Strange as this Vedanta philosophy must appear at first sight to most of us, you can hardly have failed to discover some striking similarities which it presents with the great systems of European philosophy. Thus the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza’s 'Substantia'. Spinoza defines it as that which is in itself and is conceived by itself (in se est and per se concipitur). It is according to him infinite, indivisible, one, free and eternal, just as Sankara’s Brahman is called in the Upanishads ‘unborn, undecaying, undying, without parts, without action, tranquil, without fault or taint.’ But while with Spinoza this Substantia simply takes the place of God ,Sankara, when asked whether Brahman is God, would have to answer both Yes and No. No doubt, he defines Brahman as the omniscient and omnipotent cause of the origin, the permanence, and the disappearance of the world ; ' but as he distinguishes between a phenomenal and a real world, he distinguishes likewise between a phenomenal and a real God. This is a very important distinction. There is, he says, a lower and a higher Brahman. Even the lower one is adorned with the highest predicates which human language has to bestow; but the higher one is above all praise and all predicates ; even the highest which other religions have bestowed on the Deity are unworthy of Brahman. According to Sankara God, as conceived by the many, as an historical person, who some hundreds or some thousands of years ago created the world and remained its permanent ruler, is phenomenal only, that is to say, he is the real Brahman, but hidden behind the veil of human Nescience or Avidya.
