Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
6-9 Taittiria Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-3 AnuvAka 6
If a person says that Brahman is non-existent, he is adhArmic. Brahman-knowledge cannot be the goal of such a person. He does not accept the authority of the Vedanta sastras. For such a person a preparatory righteous life constituting karma yoga and upAsanA yoga would not make any sense. His life is meaningless. On the other hand, a seeker initially accepts Brahman because the scriptures say so and eventually, he clearly understands that Brahman exists not as an object, but as I, the very subject. It is different from and witness to the five sheaths.
The Upanishad has begun with three questions. What is Brahman? How to know Brahman? What is meant by attaining the greatest? The Upanishad has addressed the first two questions by the technique of discrimination of five sheaths. Even though Brahman is all pervading, it must be known in one’s own mind only. In the mind, Brahman is to be recognised as the witnessing consciousness behind every thought. This witnessing consciousness is not available for objectification. Therefore, Brahman must be claimed as I, the observer of presence and absence of thoughts in the mind.
Before the teacher takes up the third question, the student interrupts the teacher with questions based on the teachings thus far.
Brahman has been presented as the cause for everything: the five elements, the earth, the trees from the earth and even the human bodies originate from Brahman. The student understands that Brahman is the cause, and all things and beings are products. At the time of dissolution, they resolve into the cause just as the rivers merge back into the ocean. There is no exception, and it is regardless of whether one is ignorant or wise or pious or irreligious.
The student asks the question: Does an ignorant person merge with Brahman or not after death? If the teacher says that the ignorant person does not merge, it violates the rule that the product must merge with the cause. This would mean Brahman cannot be the cause. If that is the case, the wise person also does not merge with Brahman. If the teacher says that Brahman is the cause of everything and everyone including ignorant people merge with Brahman, there would be no need for scriptures and a spiritual life. The dilemma is resolved as follows.
The Upanishad has earlier introduced two types of people: those who accept the existence of Brahman and those who do not. The disagreement exists only because Brahman is not available for objectification since He is formless, attribute-free and not available as object of any sense organ or the mind or the intellect. Therefore, the two questions related to merger with Brahman are relevant only if Brahman exists. Thus, before the student’s questions can be answered, the basic question about existence or otherwise of Brahman begs an answer.
6-9-4 AnuvAka 7 (Pt1) The Upanishad establishes the existence of Brahman. Brahman is both the intelligent cause and the material cause of universe. This idea is based upon the principle that any product that we see – a clock, a desk, a carpet or a box – has a purpose and that it has been carefully visualized, designed and manufactured by an intelligent being to meet that purpose. This intelligent cause is efficient or intelligent cause. Even if the intelligent cause is not visible, it is inferred that there is one. The universe is well-designed with innumerable components working in harmony. It can therefore be inferred that universe is a purposeful product designed and created by an intelligent principle. Accidental creation is ruled out.
Once an intelligent cause is accepted, process of creation can be explained. In any creation, the product does not suddenly appear. It is first visualized, a blueprint is created and then produced. The creation is visualized in the total mind of the intelligent principle. Vedanta calls this total mind mAyA-tattva. MAyA is the power of Brahman which does not exist separately from Brahman. Brahman with mAyA is Isvara. Isvara visualizes and creation comes into being. A jiva takes rebirth because of the causal body which is the sanchit karma, i.e., the karmic balance at the time of death. At the time of dissolution, i.e., at the end of a cycle of creation, the aggregate causal body of all jivAs is the unmanifest universe resting in Brahman. MAyA is the cosmic causal body. It is the unmanifest universe resting in potential form in Brahman.
The universe has two states: manifest and unmanifest and the cycles of creation continue. Universe is manifested and jivAs take birth to exhaust their karmAs. Existence of universe proves the existence of a creator. The cause exists in the effect. Gold exists in ornament. Brahman is self-creator otherwise it will lead to logical fallacy of infinite regress.
Note: Brahman as the cause of the creation refers to Isvara which is Brahman with mAyA. which does not exist separately from Brahman. Isvara is with attributes. Brahman which is free from attributes is neither the cause nor effect. One may say that Brahman ‘entrusts’ the job of creation to Isvara. Here asat means unmanifest and sat means manifest.
Isvara = Consciousness + mAyA = asat (unmanifest)
World = Consciousness + mAyA = sat (manifest)
Contd Part 33
Very readable and clearly explained, Bimal – really valuable! Just one query: could you elaborate on your statement that “Brahman is self-creator otherwise it will lead to logical fallacy of infinite regress.” It is not clear what you mean by this.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thanks for your comments. Brahman is self-created means there is no creator of Brahman. It is eternal. It was in the past, is in present and will be in future. If there is a creator of Brahman, then it will be asked: who is the creator of creator of Brahman and so on? It leads to infinite regress. The words ‘self-creator’ is perhaps confusing. Self-created is more appropriate.
Best wishes,
Bimal
Dear Bimal,
Sorry to be pedantic but ‘self-created’ is still confusing (implying that it was ‘somehow’ created). Surely the point is that Brahman was NOT created (in any way). Why not simply say that Brahman is the eternal, non-dual reality. It is worth pointing out, too, that this Taittiriya presentation is an adhyAropa teaching since, in realiy, there has never been ANY creation.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
You have reminded about the final truth propounded by GudapadAchArya. Sometimes, the Upanishad uses words in a figurative sense so long as it does not compromise the teaching. My post is on anuvAka 7 of Taittiriya Upanishad BrahmAnanda Valli. Have a look at the following bhasayam on anuvAka 7.
“In the beginning all this was but the unmanifested (Brahman). From that emerged the manifested. That Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore, It is called the self-creator.” (Kindle Locations 2770-2771).
“Is the effect entirely separate from that (cause), just as a son is from the father? The answer is being given negatively: Tat, that which is called the Unmanifested (Brahman) svayam Itself akuruta created, AtmAnam Itself. Since this is so, tasmAt, therefore; tat, that Brahman Itself uchayate is called; the sukrtam, self-creator*” (Kindle Location 2780).
“* sukrtam (standing for svakrta) should mean `self-created’. But Sankara takes it as a Vedic licence for `self-creator’. -A.G.” (Kindle Locations 3529-3530).”
Source: Eight Upanishads by Swami Gambhirananda with the Commentary of ShankarAchArya, Vol. I. Kindle Edition
Best wishes,
Bimal
You are quite correct, Bimal. I wasn’t disputing the teaching (although I had not recalled the use of the word ‘sukRRitam’, which is usually read as ‘self-created).
I have never actually seen any discussions about whether it is better to tell seekers the ‘bottom line’ when giving interim teaching or not. But, personally, I always prefer to be aware of where the teaching is heading even if I do not yet believe it. So, when giving ‘creation’ teaching, I always point out that this is adhyAropa and that, in reality, the bottom line is ajAti vAda.
Best wishes,
Dennis