taittirIya Upanishad
The aim of every seeker (the individual ‘self’ or the sense of ‘me’) is to experientially realize the Supreme Self (paramAtmA).
But who is the seeker that has to realize the Self?
The seeker is located neither at the ‘self’ nor at the Self! The surprising truth is that the one who realizes and the one to be realized are not two. Both the seeker and the sought are none other than the Supreme Self (brahman) Itself.
If both the seeker and the sought are brahman, there can be no real need for one to capture or attain the other. It would then appear meaningless to go in search of brahman.
Yet the scriptures instruct us that one’s ‘self’ (AtmA) should realize the Self (AtmA) with the self (AtmA) in the Self (AtmA). It is as though the scriptures speak of four different “self-s.” The Bhagavad-Gita expresses the same idea:
ध्यानेनात्मनि पश्यन्ति केचिदात्मानमात्मना । — 13.4, Bhagavad-Gita.
[Meaning: By meditation some behold the Self in the Self by the Self … (Translation: A. Mahadeva Sastri).]
The Gita says that the most qualified seekers behold the Self in the Self by the Self. Yet the one who beholds is also the Self. How are we to understand this apparent contradiction?
The taittirIya Upanishad helps us unravel this puzzle.
The mANDUkya Upanishad asks us to discover the one Self whose very nature is Consciousness:
एकात्म प्रत्ययसारं … … || — mantra 7, mANDUkya Upanishad.
[Meaning: Essentially of the nature of Consciousness constituting the Self alone … (Translation: Swami Nikhilananda).]
The implication is that we should cease giving reality to the not-self, namely the world. If we see a world as something separate from ourselves, we implicitly accept that we are a finite observer confronting an external object. The mANDUkya Upanishad takes a radical position: there is no independently existing world. There is no not-self. What IS—the very Beingness—is the Self alone.
Therefore, both the ‘seer’ and the ‘seen’ must be the Self. Subject and object are not two.
As a concession to our present level of understanding, the taittirIya Upanishad provisionally speaks as though there are two self-s. This does not mean that there are actually two selves. Rather, because we have not yet realized the truth of non-duality, reality appears divided.
In our present experience, we do feel that there are two self-s. We may possess the intellectual conviction that the Self is One and that “I am brahman.” But unless this Oneness becomes a living reality, such knowledge remains merely conceptual.
The IshAvAsya and the muNDaka Upanishads teach:
ईशा वास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किं च जगत्यां जगत् । — mantra 1, IshAvAsya Upanishad
[Meaning: Whatever is there changing in this ephemeral world, all that is enveloped by the Lord.]
ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्ताद्ब्रह्म पश्चाद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण ।
अधश्चोर्ध्वं च प्रसृतं ब्रह्मैवेदं विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठम् ॥ — mantra 2.2.12, muNdaka upa.
[Meaning: All this that is in front is but brahman, the immortal. brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but brahman, the highest.]
If our experience fully conforms to this teaching and we truly see brahman everywhere, no further instruction is necessary. The recognition that What-IS is brahman alone is itself Self-knowledge. Nothing more remains to be known because there is nothing apart from It.
The body may continue to live until the effects of the karma (prArabdha) that gave rise to its present existence are exhausted. Even great adepts are not exempt from prArabdha. The Self-realized one remains a silent witness to all bodily activities until the body falls away.
Questions such as, “How do I grasp the Self with my self?” indicate that one is still operating within the framework of samsAra, the cycle of birth and death. It is precisely from this standpoint of everyday experience that the taittirIya Upanishad begins its teaching.
A deep longing to be free from samsAra is the foremost qualification of a seeker. Such a seeker must listen to the teaching of Non-duality and assimilate it thoroughly. Only when one fully understands and directly realizes that all that exists is the one Self does the misery of life come to an end. One then abides as the indivisible and immortal Reality.
From the vast reaches of outer space to the intimate sense of “I”-ness that seems to reside within us, everything is the Self alone. Nothing exists apart from the Self. Yet we fail to recognize It. Imagining the Self to be distant or hidden, we begin searching for It, unaware that we ourselves are that very Self.
As long as attention is fixed on form, differences naturally appear. Earth is not water; water is not fire; fire is not air; air is not space. Separation breeds distinction and often conflict. Form, by its very nature, delimits.
Formlessness, however, is all-pervasive. It is present equally in and through all forms.
Therefore, when form is understood as non-separate from formlessness, all distinctions dissolve into Oneness. Formlessness fosters unity, friendship, and love. Consider space: it accommodates everything without preference or resistance. It pervades all forms and embraces all equally. Yet even space is subordinate to Consciousness-space.
Consciousness-space is superior because physical space is not aware of its own existence. Consciousness-space is not only Universal Beingness but also self-luminous Awareness.
Beingness may be viewed in two modes: Universal Existence and Universal Non-existence. In the waking and dream states, things appear as existing. In deep sleep, however, there is no experience of the existence of objects. A similar absence of objects may occur in samAdhi. Whenever an object is present, we recognize its existence; when it is absent, we recognize its non-existence. Both existence and absence are experienced against an all-pervasive background.
At our present stage, reality appears divided into an individual self and the Supreme Self (brahman). The taittirIya Upanishad explains that the one who feels compelled to seek the Self is the individual self (jIva AtmA), while the object of that search is the Supreme Self (parama AtmA). Thus, from the seeker’s standpoint, there appear to be two self-s.
The taittirIya Upanishad therefore provisionally accepts this duality between the individual self and the Universal Self. Such a provisional division serves a pedagogical purpose. It enables the seeker to undertake disciplines and practices that facilitate preparation to ultimately culminate in the direct realization of the Supreme Self.
A question naturally arises: Why does the one Self appear as though divided into two? Is the division merely a product of thought, or does the Self somehow seem divided independent of our thinking, while in reality remaining undivided?
The aitareya Upanishad examines this question in detail. For the present discussion, however, let us assume that the Self has divided Itself into two. The Upanishad then declares:
सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म । — mantra 2.1.1, taittirIya upa.
[Meaning: brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infinite. (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda).]
Let us say that one aspect is characterized by Beingness, Knowingness, and Infiniteness. This is the Supreme Self.
Beingness (‘sat’) signifies all-pervasive presence. Every object that we encounter possesses presence; it is. That “is-ness” is Beingness. We must distinguish between the object and the Beingness that enables the object to appear. The object has form, but its Beingness is formless.
Thus, while forms appear many and diverse, the formless Beingness that pervades them all is One and the same.
But we are unfortunately habituated to noticing only the ‘form,’ because form serves our transactional needs. We either overlook or fail to recognize the ever-present, all-pervasive formlessness that permeates every form. We feel comfortable dealing with names and forms, for they are familiar to us.
Consequently, we tend to objectify even the formless and visualize It in a particular form, as in the idols worshipped in temples. In this way, we unconsciously confine the formless Supreme Self to a specific form and location, overlooking Its all-pervasive nature. This tendency arises from our habitual identification with form rather than with the formless Reality that shines through all forms.
(To Continue … Part 27 (taitti 2))