Part 8 (1/2)

______________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Cha. III. 14. 4.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ VII. 25. i; also [email protected]@daka II. 2. ii.]

[Footnote 3: Cha. VI. 10.]

[Footnote 4: Deussen's translation in _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, p.

164.]

[Footnote 5: [email protected] III. 8. i.]

[Footnote 6: S'vetas'vatara IV. 6, and [email protected]@daka III. i, 1, also Deussen's translation in _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, p. 177.]

50

But in spite of this apparent theistic tendency and the occasional use of the word _is'a_ or _is'ana_, there seems to be no doubt that theism in its true sense was never prominent, and this acknowledgement of a supreme Lord was also an offshoot of the exalted position of the atman as the supreme principle. Thus we read in [email protected] [email protected] 3. 9, ”He is not great by good deeds nor low by evil deeds, but it is he makes one do good deeds whom he wants to raise, and makes him commit bad deeds whom he wants to lower down. He is the protector of the universe, he is the master of the world and the lord of all; he is my soul (_atman_).”

Thus the lord in spite of his greatness is still my soul. There are again other pa.s.sages which regard Brahman as being at once immanent and transcendent. Thus it is said that there is that eternally existing tree whose roots grow upward and whose branches grow downward. All the universes are supported in it and no one can transcend it. This is that, ”...from its fear the fire burns, the sun s.h.i.+nes, and from its fear Indra, Vayu and Death the fifth (with the other two) run on [Footnote ref 1].”

If we overlook the different shades in the development of the conception of Brahman in the [email protected] and look to the main currents, we find that the strongest current of thought which has found expression in the majority of the texts is this that the atman or the Brahman is the only reality and that besides this everything else is unreal. The other current of thought which is to be found in many of the texts is the pantheistic creed that identifies the universe with the atman or Brahman. The third current is that of theism which looks upon Brahman as the Lord controlling the world. It is because these ideas were still in the melting pot, in which none of them were systematically worked out, that the later exponents of Vedanta, [email protected], Ramanuja, and others quarrelled over the meanings of texts in order to develop a consistent systematic philosophy out of them. Thus it is that the doctrine of Maya which is slightly hinted at once in [email protected]@nyaka and thrice in S'vetas'vatara, becomes the foundation of [email protected]'s philosophy of the Vedanta in which Brahman alone is real and all else beside him is unreal [Footnote ref 2].

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: [email protected] II. 6. 1 and 3.]

[Footnote 2: [email protected] II. 5. 19, S'vet. I. 10, IV. 9, 10.]

51

The World.

We have already seen that the universe has come out of Brahman, has its essence in Brahman, and will also return back to it. But in spite of its existence as Brahman its character as represented to experience could not be denied. [email protected] held that the [email protected] referred to the external world and accorded a reality to it consciously with the purpose of treating it as merely relatively real, which will eventually appear as unreal as soon as the ultimate truth, the Brahman, is known. This however remains to be modified to this extent that the sages had not probably any conscious purpose of according a relative reality to the phenomenal world, but in spite of regarding Brahman as the highest reality they could not ignore the claims of the exterior world, and had to accord a reality to it. The inconsistency of this reality of the phenomenal world with the ultimate and only reality of Brahman was attempted to be reconciled by holding that this world is not beside him but it has come out of him, it is maintained in him and it will return back to him.

The world is sometimes spoken of in its twofold aspect, the organic and the inorganic. All organic things, whether plants, animals or men, have souls [Footnote ref 1]. Brahman desiring to be many created fire (_tejas_), water (_ap_) and earth ([email protected]_). Then the self-existent Brahman entered into these three, and it is by their combination that all other bodies are formed [Footnote ref 2]. So all other things are produced as a result of an alloying or compounding of the parts of these three together. In this theory of the threefold division of the primitive elements lies the earliest germ of the later distinction (especially in the [email protected] school) of pure infinitesimal substances (_tanmatra_) and gross elements, and the theory that each gross substance is composed of the atoms of the primary elements. And in Pras'na IV. 8 we find the gross elements distinguished from their subtler natures, e.g. earth ([email protected]_), and the subtler state of earth ([email protected]_). In the Taittiriya, II. 1, however, ether (_akas'a_) is also described as proceeding from Brahman, and the other elements, air, fire, water, and earth, are described as each proceeding directly from the one which directly preceded it.

[Footnote 1: Cha. VI.11.]

[Footnote 2: _ibid._ VI.2,3,4.]

52

The World-Soul.

The conception of a world-soul related to the universe as the soul of man to his body is found for the first time in R.V.X. 121. I, where he is said to have sprung forth as the firstborn of creation from the primeval waters. This being has twice been referred to in the S'vetas'vatara, in III. 4 and IV. 12. It is indeed very strange that this being is not referred to in any of the earlier [email protected]

In the two pa.s.sages in which he has been spoken of, his mythical character is apparent. He is regarded as one of the earlier products in the process of cosmic creation, but his importance from the point of view of the development of the theory of Brahman or atman is almost nothing. The fact that neither the [email protected], nor the Vis'vakarma, nor the [email protected] played an important part in the earlier development of the [email protected] leads me to think that the [email protected] doctrines were not directly developed from the monotheistic tendencies of the later @Rg-Veda speculations. The pa.s.sages in S'vetas'vatara clearly show how from the supreme eminence that he had in R.V.X. 121, [email protected] had been brought to the level of one of the created beings. Deussen in explaining the philosophical significance of the [email protected] doctrine of the [email protected] says that the ”entire objective universe is possible only in so far as it is sustained by a knowing subject. This subject as a sustainer of the objective universe is manifested in all individual objects but is by no means identical with them. For the individual objects pa.s.s away but the objective universe continues to exist without them; there exists therefore the eternal knowing subject also ([email protected]_) by whom it is sustained.