NIRGUNA BRAHMAN – THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ENTIRE VEDIC CORPUS

---

Nirguṇa Brahman – the subject matter of the entire Vedic corpus

In the Kaṭhopaniṣad, Nachiketas, in order to ‘encash’ the third boon, poses this crucial question to the Acharya Yama:

अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात् ।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद ॥ १४ ॥ 2.2.14

एतच्छ्रुत्वा नचिकेताः पुनराह — यद्यहं योग्यः, प्रसन्नश्चासि भगवन् , मां प्रति अन्यत्र धर्मात् शास्त्रीयाद्धर्मानुष्ठानात्तत्फलात्तत्कारकेभ्यश्च पृथग्भूतमित्यर्थः । तथा अन्यत्र अधर्मात् विहिताकरणरूपात् पापात् , तथा अन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात् , कृतं कार्यमकृतं कारणमस्मादन्यत्र । किञ्च, अन्यत्र भूताच्च अतिक्रान्तात्कालात् भव्याच्च भविष्यतश्च तथा अन्यत्र वर्तमानात् । कालत्रयेण यन्न परिच्छिद्यत इत्यर्थः । यदीदृशं वस्तु सर्वव्यवहारगोचरातीतं पश्यसि जानासि तद्वद मह्यम् ॥

The question sets the seminal nature of Brahman: That which is beyond dharma and adharma, transcends the cause effect duality, and even time. Shankara considers this very question to be so precisely describing Brahman that he chooses to cite this mantra in many places.

In reply Yama starts a long discourse, commencing with:

सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति ।
यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्यं चरन्ति तत्ते पदं सङ्ग्रहेण ब्रवीम्योमित्येतत् ॥ १५ ॥

इत्येवं पृष्टवते मृत्युरुवाच, पृष्टं वस्तु विशेषणान्तरं च विवक्षन् । सर्वे वेदा यत्पदं पदनीयं गमनीयम् अविभागेन अविरोधेन आमनन्ति प्रतिपादयन्ति, तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति यत्प्राप्त्यर्थानीत्यर्थः । यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्यं गुरुकुलवासलक्षणमन्यद्वा ब्रह्मप्राप्त्यर्थं चरन्ति, तत् ते तुभ्यं पदं यज्ज्ञातुमिच्छसि सङ्ग्रहेण सङ्क्षेपतः ब्रवीमि ओं इत्येतत् । तदेतत्पदं यद्बुभुत्सितं त्वया तदेतदोमिति ओंशब्दवाच्यमोंशब्दप्रतीकं च ॥

The reply concisely states: That Truth is the one taught by all the Vedic corpus, without any distinction and contradiction (within the various Vedic sections), all austerity is aimed at knowing that Truth, etc. From the commentary of Shankara अविभागेन अविरोधेन आमनन्ति प्रतिपादयन्ति it is clear that the reference in various Upanishads to Brahmā or Shiva or Vishnu as the Jagatkāraṇam, is avirodha, that is, they are non-contradictory. Only Shankara, the Vedantin, has said this. For others, these references became an insurmountable problem that compelled them to labor hard to somehow convert patent references to Shambhu, Rudra, etc. in the Atharva shikā/śira, Śvetāśvatara, etc. to mean Vishnu. The bigotry is only speaking for itself. Shankara alone is eminently above such sectarian bindings.   The mantras that follow give the nature of Brahman in more specific terms:

न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चिन्नायं कुतश्चिन्न बभूव कश्चित् ।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥ १८ ॥

अन्यत्र धर्मादित्यादिना पृष्टस्यात्मनोऽशेषविशेषरहितस्यालम्बनत्वेन प्रतीकत्वेन चोङ्कारो निर्दिष्टः अपरस्य च ब्रह्मणो मन्दमध्यमप्रतिपत्तॄन्प्रति । अथेदानीं तस्योङ्कारालम्बनस्यात्मनः साक्षात्स्वरूपनिर्दिधारयिषयेदमुच्यते । न जायते नोत्पद्यते म्रियते वा न म्रियते च उत्पत्तिमतो वस्तुनोऽनित्यस्यानेका विक्रियाः, तासामाद्यन्ते जन्मविनाशलक्षणे विक्रिये इहात्मनि प्रतिषिध्येते प्रथमं सर्वविक्रियाप्रतिषेधार्थं न जायते म्रियते वेति । विपश्चित् मेधावी अपरिलुप्तचैतन्यस्वभावत्वात् । किञ्च, नायमात्मा कुतश्चित् कारणान्तरात् बभूव न प्रभूतः । अस्माच्चात्मनो न बभूव कश्चिदर्थान्तरभूतः । अतोऽयमात्मा अजो नित्यः शाश्वतः अपक्षयविवर्जितः । यो ह्यशाश्वतः, सोऽपक्षीयते ; अयं तु शाश्वतः अत एव पुराणः पुरापि नव एवेति । यो ह्यवयवोपचयद्वारेणाभिनिर्वर्त्यते, स इदानीं नवः, यथा कुड्यादिः ; तद्विपरीतस्त्वात्मा पुराणो वृद्धिविवर्जित इत्यर्थः । यत एवम् , अतः न हन्यते न हिंस्यते हन्यमाने शस्त्रादिभिः शरीरे ; तत्स्थोऽप्याकाशवदेव ॥

This mantra says: That which is beyond the transformations of birth, growth, decay, death, is Pure Consciousness, is neither an effect nor the cause of anything distinct from it, Eternal, Ancient, and does not die even when the body is killed.

It is significant to note that the mantra itself says that this Truth does not die even when the body is killed. That means, the Upanishad holds the Atman, that alone survives death, to be none other than Brahman, which is what the primary question of Nachiketas sought to know of. So, jiva brahma aikya is explicitly stated here. Also, this comment of Shankara: अस्माच्चात्मनो न बभूव कश्चिदर्थान्तरभूतः । From this Atman nothing that is different, distinct, from the Atman, is born. This shows that whatever that is ‘born’ of Atman-Brahman, is not different from it. In other words, whenever we hear from the Shruti or smriti that the world, the jivas, devas, etc. are ‘born’ from Brahman, denoted by the entity Brahmā, Vishnu or Shiva, those born entities are non-different from the Trimurtis that are stated here. This also confirms the Sureshwaracharya declaration that ‘the Ishwara is only one, only spoken of by different names.’ Thus, when Veda Vyasa says: Vishnu, Brahma etc. were born of Shiva or Shiva, etc. were born of Vishnu, what he means is: the cause and effect are non-different. Vedantins alone can free Brahman of vastu pariccheda and therefore cause no infringement of anantatva. Non-vedantins who hold Vishnu to be different from Brahma, etc. will compromise on anantatva of Brahman and have Vishnu as a paricchinna vastu.

We have a smrti-version of the mantra: सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति, in the Bh.Gita, for example rendered as: 

सर्वस्य चाहं हृदि संनिविष्टो
मत्तः स्मृतिर्ज्ञानमपोहनं च ।
वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो
वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम् ॥ १५ ॥

The Lord says: I am the one firmly established in the hearts of all beings. ….I am the one to be known through all the Vedic corpus. …

Shankara says: सर्वस्य च प्राणिजातस्य अहम् आत्मा सन् हृदि बुद्धौ संनिविष्टः …..वेदैश्च सर्वैः अहमेव परमात्मा वेद्यः वेदितव्यः ।  I am the Atman of all beings….I, the Paramātmā, is to be realized through all the Vedic corpus.

Non-advaitins, aka, non-Vedantins, hold this verse as authority to claim that ‘all the veda-s make known only Vishnu’ to hold that any other deity than Vishnu is not the ultimate aim of the Vedic teaching. Shankara, the Vedantin alone holds that it is Brahman that is the aim of the Vedic teaching and not any finite deity like Vishnu. For, the Kenopanishat 1.5 prohibits one from knowing anything other than the Atman, one’s own Self, as Brahman: Tadeva brahma tvam viddhi, nedam yadidam upāsate. Shankara, while commenting on this says: Any deity such as Vishnu, that is only upāsya, having a name and form and therefore different from the upāsaka, the Atman, is not the subject matter of this mantra. Vishnu, etc. deities are anātmā and therefore abrahma as per the Upanishads. Hence this finite deity which is naturally different from other deities and the jiva, and therefore paricchinna, is not the aim of the Vedic teaching. Shankara has said in the adhyāsa bhāṣya: ….वेदान्तवेद्यमशनायाद्यतीतमपेतब्रह्मक्षत्रादिभेदमसंसार्यात्मतत्त्व….That which is known from the Vedanta is the one beyond hunger, etc, free from the distinctions such as Brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, asamsāri, ātmatattvam.  If it is a deity such as Vishnu, he is not free from distinctions and is not the Atma tattva which is nirguna brahman.

Just as the Bh.gita expression वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो ..which is only incidentally uttered by Krishna, Veda Vyasa has said in the Shiva Sahasra nāma (*) occurring in the Mahabharata: अथर्वशीर्षः सामास्य ऋक्सहस्रामितेक्षणः ॥ 61 ॥ यजुःपादभुजो गुह्यः प्रकाशो जङ्गमस्तथा ।   Shiva is verily the embodiment of the Vedas; the Veda-s are verily Shiva: the Atharva veda is His head, the Sāma veda is his mouth, the Rg Veda is none other than His thousand insuppressible eyes, (thus sahasrākṣa is not any sole epithet of Vishnu) the Yajur veda are his limbs….There is a famous saying: वेदः शिवः शिवो वेदो वेदाध्यायी सदाशिवः ।.  Also, the third brahma sutra: śāstrayonitvāt is commented upon by Shankara alternatively as ‘the śāstram which is the cause of knowing Brahman.’ Thus, the entire Vedic corpus is aimed at securing us the knowledge of Brahman and not any finite deity such as Vishnu. The norm of the Vedantin is: If X is different from Y, then X is finite, vastu paricchinna. Since the jiva himself thinks, erroneously, that he is paricchinna, finite, and hence suffers samsāra, there is no point in teaching him that he is again finite, as different from any deity that is only deemed to be Brahman by non-Vedantins.

(*) The Shiva sahasranāma is an inseparable part of the Mahabharata, having found reference in the oldest condensation, the Bharata manjari, of Kshemendra (10-11 CE) and in the extant Kumbhakonam edition of the Mahabharata that Madhvas follow.

Om Tat Sat