TAITTIRIYA UPANISHAD – 52. Rishi Yajnavalkya.

====================================================================================

Monday 25, Mar 2024. 07:15.

Taittiriya Upanishad

Part-2.

BRAHMANANDA VALLI

PART 2: 9 No. Anuvakas (Chapters)

THE BLISS THAT IS BRAHMAN

Post - 52.

====================================================================================

UPANISHAD SARA SANGRAH 

Anuvaka 2.1 

The Essence of the Upanishads:

====================================================================================

“Satyam, Jnaanam, Anantam Brahman” 

Bhashya A: 

“On the Nature of BRAHMAN” 

Coverage:   Mantram - 2.1.2 (3 Padas)

====================================================================================

THE OBJECTIONS (Poorvapakshi):

The following Objections, raised by the Poorvapakshi (the Objector), were referred to in the discussion above: 

====================================================================================

Objection 2:  Why Differentiate Brahman with Adjectives? 

Poorvapakshi: You mention adjectives ‘blue, big and sweet-smelling’ for a lotus to 

differentiate it from other lotuses. But Brahman is said to be One only, and does not need to 

be differentiated from any other Brahmans. Hence, where is the need for adjectives for 

Brahman? 

Answer: We said in part A/ that these three words, in 3 are intended mainly to 

define and not to qualify Brahman. They distinguish Brahman from the entire Samashti 

Prapancha – the macrocosmic Universe of names and forms; they are not meant to indicate 

that there are other Brahmans.  

Poorvapakshi: What is the difference between these two relations then – namely, 

between: 

 i) Definition and the thing defined; and  

ii) Quality and the thing qualified? 

Answer: An Adjective distinguishes a noun from things in its own class, whereas a 

Definition distinguishes a noun from all other nouns. 

For example, an adjective will separate different lotuses – some blue, some big, 

some sweet-smelling. A Definition will separate a lotus from other objects that are not 

lotuses, like animals, trees, mountains, etc.

Objection 3:  Self is the “Knower”:

Poorvapakshi: Your quotation says, “…does not understand (know) anything else.” 

By logic that means, “…does understand or know the Self,” which is “not anything else”. So 

it does say, indeed, that one is a Knower of the Self. But that is what you are just denying? 

Answer: Even as 3 is intended to define Brahman, so too, this quoted line (from 

Chand. Up 7.24.1) is intended also to define Brahman, i.e. identify its characteristics from 

that which is not-Brahman. 

In normal experiences in the relative world, what we ‘see’ is considered to be 

different from us. Recognising this fact, the quote has been carefully worded to distinguish 

Brahman as something which cannot be ‘seen’ to be known. “Seeing” Brahman is not like 

seeing an object, due to the infinite nature of Brahman. In the realm of Non-Duality the only 

way to know the infinite Reality is to become that Reality! This is what the quote is trying to 

tell us. We should always take the context of what is being said. 

The word “understand” in the quote is not the usual process of knowing (with the 

senses or mind) but of being or becoming. It is impossible to know the Self with the senses. 

*****

Next

Objection 4:  Can Self Not Be Knower & Knowable?

Continued

=======================================================================================