|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sessed of an entire range of qualities, such as wisdom, great strength, attractive color, etc., but also as devoid of all such qualities. The question is, If all of these texts are supposed to have a single referent, how are they to be reconciled? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Badarayana's view, insofar as it may be constructed from his laconic sutras, is that the two descriptions of Brahman in the upanisads really pertain to Brahman and not just to its knower; they are not simply imposed on Brahman from the perspective of the human self. Brahman is knowable either as having form, or as devoid of form; how one performs meditation depends on the meditator's preference and the particular text being used for meditation.
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sankara's position is more complex. First, in explaining UMS III.2.14"Brahman is only formless, to be sure, for that is the dominant point of the upanisadic teaching"he states that Brahman is devoid of qualities: |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Brahman is surely to be known as not having any figure constituted by form, etc., not as having it. Why? "For that is the dominant point of the upanisadic teaching," inasmuch as it has been established under the sutra, "But that is known from the upanisads because it is their consistent object," [UMS I.1.4] that texts like the following have for their main purport the transcendental Brahman which is the Self, and not any other subject-matter: "It is neither gross, nor minute, neither short nor long" (Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 3.8.8); "Soundless, touchless, colourless, undiminishing'' (Katha Upanisad 1.3.15); "That which is known as space is the accomplisher of name and form; that in which they are included is Brahman" (Chandogya Upanisad 7.14.1); "The Man is transcendental, since he is formless; he is coextensive with all that is external and internal, since he is birthless" (Mundaka Upanisad 1.1.2), "That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior and exterior. The Self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman." (Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.5.19) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of assigning a metaphorical meaning, Sankara assigns a different intent to texts which attribute form to Brahman: "But other texts, which have as their topic Brahman with figure, do |
|
|
|
|
|