Sat-darshana Bhashya (translation)

I OF NON-DUALITY

⁸⁴

Note:-[The world is a formation of the substance which is termed pure Existence, pure in the sense of its absolute independence of the particular forms in which it finds a certain expression. "All this therefore is Brahman, the one Existence-in-Substance; and this Existence, the substantial truth Brahman, is not without relation to its own forms of expression. It is Purusha, the Spirit, the Conscient, that is all this, what has become and what has yet to become.]

Again⁸⁸

So then, the sole Purusha being the efficient source and substance of all that is and can be, there can be no real opposition between the two forms of existence, variously designated by the pairs, the Outer and the Inner, World and Soul, Matter and Spirit, This-ness and I-ness. In fact this biune existence termed duality dvandva, inter-related, inter-dependent, and co-existent, is the presentation of an inseparable twofold aspect of the Supreme Truth, the thing as it is and as it becomes, the One Reality in being and in becoming. The Upanishads tell us that the One is expressed in a manifold form and the twofold existence, world and soul, jagat and jiva, is formed by the boundless energy of the dividing and differentiating conscious force variously called tapas, creative incubation, cit-sakti, conscious force, kama, desire to become many, iksa, the gaze of the eternal wide-awake self-awareness of the Indivisible Limitless sat, Purusha. Therefore world and soul, idam-bhava and aham-bhava, This-ness and I-ness, form an inseparable twofold aspect, a biune presentation of the Supreme Reality and are the primal modification parinama implied in the ceaseless change of the forms of consciousness which sees in its unlimited being a movement of limitations, a becoming of its own substance, a formation of its own eternal movement. This original substance which is of the nature of a supreme consciousness, intense and infinite, does not lose itself in its own self-becoming, in its own modifications into a variety of forms effected by its inherent conscious force. It is to be noted that this modification is not-as is thought in scholastic circles-of the nature of milk becoming curds, in which the former is lost and irrecoverable, but is of the character of gold formed into ornaments, in which gold the substance not merely persists but reveals its potentiality for formation into an endless variety. The forms change but the substance endures and it is the identity of the persisting substance that is stressed as the central truth by the Chandogya Upanishad analogy of gold in ornamental forms. The Purusha sat is not affected in his character as substance, the material for all this formation of endless worlds and numberless souls which are but his countless parts, thus manifest in virtue of his conscious force tapas. It is clear then that Brahman is one substance, svarupa, in all its forms and conditions⁹⁰

The truth of the one substance, the Reality, revealed in experience to the supra-sensual consciousness as one-without-a-second, becomes to the sense-mind in experience the many full of duality. And finding opposition between the One and the Many, certain schools of philosophic thought, by way of recognising the higher sanction of the superconscious experience in which the One alone is felt, have hastened to affirm the One by a denial of the Many, as this latter is manifest only to sense experience which is indeed not to be relied upon for getting at the Reality, for realising the truth that transcends the sphere of the senses. But since we find in the scriptures oft-repeated passages that the One has become the Many and is expressed or veiled in the Many, it is reasonable to conclude that the One and the Many are not really opposed to each other, and the contradiction has no place in the Reality but is a figment of the enquiring mind. Hence it is preferable to solve the problem of the Many by reducing the contradiction, if at all there is any, to a reconciliation in the Truth itself.

Let us take the instance of a pot. When the form of the pot is perceived without the knowledge that the pot is made of clay, no one denies the truth of this form or the validity of its perception on the ground that he has no knowledge of the substance of which it is made, and thus of the true character of the pot. Similarly we do not deny the form or its perception when we gain knowledge of the true nature of the pot, viz, that it is made of clay. Both the statements that the material of the pot is clay and that it is of a particular shape, can be truly made of the pot. The knowledge that the pot is of clay neither contradicts nor is incompatible with the knowledge that it has a particular shape. Nor does the predication that the pot has a particular form negate the substantial truth that the pot is of clay. Therefore it has to be admitted that the truth of the thing is twofold according to the view-point and understanding capacity of the enquiring mind. That the pot is made of clay may be termed the substantial truth of the pot and that it has a particular shape, its formal truth. Both are true and together give the whole truth of the pot. That clay is the substance of the pot is the substantial or the primal truth. The form assumed by the substance is the formal truth. Since form depends upon substance and substance refers to the essential character of the thing, the one is the substantial and primary truth, and the other is the formal or attributive and secondary truth of the same, especially in view of the fact that the same thing is apprehended differently by the different sense-organs. But the understanding of the form and other aspects of substance as distinct and apart from substance itself is entirely dependent on sense-mind and intelligence and its development. Thus the distinct apprehension of these two aspects, the substantial and the formal, not only does not lead to error, but there is a great gain in it, for then the synthetic truth is apprehended in its integrality .

Similarly, dealing with the subject of the triune existence, God, world and soul, we are to recognize that the sole Reality, Brahman, presents two aspects, the substantial and the formal. Brahman, the one existence, becomes the Lord, isvara, in relation to its own modes of being as world and soul, as it is the substance and support and directing intelligence of its own formation in the shape of World and Soul. It is the Brahman that is really present in and signified by the various modes of its own existence, by the numberless selves and the countless worlds; these are the signifying factors and their Lord is the One signified in all of them. So then, it is as a relation of substance to form that we are to understand the relation of God to world and soul, the world with all that is included in it and the soul with all its limitations and developThese modes of Brahman are formed and constituted in Brahman itself and are variously termed in philosophic parlance, according to the type and temperament of the enquiring mind or the viewpoint of the vision that gave birth to the religio-philosophic system. Thus they are called modes prakaras, particulars visesas, parts or aspects kalas, qualities or attributes gunas; all these refer to the formulated existence presented to the intuitive philosophic mind as an intellectual translation of a supra-intellectual truth.

Like a particular form of substance, say the pot-shape assumed by clay, this world in which we live and move and have our being is really a mode of Brahman, an aspect of it expressive of its omnipotence, a quality of the Unqualified, a form of the supreme Substance which in itself is formless and beyond forms. And for this reason, this world of name and form as we understand it is the qualitative and formal truth, a partial truth, of Brahman the one Reality. But like the clay of the pot it is the Divine Existence, nameless and formless in itself, that is the material, the rootsubstance, of which all this (idam sarvam) is a form, and hence that is the substantial and primal truth of ’all this’. Thus there is no real opposition between these two aspects, the substantial and the formal, of the same truth. It is evident then that it is both futile and false to affirm that the substantial truth alone of the world-being, Brahman, is real and that the formal aspect of Brahman as the world is unreal. Both the aspects nirguna and saguna, the formless Brahman and the Brahman of forms, are not only not contradictory but together give a complete understanding of the truth of existence as it is.

By the terms nirguna and niskala, "absolved of qualities and parts”, it is meant that Brahman is beyond qualities and parts or aspects and not that it is devoid or incapable of qualities and parts. Besides, when Brahman is described as greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest, it is clear that Brahman as a quantitative existence is transcendental in either direction. It follows that the Infinite Brahman, while manifesting countless finite parts in definite qualities and quantities, transcends these and thus continues to be infinite. It must be borne in mind that though it is the Infinite the omnipotent Brahman, that by its creative gaze brings these myriads of worlds into existence out of a part of its own being, and having created these enters into them for their sustenance, yet it does not lose itself in them. Hence the wise hold that while Brahman is beyond and not limited by space and time, it is pervasive of all space and enduring in all time. Everywhere, in everyone of its parts great or small, Brahman is full. This is the profound significance of the comprehensive Advaita revealed in the scripture,⁹¹

पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमुदच्यते । पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ।।
“This is full and that is full; out of fullness, fullness is lifted up. Fullness being taken from fullness, fullness alone remains."

To sum up: To know the world as it appears to my imperfect understanding is a partial knowledge which ignores the substance. A knowledge of the world of name and form without knowing its substantial reality is imperfect knowledge. Partial knowledge, as such and in itself, is only imperfect but not false. It is the mistaking of the partial truth for the whole that is false knowledge. As this partial knowledge is an imperfect understanding, too gross to penetrate to subtler truths, it is almost like ignorance. Since it moves in a futile circle, apprehending only the formal without getting at the substantial truth, and often leads to error and mischief, it is referred to by the disparaging term, ajnana ignorance. It is when Brahman, the root-substance of all existence, is realised that there is clear realisation of the whole truth that Brahman, the Self of all existence, is not different from its own formation as world-existence and soul-existence. That alone is complete knowledge, that alone is integral truth.