TAITTIRIYA UPANISHAD – 90. Rishi Yajnavalkya.
====================================================================================
Monday 13, June 2025, 09:20.
TAITTIRIYA UPANISHAD Pertaining to the SELF-CREATION of Brahman there is a Shruti Mantram… Upanishad Part-2.
ABHAYA PRATISHTHAA
BRAHMAANANDA MEEMAAMSAA
Anuvaka 2.8 A Measure of “Relative Joy”
Bhashya F:
THE MAHAVAKYA OF THIS UPANISHAD
Coverage: Mantras From 2.8.13 to 2.9.1.
Post-90.
=======================================================================================
The Mahavakya of Taittireeya Upanishad: Mantram: 2.8.13.
Initial Objections:
At the very outset of the discussion, three objections, Obj 1, Obj 2 and Obj 3, are
answered to clear the way for deeper discussion:
Objection 1: Where is the Soul?
Poorvapakshi: The embodied soul, Jeeva, should not be referred to in a general way
as “in the human person”. Why can you not specify where it is, for example, “in the right
eye” as quoted in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (II,iii,5)?
Answer: No, we are not talking of the individual Jeeva, but of the Supreme Self. It is
not reasonable for you to refer to the Jeeva suddenly out of context. The subject is strictly
the Supreme Self, Brahman. Sah Ekah “He is One” (14) refers to Brahman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection 2: Which Standpoint?
Poorvapakshi: The start of the “Brahmananda Meemaamsam” topic was from the
relative standpoint of each of the 11 cases quoted as examples. When did the switchover to
the infinite standpoint take place? There was no formal conclusion indicating this.
Answer: There has been that formal switchover. The very lines here in this mantram, 14,
are sufficient to indicate that change. It is shifting our attention from the relative (human
person and Sun) to the Absolute (the core). That is where we begin the absolute standpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection 3: Why Refer to Sun Only?
Poorvapakshi: Why is the Sun only being singled out here? Why is the enquiry not
more general than that?
Answer: The reason is so that notions of superiority and inferiority are eliminated.
Firstly, the Sun stands for Hiranyagarbha, who is the highest representation of the form and
the formless manifestation (gross and subtle creation). Secondly, the human stands at the
other end of the scale, as the highest representation of a living being on Earth. From the
standpoint of Brahman, if identity can be shown in these two extreme cases, then all the
other cases in between are automatically covered. The “fearless state” reached by one who
sees the identity is then justified, as no superiority or inferiority would exist that could yet
be feared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRESS MADE ON THE ANUPRASHNAS:
H/ Sri Shankaracharya takes the whole subject very systematically, step by step, and
extremely thoroughly, leaving no loophole behind for critics later. The 3 Questions are:
i) Does Brahman exist of not?
ii) Does the unenlightened person reach Brahman?
iii) Does the enlightened person reach Brahman?
The Answers:
i) The first has been covered in Bhashya C: “Seven Proofs of Brahman’s Existence”,
proving that Brahman does exist.
ii) The second need not be answered as it rests on the answer to the third.
iii) The third post-question is now taken up. The relevance of it to the subject matter
of this section (the Mahavakya) is very clear: If the enlightened person reaches Brahman,
then that itself would prove the truth of the Mahavakya; and if the enlightened person does
not reach Brahman, then further discussion of the Mahavakya becomes purely theoretical,
and of no practical use at all.
We shall come back to the answer to this after we have discussed Verse 2.8.14:
Comments
Post a Comment