekah prathamamasam vartamicha bhavishyamicha nanyahkaschin matto vyatiriktah Then, again, the text goes:-Nanyat kinchanamishat || etc. These texts show that running through the whole of the Vedanta is the idea that, on the analogy of the maxim that all roads lead to a common meeting point, prior to Creation, all was in that One (Brahman) without a second. And that unrivalled Brahman when he was about to bring about Creation, was possessed of several ideas (bhava) about it. Thus declare the Srutis:-So 'kamayata bahusyam That is, prajayeya" etc., in an undivided (abheda) sense. before Creation, everything was in Brahman without a division. And it must be understood that all the Sruti texts mean that Brahman was in an undivided condition. For it is said in texts like Aitadamtyam idam sarvam || Sarvo hyesha Rudrah Atmaivedam sarvam etc. These and other similar texts declare that Brahman, out of nis own free will, was in a position to bring about the Creation of Visva, and was both the karya and karana : in an undivided form (abhedascha) just as the earth and the earthen pot. In the Atharva-siras, we have Eka vignanena sarva- "He vijnana pratigna cha" mam yo veda sarvan veda | etc. who knows thoroughly one thing well can claim to

understand about all other things" and that "He who understands Me can understand all the rest." So after knowing the underlying truth of Sivatatva, all other truths are thoroughly proved (siddhamiti siddham). Before Creation the material cause (upadana karana) of Jagat, i.e., Prakriti, did exist. If so, how can Brahman It without a Second? magnet possesses the be said to be the unrivalled One is explained thus:-Just as the property of attracting to itself iron and just as fire is never free from its burning property, so Isvara was with this (Isvara) sakti and was accordingly the One Unrivalled without a Second. For it is said in Sruti texts like Tad atma saktim svagunair nigudham Parasya saktih vividhaiva sruyate svabhaviki jnana bala kriya cha etc., that the Parasakti¹¹ of Siva is His own and not apart from Him as He is declared by the Agamas, Srutis and Puranas and therefore the mumukshus (those who aim at moksha) should not agree to the un-Vedic statements about the illusion of the world (Jaganmithyatva) as propounded by the Advaitavadins. And also the text Neti neti of the Sruti should not be understood to mean that Brahman is entirely without a corporeal body (niravayava). In the Sruti text Sthirebhirangaih pururupa ugra etc., it is stated that the worldly sports (prakrita paramasivalila) etc., exhibited by the auspicious forms of Siva (mangala vigraha) eternal (nityatva sravanat), though this is not to be understood in the same sense as those holding the Samyuktadvaita (Visishtadvaita) and Pancharatra tenets profess it, which explains the rule governing the double. nature of Brahman in being both the Remainder and the Whole and his being constant in the different parts of his body (seshi seshatva vyavastha of Brahman and his angangatvena savayavatva). If we agree to the latter view, then we have to admit that the jiva should enjoy happiness (sukha) and misery (dukkha). are · 116 Parasakti Para means pre-eminent, and sakti is the active principle of a deity regarded as his wife,

Texts like Akasavat sarvagatascha purna | and hundreds of other texts as well, contradict such a view. Nor do we hold the tenets of the Sadaghatapatavannatyantabhedavadinah i.e., those who ever hold that jiva and Brahman are constantly as apart as ghata-a pot-and pata-a cloth. Because Sruti texts like Yenasrutam srutam bhavati etc., solemnly contradict such a declaration. Nor do we discuss according to the opinions of rajju-sarpa vadins who hold that everything is one in Brahman and explain that the world is an illusion (Ekatara mithyatva vadinah). In Sruti texts like Satyakamas satyasankalpa, it is declared that Isvara is naturally possessed of infinite good qualities (ananta kalyana gunah). Also, texts like Yatova imani bhutani jayante "from whom these creatures came into being", show that Brahman was the material cause for the creation, etc., of the world. Again, texts like Eka vignanena sarvavijnana pratigna, declare that the upasana Brahman is possessed of both murta and amurta forms. And therefore naturally all the Sruti texts go to prove that they should be understood in consonance with the view of Bhedabheda vada and all the other views above referred to be held to be contradictory to the import of the Srutis. This is the whole established truth (Bhedabhedavadina iti raddhantah). Sruti texts like Gna gnau dvau aja visanisau pradhana kshetragnapatir. gunesah explain that the quality of Siva is unrivalled, having no second and that He is the Para Brahman, the All-knowing and that His qualities are incomparable with those of others as stated in the Srutis. This proves that the jiva is naturally bound down by the rope of avidya i.., illusion (svabhavika vidyapasa baddha) and is possessed of jada, jadatva and sarvanubhava (stupefaction, liveliness and all experience). If it is asked how Paramasiva, who is in all (sarvadhishthanasya) and who is all-pervading (sarvavyapakasya) can possess the two forms Murtamurta, it is answered that just as Prakriti presents herself in the form of sky (mahat), in the form of the earth (jagat), etc., and is the

cause of all gunatraya and also keeps her chidrupa, so Paramasiva, on the one hand, exhibits himself in the form of the Wind which can be felt and on the other, without form, by pervading all through the world and without being seen. And He also exists in the pradhana¹¹7 form all pervading the sky (mahat ahankara kalakala Vayurupena) while the chidrupa, the Prakriti, exhibits herself in such forms as light (tejas), water (salila) and earth (prithvi). What is not possible for Paramasiva who is possessed of the power to do all things seemingly impossible (aghatanaghatana sakti) and is possessed of infinite powers? In Virupebhyo visvarupebhyascha vai namonamah and numerous other texts of the Srutis, it is declared that He is possessed of such powers. Also in the Saivagamas and in certain parts of the Veda, it is said Sakteh sankochabhavena srishteh purvam Mahesvarah Niramso nirgunascheti vedanteshu pragiyate Sakter vikasabhavena hyanantagunavan iti | Prochyate Bhagavan Rudrah pasupasapramochakah | Murtamurtasvarupena yatha Vayur virajate | Sadasivastatha bhati sarvanugrahakarakah || Murtamurtajagadrupa yatha maya tatha Sivah | Murtamurtasvarupah syaditi vedantadindimah Etad vedantahridayam agnatva mohitah pare Srutera partham kurvanti loke panditamaninah || But in certain other less prominent texts of the Veda, a view contradictory to the above is suggested, but it is not to be taken seriously by the learned. Bheda and Abheda are not opposed to each other just as light and darkness are (na tamah prakasavat bhedabhedo viruddhah). But is it that light and darkness are to be taken as co-existing at the same time or coming (one after another) as day and night by difference of time? The reply is it is not the first (of the two states above mentioned); though they appear to exist simultaneously like rupa, jati, sabda, artha, guna, guni, mani, prakasa, etc., without opposing each other. In the dualistic world (dvaita prapancha), in ghatassanghatobhati, etc., 117 19 Controlling form of Prakriti.

the name and the form (nama rupa) are seen, and people appreciate it conjointly. The name and the form co-exist. and could be seen simultaneously by those who love it (the object). Similarly the existence of Prakriti, both in the form of cause and effect (karya karanatvena), could be seen coexisting simultaneously in the form of chit and ananda in an undivided, single (Advaita) form. If such a thing is not admitted or agreed to, then, according to the maxim nahidrishter anupapannam nama (i.e., is it ikely that that which is seen by the eye is not seen by it?), a contradiction results. And also it will be just as an illusionary mirage (maru marichikadivat bhranti matram) and there will be neither fulfilment of the desired object (artha siddhi) nor of action (kriya siddhi). Not the second, for in Dvasu parna and other Sruti texts it is clearly seen that during samsaradasa, the jiva and the Brahman are seen to exist separately (jiva-brahmanor bhedah). Many other Sruti texts such as Tattvamasi, etc., rightly declare that at the time of release there is unity (Mokshadasayam abhedascha yuktameva). In Satya kama etc., and other Sruti texts, it is declared that the world should not be considered as true temporarily for practical purposes only (i.e., na vyavaharamatra satyatvam), just as the magical and illusory appearance of silver in a shell (aindrajala sukti rajatavat), but that it must be accepted of Parabrahma Siva that the hidden actions of Creation, Existence and Destruction co-exist in Him as the Reality (Tirodhana kamasya satyatvam). There is nothing here that could be falsely attributed; because while the cause is real, the action ought, as a rule, to be real. If it is supposed that 1. isight to start admitting for purposes of discussion (jijnasa) that Brahman is nirvisesha and nishkriya, no discussion about such a Brahman can arise. For in such a Brahman, a false attribution of illusory truth is conceived and a false existence of Brahman in whom the chief material cause of the world (pradhana satva) is understood to be existing, is predicated. If such a thing can be accepted as correct, then the text Yanmanasa namanute

yenahur manomatam INTRODUCTION 291 Tadeva Brahmatvam viddhi Nedam yadidamupasate and other texts which state that attributes, though inconceivable, are admitted by the admitted by the power of expression, will be contradicted. So it is that Brahman is extolled and worshipped in the saguna form (sagunopasanasya) by the use of expression (vak) and by the use of organs of sense (indriya) 115; if we do not accept this, then we reach the contradictory position (asambhava) that for garudamantra, for the use of which (for casting a spell) the magician and the spell are both required, it is enough if we have either of them-either the magician or the spell, which would not help to attain the objective.119 Therefore, throughout the Veda, Vedanta, Itihasa and Purana which deal with bhakti, kriya and jnana (faith, action and knowledge), it is declared that Brahman should be understood as saguna Brahman. But if it is to be taken as maya (kalpitam), then it would be like washing off our hands of the above i.e., Veda etc., (dattanjali prasaktissyat). Further, if avidya, which is not existing (asati), is to be assumed as existing, for argument's sake, in Brahman (Isvara), just as an artificial (kritrima) saligrama is assumed to be an object of holy worship, 120 who could be expected to have 118 Lit. an organ of sense or faculty of sense. In Vedanta, manah, buddhi, ahamkara, chitta and chetana are said to be the five internal organs. The total number of organs is, therefore, 15, each presided over by its own ruler, or nyantru (administrating agent). Advaitins do not admit chetana as a different organ, as the identity of jiva and Brahman is a postulate with them. 119 Here both magician and the spell are of the saguna class and the resulting third issuing from their combination is of the nirguna class. Garuda is a charm against snake poison; see Kadambari, 51 (Bombay Edn.). 120 The commentator suggests that Avidya is an artificial assumption on the part of Sankara and his followers in regard to Brahman and is no more efficacious than an artificial (kritrima) saligrama can be an object of holy worship on the part of a pious bhakta. Avidya is as artificial an assumption in regard to Brahman as an artificial saligrama can be to a pious worshipper. Sunya Brahman is as efficacious as a kalpita saligrama to a bhakta.

bhakti, sraddha and visvasa in such a Brahman or in such a saligrama? Again, how can that Maya (kalpita) Isvara be deemed capable of granting all the results that the worshipper wants by his faithful meditation and adoration? If this is not so, the text Matrudevo bhava; Pitrudevo bhava; Acharyadevo bhava and other Sruti texts which prescribe the (prevalent) method of worship will become incomprehensible, meaningless (i.e., asambhavyam). Thus in an Isvara to whom chaitanya¹ 21 is wrongly attributed, Isvaratva will prove illusory (visishtesvaratvam na syat), as in a rope mistaken for a serpent, there is no cause for fear (bhayamapi na syat). Those who are expert in the knowledge of things invisible (aparoksha vidyavatamapi) are said to be feared by even the Heavenly planets such as the Sun. In texts like Bhishasmat vatah pavate (bhishodeti suryah), Gna gnau dvau ajavisanisau, Ajo hyeko jushamano'nusete jahatyenam bhuktabhogam ajo'nyah, etc., the jiva and the Brahman are stated as never having had a birth, which appears to be an invention (kalpitatvat) and hence not Vedic (avaidikah). Moreover, what are the unimpeachable evidences to prove Brahman is attributeless (nirvisesha)? Unless we can clearly understand and prove that sabda is not inseparable from Brahman and that Brahman has no separate existence by itself and unless we understand that sabda has the power to describe the qualities of Brahman and that sabda has the quality of pervasion (vyapti) and that Brahman is completely unassociated with sabda, Brahman cannot be (described as) attributeless (nirvisesha), for the knowledge of being attributeless. (mircisesha) cannot remove absolutely the doubts and contradictions regarding the knowledge of Brahman. Unless we make sure that there is a pot (ghata) in the house, we cannot definitely state whether there is a pot in the house or not. In the same way, unless we make 121 In Vedanta philosophy, chaitanya means the supreme spirit considered as the essence of all being and source of all sensation,

sure of the qualities of an object and of its existence or its contrary, we cannot say anything about the object itself. Have we to understand Isvara to depend on his own qualities (dharma) or depend on qualities which are beyond himself or on qualities which are contrary to them? Just as a pot (ghata) is understood by its qualities, similarly the Atma is understood by the qualities of Devadatta. A lover of Truth (satyakama) will never fail to realize Brahman (Brahma sakshatkara). The superiority of Isvara cannot be stated to be apart from Isvara Himself. Therefore it may be decidedly declared that it would be as improper to state that a tangible object is possessed of no properties, as to make the statement that "my mother is a barren woman". 122 Such a statement will destroy all investigation (vyavahara), rendering it nugatory (ayuktam).