Brahman and Atman (by Hari Prasad Shastri )

[Guest guest]

Brahman and Atman

by Hari Prasad Shastri

 

In the Upanishads and the writings of the great and holy Bhagavan

Shankaracharya, there are two words used that often bring confusion

to Western minds. These two words are `Brahman' and `Atman'. A short

time ago, a professor of the University of Milan contributed an

article showing the difference of meaning between the two words, but

in fact it is not so: they mean one and the same thing. And now I

will endeavour to make clear the meaning of the word `Brahman', and

then it will be very easy to know the meaning of `Atman'. Let us be

all attention so that we may understand the meaning once and for

all.

Etymologically the word `Brahman' comes from the root `bhri' meaning

great or majestic. Perhaps long, long ago, when the holy Rishis were

in their Brahmachard (discipleship), they looked around and

they saw the sun, the moon and the stars; they saw the seasons

changing, the sun eclipsed, the moon waxing and waning, and they saw

that there was a principle underlying all this change, and when they

understood the universal immortal principle on which these changes

take place they expressed it by the word `Brahman' — great or

majestic. That is Brahman.

 

Now Atman. The human consciousness, when it acquires its perfection

in identity with that immortal principle (Brahman) is

called `Atman'. The individual consciousness, when it is known to be

identical with that principle in its individual capacity, is spoken

of to others as Atman. Atman is local, Brahman universal. We can

call the sun as it is known to the whole world, Brahman, and we can

call the sun as it is known from England, Atman. Atman relates to

the individual, Brahman to the universal. When the universal is

spoken of in relation to the individual, (i.e. when the individual

is known to be universal), it is known as Brahman.

 

Often people are confused, but it is quite clear. When I speak of

clay in general, it can be called clay absolute; but when I refer to

an individual pot of clay as `my pot of clay', then there is the

universal clay and there is my pot of clay which represents Atman:

the clay universal is Brahman.

 

Atman and Brahman are exactly the same, but by Atman is meant that

aspect of the universal consciousness that is encased in the five

sheaths (body, vital force, mind, intellect and bliss sheath) and

spoken of in relation to those sheaths. When the pot understands it

is clay, identical with the clay universal, then the Atman of the

pot is Brahman, and in this sense the individual is universal. They

are interchangeable words: Atman means essence, and the essence of

the human personality is Brahman. Atman is Brahman. Tat twam asi —

That thou art, immutable, eternal.

 

Once more let us dwell on the meaning of these two words, Brahman

and Atman, and every one of these statements is taken from some

great classic — they are not my words. Do not worry if you do not

understand the whole of the exposition. When a doctor prescribes for

a patient, the patient understands only a little of the

prescription, little beyond whether it is liquid or solid; perhaps

it may seem to contain peppermint, but he does not understand the

whole of it. But if he takes it he may be cured. The same with the

holy teachings: these psychological bullets go to undermine the

fortress of spiritual ignorance, of duality and suffering, therefore

do not worry if you do not understand the whole — expose yourself to

these bullets:

 

First statement: `Brahman is the existence (not existent) on which

the appearance of the cosmos takes place'. The appearance and

disappearance are both objects, and have no independent existence:

they are unreal. If there were no principle on which the appearance

and disappearance of the cosmos takes place, the appearance

disappears and the disappearance disappears. Therefore the reality

can only be that principle on which the appearance and disappearance

takes place, and that is Brahman. How can the appearance and

disappearance of the cosmos take place? The cosmos disappears,

individually, when we go to sleep, and in the universal way when we

have known God. At the end of a kalpa (world- period), when all the

cosmos becomes akasha (ether) and is finally absorbed, then Brahman

is left. The individual aspect? The pot of clay says that the

universal clay is behind it, or `my essence' is behind all the pots

that are. That is the same as saying, `My Atman is in all'.

`The world has design, and it cannot come out of blind force'. Look

at these flowers. Can they have come out of blind force, although

Kant tried to prove they did? If twenty chimpanzees sat down at

twenty typing machines for twenty thousand years, would they be able

to produce one sonnet of Shakespeare? No, there is no reason behind

them. The universe cannot come from blind force, although there are

scientists who say that everything, even the mind of man, comes out

of blind force. Let us leave them. Shri Shankaracharya says: `Behind

empirical order is a rational power or conscious principle'. Look at

these leaves. In each and every one are millions of cells, and no-

one in the world could create one of them. There is a rational cause

behind the universe, although people known as materialists and

atheists have prejudices against this, and Shri Shankaracharya

says: `That rational cause is Brahman'.

`He is the cause of the Scriptures'. When we turn to the holy Vedas,

we find such profundity of thought, the whole of logic, Mimamsa,

Vedanta, poetry and so forth. These are encyclopaedias, and only

from the Omniscient could they have come forth, and that Omniscient

One is Brahman. From those fishermen like Luke whom He inspired, all

the ethics and philosophy have come which people study to obtain

degrees, all come from the Scriptures. Therefore it is said: `The

Scriptures are Brahman'.

These three main statements are made by Shri Shankaracharya in his

Vedanta Sutra commentary.

Here now are some subsidiary statements: `Brahman cannot be said to

be this'. Brahman is not objective. Brahman is infinity, and you

cannot say: `This is it'. `Self-consciousness is the final

evidence', this is similar to the dictum of St Anselm of

Canterbury. `I am' is the final evidence, and it is that `am-ness'

and `I-ness' which expresses Brahman. No-one can deny `I am', but as

the holy Acharya says, `These arguments are useless for the

ignorant'.

 

`He is absolute and cannot be defined by attributes.' An objector

says: When you say `He is omnipotent', you attribute personality,

and then the absoluteness of Brahman is gone. This is a serious

point, worthy of study. If you say, `He is absolute', you say

nothing to limit Him. When it is said: `He (Brahman the Absolute) is

omnipotent, all- pervasive and omniscient', then you attribute

personality to Him. Omniscience implies time and space, which does

not apply to Brahman. Space prevents us from knowing an object: I

have no knowledge of Everest from here — what prevents it? Space.

Time also prevents us from knowing: I cannot see the march of

Alexander from India — time prevents it. Therefore our knowledge of

objects is negated by two factors, space and time, that is Maya. But

time and space that limit our knowledge do not apply to Brahman, He

is the Lord of time and space and is therefore limitless. It is in

this sense that the holy Acharya calls Brahman omniscient.

 

There are two theological approaches to the understanding of

Brahman. First, He is absolute and we cannot say a word about Him.

Second, we can make some rough approach to definition. This is the

way we adopt when we say `He is omniscience', not omniscient but

omniscience itself. We make some approach in this way. By

omniscience is meant that Maya cannot obscure his vision. What

limits us and makes us weak? Ignorance is the limiting adjunct, and

the term `Maya' means the totality of all limitations and

conditions; and as He is above Maya it is said, `He is omniscience',

that is, above time and space — and these characteristics are very

well applied to Him.

 

`Brahman is not subject to the conscious process', that is, He is

above inference, deduction, observation, experiment and so forth.

The holy Acharya puts it all in one word, sarvajna (all-knowing).

Personality limits Him, it only expresses a little thing, and so

impersonality is retained in the conception. Vidyaranya

says: `Omniscience exists in the capacity to express everything'.

Brahman expresses Himself as cosmos, and hence Vidyaranya in this

sense says, `He is omniscience which is like a lamp that expresses

everything that is near it'. So Consciousness Universal expresses

everything in the universe.

 

Omniscience is of two kinds: one, omniscience that is natural,

inherent in an object; that is, it requires no proof. In this sense

it is said, `Brahman is omniscient by his innate (natural)

capacity'. Two, relative omniscience, which makes use of the

conscious process — thought, reasoning, deduction, experiment,

analysis, authority and so forth. Brahman does not obtain knowledge

in this way, he has no need of the conscious process. Therefore it

is said, `He is sarvajna, all-knowing'.

 

Now another, lower plane of thought. `Brahman is associated with

Maya, underlying the finite modes of experience'. The term `mode' is

borrowed from the philosophy of Spinoza, who defines it

as `transitory phenomena which appear in the nature of existence,

which is not changed by them'. All the universe is existence, and

this existence has millions of modes, but it is not changed by them.

This bell is made of brass. It has its origin in brass, and by

becoming this it has not changed the nature of brass. Brahman

underlies these millions of modes and is beyond the mind, thought

and speech. He who works through the mind is Brahman. He who

underlies the created universe is Brahman.

 

`Tat twam asi' (That thou art) refers to Brahman. It often seems

that these statements contradict each other, but no: they are meant

to suit the different mental capacities of the pupils. You have to

speak in their own language, and in this way it is seen that these

statements are not contradictory, but different approaches. So it is

said: `Brahman is all- pervasive, the root of all, the substratum of

all'. Sometimes it seems that only the personal aspect is meant, in

reference to his shakti or power, but this is due to different

theological attitudes of mind. It is the object of the Rishis to

bring the highest truth; then the personal aspect is defined. But

when the mind of the pupil is broken down, he is told only, `Tat

twam asi', That thou art.

 

He is the principle underlying the cosmos, underlying the existence

of the whole universe. That is Brahman, and He is infinitely more

than the totality of the consciousness of all living beings. In the

same way as water underlies all waves, spray, drops, vapour and so

forth, and as in whatever is sweet the sweetness is due to the sugar

in it, so He is the consciousness of all living beings and far

transcends them all.

 

Vedanta is called the `transcendental philosophy', that is, you

cannot set a limit anywhere, but go on to infinity. Friends, I have

been talking of Brahman. Brahman is you, it is your description, Tat

twam asi, this you are. You are not the little body, you are above

all causation, immutable, immortal, your Atman is Brahman, this and

nothing else.

 

Brahman and Atman

by Hari Prasad Shastri

http://www.self-knowledge.org/latest/05sum/brahmanAndAtman.htm