Introduction

(Hth century A. D. ?), like Ramanuja, advocates the theory of Vis^tadvaita or Qualified Monism. He main­tains that the selves and the material world are vise$ari,as or attributes and that Brahman, the Absolute in its essence, is the visesya or substantive qualified by the selves and matter—dd-acid-viiista¹. &"kantha identifies the highest Reality or Brah­man with S'iva who is all-auspicious and all-bliss. The terms 'Brahman', 'paratmun' and 'Paramatman', therefore, denote the same deity S'iva.

Nature of the Self

The self is of the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is not only the essence but also the quality of the self. The self is, thus, both knowledge and the knower. Knowledge forming the essence of the self is inseparable from the self; it is not an adventitious quality generated in the self through its contact with the mind, the senses and the objects.

Like Brahman itself, the self is also in essence omniscient and omnipotent. But its innate supreme knowledge and power having been obscured and limited by the power of maya, the self identifies itself with the mind-body-complex, and possesses limited knowledge and power. Again, like Brahman, the self is ever-pure, ever-free, ever-perfect and ever-blissful. Also, it is

iiniiiiwi

340 The Self in Indian Philosophy

eternal, being neither produced nor destroyed, and hence is free from birth and death. But during the empirical state, it seems to be subjected to impurity, bondage, imperfection, sorrows and sufferings, and to be moving in the cycle of birth and death*.

The self is an amsa or part of Brahman, and eternally qualifies it as its attribute or body. During the karySvasthS or effect-state, the self qualifies in its gross form, and during the karayftvasthft or causal state, it qualifies in its subtle form.

The self is atomic in magnitude, as is inferred from its movement from one world to another. If the self were all-pervasive, it is argued, it could not move in this way. Moreover, if the self were all-pervasive, it would always come in contact with all the objects, and would, accordingly, perceive all the object at all time. But, as it does not actually happen so, the self is not to be regarded as all-pervasive. The atomic self resides in the heart of the individual being, wherefrom it spreads its quality of knowledge throughout the body, just as a drop of sandal-wood-paste applied to a part of the body cools the whole body, or just as a gem placed in the corner of a room illumines the whole room³. Accordingly, it is possible for the self to experience all that happens in the entire body.

The self is a free and active agent, because it can attend to or abstain from an action according to its sweet will. Being a free agent, the self experiences the fruits of its own actions. It is true that the volitions of the self are partly dependent upon its adfsfas and merits and demerits, but these adTStas are also the results of the self's past free actions. The self, however, cannot consciously act in accordance with its adrftas, since the adfstas are not known to it. It is S"iva who makes the self act in conformity with its merits and demerits and experience the fruits of its actions. The self is thus dependent on Siva for the performance of its actions and also for getting the fruits thereof*. The self is not one but many, as it is different in different individuals.

141

The Self In

The Self and Brahman

Srikanfha holds that between the self and Brahman or S*iva, there is svagata-bheda or internal difference, because the self is a part of Brahman or Siva. Being a part of $iva, the self is pervaded by him, just as a piece of wood is pervaded by fire. The self is, therefore, non-different from Siva, though not identical with him. The scriptural passage 'The self is Brahman' does not mean identity between the self and Brah­man ; it simply cannotes non-difference between them. Of course, through spiritual and yogic practices, the self can acquire some of the qualities of &va, but it can never be identi­cal with him. Even in the state of liberation, the self main­tains its individuality⁵. The self is an attribute and also a part of Brahman, just as the light of a luminuous thing is an attribute and also a part of that thing. Again, jusc as the attri­butes form a part of the substance qualified by them, and are yet different from it, so the selves, being related as attributes, are the parts of Brahman qualified by them and are yet different from it⁶. Further, the self is described as the body or effect of Brahman which is the soul or the cause.

The Advaintins hold that the individual self is nothing but Brahman itself limited by the adjunct of antabkarcifa or inter­nal organ. Accordingly, in their view, the self is identical with Brahman, just as gha&ka&a i.e.the akd&a or space limitedby ajar is identical with the vast Zkdsa. Srikarj^ha does not accept this view on the ground that it contradicts scriptural passage > like 'All creatures are a part of Brahman' etc. Moreover, according to him, Brahman cannot be limited by any adjunct, since the adjuncts exist within Brahman itself. Further, if the selves and Brahman be identical, there will be no difference among the selves, and, in that case, the difference of experiences found in different selves will remain unexplained⁷.

It is Siva who brings bondage and liberation upon the self. He binds the selves by concealing their real nature and attributes