Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 27 (taitti 2)

[Part – 26 (taitti 1)]

The Supreme Self is all-pervading. Yet, because of our mistaken belief that “I am the body,” we identify the all-pervading Self with the body and take ourselves to be the individual (jIva). Thus, we create for ourselves a fallacious ‘self.’

Next, we create an inferior ‘self’ by claiming ownership over whatever we perceive—my spouse, my family, my house, and so on. As a result, we confine ourselves to a single form (the fallacious ‘self,’ mithyAtmA), reduce everything else into multiple finite forms (the inferior ‘self,’ gauNAtmA), and contract the Supreme Self into the form of God (Ishwara). Consequently, our attention remains absorbed in forms, while the formless Reality goes unnoticed.

The taittirIya Upanishad teaches us to recognize the Supreme Self as universal Beingness, ever-present Knowingness, and unbounded Infiniteness—Its intrinsic nature.

यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् । सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति । — mantra 2.1.1, taittirIya Upa.  Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 26 (taitti 1)

[Part – 25 (mANDU 4)]

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:  Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 25 (mANDU 4)

[Part – 24 (mANDU 3)]

Speech or any utterance need not be made audibly through the mouth. For example, the mind speaks silently in the form of thoughts, ideas, and notions. However, if there is no underlying sound (shabda), nothing can be heard or known.

As the awake and dream states dissolve into deep sleep, shabda also dissolves with them. Consequently, meaning dissolves as well, because meaning cannot exist without sound. In this framework:

  • The internal idea or notion is the mAtra (vAcakam—the signifier; prmANa – the measurer).
  • The external image or object is the pAda (vAcyam—the signified; prameya – the measured).

An object appears only after a preceding thought about it manifests in the mind. For instance, when the thought of an “airport” arises (mAtra), the corresponding image manifests in the imagination (pAda).

When both mAtra and pAda dissolve in turIya (the Fourth), the Residuum is “Me.” This “Me” holds neither the idea nor the image of an airport; both nAma (notion) and rUpa (object) have figuratively melted away into the Self.  Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 24 (mANDU 3)

[Part – 23 (mANDU 2)]

Ignorance (avidyA) is the misperception of the non-Self (unAtmA) in place of the Self (AtmA). Conversely, true vision born of Self-knowledge (vidyA) is the direct apperception of the all-pervasive AtmA.

The mANDUkya Upanishad provides the precise metaphysical framework for this realization. It teaches us how to deliquesce—or dissolve—the observer and the observed into the single act of observation, thereby resolving the triad into absolute Oneness.

To understand this dissolution, we must examine how language and perception structure our reality. The “seer” or observer is the signifier (vAcaka or abhidAna), while what is seen is the signified (vAcyam or abhideya).  Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 23 (mANDU 2)

[Part – 22 (mANDU 1)]

An important aspect of our awake world is that we do not perceive it simply because it independently “exists out there,” much like we do not perceive a dream merely because it exists. A notion (pratyaya) first arises in the intellect, and we then project it outward to appear as an external object. This mechanism is common to both dream and waking states. Through constant repetition and habitual engagement day after day, we gradually become convinced that the objects perceived by us are independently real and constitute an objective world.

Consider this: when the mind ceases to imagine waking-world objects and becomes occupied with dream objects, the waking world disappears from experience. When neither the waking nor the dream world is conceived, no object is perceived at all; this is the condition of deep sleep (suSupti).

Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 22 (mANDU 1)

[Part – 21 (muNDaka 4)]

mANDUkya Upanishad 

(Gaudapada kArikA not included)

The muNDaka Upanishad, towards its conclusion, refers to the fifteen constituents of the human body, each of which resolves into its respective source at the time of liberation:

गताः कलाः पञ्चदश प्रतिष्ठा देवाश्च सर्वे प्रतिदेवतासु
कर्माणि विज्ञानमयश्च आत्मा परेऽव्यये सर्व एकीभवन्ति — 3.2.7, muNDaka Upanishad.

Meaning: To their sources repair the fifteen constituents (of the body) and to their respective Gods, go all the gods (of the senses). And the karmas, and the self that simulates the intellect, all become unified with the Supreme Undecaying. [Translation: Swami Gambhirananda.]

However, the prashna Upanishad, which precedes the muNDaka, speaks in its final question of sixteen parts constituting the individual. There thus appears to be a discrepancy between the two Upanishads regarding the total number of constituents. Shankara too does not explicitly explain the reason for this difference.

Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 21 (muNDaka 4)

[Part – 20 (muNDaka 3)]

If thoughts were entirely absent during deep sleep, they could not reappear without a source. Therefore, we must admit that thoughts persist in a latent form during deep sleep. These are called tendencies (vAsanA-s), which manifest as mental modifications (vRtti-s) in the waking and dream states.

Thus, thoughts are present across all three states of consciousness. The “I,” as the seer, is itself associated with these internal components. Naturally, such a seer perceives a world that also appears to consist of multiple components. After all, the nature of the seen tends to reflect the nature of the seer. Since the seer appears composite, the seen too appears manifold. Consequently, our entire life becomes a relationship between a divisible seer and a divisible world—a situation that is inherently fraught with conflict, from which we seek release.

The way out of this turmoil, as suggested by the prashna Upanishad, is to cultivate a “spherical vision.” In such an all-encompassing vision, the multiplicity within both the seer and the seen dissolves. As a result, the notions “I am an individual” and “there is a world out there” come to an end. They resolve into that from which they have arisen—the Atman or brahman, which is indivisible and is Pure Knowledge itself. Just as space—and Consciousness as space-like—has no parts, Knowledge too is without parts.  Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 20 (muNDaka 3)

[Part – 19 (muNDaka 2)]

Shankara writes:

ज्ञानप्रसादेन आत्मावबोधनसमर्थमपि स्वभावेन सर्वप्राणिनां ज्ञानं बाह्यविषयरागादिदोषकलुषितमप्रसन्नमशुद्धं सन्नावबोधयति नित्यसंनिहितमप्यात्मतत्त्वं मलावनद्धमिवादर्शम् ,  विलुलितमिव सलिलम्। 

तद्यदेन्द्रिय विषयसंसर्गजनितरागादिमलकालुष्यापनयनादादर्शसलिलादिवत्प्रसादितं स्वच्छं शान्तमवतिष्ठते, तदा ज्ञानस्य प्रसादः स्यात् । 

तेन ज्ञानप्रसादेन विशुद्धसत्त्वः विशुद्धान्तःकरणः योग्यो ब्रह्म द्रष्टुं यस्मात् , ततः तस्मात्तु तमात्मानं पश्यते पश्यति उपलभते निष्कलं सर्वावयवभेदवर्जितं ध्यायमानः सत्यादिसाधनवानुपसंहृतकरण एकाग्रेण मनसा ध्यायमानः चिन्तयन् ॥

[Meaning: The Grace of the Knowledge, though the intellect in all men is by nature competent to know brahman, still being polluted by such faults as love for external objects etc., thereby becoming unclear and impure, it does not, like a stained mirror and muddy water, grasp the entity of the Atman though always present nearby.

But when, through the removal of polluting taints such as desire—arising from contact with sense-objects—the intellect is made clear and calm like a mirror or still water, it becomes lucid. By this clarity of the intellect, the mind is purified, and the person becomes fit to realize brahman. Therefore, one sees brahman, which is partless, through contemplative meditation—having taken recourse to aids such as truth, having controlled the senses, and with a focused mind. (Translation adapted from S. Sitarama Sastri, 1905.)  Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 19 (muNDaka 2)

[Part – 18 (muNDaka 1)]

We can infer from 1.1.1 of the muNDaka Upaniṣad that Knowledge of the Self is not restricted to renunciates alone — it is imparted to householders as well. After all, Śaunaka himself was a householder, not a monk. What really matters is not one’s external status, but an inner readiness: the student must be free from preoccupation with worldly concerns and firmly resolved to realize the Self, without distraction.

शौनको वै महाशालोऽङ्गिरसं विधिवदुपसन्नः पप्रच्छ कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति    —   1.1.3, muNDaka upa.

[Meaning: Saunaka, well known as a great householder, having approached Angiras duly, asked, ‘O Adorable Sir, (which is that thing) which having been known, all this becomes known?’ (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda).]

Śaunaka is asking for that Knowledge, knowing which everything else becomes known. This is not just any question — it is the most fundamental inquiry possible. In fact, the Upaniṣads — especially those that follow the muNDaka — can be seen as extended responses to this very question. The teacher appreciates the depth of the inquiry but also makes it clear that the student must have the steadiness to abide in what is taught. Continue reading

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 18 (muNDaka 1)

[Part – 17 (prashna 4)]

muNDaka Upanishad 

The Self is of the nature of pure sentience. Hence, it can be known only through that which is likewise sentient—namely, an entity belonging to the same genre. By way of illustration, a magnet attracts iron filings but not a piece of wood; for attraction is possible only between entities that share a common nature.

The body, the senses, and even the vital force (prANa), being insentient, are incapable of apprehending the Self. The mind (antaḥkaraNa) alone, being endowed with reflected consciousness and possessing the capacity for cognition, serves as the appropriate instrument for the knowledge of the Self. Therefore, the mind alone is competent to grasp It.

Further, the Self that is sought to be realized is utterly indivisible and without any internal distinctions. It is free from all forms of differentiation — whether internal, external, or relational.

A tree, though seemingly a single entity, is divisible into multiple constituent parts such as roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. It is thus a “divisible whole.” Space, on the other hand, is not subject to such division and may be regarded as an “indivisible whole.” The Self is akin to the latter.  

Continue reading