[Part – 18 (muNDaka 1)]

We can infer from 1.1.1 of the muNDaka Upaniṣad that Knowledge of the Self is not restricted to renunciates alone — it is imparted to householders as well. After all, Śaunaka himself was a householder, not a monk. What really matters is not one’s external status, but an inner readiness: the student must be free from preoccupation with worldly concerns and firmly resolved to realize the Self, without distraction.

शौनको ह वै महाशालोऽङ्गिरसं विधिवदुपसन्नः पप्रच्छ कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति ॥    —   1.1.3, muNDaka upa.

[Meaning: Saunaka, well known as a great householder, having approached Angiras duly, asked, ‘O Adorable Sir, (which is that thing) which having been known, all this becomes known?’ (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda).]

Śaunaka is asking for that Knowledge, knowing which everything else becomes known. This is not just any question — it is the most fundamental inquiry possible. In fact, the Upaniṣads — especially those that follow the muNDaka — can be seen as extended responses to this very question. The teacher appreciates the depth of the inquiry but also makes it clear that the student must have the steadiness to abide in what is taught. Continue reading →

[Part – 17 (prashna 4)]

muNDaka Upanishad 

The Self is of the nature of pure sentience. Hence, it can be known only through that which is likewise sentient—namely, an entity belonging to the same genre. By way of illustration, a magnet attracts iron filings but not a piece of wood; for attraction is possible only between entities that share a common nature.

The body, the senses, and even the vital force (prANa), being insentient, are incapable of apprehending the Self. The mind (antaḥkaraNa) alone, being endowed with reflected consciousness and possessing the capacity for cognition, serves as the appropriate instrument for the knowledge of the Self. Therefore, the mind alone is competent to grasp It.

Further, the Self that is sought to be realized is utterly indivisible and without any internal distinctions. It is free from all forms of differentiation — whether internal, external, or relational.

A tree, though seemingly a single entity, is divisible into multiple constituent parts such as roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. It is thus a “divisible whole.” Space, on the other hand, is not subject to such division and may be regarded as an “indivisible whole.” The Self is akin to the latter.  

Continue reading →

[Part – 16 (prashna 3)]

“Limb” (in Sanskrit kala) means a part, a ray.

For example, the moon has 16 limbs from the New Moon phase to the Full Moon. Just as the Full Moon is complete with all the 16 parts on the Full Moon day, PuruSa is also complete when the 16 limbs are present. The 16 limbs are:

स प्राणमसृजत प्राणाच्छ्रद्धा खं वायुर्ज्योतिरापः पृथिवीन्द्रियं मनः । अन्नमन्नाद्वीर्यं तपो मन्त्राः कर्म लोका लोकेषु च नाम च॥    —        6.4, prashna.

[Meaning: He created prANa; from prANa (He created) faith, space, air, fire, water, earth, organs, mind, food; from food (He created) vigor, self-control, mantras, rites, worlds and name in the worlds.]

The life-principle, faith, space, air, fire, earth, the senses, mind, matter, vigor, austerity, mantras, action, fields (areas of experience), and name (identity) — these sixteen arise from the partless Puruṣa. Though in reality without parts, the Puruṣa appears as though endowed with parts when manifested.

Among these sixteen, the life-principle (prāṇa) and the mind (manas) are especially significant. It may be said that the indivisible Self appears as if fragmented into many. Just as a sheet of glass shatters into pieces upon impact, so too the Self seems to break into multiplicity when “movement” arises. This apparent fragmentation is referred to as the “fall” (cyuti). Continue reading →