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 as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, although most philosophers agree it its ultimately indescribable in the context 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 has also been mysteriously described as permeating all of non-being, as well. Even the human soul, or atman, is widely believed to be identical with Brahman by many followers of Vedanta. 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 is 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 was seen as analogous to the spirtual extension of the individual performing the prayer from human to cosmic proportions. This sense of the term touches upon the sheer power of prayer experienced by the person who prays during recitation of the sacred words. 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, a power which allows 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.

The alternate use of brahman in the Vedas is as a masculine noun with tonal accent on the second syllable, referring to the person who knows and speaks the aforementioned utterances. This individual eventually came to be the silent observer who corrects difficulties in the execution of a sacrifice, one of the four main priests overseeing a ritual in systematized Vedic texts. 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 bridge constructed by those carrying out rituals experienced between the gods and brahman (the 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, in that 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 in the Vedic texts.

Even with these original meanings of brahman in mind, the Vedic texts contain ideas which foreshadowed later formulations of the term Brahman which would refer to the monistic grounds 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, with concepts such as hiranya-garbha (the golden germ), and deities such as Prajpati (the "Lord of Creatures"), Visvakarman ("maker of all things"), and Purusha (cosmic man who immolates and creates the universe with his dismembered parts), among others, prefiguring the cosmological rumination of the Upanishads. Gradually, the notion of many gods was for later Vedic seers supplanted by the idea of a universal unifying principle and speculation as to what exactly it entailed.

Mythological Understanding

Brahman came to be appreciated in the overt religious tradition through the worship of the creator god Brahma, one third of the trimurti along with Siva and Vishnu, whose name clearly 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 it is told that the golden egg grew 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 has 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 was greatly expanded in the Upanishads (the earliest commentaries on the Vedas), becoming the sole referent for universal oneness in the Hindu tradition. In the Upanishads, many of the external rituals of the early Vedas are turned 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 here 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 who played such an important role in early Vedic Hinduism are considered to be manifestations of Brahman. Despite such elaborate descriptions, 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 various Upanishadic texts provide numerous suggestions to probe the nature of this monistic essence and to descibe more precisely what it is. The Taittiriya Upanishad, for instance, claims that the basic element is food. Verse 3.1 explains that "contingent beings are born of food, once born they live on food, dying they enter food." Hence, food, encompassing all matter, living and dead, is described as the constant foundation of the universe, which proceeds in an endless cycle of consumption. Moreover, like Brahman, breath is dependent upon it. In the Kaushitika Upanishad, Brahman is said to be breath itself, no doubt echoing the earlier understanding of the term from the Rg Veda. Verse 2.1 reports that "Prana (breath) is Brahman...the mind (manas) is the messenger, speech the housekeeper, the eye the guard, the ear the informant." This verse suggests that breath is served by all of their sensory faculties, a microcosmic analogy for the process by which the supreme universal principle is maintained in the physical realm by its various constituent parts.

The Upanishads further attest to the monistic essence of Brahman by famously claiming that it is identical to the human soul, or atman. It is clear in some of the earliest Upanishads that this identification of soul with cosmic principle develops out of magical identifications of specific elements of the Vedic sacrifice with various objects in the physical universe. Perhaps no phrase in the Upanishads better captures this new monistic connotation of Brahman better than Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7. During a dialogue between Uddālaka and his son Śvetaketu, the father states "tat tvam asi", which translates to "that thou art." The concept of this neuter "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 and contemplative activities, hence the simple yet profoundly significant equation is easier stated than experienced. However, realization of this ideal leads to blissful liberation, often referred to as a merger with the divine, as in Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.4: "he, my self within the heart is that Brahman. When I shall have departed from hence I shall attain him."

Vedantic Perspectives

The concept of Brahman was further elucidated by the three schools of Vedanta ("the end of the Veda"), each of which provided varied interpretations of the universal principle 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. The Brahmasutras provide the seminal characteristics of Brahman, such as verse I.1.2 which succinctly summarizes Brahman as that "from which which the origin, sustenance and dissolution of this universe proceeds." Vedantics also came to generally associate the terms sat (being), cit (consciousness) and ananda (bliss) with the essence of Brahman.

Advaita Vedanta

Advaita (or "non-dualistic") Vedanata 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 viewed to be 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 nothing but an illusion (or maya). 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 ignorant perceiver views all particulars as independent realities rather than manifestations of Brahman. Even the traditional, personalistic conception of god, or Isvara, is subordinate to Brahman, according to Shankara. Isvara is the manifestation of saguna brahman (the aspect of brahman which can be perceived), which exists in contrast to the ultimate nirguna brahman (the aspect which cannot be perceived). Nirguna Brahman is superior since it transcends all illsory 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. In his view, niether conception of divinity must be neglected. Brahman is limited in the physical realm by the illusory nature of the physical world, as well as the adjuncts of individuality, such as mind and the senses. Even Ishvara 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 the soul dissolve, leaving the absolute nirguna Brahman. Once this realization occurs, God and the individual merge into oneness with Brahman.

Visistadvaita Vedanta

Visistadvaita (or "qualified non-dualistic") Vedanta was named for the limited elements of equivalence that the school's adherents acknowledge between atman and brahman while making the claim 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 is characterized by its own independent reality and as such, remains subordinate to the supreme cosmic principle.

Visistadvaita was first developed by mystic saint Ramanuja (1017-1137 C.E.). Ramanuja still differentiates between nirguna and saguna brahman, and claims that the latter is dependent upon the former. Brahman remains non-dual, however, Saguna brahman plays a much larger role in this philsophical system. Saguna brahman is manifest in the form of Isvara, or the transcendent personal god. Ramanuja claimed that belief in this deity was of the utmost importance for realization of the non-dual Brahman. 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. 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. Here Ramanuja deviates from Shankara's teachings, which he considered to be contradictory in their assertion that brahman and the soul are the same and yet also not the same. As well, Ramanuja did not cast aside the physical world as illusory in his formulation of Brahman, unlike Shankara. Instead, he claimed that Saguna Brahman and the world of cit and acit (including time and matter) are absolutely inseperable, a condition known as aprathaksiddi.

The means Ramanuja presribes for reaching Brahman is quite different from Shankara's call for impersonal realization of the equivalence between Brahman and atman's. Rather, a soul's union with Brahman and its subsequent liberation from the world is attained through devotion to god, or bhakti. For Ramnanuja, this god was Vishnu. An individual must cultivate an intense personal relationship with Isvara through a program of worship and good works (karma yoga) as well as the study of texts (jnana yoga). In doing so, one acknowledges their subordinate status to god and surrenders themselves to their chosen deity. If veracious 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, they maintains their individuality while experiencing Brahman-like qualities such as omnipresence and the power to create.

Dvaita Vedanta

Unlike the other Vedanta schools, Dvaita (or "dualism") Vedanta denies any connection between brahman and atman. Rather, the essence of the universe, commonly spoken of by Dvaitas in personal form, 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 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, he claimed that reality was purely dualistic in that there is a fundamental differentiation between the ultimate Godhead and the individual soul. Madhva asserted an irreconcilable cleavage between creator and creation, believing that Brahman is separate from humanity and the physical world, a marked contrast to Advaita Vedanta. As a consequence, Dvaita accepts the cosmological argument for the existence of brahman, claiming that as creation, existing seperate from god, provides a vision of his grandeur. Our world and the things within it, both sentient and insentient, are not illusory but exist independent from human perception and depend upon the will of God. While Shankara and Ramanuja distinguished between nirguna and saguna brahman Madhva made no such distinction. 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 transcends to all physical things, yet exists within them, as well. Moreover, Vishnu possesses fully perfected characteristics, quite unlike the indescribable nirguna Brahman. Despite the numerous references in formative Hindu religious texts which describe Brahman as being without traits, Madhva claims that such descriptions are merely a reflection of the human inability to fully comprehend Vishnu's magnificence.

Dvaita Vedanta holds that all souls are independent, both from each other and from Vishnu, though 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 He writes that "just as the many images reflected on the surface of water are like the sun, so are the little selves of the world said to be like the Lord..." (Brahmasutrabhyasa, 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. According to Madhva, realization of god is only attainable by experiencing his grace, grace which can only be attained through devotion without question. Dvaitas are particularly critical of the idea in Advaita that souls attaining liberation do not maintain individual identities when coming into union with Nirguna brahman. Even once an individual attains salvation and the knowledge of Vishnu, their seperation from him remains, as does 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. For Dvaitas, Brahman is not devoid of qualities, but rather replete with a dynamic character. These anthromorphic characteristics are not perceived by Dvaitas to deplete Brahman's ultimate identity as supreme cosmic principle in any way.

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 schools of Gaudiya Vaishnavism both in and out of India, including the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the esteemed Hindu statesman, is one of a surprising few modern Hindu philosophers to elaborate upon the concept of Brahman. Radhakrishnan reconstructs Advaita Vedanta with concessions made to modern scientific discoveries, and further explicates the relation between Brahman and self, claiming that the most supreme form of Brahman is the inner self at its optimum purity, awareness and bliss. The ultimate reality is one with our deepest self, then, and man is subject as opposed to object. Radhakrishnan states that "man is always more than he is able to comprehend of himself" (p. 87) suggesting that the divine whole of each individual human as Brahman is more than the sum of their matter, mind or any other definitive features. For Radhakrishnan, it is realization of the true Brahman self, both individually and pervasively, that will allow humans to be transmuted to a higher level of existence in course of evolution, thereby transcending the baneful illusions of the empirical world.

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.
• Das, Juthika. "Radhakrishnan's Thought and Existentialism" <http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContDas.htm> [Accessed August 29, 2006].
• Embree, Ainslee T. ed. The Hindu Tradition. New York: Vintage Books, 1966.
• 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.
• Madhva. "Brahmasutrabhasya." S. Subba Rao in Vedanta Sutras with the Commentary of Sri Madhwacharya. Tirupati: Sri Vyasa Press, 1936.
• Myers, Michael W. Brahman: A Comparative Theology. Richmond UK: Curzon, 2001.
• Muller, F. Max. The Upanishads. New York: Dover Publications, 1962.
• Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Recovery of Faith. New York: Harper, 1955.
• Sengupta, Kalyan. "Radhakrishnan." In Robert L. Arrington, ed., 605-608.
• Sharma, B.N.K. "Response: 'Sankaracarya and Ananda'". Philosophy East and West 48:4, 559-563.
• Sharma, B.N.K., trans. The Brahmasūtras and their principal commentaries: a critical exposition (volume 1). Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971.
• Zaenher, R.C. Hinduism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

See Also

• Advaita
• Atman
• Dvaita
• Isvara
• Visistadvaita