Limitless brahman is only revealed by the words of śruti. But words can only communicate things that can be experienced. Then how can words reveal that limitless reality, where limitlessness can’t be experienced?
Therefore, śruti uses the method of negation “what brahman is not” to reveal brahman. That is said in the next verse.
atadvyāvṛttirūpeṇa vedāntairlakṣyate’ dvayam |
akhaṇḍānandamekam yattadbrahmetyavadhārayet || 57 ||
Non-dual, one, undivided fullness brahman is indicated by vedānta as the means, which is in the form of negation of non-brahman. In this manner, one should ascertain that excellent reality is brahman.
Vedānta is called śabda-pramānam - means of knowing in the form of words. Its operation is different from how usually the words are used to reveal any perceivable objects in the world because words are used to communicate something that can only be experienced or conceptualised. But brahman can’t be experienced or conceptualised, then how can words of vedānta reveal brahman?
Brahman which is advayam - non-dual, without division of knower-known-knowledge. akhaṇḍānandam - undivided fullness, not even internal division is there. And ekam - one, vedāntairlakṣyate - is indicated by words of vedānta atadvyāvṛttirūpeṇa - by negating anything other than brahman. How come negation of what is not brahman can revel brahman? Just like in the case of saying dog is not elephant, goat is not elephant, etc., these kinds of sentences can’t reveal elephant itself. Śruti operates on a particular principle where anything that can be objectified is limited, and only limitless brahman can’t be objectified. The entire objective world, including this body-mind-sense-complex is negated as limitless brahman, since anything that is objectified is limited. Once Vedānta negates everything known that is required to be negated, Vedānta as the knowledge of negation also gets negated. When there is no knowledge and known, automatically the knower is also negated. Then what remains if all are negated? The very consciousness who is the basis of knower, knowing and known, who can’t be negated remains, which is revealed as brahman.
Just like a teacher can’t be called a teacher if there is no student, thus no knowledge happened. What left is the basic person who takes up the role of a teacher, father, son, citizen, etc., which is the consciousness-brahman, who doesn’t identify with anything.
Vedānta doesn’t reveal brahman directly, it makes brahman remain as I the consciousness, who is the basis for knower-known-knowledge. yattadbrahmetyavadhārayet - in this manner one should ascertain that excellent reality is brahman.
Some students might want to know the magnitude of brahman’s happiness. This possible is answered in the next verse.
akhaṇḍānandarūpasya tasyānandalavāśritāḥ |
brahmādyāstāratamyena bhavantyānandino’ khilāḥ || 58 ||
All jīva starting with brahmaji are having gradated happiness, being dependent on a small fraction of that brahman which is of the nature of undivided happiness.
Since we can’t conceive brahma-ānanda, therefore Taittiriya-upānisad gives a comparison to the happiness of brahman in the form of units. Suppose there is a perfect human being who is young, virtuous, knowledgeable, and the king of the entire earth, who is also full of wealth. His happiness is stated as one unit of human happiness. And there is some being, which is called manusya-gandharva who has happiness compares to 100 times unit of human happiness. This multiplication keeps going till brahmaji - the creator. Each level is a multiple of 100 of the previous one. Then we might think that brahmānanda should be 100 times of brahmaji’s ānanda. No, at the end Upanisad says tasya ānandasya leśa leśatah - a small fraction of the fraction of that infinite ānanda alone is the total sum of the ānanda mentioned earlier. This is just to show that every happiness is just a fraction / expression of happiness by owning up brahman. That means brahmānanda doesn’t have even a trace of dukha - sorrow. It is the difference compared to any being, irrespective of how happy one is, one will have a trace of dukha, but not for the one who owns up one’s true nature. This is the essence.
ānandalavāśritāḥ - being dependent tasya - on that small fraction of brahman akhaṇḍānandarūpasya - which is of the nature of undivided happiness, akhilāḥ - all (jīva), brahmādyāḥ - starting with brahmaji bhavantyānandinaḥ - become happy, happiness is there for any kind of being tāratamyena - with gradation, not uniformly, even you and me don’t respond the same way to the same joke. This unmeasurable fullness is expressed differently in different manifestations.
When the unit of comparison is described, one shouldn’t think that brahmānanda is going to be another extremely happy experience, because if so, it will have to be limited. The moment it is experienced, it would mean limited only. Thus infinite ānanda is in the form of understanding that any happiness we experience is our svarūpam - nature alone. Therefore we need not go after ānanda, but own up my pūrnatvam - wholeness.
コメント