TAITTIRIYA UPANISHAD – 53. Rishi Yajnavalkya.
==================================================================================
Saturday 06, Apr 2024. 07:30.
Taittiriya Upanishad
Part-2.
BRAHMANANDA VALLI
PART 2: 9 No. Anuvakas (Chapters)
THE BLISS THAT IS BRAHMAN
Post - 53.
==================================================================================
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)
==================================================================================
Objection 4: Can Self Not Be Knower & Knowable?
Poorvapakshi: Can the Self not be the Knower and the Knowable at the same time?
Answer: No, because the Self cannot be split into parts – one part as the Knower and
the other as the Knowable. If the Self were a knowable thing to be known, who will be there
to know it? We cannot have two Selves. This discussion is intended to draw our attention to
a higher order of Reality not known to us through our mind. A definition of the Self is being
attempted. The task is not easy with words.
=====================================================================================
Objection 5: Brahman is Shunya – “Non-Existent”
Poorvapakshi: Since the only purpose of the 3 adjectives seems to be to negate their
opposites, and the substantive, Brahman, appears to be something not well-known and so
hard to define, why take the trouble to define it? Why not just say it is non-existent?
Brahman is just like “The son of a barren woman, armed with a hare’s horn, bathing in a
mirage and decorated with sky-flowers!” You are just using fanciful words for Brahman!
Answer: No, the sentence is a definition, even though they are attributes (see Obj 2).
If the substantive was non-existent, indeed, then you would be right. But we do not think
so. There is an entity here to be defined. But even if you take the words to be adjectives,
they still mean something. If it was non-existent, how would these attributes have come
about? We cannot, therefore, simply dismiss Brahman so easily.
Your statement that these words simply negate their opposites is also not true. Only
the word Ananta, for good reason, negates the finite, for there is no other way to describe
the Infinite. The other two words impart positive meanings to Brahman, namely that He is
Existence and He is Consciousness respectively.
=========================================================================================
Objection 6: Brahman as Knower is Impermanent & Dependent.
Poorvapakshi: A/ If Brahman is linked to the Self, then It becomes a Knower, since
the Self is a Knower. I told you that at the very beginning. Now you, too, are saying that. The
same text also says “Brahman desired”, which also makes Him an agent. As a Knower and an
agent, He cannot also be Knowledge or Consciousness.
Brahman as an agent of knowing or as knowledge itself means that He has these two
defects: He is impermanent, and He is dependent – the former due to changing information,
and the latter due to dependency on the limitations of the Upadhis of knowledge.
Answer: B/ What you are taking to be “knowledge” is information received through
the senses and digested in the mind and intellect. True, the defects you speak of are
applicable to that knowledge, and in that case you are right that knowledge is an activity.
However, that is not the sense in which to understand the statement “Brahman is
knowledge”. This is not objectified knowledge, but the essential principle of knowing,
unconnected with the Upadhis. It is not based on thought. It is the true nature of the Self,
and is therefore everlasting and not dependent on any external factors.
Consciousness illumines the objects in our intellect “even as they arise”, i.e. without
a nanosecond of lapse in time. The intellect cognizes them as “thoughts” as they emerge out
from it. By then it is already in the secondary stage which we term as ‘knowledge’. The
primary stage is that of Pure Knowledge which is no different from Pure Consciousness.
C/ Due to absence of discrimination, the defects of knowledge at this secondary level
are incorrectly presumed to be present in Consciousness. The three errors made are: i)
knowing is taken to mean an activity of the intellect; ii) this knowing is attributed to the Self;
and iii) mutability is attributed to the primary level of Knowledge.
Language is inadequate: The sun is light, but we say “light of the sun”; fire is heat,
but we say “heat of fire”; similarly, Brahman is knowledge, but we only say “knowledge of
Brahman”. For that reason, many prefer to use the word “illumination” rather than
“knowledge”. ‘Illumination’ can be understood to be unaffected by what we perceive to be
illumined, whereas ‘knowledge’ is very hard to separate from what we know.
Brahman as Knowledge is truly omniscient, surpassing all subtlety – remoteness or
time. Nothing is unknown or unknowable to it. This is a very deep level of understanding. It
is not surprising that you had these doubts, as it is very subtle to grasp.
D/ For this reason, we see this Mantra in the Shrutis:
“Though He is without hands and feet, He still runs and grasps;
Though He is without eyes, still He sees;
Though He is without ears, still He hears;
He knows the knowable, and of Him there is no knower;
Him they call the first, great Person!”
E/ Brahman is indicated by Jnanam, not denoted by it. There is no Duality in
Brahman. Hence, Brahman cannot know – for there is nothing besides It to be known! Pure,
unchanging, eternal Illumination is what ‘Jnanam’ denotes. The word ‘knowledge’ does not
do justice but is accepted as second best, language being only a shadow of true knowledge.
*****
Next
LINE 4
yah veda nihitam guhaayaam parame vyoman
“He who knows It, hidden in the cave (of the heart),
as the transcendent Akasha . . .”
Continued
===================================================================================
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment