Part 50 - Influence of Bhedabheda on the Later Upanishads

In certain of the later Upanishads, 1257 the tendency to stress the abheda aspect in Bhedabheda is seen. Thus, in the Tejobindu Upanishad, we have the following characterization which is well worth noting from the point of view suggested:Ajakukshau jagannastihyatmakukshau jagannahi Sarvatha bheda kalanam dvaitadvaitam navidyate \\ Maya karyamidam bhedamastiched brahmabhavanam Deho 'ham iti dukkham ched brahmahamiti nischayah || The suggestion is that the jagat cannot be born in one who has no birth. In the womb of the formless atma, there can be no world that is evident. Therefore, in dvaitadvaita, the idea of bheda is a misnomer, a fault or defect (Bhedakalanam). Bheda, it is added, is an invention through maya. That can be true if the form of Brahman (Brahmabhavana) is true. If the undergoing of misery by the body is a fact, then, "I am Brahman" is also a fact. If there is bondage in the views, while Sripati was a Virasaiva who taught the Sivadvaitadvaita view. The statement of Keith may be traced back to Sir Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar who, writing in 1913, said: "Srikantha's view appears to be identical with that of the Virasaivas." This, as we have seen above, is only correct in a limited sense. 1257 11 " The word later" is used here in a relative sense. The remark of Professor Max Muller that any attempt to fix their relative age (i.c., the age of the different Upanishads) seems....for the present almost hopeless" seems still to hold the ground. Introduction to the Upanishads, lxix.

heart, then only could Brahmachakra cut it. If it is doubted, then the truth of Brahman can be immediately made to manifest itself. The element of reality in Bhedabheda is stressed, though as might be expected in a qualified way, in the Varahopanishad (11-12):Subhechchaadi trayam bhumi bhedabheda yutam smrutam \ Yathavadveda buddhedam jagad jagrati drishyate \\\ Advaite sthairyamayate dvaitecha prasamam gate | Pasyanti svapnavallokam turya bhumi suyogatah || Here, we see emphasised the view that the three-fold desires bring to experience the Bheda, the Abheda and Bhedabheda conditions in this world; the world appears in the wide-awake state as if it is real; no sooner does the mind fix itself in immovable advaita, the dvaita aspect gradually fades off, just as the atman in the dream states becomes one with the Brahman. In the Brahmavidyopanishad, we have a different note struck. The doctrine of Dvaitadvaita is there held to be acceptable. Thus, we have the following declaration :Pragnato'ham Prasanto'ham Prakasah Paramesvarah | Ekadha chintyamano'ham dvaitadvaita vilakshanah || "I am Pragnata personified, Prasanta personified and Paramesvara personified. I am capable of meditating on everything simultaneously. I am both Dvaita and Advaita in indescribable fashion." The Mahopanishad refers to Bhedabheda both implicitly and explicitly. In one place (VI. 62), we have the following:Dvaitadvaita samudbhutairjagan nirmana lilaya Paramatmamayi saktiradvaitaiva vijrumbhate \\ Here we have the declaration that jagan nirmana lila is the result of (the principle of) Dvaitadvaita; this makes it appear or rather produces the impression-as if Paramatma and his sakti were different from each other. Paramatma and his sakti, appearing as two different things, become the cause of the sport of creation.

In the Annapurnopanishad (V. 76-77), we have an echo of the same doctrinal declaration of one appearing to be two, though the stress is manifestly on the advaita aspect. Thus, we have the declaration:Ekah sambhidyate bhrantya mayaya na svarupatah Tasmadadvaita evasti na prapancho na samsrutih || We have here the suggestion that ignorance makes us think that one appears to split into two through the agency of maya, though it does not in reality; therefore, advaita alone prevails; there is neither the world nor existence (to talk of). Just as akasa is spoken of as ghatakasa and mahakasa, similarly through ignorance Isvara is spoken of as Jiva and Isvara (as being two different entities). In the Pasupatabrahmopanishad, we have, as might be expected, a firmer adherence to the Dvaitadvaita view. First, we have the declaration (Pasupatabrahmopanishad, 25) Natat pasyati chidrupam Brahmavastveva pasyati Dharmadharmitva vartacha bheda satihi bhidyate \\ Here, we have it stated that the bhinnarupa of chidrupa is not seen by him; but he sees only the Brahmavastu; the expressions Dharma and Dharmi, even though they surely indicate the existence of bheda, become destroyed of their meaning. Then, we have the following statement (Ibid., 26):Bhedabhedastatha bhedabhedah sakshat paratmanah Nasti svatmatirekena svayamevasti sarvada || Here, we are told that Bheda, Abheda and Bhedabheda are the visible forms of the Paramatma; they do not excel in their different eminences; they always exist of their own accord. Then, we have this other declaration (Ibid., 27) :Brahmaiva vidyate sakshad vastuto vastuto apicha Tathaiva Brahmavignani kim grihnati jahati kim || We are here told that visibly and otherwise the Brahman form only is perceivable to the eye; if this be so, which of these (Bheda, Abheda or Bhedabheda) could a Brahmagnani accept or reject. The obvious answer to this query is that he can neither abandon the one nor accept the others.

The influence of the Bhedabheda theory in later Vedantic thought is thus seen to be not negligible. It is worthy of note that the theory has never been a spent force but has again and again been enunciated in a manner which has borne testimony to its vitality. Here, we may conclude. Sripati's point of view is one that has the merit of correlating popular belief with philosophic texts, and philosophic texts with a conception of the Truth which has had a wide vogue. Sripati finds a basis for the Virasaiva faith that has not only Vedic and Upanishadic sanction in its favour, but also the authority of commentators more ancient than himself. He was not a mere systematiser of thought, but one who made faith accord with reason. His view is one that has found an echo in the West as well, and it is one too that can stand the test of a further examination at the hands of philosophic thinkers of the future, in the East and the West. || OM TAT SAT ||