अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ — 1.4.10, brihadAraNyaka Upaniṣad.
Translation: “He who worships another deity thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know the Truth. He is like a beast to the gods. Just as many animals serve a man, so does such a worshiper serve the gods. Even if a single animal is lost, it causes distress; what then if many are lost? Therefore, it is not pleasing to the gods that human beings should know this Truth.”
Just as a livestock owner seeks to retain his cattle, the subtle deities are not portrayed as welcoming the transcendence of the dualistic realm by human beings. Those who worship the gods as entities separate from themselves sustain the cosmic order through ritual offerings and devotion. The gods, in turn, offer worldly benefits and heavenly rewards that keep such worshippers dependent upon them, distracting them from the pursuit of ultimate liberation.
Traditional commentators therefore counsel discrimination and discretion. While one must persistently pursue the highest truth of Non-duality, one need not deliberately antagonize the cosmic powers encountered along the way. The aim is to proceed steadily towards complete freedom, without mistaking the intermediate rewards of dualistic worship for the final goal.
Whoever worships other gods while regarding himself as separate from, or subservient to, them can at best attain the transient worlds associated with those deities. Such a person remains subject to mortality and cannot escape the bondage from action and rebirth (back on the earth).
The alternative is ĀtmopAsanA (or brahmopAsanA), the contemplation of the Self as the one Reality. Its essential understanding is that “I am everything.” The world of nAma (name), rUpa (form), and action, including the gods and all external phenomena, is recognized as an appearance that has no independent existence apart from the Self.
The brihadAraNyaka Upaniṣad offers a complementary pointer to this understanding:
य एवं वेदाथात आदेशो नेति नेति न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत्परमस्त्यथ नामधेयं सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ — 2.3.6, brihadAraNyaka.
Meaning: Now, therefore, the description (of brahman): ‘Not this, not this.’ Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this.’ Now Its name: ‘The Truth of truth.’ The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
The expression neti neti (“not this, not this”) points to an approach through negation, often called the via negativa. Whatever can be identified as an object of perception or thought—mundane objects, deities, relative happiness and sorrow, and even our concepts about them—cannot, as an object, be the ultimate Reality. Each must be examined and denied independent existence.
The purpose is to recognize that nothing exists independently of the Self. The final understanding is that everything is ĀtmA (the Self), and there is no independently existing anAtmA (not-Self). In the ultimate sense, the “I” alone is the Seer and Knower; the multiplicity of things does not constitute a second Reality.
This understanding must be immediate and direct, not merely an intellectual conclusion derived from books. The teaching itself makes clear how such realization is to be approached.
Maitreyi, the wife of Sage Yājñavalkya, approaches the subject with a mind ready to receive the teaching, without clinging to preconceived notions. She is an apt student for the wisdom the sage is about to impart. Yājñavalkya instructs her:
आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो मैत्रेय्यात्मनो वा अरे दर्शनेन श्रवणेन मत्या विज्ञानेनेदं सर्वं विदितम् ॥ — 2.4.5, brihadAraNyaka.
Meaning: The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realized—should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon. By the realization of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection, and meditation, all “this” is known.
Yājñavalkya’s instruction brings us to the practical question: if the Self alone is Reality, how do we come to recognize it? His answer introduces three complementary stages of inquiry. First, shravaNa: listening to the teaching of the scriptures as unfolded by a competent teacher. Next, manana: reflecting upon what has been heard, examining doubts and resolving apparent contradictions until the non-dual teaching is understood without uncertainty. Finally, nididhyAsana: sustained contemplation that helps remove habitual identification with multiplicity and stabilizes the understanding uninterruptedly.
These are not three unrelated practices, nor are they substitutes for realizing the truth. They form a connected process of assimilating the teaching. We first learn what the scriptures declare, then ascertain its meaning through reasoning, and finally allow that understanding to displace our ingrained, dualistic outlook.
Why is this necessary? Because our habitual way of seeing seems to divide Reality into a perceiving subject and a multitude of separate objects. We take these divisions to be fundamental, overlooking the single Reality upon which they depend. The teaching directs us to recognize the Self as the basis of every appearance. Once this is understood, the distinction between the Seer, the seen, and the process of seeing is no longer taken to divide Reality into independently existing entities.
In our habitual, ignorant mode of perception, we ourselves thus become an obstacle to recognizing non-dual Oneness.
Maitreyi might well ask: “How do I happen to come in my own way? Are there two ‘me-s’?”
Sage Yājñavalkya replies, in effect: “Yes, there are two. One is the obstructing ‘me’; the other is the ‘me’ that remains invisible because of that obstruction. The obscured ‘me’ is the formless One; the obstructing ‘me’ is the ego-identity equipped with name and form, superimposed upon the attributeless, formless reality.”
The point is that the Self does not actually divide. Rather, identification with a particular name and form makes the indivisible Reality appear fragmented into separate individuals and objects. This is somewhat like a single beam of white light being dispersed into multiple colours. The apparent multiplicity arises from the conditions through which the light is seen; it does not establish that the original light was itself divided.
Our identification with the finite body similarly obscures our recognition of the all-pervading Reality. To understand this, consider the analogy of an ocean and a solid precipitate.
Imagine a small quantity of ocean water diverted into a shallow pool. Under the sun’s heat, the water gradually evaporates, leaving salt crystals behind. In the open ocean, we do not ordinarily distinguish discrete chunks of salt, yet its salinity pervades the water. The salt crystals and the salt dissolved in the ocean represent different forms in which the same salt can be encountered. The apparent separation of a crystal does not erase its connection with the sea from which it came.
Similarly, the physical body may be understood, by analogy, as a condensed expression of the all-pervading brahman. Consciousness is the essence of the formless Reality, while the body represents a particular, limited configuration in which that Reality appears to be embodied. The limitation belongs to the apparent form, not to Consciousness itself.
This teaching cannot, however, remain a mere textbook lesson for intellectual consumption. It must become a clear and direct understanding. The traditional method of upadesha involves a teacher unfolding the teaching to a qualified student, often in close personal association. In the Vedāntic context, Agama refers to scriptural testimony as a valid means of knowledge; the teacher’s role is to communicate and unfold that teaching so that the student can recognize its import. The emphasis is on understanding the truth, not merely acquiring information about it.
(To Continue … Part – 42 (brih 4))