Brahman

Brahman refers to the concept of a supreme cosmic principle or essence which is indispensible to nearly all schools of Hinduism. Typically, Brahman is described to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, although most philosophers agree it its ultimately indescribable in the span of unenlightened human experience. Brahman forms the basis of all that exists in the universe, rendering it a monistic concept. Not only is Brahman the fabric of all being, but it is also mysteriously described as permeating all of non-being, as well. Even the human soul, or atman, is widely believe by most Hindus to be identical with Brahman. While this notion is first touched upon in the Vedas, it was first developed in detail within the Upanishads, commentaries upon the Vedic texts.

Early Formulations of Brahman

The Vedas

Originally in the Rg Veda, Brahman is presented as a neuter noun, referring to the activity of prayer, with tonal accent on the first syllable. The term was derived from the Sanskrit root brh, referring to the process of growth or increasing. The concept of Brahman, then, seems to touch upon the expansion of breath in the chest which is analogous to the extension of the individual performing the prayer from human to cosmic proportions through prayer. This sense of the term touches upon the power of prayer which is experienced by the person who prays during the recitation of sacred words. Later, the Vedic texts themselves as a fixed body were seen as the embodiment of this power. Through this notion, brahman was seen as the lynchpin of sacrifice, bringing together humanity, deity, and the physical world. Material offerings and the prayers accompanying them connect human beings to the religious ideal, with the spoken words resonating the correspondence created between divinity and sacrificer during ritual actions. Thus, the brahman's power is the human realization through speech of the power of the gods themselves, allowing them to become identical with the greater cosmic order. Speech was even deified in the form of the goddess Vac, who was regularly acknowledged as supreme ruler of the universe in the Vedic process of henotheistic worship. However, this notion of brahman as the power of prayer was hardly congruent the immutable and eternal force that it would come to be later on, but rather a principle which was constructed or developed by those carrying out the ritual.

The alternate use of brahman in the Vedas is as a masculine noun with tonal accent on the second syllable, and this refers to the person who knows and speaks the aforementioned utterances. This individual came to be seen as one of the four main priests overseeing a ritual in systematized Vedic texts, the silent observer who corrects difficulties in the execution of a sacrifice. Although this and the aforementioned use of brahman in the Vedas are fundamentally different understandings of the term than those that would be developed by the later Vedanta schools, they are no doubt important in the evolution of the term. The power experienced in terms of oneness between the gods brahman (person performing the prayer) by way of the brahman (the prayer itself) is most likely a precursor to the identifications of brahman with atman which became so popular in the Upanishads, as well as the later monistic schools such as Advaita Vedanta.

Alternative etymologies argue that the term is derived from the Sanskrit root brah, which referred to speaking in riddles. Scholars suggest that such a root captures the enigmatic or paradoxical nature of the concept: Brahman is the cosmic riddle which cannot be solved by way of a direct answer, but rather by an answer that must remain unspoken. However, this theory and others concerning this root brah are faced with difficulties created by the multifarious connotations in which the term seems to be used.

Even with these original meanings of brahman in mind, the Vedic texts contain ideas which foreshadowed later formulations of the term Brahman which referred to the monistic essence of the universe. While the Vedic texts are largely centred around henotheism and ritualism, phrases such as Ekam Sat, Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti (Truth is One, though the sages know it as many) (Rig Veda 1:164:46) suggest that Vedic sages had some awareness of a deeper unified reality underlying the multiplicty of physical forms and godly personalities they wrote about. As a whole, the Vedas provide numerous suggestions as to what this monistic essence actually is, such as hiranya-garbha (the golden germ), Agni (the Vedic deity who represents fire who was seen to be present within all things), and narayana (the primordial man), among others.

Mythological Understanding

Brahman came to be appreciated in the overt religious tradition through the worship of the creator god Brahman, one third of the trimurti along with Siva and Vishnu, whose name no doubt derives from the same source. Through its more tangible form represented by Brahma, Brahman came to be connected with the aforementioned hiranyagarbha. An original creation story is recounted in the Laws of Manu, where the golden egg is told to have grown up from Brahma's seed which he implanted in primordial waters. From this embryonic state, Brahma is birthed from the golden egg as Purusha, the cosmic man who was particular significance in the earlier myths from the Rg Veda. Brahma the god, bearing traits of the more abstract brahman he represents, is the singular form of existence and as such can only set the physical universe in order through a process of self-reproduction. Hence, he inherits a place in stories involving incest typologies (specifically, sexual reproduction through his daughter Vac, or "speech") parallel with the earlier myths of Prajpati, the creator god of the Vedas. Therefore, it can be said that Brahman carries on earlier creation myths in order to provide concrete illustrations of brahman's more nebulous attributes. However, Brahma has been largely overlooked throughout the history of Hinduism when compared to the other members of the trimuriti, who have seen large cult traditions develop in their names. Instead, Brahman remained an abstract concept. However, it is undoubtedly this notion of a divine creative power which came together with ideas of the ritual significance of sound and prayer in order to influence the Upanishadic understanding of Brahman.

Upanishads

The term Brahman would be greatly expanded in the Upanishads, commentaries on the Vedas, and its meaning would the sole referent for universal oneness in the Hindu tradition. The Upanishads took many of the external rituals of the early Vedas and turned them inward, replacing physical sacrifices with symbolism and meditations. As such, it is not surprising that the definition of Brahman became more abstract. In the Upanishads, brahman began to bear cosmological significance it did not have in the Vedas, as it came to designate the impersonal causal principle which pervaded the universe. It is also in the Upanishads that Brahman is first considered to be the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever will be, including the human soul, or Atman. Even the individual personal gods played such an important role in early Vedic Hinduism are considered to be manifestations of Brahman. Despite such description, Brahman is characterized in the Upanishads as ultimately unknowable, unidentifiable and ineffable. Due to brahman's mysterious nature, it is best described by what it is not. This is evidenced in the following quote from sage Yajnavalkya:

It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long, not glowing, not adhesive, without shadow and without darkness, without air and without space, without stickiness, (intangible, odorless, tasteless, without eye, without ear, without voice, without wind, without energy, without breath, without mouth (without personal or family name, unaging, undying, without fear, immortal, stainless, not uncovered, not covered), without measure, without inside and without outside. (Aranyaka III:8:6).

The Upanishads further attest to the monistic essence of Brahman by famously claiming that it is identical to the human soul, or atman. Perhaps no phrase in the Upanishads better captures the new monistic connotation of Brahman better than Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 during a dialogue between Uddālaka and his son Śvetaketu which states "tat tvam asi", which translates to "that thou art." Generally the concept of "that" is believed to refer to the oneness in the universe that subsumes all objects and persons, and has been interpreted to mean that the human soul or consciousness is either wholly or partially equivalent to the Ultimate Reality. Although this divinity is constantly a part of human experience, few humans truly realize this idea in their moral activity and contemplative activity, hence the simple yet profoundly significant equation is easier stated than experienced. However, realization of this ideal leads to blissful liberation.

Vedantic Perspectives

The concept of Brahman was elucidated in the most detail by the three schools of Vedanta ("the end of the Veda"), each of which provided varied interpretations of Brahman and its relation to atman. The first systematic investigation of Brahman was provided sometime within the first or second centuries CE by philosopher Badrayana within the Brahmasutras, a series of short, aphoristic statements which represent the starting point of the Vedānta philosophy. It is the Brahmasutras which provide the seminal characteristics of Brahman, such as verse I.1.2 which succinctly summarizes Brahman as "that by which the cosmos is created, sustained, and comes to an end." Vedantics also came to generally associate the terms sat (being), cit (consciousness) and bliss (ananda) with the essence of Brahman.

Advaita Vedanta

Advaita (or "non-dualistic") was the first of the great Vedanta schools. This name is bestowed based on the dualism Advaitas denied between atman and brahman. Advaita Vedanta espouses the idea of the self as the subject, that is, the identification of Brahman with atman, the individual soul. In this formula, the self of the subject, or atman, is ultimately indistinguishable from the supreme reality suggested by Brahman.

This particular philosophy was largely developed by Shankara (788-820 C.E.), the famous Hindu mystic. Shankara declared that the entirety of the universe except for the highest, indescribable form of Brahman, is essentially an illusion. Thus, Brahman is the only thing that exists, making up the totality of reality, with the physical universe representing an illusion. Therefore, all the particulars of the spatial and temporal world are only functions of Brahman, appearing only because of human ignorance to the fact they are all functions of the one Brahman. The igorant perceiver views all particulars as independent realities rather than manifestations of Brahman. Even the traditional, personalistoc conception of god is subordinate to Brahman, according to Shankara. He refers to this conception of god as Isvara, or "the Lord," the physical manifestation of god known to humanity. Shankara also distinguishes two aspects of Brahman, nirguna (which cannot be perceived) and saguna (which can be perceived). Isvara is considered to be a function of this latter category. Nirguna Brahman, meanwhile, transcends all spatial and temporal categories. Even Saguna Brahman reduces to Nirguna brahman in the end, and, like all other multiplicity experienced in the world, is not separate from Brahman.

Sankara identifies an important connection between this Isvara and Brahman, even though they are not identical. Niether conception of divinity must be neglected. Brahman is limited by maya, or the illusory nature of the physical world, as well as the adjuncts of individuality, such as mind and the senses, is god. Ishvara, then, places limitations on Brahman. Perceived differences between god and the individual soul are created by these limiting factors, and only once they are negated do the notions of Ishvara and jiva dissolve, leaving only the absolute Brahman without association. God and the individual merge into Brahman to realize their nature as identical.

Visistadvaita Vedanta

Visistadvaita Vedanta (or "qualified non-dualism") was the first of the great Vedanta schools. This name is created due to the based on the limited elements of equivalence that Visistadvaitas acknowledge between atman and brahman while claiming that the personalistic form of Brahman is ultimately transcendent. While the self is still connected to Brahman, it is only an incomplete part and not the same as the whole. Rather, it enjoys its own independent reality and as such, remains subordinate to the supreme cosmic principle.

Visistadvaita Vedanta was first developed by mystic saint Ramanuja (1017-1137). Ramanuja still acknowledges the existence of nirguna and saguna brahman, and that the latter is dependent upon the former, however, Saguna brahman plays a much larger role in this philsophical system. Like Advaita Vedanta, Ramanuja acknowledged the unity of Brahman and atman, but did not cast aside the physical world as illusory in the process. While Brahman remains non-dual, Ramanuja also allows for belief in Isvara, the transcendent personal god. For Ramanuja, atman and Brahman were not equally real, since Shankara's notion of the two being the same and also not the same was a blatant contradiction. In addition to Isvara, both the soul (cit) and unconscious substance (acit) are real, though they are dependent on God for their existence. They, as parts, form the body of God, while God forms their soul. Therefore, god is the soul of all individual atman as well as for the natural world. Isvara and the world of cit and acit (including time and matter) are absolutely inseperable just as a substance is to an attribute, a condition known as aprathaksiddi. While god is infinite and represents the cause and effect of the universe, the soul is limited and infinetesmal in relative size. Atman cannot be considered fully equivalent to God or Brahman, because it exists among a multiplicity of other souls and is dependent upon God, while maintaining a will of its own.

The means Ramanuja presribes for reaching Brahman is quite different than Shankara's impersonal realization of Brahman and atman's equivalence. Rather, a soul's union with Brahman and its subsequent liberation from the world is attained through devotion to god, or bhakti. For Ramnauja, this god was Vishnu. An individual must cultivate an intense personal relationship with Isvara through a program of worship and good works (karma yoga)and study of texts (jnana yoga). In doing so, one acknowledges their subordinate status to god and surrenders themselves to their chosen deity in a process called prapatti. If true surrender and devotion is attained, then the individual soul upon liberation comes to share in the nature of God or Brahman, gaining infinite consciousness and infinite bliss. However, one does not merge themselves into God as in Shankara's description. Rather, one maintains their individuality while sharing in Brahman-like qualities such as omnipresences and the power to create.

Dvaita Vedanta

Unlike the other Vedanta schools, Dvaita Vedanta (or "dualism") denies any connection between brahman and atman. Rather, the essence of the universe, or God, is totally seperate from the universe and souls within it. Therefore, Dvaita represents an understanding of divinity which is more congruent with Western theism than the other Vedanta schools. While Advaita Vedanta acknowledges the fact that all human beings are essentially divine, Dvaita denies such an idea outwardly, instead construing Brahman as the wholly other, which must be revealed to humanity through a series of avatars rather than a process of spiritual introspection.

Dvaita was founded by Madhva (1238-1317 C.E.), another mystic philosopher and proponent of the bhakti movement. Like Ramanuja, Madhva took a strong stance against Shankara and also identified God with Vishnu. However, Madhva greatly opposed the monistic worldviews which had been upheld by other Vendanta schools. Instead, Madhva claimed reality was purely dualistic in that he understood a fundamental differentiation between the ultimate Godhead and the individual soul. Unlike Advaita Vedanta, Madhva asserted an irreconcilable cleavage between creator and creation, believing that Brahman is separate from humanity and the physical world. As a consequence, Dvaita accepts the cosmologicval argument for the existence of brahman, as creation, seperate from god, supposedly provides a vision of the grandeur of god, unlike both the Advaita and Visistadvaita, which deny to varying extents the significance of creation. Our world and the things within it, both sentient and insentient, are not illusory. Rather, they are real entities, existing independent from human perception, although they depend upon the will of Isvara. While Shankara and Ramanuja distinguished between nirguna and saguna brahman, for Madhva no such distinction exists. Madhva's Brahman is completely personalistic, as he claims that the Brahman made reference to throughout the entirety of the Vedas and the Upanishads is indeed Vishnu. Vishnu exists transcendent to all things, yet exists within them, as well. Moreover, Vishnu possesses all perfected characteristics, quite unlike the indescribable nirguna Brahman. Despite the numerous references to Brahman as being without traits, Madhva claims that such descriptions are merely a reflection of the human inability to fully comprehend Vishnu's magnificence.

All souls are independent, both from each other and from Vishnu, though the God is responsible for each soul's existence and continuity. While Shakara took certain passages to suggest a oneness between brahman and atman, Madhva reinterprets them to suggest a mere similarity between the two, writing that "Just as the many images reflected on the surface of water are like the sun, so are the little sleves of the world said to be like the Lord..." (III.ii.18). The human soul, then, can never be precisely the same as that of Brahman, and such an interpretation is taken to be erroneous or even blasphemous. Like Ramanuja, Madhva also prescribed bhakti as the means by which to attain salvation. Realizationof god is only attainable by experiencing his grace. Once one attains salvation and the knowledge of god, the physical world and the distinction between all souls within it remains.

In the Dvaita tradition following Madhva, the importance of nirguna Brahman has continued to be greatly downplayed, as many feel that such a religious ideal is inaccessible to religion as it exists upon the everyday level. Philosophers such as B.N.K. Sharma have noted that such a nebulous conception of god prevents the attribution of anthropomorphic characteristics to Brahman, a difficulty which has been avoided by followers of the Dvaita philosophy. Further, Dvaitas are also critical of the idea in Advaita Vedanta that souls attaining liberation do not maintain individual identities when coming into union with Nirguna brahman. For Dvaitas, Brahman is not devoid of qualities, but rather replete with a dynamic character which does not, however, deplete Brahman's ultimate identity as supreme cosmic principle.

Other Perspectives

Theistic schools of Hinduism which developed out of the bhakti tradition, such as Vaishnavism and Saivism, follow a view of Brahman comparable to that of Dvaita Vedanta. However, their schools often maintain a monistic view of the universe which places their chosen god as the supreme god of the universe, which comes to supercede even the indescribable Brahman without qualities. Sri Caitanya, for instance, founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, taught that Krishna is the sole supreme entity in the universe, and all other conceptions of god are manifestations of Him, including Brahman. Caitanya's conception of Krishna as the theistic, monistic principle in the universe has been upheld in contemporary times by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).

Another contemporary interpretation which has continued the ancient tradition which differentiates between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman is that of Smartism. Followers of this school may worship numerous gods each considered to be an aspect of the Brahman so that they may in the process draw themselves closer to the larger, inconceivable Brahman. So although they worship numerous gods in practice, Smartists cannot be labelled as polytheists as their overt practices may suggest, since they ultimately acknowledge Brahman as the true and supreme divinity.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Arrington, Robert L. ed. A Companion to the Philosophers. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
• Carr, Brian. "Shankara." In Robert L. Arrington, ed., 613-620.
• Carr, Indira Mahalingam. "Ramanuja." In Robert L. Arrington, ed., 609-612.
• Carr, Indira Mahalingam & Carr, Brian. "Madhva." In Robert L. Arrington, ed., 592-594.
• Heesterman, Jan C. "Brahman." Encyclopedia of Religion. Mercia Eliade, ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.
• Higgins, David and Christine Kachur. RELST 110.6-World Religions (Extension Division Study Guide). Saskatoon SK: University of Saskatchewan, 2002.
• Myers, Michael W. Brahman: A Comparative Theology. Richmond UK: Curzon, 2001.
• Sengupta, Kalyan. "Radhakrishnan." In Robert L. Arrington, ed., 605-608.

See Also

• Advaita
• Atman
• Dvaita
• Isvara
• Visistadvaita