Bhedabheda

← Encyclopedia

Bhedābheda — Sanskrit for “difference and non-difference” — is the name given to a family of Vedānta positions holding that the individual self and brahman, the absolute, are at once distinct and not distinct. The relation is not a contradiction to be resolved but a claim to be held in both halves: the self is genuinely other than the ground of being, and genuinely one with it. The schools gathered under the term differ in how they parse the “and.”

The question they answer is the central one of Vedānta. The Upaniṣads and the Brahma-sūtras speak in two voices about the self and the absolute — passages that identify them outright (“that thou art”) set beside passages that hold them apart, the soul subject to a lord. A reading of the canon has to do something with both. Advaita, the non-dualism associated above all with Śaṅkara, treats the difference as finally unreal, an appearance dissolved in liberation. Dualist Vedānta keeps self and absolute permanently separate. Bhedābheda declines the choice: difference and identity are both real, both scriptural, and neither is swallowed by the other.

The position is older than its best-known exponents and was argued in several forms. The teacher Bhāskara, writing in the centuries after Śaṅkara, gave it an influential statement, holding that the self is one with brahman as the absolute and distinct from it as a limited, embodied knower — the difference arising from real conditioning rather than from illusion, and so a standing critique of the Advaita reading. Later, Nimbārka and the school descending from him developed a devotional version, dvaitādvaita, “duality and non-duality,” in which the eternal distinction between the soul and God is what makes love and worship possible at all, while the soul’s dependence on God keeps the two inseparable. Other thinkers — among them the much later Caitanya tradition’s “inconceivable difference-and-non-difference” — extended the same intuition in their own vocabularies.

What the various bhedābheda thinkers share is a refusal to let the relation collapse in either direction, and a conviction that the texts themselves require that refusal. To make either difference or identity merely apparent, they held, is to silence half of revelation. The cost is a metaphysics that has to carry a tension rather than dissolve it — which is also, on the schools’ own reading, its fidelity. Modern scholarship has come to treat bhedābheda less as a footnote between the great systems than as a continuous current in its own right, against which Advaita and the dualist schools partly defined themselves.

→ In the library: Thibaut — The Vedânta-Sûtras with Śankara's Commentary (1896)

→ Related: Neoplatonism · Emanation · The One