Tag Archives: taittiriya

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 29 (taitti 4)

Posted on by
Reply

[Part – 28 (taitti 3)]

Fear occurs when there is an “other”—a second object. Oneness, by contrast, is fearlessness. When the world is taken to be real and external, it appears as a constant source of threat and insecurity. This fear born of the world is sustained only as long as we attribute independent reality to it (saṃsāra). Once its dependent and insubstantial nature is understood, fear naturally subsides.

This is illustrated by the familiar analogy of the rope and the snake. In dim light, a rope is mistaken for a snake, and fear instantly arises. However, when the rope is recognized for what it truly is, the imagined snake vanishes, and with it goes the fear. Under the spell of ignorance, reality appears divided, and this apparent division gives rise to fear. When ignorance is removed through knowledge, the division is recognized as merely apparent, just as darkness vanishes in the presence of light.

The Upanishad concludes this vision with the declaration:  Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 28 (taitti 3)

Posted on by
3

[Part – 27 (taitti 2)]

Unlike all other living creatures, we as human beings are uniquely blessed with the ‘Knowing principle’ within us. It is this consciousness that distinguishes us from the rest of the natural world. Our ultimate human purpose is to discover this ‘unembodied Knower’ within ourselves (1.2.22, kaTha Upanishad).

In order to help us in this process, the Upanishad starts with a description of how the Self is spoken of as though It has “descended,” step by step, into the condition of the food-body. Having apparently identified with the food-body, It comes to be mistaken for the body itself. Shaṅkara illustrates this through the analogy:

मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रप्रतिमावत् । — Shaṅkara in his commentary on mantra 2.1.1, taitti. Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 27 (taitti 2)

Posted on by
Reply

[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)

Posted on by
Reply

[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)

Posted on by

[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 →

Ātman and Brahman

Posted on by

The Pillars of Non-Dual Reality

In the vast and rigorous tradition of Advaita Vedānta, two terms stand as the absolute foundation of all spiritual inquiry: Brahman and Ātman. While these words can initially seem like abstract philosophical markers, they are, in fact, pointers to the most intimate and undeniable truths of our existence. Traditional Advaita, as systematized by the great sage Ādi Śaṅkara in the 8th century, is fundamentally a methodology designed to reveal that these two apparently different entities are, in reality, one and the same.

The core message of this teaching is famously summarized by the dictum: brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman”. To understand this “Great Equation,” we must first clarify what is meant by these two essential terms through the lens of scriptural testimony (śabda pramāṇa) and Śaṅkara’s commentaries.

Continue reading →

Q.525 Consciousness is prior to the universe

Posted on by

Q: What is the scriptural basis for Advaita consciousness being an awareness preceding the universe? [(sic) From Quora]

A (Martin): That’s an ‘easy’ one. 1) Consciousness and awareness are the same for Advaita Vedanta. 2) Atman-brahman, or Consciousness, is the sole reality – the universe is in essence not other than Atman (Consciousness or ‘Spirit’). 3) Consequently, there is no creation – no causation, including space and time which, as everything else, are phenomena, appearances.

Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.10: ‘the world is brahman alone’.

Gaudapada kArikA 3.18: In this karika Gaudapada demonstrates that creation is only apparent, because reality cannot undergo change (and it is taught that the effect is not other than the cause).

Katha Up. 2.1.10: ‘Whoever sees difference between what is here (individual Atman/’soul’) and what is there (brahman) goes from death to death’.

Brihadaranyaka Up. 2.5.19: ‘The supreme being is perceived as manifold on account of mAyA’ (magic).

Taittiriya Up. 2.6: ‘Brahman, which is the absolute reality, became reality (satya) and unreality/appearance (asatya)’. That is, the cause itself appears as various effects due to superimposition, which is itself the core, or definition, of ignorance (avidyA). c.f. Tait. Up. 2.6, Chandogya Up. 2.8.4, and Bhavagad Gita 4.13 and 13.2.

Consciousness and the world

Posted on by

What is the scriptural basis for Advaita consciousness being an awareness preceding the universe?

That’s an ‘easy’ one. 1)  Consciousness and awareness are the same for Advaita Vedanta. 2) Atman-brahman, or Consciousness, is the sole reality – the universe is, in essence, not other than Atman (Consciousness or ‘Spirit’). 3) Consequently, there is no creation – no causation, including space and time, which, like everything else, are phenomena, appearances.

Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.10: ‘the world is brahman alone’. 

K 3.18. In this karika Gaudapada demonstrates that creation is only apparent because reality is unchangeable (and it is taught that the effect is not other than the cause).

Katha Up. 2.1.10: ‘Whoever sees difference between what is here (individual Atman/’soul’) and what is there (brahman) goes from death to death’.

Brihadaranyaka Up. 2.5.19: ‘The supreme being is perceived as manifold on account of Maya’ (magic).

Taittiriya Up. 2.6: ‘Brahman, which is the absolute reality, became reality (satya) and unreality/appearance (asatya)’. That is, the cause itself appears as various effects due to superimposition, which is itself the core, or definition, of ignorance (avidya). Cf. Tai. 2.6, Chandogya Up. 2.8.4, and Bhavagad Gita 4.13 and 13.2.

Moksha and the ‘person’

Posted on by

Kratu Nanadan, a knowledgeable friend I met in Bangalore through another friend, has made some lucid comments in all aspects of Indian philosophy, including the Puranas, which he shared with me and others. The following is an example:

When a ‘person’ reaches mokṣa, there is no more that ‘person’; there was no person, to begin with. The whole thing, including reaching mokṣa was a story that never happened. It was not even a story, and it was nobody’s story. As the well-known analogy puts it, it is like picking up a handful of ocean water and finding that the ocean’s blueness is absent in it. There is no karma, and all that is is the nondual Ātman-Brahman.

The words of the Taittarīyopaniṣat echo such a realization in many ways, one of them being: “He is not agitated as ‘why did I not do good deeds; why did I do bad deeds’. Having thus known (the Ātman), he elates/invigorates himself, and verily sees both (bad and good karma) as (Param) ātman. Thus, the upaniṣat.”—Taittarīyopaniṣat, Ānandavallī, VI, ii.

——Karma goes absent with the dawn of Ātman.

Q.492 Consciousness and consciousness

Posted on by

Q: Shankara often wrote the descriptor “pure Consciousness” to point to Brahman.
1. What does “pure Consciousness” have to do with conventional consciousness, as in “I’m conscious of this or that?” Does chidabhasa explain it?

A: chidAbhAsa is the best metaphor, I think, (it is pratibimba vAda and associated with vivaraNa). The other main one is avachCheda vAda, associated with bhAmatI, which uses the idea of upAdhi-s. Consciousness (big ‘C’) is typically used to refer to non-dual reality; ‘c’onsciousness is the manifestation of ‘C’onsciousness in the mind of man.

2. Is there a difference between Consciousness (as-if paramartha level) and existence?

A: As you know (!) you cannot define or say anything objective about Consciousness. Ideally  you should read the long Shankara commentary on satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma in Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1. That explains how such ‘descriptions’ work. The adjectives qualify-support-limit each other so that you do not take any single one as in any way a descriptive attribute. If you want, you could say that Brahman is limitless-existence-consciousness. But at the pAramArthika level, you cannot say anything at all about Brahman!

3. If there is a difference, which is more fundamental: Consciousness or existence? I.e. which gives rise to which? Why (not the other way)?

A: I cannot really add anything to the previous answer.