In Hinduism, Brahman is the divine as such – not any specific god or goddess, but rather the divine nature that underlies all gods and goddesses and makes them what they are. Brahman is the sole absolute reality behind the everyday appearances of things. It’s immanent within everything, yet it also transcends everything. Since all beings are manifestations of it, it’s said to be the innermost Self (Atman) of all things. To have a firsthand experience of the oneness of all things in Brahman is to achieve “liberation” (moksha, the Hindu term for spiritual enlightenment), to transcend suffering and reach perfect joy.[1]
Hinduism’s teachings about Brahman are therefore an excellent example of monism in religion – the belief that the divine is all that truly exists.
The word Brahman comes from the Sanskrit root brih-, which literally means “to grow” or “to become great.”[2] The words formed from the root brih- have meanings that center on “vast, expansive, all-pervasive.”[3] So, linguistically speaking, Brahman is that which is “vast” and “all-pervasive,” and when one realizes Brahman for oneself, one “expands,” “grows,” and “becomes great.”
There are a number of “key terms” of Hinduism that look and sound similar to “Brahman,” so in the interest of clarity, let’s go ahead and differentiate them here. “Brahma” is a specific creator god; the “Brahmanas” are a set of texts in Hinduism’s central collection of sacred scriptures, the Vedas; and the “Brahmins” are the highest caste in the traditional Indian social order. The closeness of all of these terms to “Brahman” is deliberate rather than accidental – for example, the word “Brahmin” indicates how the Brahmins are more closely associated with Brahman than people from other castes are, because they lead the public religious rituals and are held to higher standards of ritual and moral purity.[4]
Brahman in the Upanishads
As we’ve already noted, the most sacred body of scriptures in Hinduism is called the Vedas. The Vedas contain many different types of texts. One category of Vedic texts is the Upanishads, a group of mystical poems that reveal the underlying nature and meaning of everything else in the Vedas, and thus the underlying nature and meaning of life as a whole.[5] Therefore, if we want to understand some particular concept from Hinduism, the Upanishads are the single most important reference point. What do the Upanishads have to say about Brahman?
The Upanishads delight in describing the mysterious Brahman in ways that are vague and abstract yet also grand and evocative. Brahman is said to be perfect, self-sufficient,[6] eternal,[7] both being and nonbeing,[8] pure consciousness,[9] “primal reality,”[10] “unity, one without a second,”[11] the “hidden Self in everyone,”[12] the “inner controller,”[13] the “immortal one,”[14] “joy abiding,”[15] and the “supreme treasure.”[16] All creation proceeds forth from it, but it itself is uncreated. It transforms itself into the things of this world, yet at bottom remains unchanged by these transformations.[17]
But the Upanishads’ favorite way of describing Brahman is to describe what it isn’t rather than what it is – in theological terms, to use “negative” or “apophatic” theology rather than “positive” or “kataphatic” theology.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad gives the rationale for this approach: Yajnavalka, the sage protagonist of the text, listens to King Janaka recount a list of the various definitions of Brahman that he’s heard. Yajnavalka replies that no verbal definition can ever satisfactorily describe Brahman, so he’s wary of giving his own definition and thereby adding another unsatisfactory one to the list.[18] Instead, he says, “Now there is the teaching, ‘It is not this. It is not that.’ There is no better expression than ‘not this.’ This is the designation of the truth about reality.”[19]
Yajnavalka continues to drive his point home by noting further things that Brahman is not: “It is ungraspable, since one cannot grasp it. It is indestructible, since it is never destroyed. It is unattached, since it does not attach to anything. It is unbound. It is not agitated. It is not injured.”[20] And
You cannot see the seer who sees. You cannot hear the hearer who hears. You cannot think of the thinker who thinks. You cannot perceive the perceiver who perceives objects…. That is what is beyond hunger and thirst, beyond sorrow and delusion, beyond old age and death. When they know this nature, Brahmins cease to desire sons, wealth and other worlds of experience, and adopt the mendicant life.[21]
The Katha Upanishad concurs. After calling Brahman “attributeless” and “formless,”[22] the poem goes on to say:
The supreme Self is beyond name and form,
Beyond the senses, inexhaustible,
Without beginning, without end, beyond
Time, space, and causality, eternal,
Immutable. Those who realize the Self
Are forever free from the jaws of death.[23]
And to cite just one more particularly majestic use of negative theology to describe Brahman, the Kena Upanishad declares,
Him our eyes cannot see, nor words express;
He cannot be grasped even by the mind.
We do not know, we cannot understand,
Because he is different from the known
And he is different from the unknown.[24]
Since Brahman is beyond all human words and concepts, it can neither be said to be “personal” nor “impersonal.” But throughout Hinduism, Brahman is provisionally imagined as any of the religion’s countless personal gods or goddesses for the sake of worship. Those Hindus who take Shiva to be their main deity worship Brahman as Shiva, while those who take Vishnu to be their main deity worship it as Vishnu, and so on.[25] The Upanishads themselves introduce this distinction: they speak of a “higher” Brahman, which is Brahman in itself, and a “lower” Brahman, the personal deity who is the creator and ruler of all.[26] This “lower” Brahman is also called Ishvara, the “Supreme Lord.”[27] So all the Hindu gods and goddesses are different forms of Ishvara. As the Shvetashvatara Upanishad puts it,
Brahman, attributeless Reality,
Becomes the Lord of Love who casts his net
Of appearance over the cosmos and rules
It from within through his divine power.
He was before creation; he will be
After dissolution. He alone is.[28]
Brahman in Hindu Philosophy
Over the centuries, many Hindu philosophers have attempted to systematically understand and articulate the Upanishads’ teachings on Brahman. Unlike the Upanishads, which are taken to be the products of divine revelation, these philosophies are believed to be simply products of the human mind, and thus fallible.[29] However, a few of them have exerted considerable influence on how Hindus understand Brahman intellectually and relate to it in practice. In the interest of more fully understanding the place of Brahman within Hinduism as a whole, let’s therefore consider how the two most historically influential Hindu philosophies have thought of Brahman.
The first philosophy we’ll consider here is that of Shankara, who lived in the eighth or ninth century AD.[30] Shankara’s philosophy is called “Advaita Vedanta.” The word Vedanta signals that the philosophy is a commentary on the Upanishads,[31] and the word Advaita means “Monistic” or “Non-dualistic.”[32] In other words, Advaita Vedanta is an interpretation of the Upanishads that stresses the oneness of Brahman and the oneness of all things in Brahman.
Shankara builds on the Upanishads’ distinction between a “higher” and a “lower” Brahman.[33] He calls the “higher” Brahman Nirguna Brahman, “Brahman without attributes,” and the “lower” Brahman Saguna Brahman, “Brahman with attributes.”[34]
Since Nirguna Brahman has no attributes, it can’t be described in words or concepts, and is thus a reflection of the many prominent instances of negative theology in the Upanishads, a few of which we saw earlier. Commenting on one such passage in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Shankara writes,
It expresses something that has no distinguishing features (name, form, actions, differences, class-property or qualities) that are the reasons for the application of words. [Brahman] has no distinguishing features. Therefore it is not possible to describe it as such and such. [It] may be described by means of names, forms and actions that are superimposed upon it. But when we want to express its proper form that is devoid of every specific limiting condition, then it is not possible to describe it in any way. There is only one way left – namely, the designation, ‘Not this, not this’ i.e. by the negation of all possible descriptions.[35]
Somewhat contradictorily, Shankara does attribute three specific qualities to Nirguna Brahman, which he defines as pure being (sat), consciousness (chit), and bliss (ananda).[36] Despite the inconsistency, this characterization, too, is in keeping with what the Upanishads have to say about Brahman when they describe it in terms of positive theology rather than in terms of negative theology.
Shankara holds that the things of this world are not Brahman’s “creations” or “creatures,” because that would imply some kind of difference between them (us) and Brahman. Instead, Brahman is all that truly exists, and our apparent differences from Brahman, which are also our apparent differences from each other, are just that: apparent rather than real. The everyday world of appearances is maya, a general Hindu term that Shankara uses in the sense of a spell of illusion cast by Brahman. Moksha, enlightenment, is the breaking of this spell.[37]
Any attempt to speak about Brahman in human words and concepts is thus part of the spell of maya. But doing so can be circumstantially useful if it uses maya against itself, as it were, and points toward Nirguna Brahman and moksha. This is where Saguna Brahman, the “lower” Brahman with attributes, comes in. Saguna Brahman is synonymous with Ishvara, the personal deity who rules the world and can be loved and worshiped by his or her devotees. This is what legitimizes the everyday spirituality of regular Hindus, who naturally relate to a vibrantly depicted personal god or goddess much more readily than the austere, lofty Nirguna Brahman.[38]
The second philosophy we’ll consider here is that of Ramanuja, who lived in the eleventh or twelfth century AD.[39] Ramanuja’s philosophy is called “Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.” The word Vishishtadvaita is a combination of two words: Vishishta and Advaita. We’ve already seen that Advaita is the name of Shankara’s philosophy and means “Monistic” or “Non-dualistic.” Vishishta means “Qualified,” so Vishishtadvaita means “Qualified Monistic” or “Qualified Non-Dualistic.” As that name implies, Ramanuja takes Shankara’s monism or non-dualism as his starting point, but makes some significant changes to it that make it less purely monistic.[40]
For Ramanuja, there’s no such thing as the ineffable Nirguna Brahman. Brahman is inherently Saguna, possessing attributes, the personal Lord or Ishvara. Ramanuja holds that the passages in the Upanishads that speak of Brahman as “attributeless” are really saying that Brahman lacks any bad attributes, not that it has no articulable attributes at all.[41] Thus Ramanuja writes that Brahman
is by his very essence free from imperfections and possesses an unlimited number of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. The term “brahman” applies to all things possessing greatness, but primarily it denotes that which possesses greatness essentially and in unlimited fullness; and such is only the Lord of all. Hence the word “brahman” primarily denotes him alone and in a secondary sense only those things that possess a small amount of the Lord’s qualities.[42]
Ramanuja holds that the world of everyday life is the real creation of the Lord, not an illusion as Shankara has it. The world is the body of the Lord, and we exist within it as beings that are at bottom one with the Lord, but also in some way distinct. We are each a unique part of Brahman rather than a dim reflection of Brahman as a whole. Moksha is the realization of our ultimate oneness with Brahman, but even in moksha, our distinctiveness remains. Ramanuja’s arguments for this are essentially circular: he uses everyday sense-perceptions and language to attempt to demonstrate the reality of those sense-perceptions and linguistic designations.[43]
Although Shankara clearly follows the Upanishads’ teachings on Brahman more closely than Ramanuja does overall, both of their philosophies express the overarching message of the Upanishads: the oneness of all things in Brahman. And it would be a mistake to view Ramanuja’s philosophy as strictly inferior to Shankara’s, because Ramanuja in effect takes Shankara’s philosophy and optimizes it for what Hinduism calls bhakti, the loving worship of the personal god. The practice of bhakti assumes some degree and kind of difference between the worshiper and the Worshiped. Shankara holds that this difference is only provisional and is transcended in moksha, but along the way, Ramanuja’s philosophy is arguably truer to what the worshiper practices in his or her worship: the pursuit of union with the Lord like the union of two lovers. Love entails not total union, but a partial union that always leaves the lover painfully but beautifully longing for more of what he or she loves. Shankara’s philosophy can thus be said to be the philosophy of knowledge (jnana), and Ramanuja’s the philosophy of love (bhakti).[44]
References:
[1] Rodrigues, Hillary P. 2017. Introducing Hinduism. Routledge. p. 37-39.
[2] Klostermaier, Klaus. 2007. A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. p. 167.
[3] Sastry, Trilochan. 2022. The Essentials of Hinduism: An Introduction to All the Sacred Texts. Penguin/Viking Press. p. 34.
[4] Davis, Richard H. 2024. Religions of Early India: A Cultural History. Princeton University Press. p. 85.
[5] Klostermaier, Klaus. 2007. A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. p. 156-157.
[6] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 11-12.
[7] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Katha Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 82-83.
[8] Klostermaier, Klaus. 2007. A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. p. 171.
[9] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 17-18.
[10] Ibid. p. 13.
[11] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 112.
[12] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Katha Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 82.
[13] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 14.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Chandogya Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 127.
[16] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 112.
[17] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 11-12.
[18] Davis, Richard H. 2024. Religions of Early India: A Cultural History. Princeton University Press. p. 125.
[19] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 210.
[20] Davis, Richard H. 2024. Religions of Early India: A Cultural History. Princeton University Press. p. 125.
[21] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 14.
[22] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Katha Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 90.
[23] Ibid. p. 82-83.
[24] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Kena Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 213-214.
[25] Klostermaier, Klaus. 2007. A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. p. 167.
[26] Ibid. p. 357.
[27] Sastry, Trilochan. 2022. The Essentials of Hinduism: An Introduction to All the Sacred Texts. Penguin/Viking Press. p. 58.
[28] Easwaran, Eknath (transl.). 2007. “The Shvetashvatara Upanishad.” In The Upanishads. Nilgiri Press. p. 165.
[29] Sastry, Trilochan. 2022. The Essentials of Hinduism: An Introduction to All the Sacred Texts. Penguin/Viking Press. p. 78.
[30] Rodrigues, Hillary P. 2017. Introducing Hinduism. Routledge. p. 142.
[31] Ibid. p. 141-142.
[32] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 182.
[33] Klostermaier, Klaus. 2007. A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. p. 357.
[34] Rodrigues, Hillary P. 2017. Introducing Hinduism. Routledge. p. 142-144.
[35] Bartley, Christopher. 2015. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy: Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources. Bloomsbury. p. 210.
[36] Rodrigues, Hillary P. 2017. Introducing Hinduism. Routledge. p. 142-144.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid. p. 144.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Klostermaier, Klaus. 2007. A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. p. 361.
[42] Ibid. p. 361-362.
[43] Ibid. p. 362-363.
[44] Rodrigues, Hillary P. 2017. Introducing Hinduism. Routledge. p. 144-145.