A question is raised as to whether Brahman and
the jīva are one and the same entity, for in the śruti there are many passages
in which the interpretation can be applied to either of them or to both. In
reply to this, the Vedānta-sūtra starts by stating that Brahman is the original
cause of the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the material universes.
Thus, from the outset, the distinction between the minute living entity and
Parabrahma is declared and it will be further clarified in the text. Although
it is true that words like ‘bhūma,’ ‘ātmā’ and ‘Brahman’ are indistinctly used
as referring to either the jīva or the Supreme Lord, it is required to properly
apply exegetical principles in given contextual instances. Brahman is thus
etymologically defined:
atha kasmād ucyate
brahmeti bṛhanto hy asmin guṇāḥ
(Govinda-bhāṣya,
1.1.2)
"Why is Brahman called so? Because in
Brahman all attributes expand unlimitedly."
This evidently contrasts with the
living entity’s minuteness and limited power to act or manifest anything beyond
the capacity of his respective material body and mind. Otherwise, the jīva
would never be restricted by material adjuncts, therefore how could he possibly
ever become unlimitedly powerful after liberation? And if the scriptures meant
that there is no difference between the jīvas and Brahman, then there would be
no point in using different terminology to refer to the same thing, nor any
meaning in prompting someone to meditate on and worship an entity distinct from
oneself. Here knowledge of the original nature of the soul is regarding
relevant as far as it is part of the preliminary knowledge to understand the
nature of Parabrahma, therefore it is considered imperfect and insufficient
until it blooms in the comprehension of the soul and God.
To understand the nature of Brahman, the
Vedānta-sūtras give us some illustrations: just like a serpent’s coil forms one
unity with the serpent itself, Brahman and His attributes also form an
inseparable unity. When the scriptures state that Brahman is knowledge and
bliss, the purport is not that Brahman is simply constituted of transcendental
knowledge and bliss, nor that Brahman has them as Its qualities, but that
Brahman is by definition the dharma and the dharmī, the very attributes and the
possessor of those attributes. A subtler analogy is that of fire and its light:
both are intrinsic. So is Brahman, for it is not possible to isolate either the
qualities or the substance itself. Another example is time, which is generally
classified as past, present and future, but in fact, the three are a single
element. Instead of being put aloof from its different stages, time is the very
principle that defines those stages. Similarly, God is one with His qualities,
yet from Him come all the concepts of all attributes existent. In the Brahma
Purāṇa it is said:
ānandena tv abhinnena
vyavahāraḥ prakāśavat
pūrvavad vā yathā
kālaḥ svāvecchedakatāṁ vrajet
"Although the Supreme is
non-different from bliss itself, He is conventionally said to be different,
just as light and its source, or just as time is divided into earlier and later
phases.”
In the material world, one may
circumstantially accept or develop some qualities for the time being, and then
eventually give them up, but the qualities incorporated by Brahman are never
originated nor decayed, but rather ever expanding. His qualities are primeval
and the reservoir of unlimited varieties that give rise to all the reflections
seen in the material plane. Moreover, there is ample evidence in the scriptures
to prove that there cannot ever be any difference between God and His
transcendental qualities. In the śruti it is said:
neha nānāsti kiñcana
(Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad,
4.4.19,
“Within the Supreme Lord there is no
difference whatsoever.”
mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum
āpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati
"A person who sees
difference between the Supreme Lord’s expansions attain death after death in
this world."
yathodakaṁ durge vṛṣṭaṁ
parvateṣu vidhāvati
evaṁ dharmān pṛthak
paśyaṁs tān evānuvidhāvati
(Kaṭha Upaniṣad,
2.4.14)
“Just as rain water on the hills
runs down into impassable places, similarly one who sees the Lord’s attributes
as different from Him falls down.”
In the Nārada-pañcarātra it is said:
nirdoṣa-pūrṇa-guṇa-vigraha
ātma-tantro niścetanātmaka-śarīra-guṇaiś ca hīnaḥ
ānanda-mātra-kara-pāda-mukhodarādiḥ
sarvatra ca svagata-bheda-vivarjitātmā
“The Supreme Soul is independent.
His body is composed of faultless and fully transcendental qualities, devoid of
the qualities of a body made of insentient matter. His self is totally free of
internal differences, and His hands, feet, face, belly, and so on consist
exclusively of blissfulness.”
There is a gulf of difference
between the way God and His attributes are related and the way a material
object and its adjuncts are related. A material object like a house may be
constituted by diverse elements and suffer by their addition or reduction, but
God’s status is never influenced by any external element, because all His
qualities are of the same spiritual nature as He Himself, therefore devoid of
all material frailties. This point is clarified by the smṛti in the following
words:
jñāna-śakti-balaiśvarya-vīrya-tejāṁsy
aśeṣataḥ
bhagavac-chabda-vācyāni
vinā heyair guṇādibhiḥ
(Viṣṇu Purāṇa,
6.5.79; Govinda-bhāṣya, 3.2.31)
“Complete omniscience, power,
might, opulence, strength, and splendour without any undesirable qualities is
expressed by the word ‘bhagavān.’
To refer to both as if they were
subject and object is merely a language limitation, just like saying that the
wave is made of water. Here there is a mild redundancy, for unless there is
water, there is no meaning for wave, but still we have different terms to qualify
them. In a similar way, when the scriptures describe Brahman as the reservoir
of all rasas, it is to be understood that He is both the rasas and the enjoyer
of rasas. When Brahman is manifested in a form able to enjoy and reciprocate
the sweetest varieties of rasas, that form is called Govinda, the giver of
pleasure to His devotees.
