Chapter 3 Section 9
3.9.1 to 3.9. 27 As these verses do not have VedAntic teaching, they are not discussed in detail. Sakalya asks question relating to worldly entities including Isvara. Though YVK has earlier answered them, he again answers them and then asks Sakalya to answer a question on Nirguna Brahman and warns that if he does not answer, he will lose his head. Sakalya fails and he dies. Shankaracharya comments. “The moral of the story is that one should not be disrespectful, but rather obedient to a true knower of Brahman. That story is here referred to in order to teach conduct and also to extol the
knowledge of Brahman. How can that Brahman which has been indicated
as ‘Not this, not this’ by the elimination of everything else, be positively indicated? In order to answer this, as also to state the cause of the universe, the Sruti again resorts to the story.” [ Brihadarankya Upanishad with commentary of Shankaracharya, Translated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama] There is a message that as long as a person is within the worldly realm including Saguna Brahman, he is not free from death. Knowledge of Nirguna Brahman alone ensures immortality.
The Upanishad resorts to a story to show that Brahman is Self-revealing and can be indicated in a positive way as the remainder after the process of negation: Not this, not this’. As it will be seen later, YVK is entitled to take away cattle by defeating Vedic scholars who do not truly know Brahman.
3.9.28.1 to 3.9.28.7 YVK has defeated all the scholars. He also urges them to ask any question individually or collectively. None comes forward. YVK himself raises questions and gives answers. He compares a man with a tree. The hairs are leaves. The skin is the outer bark. As blood flows from the skin, sap flows from the bark, from the skin blood flows. The flesh is its inner bark, and the sinews its innermost layer of bark; it is tough. The bones are like wood; the marrow is like pith. If a tree is cut, i.e., it is separated from the invisible root, it again grows up. Likewise, in a one cycle of creation, after death, a jiva takes rebirth. If this principle is extended to end of a cycle of creation, the jivas emerge in the next cycle.
There are two questions. (1) Where do jivas reside or rest in the intervening period, namely, between the dissolution of one creation and the next creation? There must be a resting place, the source, from where the next creation emerges. (2) How is the first generation of jivas in the next creation determined? The question is not about the second and later generations (rebirths within a cycle) which are determined on the basis of laws of karmas. Regarding this, one view could be that the first generation is determined randomly. YVK rejects this view on the ground that a jiva in the first generation may get the result for which he has not done action. There will be no corelation between doer and enjoyer.
The answer of the first question has a clue to the answer of the second question. At the end of dissolution, aggregate sanchit karma of all jivas rests in potential form in Brahman. It is unmanifest and is the maya power of Brahman. The first generation of jivas is determined by a portion, called prarabdha, of the aggregate sanchit karma. The three scenes, viz, rebirth of a jiva in a cycle of creation, potential form of jivas at the end a cycle of creation, and emergence of jivas in the next cycle apply to ignorant jiva(s), and not to a Self-realized person.
Karmis, who earn and spend money on rites and rituals are ignorant. They play different roles in the three scenes. In the case of a Self-realized person, there is no rebirth as in the case of an uprooted tree, no tree grows. When ignorance is removed by Self- knowledge, there is no rebirth. The jiva merges with Brahman so to speak and does not contribute to maya power of Brahman. Also, there is no question of emergence in the next cycle of creation.
Shankaracharya discusses the import of the word ‘bliss’. It is generally known to denote pleasure that is cognized. The word ‘bliss’ occurs in the expression, ‘Brahman is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss.’ A view could be that bliss of Brahman is an object of cognition. And this is the view of an opponent who says that there is joy to be experienced in liberation on the authority of scriptural texts: Laughing (or eating), playing and enjoying’ [Ch 8.12.3], ‘Enjoys all desires’[Tai 2.5.1]. The opponent adds: it could be that Brahman being eternal knowledge, knows Itself as bliss.
Shankaracharya counters. The words and phrases like, ‘laughing’, ‘eating’, ‘enjoying all desires’ are used to glorify Brahman. They are not to be taken literally. If Brahman cognizes the bliss, then it contradicts the oneness of Brahman by making It both subject and object. On liberation, a person does not retain separate existence (like a handful of water thrown into a tank of water). It does not make any sense to say that a liberated man experiences bliss of Brahman. On the other hand, if the liberated man is considered different from Brahman so that he experiences the bliss of Brahman, oneness of Brahman is contradicted. The conclusion is that bliss of Brahman is not an experiential bliss. Bliss is the nature of Brahman. Brahman is supreme bliss.
Contd