The aitareya Upanishad next presents a teaching story to unfold a profound philosophical truth.
It first describes the creation of the celestial deities, the presiding powers that govern the universe. Having brought forth the worlds, the Creator projected these deities, who then approached Him and said, in effect, “The world is our food, and we are its enjoyers. Where shall we abide to experience it?” The gods here represent the powers that function through the organs of perception and action.
ताभ्यो गामानयत्ता अब्रुवन्न वै नोऽयमलमिति । — mantra 1.2.2, aitareya upa.
[Meaning: For them He (i.e. the Creator God) brought a cow. They said, “This one is not certainly adequate for us.” ]
The Creator first produced the body of a cow and then that of a horse. The gods found neither suitable.
ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्ता अब्रुवन्सु कृतं बतेति पुरुषो वाव सुकृतम्। ता अब्रवीद्यथायतनं प्रविशतेति॥ — mantra 1.2.3, aitareya upa.
[Meaning: For them He created a man. They said, “This one is well formed; man indeed is a creation of God Himself.” To them He said, “Enter into your respective abodes.” ]
The human body alone proved to be a worthy abode. Each deity entered its respective organ—agni as speech, vAyu as the vital force, and the others into their appropriate functions. The organs are merely the Ayatanas (abodes); the deities symbolize the powers that function through them.
The Upanishad now draws an important distinction between the world and the individual. The world, together with the body, the senses, the mind and the vital forces, is presented as a manifestation through modification (vikAra). The individual, however, is not produced by any modification. The Self does not undergo change to become the individual; it merely appears to be associated with the body while ever remaining unchanged.
Thus, the body, the senses and the mind belong to the objective world and are all objects of knowledge. Knowingness alone is the unchanging Knower. Though the individual appears finite because of identification with the body and mind, his essential nature is Knowingness itself. Limitation belongs only to the adjuncts, never to the Self.
स ईक्षत कथं न्विदं मदृते स्यादिति स ईक्षत कतरेण प्रपद्या इति स ईक्षत यदि वाचाभिव्याहृतं यदि प्राणेनाभिप्राणितं यदि चक्षुषा दृष्टं यदि श्रोत्रेण श्रुतं यदि त्वचा स्पृष्टं यदि मनसा ध्यातं यद्यपानेनाभ्यपानितं यदि शिश्नेन विसृष्टमथ कोऽहमिति ॥ — mantra 1.3.11, aitareya upa.
[Meaning: He thought, “How indeed can it be there without Me?” He thought, “Through which of the two ways should I enter?” He thought, “If utterance is done by the organ of speech, smelling by the sense of smell, seeing by the eye, hearing by the ear, feeling by the sense of touch, thinking by the mind, the act of drawing in (or pressing down) by apAna, ejecting by the procreative organ, then who (or what) am I?” (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda). ]
Having endowed the organs with their respective powers, the Creator reflected, “How can this body exist without Me?” If the organs perform their respective functions, what then is My role? The question directs our attention to the Knowingness because of which all the organs function and their activities are known.
The Upanishad says that the Creator entered through the brahma-randhra, the opening at the crown of the head. This “entry” is not physical. The all-pervading Self neither travels nor becomes confined within the body. The imagery simply explains the apparent association of the limitless Self with an individual body.
The Self is then said to dwell in three “abodes”—the waking, dream and deep-sleep states. These are not physical locations but the three modes of experience. While experiences change from one state to another, the Knowingness that illumines them all remains ever the same.
Having entered the city (purI) of the body, the indwelling Self came to be known as Puruṣa, the One who dwells in the city. The narrative now mirrors the human condition. Identifying with the body and mind, the individual naturally begins to wonder, “Who am I? Am I merely this embodied being, or is my nature something greater?”
The purpose of the Upanishad is to awaken this inquiry. Self-knowledge is not the acquisition of something new but the discovery of what has always been true. When the source of the “I” is examined, identification with the body gradually falls away, and the true nature of the Self stands revealed.
The Upanishad now describes the culmination of that inquiry.
स एतमेव पुरुषं ब्रह्म ततममपश्यदिदमदर्शमिती३ ॥ — mantra 1.3.13, aitareya upa.
[Meaning: He realized this very Purusha as brahman, the most pervasive, thus: “I have realized this”. ]
The inquiry culminates in immediate recognition. The indwelling Puruṣa realizes that he is not a limited individual but brahman, the all-pervading Reality. Nothing new is attained, nor does the individual become brahman. Ignorance alone is removed. The mistaken identification with the body, mind and senses comes to an end, revealing one’s true nature as the ever-free, ever-complete Self.
Self-realization is therefore not a journey to a distant goal but the recognition of what has always been true:
“I am the limitless Self, pure Knowingness, ever free and all-pervading.”
तस्मादिदन्द्रो नामेदन्द्रो ह वै नाम तमिदन्द्रं सन्तमिन्द्र इत्याचक्षते परोक्षेण । — mantra 1.3.14, aitareya upa.
[Meaning: Therefore, His name is Idandra. He is verily known as Idandra. Although He is Idandra, they call Him indirectly Indra. ]
Having realized His true nature, He came to be known as Idandra, later shortened to Indra.
The same symbolism appears in the kena Upanishad. There, after the gods become proud of their victory, brahman appears before them in the form of a mysterious Yakṣa. Neither agni nor vAyu recognizes the Yakṣa. Indra alone persists in enquiry and, through the instruction of Umā Haimavatī, discovers that the victory belonged to brahman alone. Thus, in both Upanishads, Indra represents the seeker who becomes fit for Self-knowledge through inquiry.
The message is universal. Every individual begins by identifying with the body and mind. Through enquiry and the guidance of the Upanishads, that mistaken identity is removed. What remains is the direct recognition that one’s own nature is brahman. This is the fulfilment of human life and the central teaching of the aitareya Upanishad.
(To Continue … … Part – 33 (aita 4))
Dear Ramesam,
I could not find any mantra regarding distinction between the world and the individual as stated in, “The Upanishad now draws an important distinction between the world and the individual. The world, together with the body, the senses, the mind and the vital forces, is presented as a manifestation through modification (vikAra). The individual, however, is not produced by any modification. The Self does not undergo change to become the individual; it merely appears to be associated with the body while ever remaining unchanged.”
Best wishes,
Bimal
Dear Bimal,
Thanks for the Comment.
The aitareya Upanishad famously uses the Ikṣaṇa and Praveśa śrutis to describe the creation as a 2-step process of adhyAropa.
The respective Shruti vAkyA-s are:
i) IkSana shruti:
आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् । नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत् । स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति ॥ — 1.1.1, aitareya
The pravacana karta, Late Shri YSR explains its gist to be: The world, together with the body, the senses, the mind and the vital forces, is presented as a manifestation through modification (vikAra).
ii) pravesha shruti:
स ईक्षत कथं न्विदं मदृते स्यादिति स ईक्षत कतरेण प्रपद्या इति स ईक्षत यदि वाचाभिव्याहृतं … …
स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत । सैषा विदृतिर्नाम द्वास्तदेतन्नान्दनम् । — 1.3.11-12, aitareya
Gist of the above mantras is explained by Shri YSR: Having endowed the organs with their respective powers, the Creator reflected, “How can this body exist without Me?” If the organs perform their respective functions, what then is My role? The question directs our attention to the Knowingness because of which all the organs function and their activities are known.
The Upanishad says that the Creator entered through the brahma-randhra, the opening at the crown of the head. This “entry” is not physical. The all-pervading Self neither travels nor becomes confined within the body. The imagery simply explains the apparent association of the limitless Self with an individual body.
“To explain why a diverse world exists when there is only one Reality, Shankara allows the cosmic mind to think of Brahman as the material cause (Upādāna Kāraṇa) transforming into the universe.” The individual, however, is not produced by any modification. The Self does not undergo change to become the individual; it merely appears to be associated with the body while ever remaining unchanged.”
Hope the above detailed explanation clarifies the issue.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
I can certainly imagine many people, previously thinking that they might be interested in pursuing Advaita, being put off by reading something like this! What it does for me is to reinforce my decision to write a book on ‘Advaita without scriptures’!
However, regarding your response to Bimal, you say “famously uses the Ikṣaṇa and Praveśa śrutis”. What are these? I do not recall ever hearing of them so I would definitely question the word ‘famously’!
I also see that you have used the word ‘knowingness’ again. When I read your first post, on Aitareya, I began my search to find our previous discussions about this (to me meaningless) word. Unfortunately, I could not immediately locate it and have embarked upon a long process of building a local AI to help me to to track it down. As soon as I do so, I will aim to generate a separate post to talk about it.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thanks for your observations.
You have raised a variety of points here. While I appreciate the general thrust of your perspective and find much to agree with in principle, there are times when clarity requires us to address core assumptions directly—if only to ensure that both sides of the coin are fully visible to the reader.
Please allow me to offer a few observations in that spirit, without any intent to cause offense.
1. On the concern that readers might be “put off” from pursuing Advaita:
It would be unrealistic to expect a novice to immediately digest the subtle nuances of Upanishadic lore without prior exposure to basic Advaitic concepts and terminology. That would be as foolish as expecting a five-year-old taking up athletics to begin with the Pole-vault jump.
An earnest inquirer would be far better advised to start with introductory treatises (*prakaraṇa granthas*) before jumping directly into the Upanishads and their classical commentaries.
For those interested in this distinction, I elaborated on the relative roles of *prakaraṇa granthas* and *bhāṣyas* in an essay published some 14-years ago:
[Śaṅkara Bhāṣyas vs. Prakaraṇa Granthas: A View]
(https://www.advaita-vision.org/sankara-bhashyas-vs-prakarana-granthas-a-view/)
Hope people do me a favor of at least reading the opening para there.
2. On writing a book on “Advaita without scriptures”:
The Western non-duality market is already brimming with hundreds of such titles by various contemporary Neo-advaita teachers. There is certainly always room for one more—or twenty more, for that matter! It may not make much difference.
3. On “Ikṣaṇa and Praveśa śrutis”:
Your comment that you have never heard of these terms, and therefore question the qualifier “famously,” does raise a broader point regarding methodology.
To treat the boundaries of one’s own current familiarity as the perimeter of valid Advaitic exegesis risks slipping into an unintentional posture of authority and imperious attitude.
None of us—least of all myself, who frequently forgets what I wrote even a few years ago—can serve as the sole benchmark for traditional scriptural terminology. Intellectual humility (*amānitvam*) is arguably the primary prerequisite for any serious seeker, taking precedence even over faith (*śraddhā*). I shared some thoughts today on this exact theme here:
[Importance of Humility in Learning Advaita]
(https://www.advaita-vision.org/importance-of-humility-in-learning-advaita/)
4. On the term “knowingness”:
I have set out my rationale for using this term in the opening part of the *Aitareya* series. That said, I am by no means dogmatically attached to it. If a more precise or elegant English equivalent can be identified or coined, I would gladly welcome and adopt it.
On second thoughts, however, if the word strikes your mind as frustratingly “meaningless,” perhaps it is doing its job remarkably well!
There is always the risk of missing the core insight of the famous śruti declaration at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6—neti neti (“not thus (said), not thus (said))” —if the conceptual mind feels too comfortable thinking it has neatly grasped the Truth as an objectified meaning.
As the Upanishad reminds us, anything that the intellect can easily define, categorize, or objectify is precisely what “It” is not!
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
Thanks for the responses.
Obviously I agree that a seeker should begin with general and simple, introductory explanations before jumping into the traditional material with all of its unfamiliar context and terminology.
I enjoyed your statement that “To treat the boundaries of one’s own current familiarity as the perimeter of valid Advaitic exegesis risks slipping into an unintentional posture of authority and imperious attitude.” I actually laughed out loud – so thank you for that! But the long words do seem to hide a disrespectful, condemnatory message which, I suggest, is scarcely justified.
I have a vast amount of material, probably around 15GB, from very many sources of Advaita – scriptures and commentaries, books, journals, discussions etc. – downloaded over the past 30+ years. All of this is indexed using a powerful search tool. I was able to find a few references to praveśa – as many as 19 in a commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka! But even uncommon Sanskrit words typically have hundreds, if not thousands of occurrences. Ikṣaṇa found only 2 references in Lalita Trisati bhāṣya (never heard of it) and 1 in Brahmasutras. So I do think that my ‘imperious’ attitude is entirely supported by the evidence! These terms are hardly ever encountered and unlikely to be familiar to the majority of readers.
Regarding your point about the hundreds of neo-Advaitin books, it should be clear that these are not the sort of book that I am proposing to write. My last book ‘Self Seeking’ and the one due out early next year ‘Finding the Self’ are specifically aimed at criticizing that sort of material in a comprehensive manner. I would hardly write a book myself in the style that I was criticizing.
As I said, I hope to get back to you on the ‘knowingness’ issue eventually; hopefully within the month!
Best wishes,
Dennis