The Individual Soul: God Or Spark Of God? part2
Mon, 02/04/2008 - 19:31 — admin
MICHAEL: Perhaps you could begin at the point of divergence. Why is it that the two schools of thought have different concepts of Brahman?
TEACHER: This is not the type of question to which I can give you a black or white answer. There are actually several interrelated issues at hand here, so I’m afraid it will only be after we’ve discussed Vaishnavism and impersonalism at some length that you will be able to have a firm and mature understanding of how two totally opposing interpretations have arisen from study of the same scripture. But let me try to give you a brief summary. The differences in opinion are based upon each school’s particular understanding of a theme which recurs throughout the Upanishads and other sections of the Vedic literatures. Brahman is repeatedly described as all-pervading, indivisible, changeless, etc. Shankara has interpreted this to mean that Brahman must be understood to be one and not many. If there were innumerable individual souls, each of which were present in its own particular body, then in Shankara’s eyes the unquestionable authority of the Upanishads would be at stake.
Brahman is declared in the Upanishads to be indivisible. To say there are individual sparks of Brahman is, to the Mayavadis, to challenge this indivisibility. To the Mayavadis this concept implies that Brahman has been divided (into many parts) and has entered innumerable bodies. Therefore, they reject this notion on the plea that Brahman cannot be divided.
Similarly, the Upanishads declare Brahman to be one without a second. To put forward the doctrine of innumerable individual souls is to challenge this premise. It is to say that Brahman is many, and not one. Also, Brahman is described as all-pervading, and this is only possible, according to Shankara’s commentary, in the absence of the existence of individual souls-which are said to be present only within their own bodies.
So on the basis of these interpretations, Shankara has put forward the doctrine that there is only One Self-the Supreme Self-Who is present within and without the different bodies and forms we perceive. Since each of us is declared to be Brahman, and there is only the one all-pervasive Brahman, then each of us is that One Universal Self. Each of us is God. Shankaracharya says it throughout his writings. Let me read you a verse from Upadesha Sahasri:
I am the Supreme Brahman which is pure consciousness, always clearly manifest, unborn, one only, imperishable, unattached and all-pervading like the ether and non-dual. I am, therefore, ever free. Aum.5
MICHAEL: The Vaishnavas assert that each of us is Brahman or spirit, but that we are eternally individuals. How do they justify this conclusion in the light of the Upanishadic statements which say that Brahman is indivisible? If each of us is a minute spiritual spark present only within our own body, then it would seem that we are divided off or separated from all the minute spiritual sparks which are situated in other bodies. Does this not mean that Brahman is divisible?
However, neither the Sri Ishopanishad nor any other Vedic literature recommends that we neglect bodily needs. Bhagavad-gita states:
There is no possibility of one’s becoming a yogi, O Arjuna, if one eats too much, or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough.
~Bhagavad-gita 6:16
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
MICHAEL: Perhaps you could begin at the point of divergence. Why is it that the two schools of thought have different concepts of Brahman?
TEACHER: This is not the type of question to which I can give you a black or white answer. There are actually several interrelated issues at hand here, so I’m afraid it will only be after we’ve discussed Vaishnavism and impersonalism at some length that you will be able to have a firm and mature understanding of how two totally opposing interpretations have arisen from study of the same scripture. But let me try to give you a brief summary. The differences in opinion are based upon each school’s particular understanding of a theme which recurs throughout the Upanishads and other sections of the Vedic literatures. Brahman is repeatedly described as all-pervading, indivisible, changeless, etc. Shankara has interpreted this to mean that Brahman must be understood to be one and not many. If there were innumerable individual souls, each of which were present in its own particular body, then in Shankara’s eyes the unquestionable authority of the Upanishads would be at stake.
Brahman is declared in the Upanishads to be indivisible. To say there are individual sparks of Brahman is, to the Mayavadis, to challenge this indivisibility. To the Mayavadis this concept implies that Brahman has been divided (into many parts) and has entered innumerable bodies. Therefore, they reject this notion on the plea that Brahman cannot be divided.
Similarly, the Upanishads declare Brahman to be one without a second. To put forward the doctrine of innumerable individual souls is to challenge this premise. It is to say that Brahman is many, and not one. Also, Brahman is described as all-pervading, and this is only possible, according to Shankara’s commentary, in the absence of the existence of individual souls-which are said to be present only within their own bodies.
So on the basis of these interpretations, Shankara has put forward the doctrine that there is only One Self-the Supreme Self-Who is present within and without the different bodies and forms we perceive. Since each of us is declared to be Brahman, and there is only the one all-pervasive Brahman, then each of us is that One Universal Self. Each of us is God. Shankaracharya says it throughout his writings. Let me read you a verse from Upadesha Sahasri:
I am the Supreme Brahman which is pure consciousness, always clearly manifest, unborn, one only, imperishable, unattached and all-pervading like the ether and non-dual. I am, therefore, ever free. Aum.5
MICHAEL: The Vaishnavas assert that each of us is Brahman or spirit, but that we are eternally individuals. How do they justify this conclusion in the light of the Upanishadic statements which say that Brahman is indivisible? If each of us is a minute spiritual spark present only within our own body, then it would seem that we are divided off or separated from all the minute spiritual sparks which are situated in other bodies. Does this not mean that Brahman is divisible?