1. Philosophy Upanishads Studies Rukhsar

UPANISHADS

A Minor Project Report

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the BBA (Travel &

Tourism Management) Semester III Programme of G.G.S.Indraprastha

University, Delhi.

Submitted by

Rukhsar Ansari

BBA (TTM) Semester III

Enrl. No. : 02212205009

Delhi College of Advance Studies

Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri

New Delhi-110018

Decleration

I hereby declare that minor project report, entitled “upnishad”, is based on my original study and has not been submitted earlier for any degree or diploma of any institution/ university.

The work of other author(s), wherever used, has been acknowledged at appropriate place(s).

Place: .....................

Date: .....................

Candidate’s signature

Name:.......................

Enrol. No. : ..................

Countersigned

Name:

Supervisor

Delhi College of Advanced Studies

Introduction

The Upanishads have been perennial sources of spiritual knowledge. The word upanishhad means secret and sacred knowledge. This word occurs in the Upanishads themselves in more than a dozen places in this sense. The word also means "Texts incorporating such knowledge." There are ten principal Upanishads. Other than these, a few more like Shvetaashwatara and KaushiTaki are also considered important. Though it is known that even before Sri

Shankara, commentaries were written on the Upanishads, these have been lost. Sri Shankara's commentaries on the principal Upanishads are the earliest available. Sri Ramanuja has not written any commentaries on them, but a later disciple Sri Rangaramanuja has written them. Sri Madhvacharya has written commentaries (bhaashya-s) on the ten principal Upanishads. Interpretation of passages from these and other Upanishads is also discussed by him in his Suutra-Bhaashya, which is mainly about the interpretation of Shruti texts and also in his other major works like Anu-vyaakhyaana, Vishnu-tatva-vinirNaya, and Tattvodyota.

The Upaniṣads are philosophical texts of the Hindu religion. More than 200 are known, of which the first dozen or so, the oldest and most important, are variously referred to as the principal, main (mukhya) or old Upanishads. The oldest of these, the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, were composed during the pre-Buddhist era of India, while the Taittiriya, Aitareya and Kausitaki, which show Buddhist influence, must have been composed after the fifth century BC:the remainder of the mukhya Upanishads are dated to the first two centuries of the common era. The new Upanishads were composed in the medieval and early modern period: discoveries of newer Upanishads were being reported as late as 1926. One, the Muktika Upanishad, predates 1656 and contains a list of 108 canonical Upanishads, including itself as the last.

However, several texts under the title of "Upanishads" originated up to the end of the British rule in 1947, some of which did not deal with subjects of vedic philosophy. The newer Upanishads are known to be imitations of the mukhya Upanishads.

The Upanishads have been attributed to several authors: Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka Aruni feature prominently in the early Upanishads. Other important writers include Shwetaketu, Shandilya, Aitreya, Pippalada and Sanat Kumara. Important women authors include Yajnavalkya's wife Maitreyi, and Gari. Dara Shikoh, son of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, translated 50 Upanishads into Persian in 1657. The first written English translation came in 1804 from Max Müller, who was aware of 170 Upanishads. Sadhale's catalog from 1985, the Upaniṣad-vākya-mahā-kośa, lists 223 Upanishads. The Upanishads are mostly

the concluding part of the Brahmanas, and the transition from the latter to the former is identified as the Aranyakas.

All Upanishads have been passed down in oral tradition. The mukhya Upanishads hold the stature of revealed texts (shruti). With the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahmasutra, the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy (vedanta), among them, two influential monistic schools of Hinduism.

The Upanishads are collectively considered amongst the 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written by the British poet Martin Seymour-Smith.

Meaning of 'Upanishad'

The term 'Upanishad' literally means, "sitting down near" or "sitting close to", and implies listening closely to the mystic doctrines of a guru or a spiritual teacher, who has cognized the fundamental truths of the universe. It points to a period in time when groups of pupils sat near the teacher and learnt from him the secret teachings in the quietude of forest 'ashrams' or hermitages. In another sense of the term, 'Upanishad' means 'brahma-knowledge' by which ignorance is annihilated. Some other possible meanings of the compound word 'Upanishad' are "placing side by side" (equivalence or correlation), a "near approach" (to the Absolute Being), "secret wisdom" or even "sitting near the enlightened".

Time of Composition

Historians and Indologists have put the date of composition of the Upanishads from around 800 - 400 B.C., though many of the verse versions may have been written much later. In fact, they were written over a very long period of time and do not represent a coherent body of information or one particular system of belief. However, there is a commonality of thought and approach.

History

The Upanishads

The word Upanishad literally means to sit near, and this invokes the image of devotees or aspirants sitting at the feet of a master. Whether that master is a yogi, Zen master or Christian mystic, the transmitted teachings can be called a Upanishad. In fact, Juan Mascaro comments that the Sermon on the Mount, with the disciples at the feet of Jesus, can be considered a Upanishad.

The Upanishads which concern us in this context are of course the writings that sealed the close of the Vedic period, a great collection of spiritual texts which are the distillation of hundreds of years of oral teachings, which, until their committal to writing, were the secret preserve of the initiated. The Upanishads contain the highest wisdom, revealed to illumined sages in the depth of meditation. As such, one should not describe them as philosophy as we understand it. The Upanishads emphasise the importance of meditation and other yoga practices, so that their wisdom becomes clear as our hearts and minds become less opaque; we then realise for ourselves a wisdom that we feel in the marrow of our bones, and which remains constant and unshaken by the dry polemic of philosophical argument. The Chandogya Upanishad states that meditation is higher than thought".

The Upanishads were written at different times, over a time span of at least a thousand years; however they are very much associated with the period around the fifth and sixth century before the birth of Christ. Bede Griffiths describes this as the axial period in human history, a key period of spiritual discovery, which saw the birth of the Buddha, the composition of the Bhagavad Gita, the formulation by Greek philosophers of the concept of the Logos, and the revelations of the Hebrew prophets. It was a period when the Eternal plunged into the temporal, and, according to Bede Griffiths, "practically all religion today stems from this great experience".

One hundred and eight Upanishads have been preserved, like beads in a cosmic mala; of these, ten are of particular importance, and have come to be known as the Principal Upanishads. They are the quintessence of the mysterious Sramanic stream, incorporated into the Hindu religion, and appended to the end of the Vedas as "Vedanta". However, they are the spiritual inheritance of every age and universal in their message. Each Upanishad contains priceless wisdom, and are the very pith of Yoga, indispensable to anyone who would tread that path or aspire to teach it. If you seek to know the nature of Prana, go to the Prasna Upanishad; or if you would learn of the Spirit Supreme, go to the Kena Upanishad. If you wish to learn the doctrine of the sacred mantra Om, seek out the Mandukya Upanishad. And of course, there is the Chandogya Upanishad, where the young Brahmin, filled with learning, is taught that knowledge whereby what is not thought is thought", at the breaking of the seed of the Banyan tree.

Peering into its essence and seeing nothing, he is told by his father "believe me, my son, an invisible and subtle essence is the Spirit of the whole universe. That is reality. that is Atman. Thou art That".

The Upanishads are rendered in beautiful poetry, and wisdom is taught by sages, by the elements, by birds and animals, by father to son, and sage to king.

We enter the timeless world of the "forest academies" where seekers sought out bramha-vidya, the "science of the Supreme". Eknath Easwaran describes them as ecstatic snapshots of supreme reality", and adds that unlike other great scriptures that look outward in reverence and awe, "the Upanishads look inward, finding the powers of nature only an expression of the more awe-inspiring powers of human Consciousness."

Supreme Work of the Hindu Mind

The Upanishads form the core of Indian philosophy. They are an amazing collection of writings from original oral transmissions, which have been aptly described by Shri Aurobindo as "the supreme work of the Indian mind". It is here that we find all the fundamental teachings that are central to Hinduism — the concepts of 'karma' (action), 'samsara' (reincarnation), 'moksha' (nirvana), the 'atman' (soul), and the 'Brahman' (Absolute Almighty). They also set forth the prime Vedic doctrines of self-realization, yoga and meditation. The Upanishads are summits of thought on mankind and the universe, designed to push human ideas to their very limit and beyond. They give us both spiritual vision and philosophical argument, and it is by a strictly personal effort that one can reach the truth.

Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas predate third 1920's Hubble Revolution by millennia/eons

"The third revolution began in the 1920's, and the full impact of its accompanying paradigm shift has yet to be fully felt. While not a commonly accepted term, I would dub it the Hubble Revolution, after the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, who first came to the conclusion that our Milky Way galaxy - thought at the time to comprise the entire universe - was merely one single "island universe" in a seemingly infinite sea of hundreds of billions of other galaxies." Jeffrey J. Butz, The Brother of Jesus (And the Lost Teachings of Christianity)

Hinduism is so ancient its origins are lost in the mist of prehistory. Many sages are associated with it, but none claim to be its first prophet. Hindus believe their religion has existed forever, even before the universe came into being. They say the truths of their faith are inherent in the nature of reality itself, and that all men and women peering into the depths of their inner nature will discover the same truths for themselves.

The image too many outsiders have of the Hindu tradition is of primitive,

superstitious villagers worshipping idols. As we get to know the Hindus better,

we'll see that their understanding of who and what is God is incredibly

sophisticated. In fact, their view of the world and our place in it is so stunningly

cosmic in scope that our Western minds start to boggle!

Let's enter the universe of Hinduism, an amazing world where inner and outer

realities reflect each other like images on a mirror, and the loving presence of

the divine is as close as the stillness behind your own thoughts...

Beginningless Truth

You might think it takes a lot of chutzpah (if I may borrow a Jewish term) to

claim that your religion is eternal. What Hindus mean when they say this is their

tradition doesn't come from any one founding father or mother, from any single

prophet towering over the bastion of hoary antiquity. In fact, the first few verses

of the Veda, an incredibly old book, parts of which were composed 6,000 years

ago, acknowledge the sages who were already ancient to its composers living in

4000 B.C.E.!

Very old Hindu texts speak of a time when it became almost impossible to

survive on Earth because of ice and snow. This could be a reference to the last

Ice Age, some Hindu scholars believe. Archaeologists have unearthed small

statues of goddesses from 10,000 years ago (that's about the time the Ice Age

was ending) like those being worshipped in Indian villages today. So even if

we're not willing to grant that Hinduism is eternal, we still have to admit it got a

jump on the other major religions...

I'd really like to bring home to you the vastness of the time scale Hindus are

talking about here. One area where Hinduism and Judeo-Christian tradition

agree is in saying that at the moment we're in the seventh day of creation. But

according to the Hindu sages, a day for God is a bit longer than our human day

of 24 hours.

The following schema was taught to me by Swami Veda Bharati, a renunciate

who lives in a tiny ashram in Rishikesh in northern India. He's a devotee of the

Divine Mother. (The Goddess is a major league player in Hinduism, and you'll

soon see.)

Swami Bharati's time frame, preserved in the Hindu mystical tradition, starts

with a day and a night in the life of our local creator god. Years here mean

human years:

• One day and night in the life of Brahma is 8,640,000,000 years.

• The lifetime of Brahma is 311,040,000,000,000 years.

• One day and night in the life of Vishnu equals 37,324,800,000,000,000,000 years.

• The life of Vishnu is 671,846,400,000,000,000,000 years long.

• One day and night in the life of Shiva lasts 4,837,294,080,000,000,000,000,000 years.

• Shiva's lifetime corresponds to 87,071,293,440,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

• One glance from the Mother of the Universe equals 87,071,293,440,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

It might surprise you that Hinduism speaks of gods dying. Not to worry--they're reborn again later like the rest of us! According to Swami Veda Bharati's tradition, at any one moment there are trillions upon trillions of Brahmas, Vishnus, and Shivas manifesting their universes within the endless expanse of the Divine Mother's awareness.

This, folks, is Hinduism's Big Picture.

Inner Vision

Inner Vision

But the thought I'd like to leave you with is that for many millennia the Hindu sages have claimed that if we purify our minds with spiritual practices and open our hearts to learn from her, the Mother of the Universe begins to share her secrets with us.

In the West, we peer into space with powerful telescopes hoping to learn the origin of the universe. The Hindu approach is to couple astute observation of the world outside us with a self-disciplined inner journey. Peering into the depths of consciousness in our own minds, we connect with the consciousness that underlies the entire cosmos. Truths other cultures need radio telescopes to ferret out simply present themselves to our concentrated inward attention.

To India's mystics, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not just characters invented to make a good story. They represent actual states of divine awareness that are available to devotees, provided only that the devotee is prepared to do the spiritual work to access them.

In fact, in Hinduism the point of doing spiritual practices is to attain jnana, living knowledge of Divine Being. It's an ambitious agenda! (Jnana means knowledge, specifically knowledge that you know in your soul, not just your head.)

brain. It's related to the English words gnosis or gnostic.)...

Why did God create the universe? Hinduism offers several suggestions:

1. He was lonely. He looked around and saw He was by Himself. He desired to

become many. And whatever God wants, God gets. The moment that wish

entered His mind, an infinite number of souls emerged from His limitless

intelligence to keep Him company.

2. She likes to play. The Goddess can't sit still for a moment. She's always got to

be doing something. All these worlds are Her game, or "Her sport" as Hindus

like to say.

3. The Divine Being is so brimming with bliss, He/She spills over. Shiva/Shakti

(God and Goddess who are both two and one in Hinduism) spontaneously

generate cosmoc after cosmos. Creative energy simply pours out of the Divine.

It's the nature of the Supreme One to create, as it's the nature of light to shine.

In the Western religious traditions, God creates us out of nothing. In Hinduism,

Divine Being creates us out of itself. This means we are literally one with the

divine, one with everything else in the universe, and one with each other.

Hinduism is about finding our place in an immense universe. It shows us how to

deal with suffering and where to find joy. It reveals how learning to know our

own inner Self is the key to entering the consciousness of God.

In the Western world, until very recently, there's been a tendency to consider

Hindus "primitive" and "supertitious" because they believe there is a living

spirit everywhere. What I hope you remember is that Hindu thought isn't

primitive at all. In fact it's fantastically sophisticated. Hindus look at reality

through a different lens than Westerners do, but in the context of Hindu culture,

their understanding of who God is, how His laws operate, and what our position

is in relation to him is just as insightful as the Western viewpoint.

The least you should know:

• The Hindu tradition is extremely mystical.

• Hindus consider their faith to be "the eternal religion."

• Time doesn't end; it spins on in cycles through eternity.

• Direct personal experiince of God is the purpose of life.

• Everything arise out of consciousness.

"In Vedic mythology, a fabled dawn time existed in the distant past, when

human beings had direct contact with the divine intelligence emanating from

Brahma—the seat of creative power and intelligence in the cosmos. This archaic

Golden Age (the Satya Yuga) lasted some 4800 years. After the Golden Age

ended, humanity entered a denser era, that of the Silver Age, lasting only 3600

years. In this age, humanity's connection with the source was dimmed, and

sacrifices and spiritual practices became necessary to preserve it. The Bronze

Age followed, and humanity forgot its divine nature. Empty dogmas arose,

along with indulgence in materialism. Next we entered the Kali Yuga— in

which we remain today—where the human spirit suffers under gross

materialism, ignorance, warfare, stupidity, arrogance, and everything contrary

to our divine spiritual potential. As the teachings tell, Kali, the creator-destroyer

Goddess, will appear at the end of Kali Yuga to sweep away the wasted detritus

of a spirit-dead humanity, making way for a new cycle of light and peace."

According to John Major Jenkins, a leading independent researcher of ancient

cosmology:

"Our understanding of the true age of the ancient Vedic civilization has

undergone a well-documented revolution. Feuerstein, Frawley, and Kak have

shown conclusively (In Search of the Cradle of Civilization) that the long-

accepted age of the Vedic culture—erroneously dated by scholars parading a

series of assumptions and unscientific arguments to roughly 1500 BC—is much

too recent. Evidence comes from geological, archaeological, and literary

sources as well as the astronomical references within Vedic literature. The

corrected dating to eras far prior to 1500 BC was made possible by recognizing

that precessional eras are encoded in Vedic mythology, and were recorded by

ancient Vedic astronomers. As a result, the Indus Valley civilization appears to

be a possible cradle of civilization, dated conservatively to 7000 BC. Western

India may thus be a true source of the civilizing impulse that fed Anatolia in

Turkey, with its complex Goddess-worshipping city-states of Çatal Hüyük and

Hacilar. However, there are layers upon layers of even older astronomical

references, and legends persist that the true "cradle" might be found further to

the north, in Tibet or nearby Central Asia.

The work of these three writers shows that biases and assumptions within

scholarly discourse can prevent an accurate modeling of history and an

underestimation of the accomplishments of ancient cultures. The analogous

situation in modern Egyptology and Mesoamerican studies also requires that

well-documented new theories— often exhaustively argued, interdisciplinary,

and oriented toward a progressive synthesis of new data—should be appraised

fairly and without bias.

Next to the Australian aborigines, the Vedic civilization is perhaps the oldest

continuous living tradition in the world. Its extremely ancient doctrines and

insights into human spirituality are unsurpassed. We might expect that its

cosmology and science of time has been as misunderstood as its true antiquity.

In looking closely at Vedic doctrines of time, spiritual growth, calendars, and

astronomy, we will see that a central core idea is that of our periodic alignment

to the Galactic Center. And, according to these ancient Vedic beliefs, the

galactic alignment we are currently experiencing heralds our shift from a

millennia-long descent of deepening spiritual darkness to a new era of light and

ascending consciousness."

Arthur Holmes on Hindu cosmology

Professor Arthur Holmes (1895-1965) geologist, professor at the University of

Durham. He writes regarding the age of the earth in his great book, The Age of

Earth (1913) as follows:

"Long before it became a scientific aspiration to estimate the age of the earth,

many elaborate systems of the world chronology had been devised by the sages

of antiquity. The most remarkable of these occult time-scales is that of the

ancient Hindus, whose astonishing concept of the Earth's duration has been

traced back to Manusmriti, a sacred book."

Alan Watts on Hindu cosmology

Alan Watts, a professor, graduate school dean and research fellow of Harvard

University, drew heavily on the insights of Vedanta. Watts became well known

in the 1960s as a pioneer in bringing Eastern philosophy to the West. He wrote:

"To the philosophers of India, however, relativity is no new discovery, just as

the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to

thinking of time in millions of kalpas, (A kalpa is about 4,320,000,000 years).

The fact that the wise men of India have not been concerned with technological

applications of this knowledge arises from the circle.

Eleven Principal Upanishads

There are eleven principal Upanishads each of which ascribes the basic Hindu Philosophy related to Brahman and Atman.

The Upanishads are the part of the Vedas and thus are the part of ancient Hindu scriptures that primarily deals with Philosophy, meditation and the true identity of God. Upanishads are mystic and spiritual reflections of the Vedas and are also known as Vedanta (the culmination of Vedas).

Upanishad is compilation of three words- Upa (near), Ni (down) and Sad (sit), which means sitting near at the ground and learn from the Guru or teacher. Upanishad gives the knowledge of Self or Atman, also the knowledge of Brahman.

Sages started writing the Upanishads in about thousand years BC.There are around three hundred and fifty Upanishads among which hundred and eight are mostly known. The eleven principal Upanishads are-

1. Aitareya Upanishad : Aitareya Upanishad is associated with Rigveda. It is short prose containing three chapters and thirty-three verses in total. Aiterya Aranyaka and aiterya Brahmana together forms Aitareya Upanishad. The first chapter ascribes atman as the divine creator, second chapter narrates the three births of atman while the third chapter deals with the quality of Brahman

2. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad : This is another older Upanishad, written by sage Yajnavalkya, which has three chapters namely, Madhu Kanda, Muni Kanda and Khila Kanda. The Madhu Kanda describes the identity of an individual and the relationship between Jiva and the Atman. Muni Kanda is the conversation between sage Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitrayee. Khila Kanda consists of the description of the different methods of worship and meditation.

3. Isa Upanishad : Isa Upanishad is the smaller Upanishad having only eighteen verses. The name of the Upanishad is derived from the sloka Isavasyam Idam Sarvam, which means `Supreme Lord envelops the world.'

4. Taittiriya Upanishad : Taittiriya Upanishad is the part of Krishna Yajurveda. It is divided into three parts or Vallis, namely Siksha Valli, Ananda Valli and Bhrigu Valli. Each Valli is subdividede into smaller verses called Anuvak.

5. Katha Upanishad : Katha Upanishad is also a part of Black Yajurveda. It consists of two chapters, each of which is again subdivided into three sections. Some passages of Katha Upanishad are common to Gita. It is in the question answer form where death God Yama is the teacher and young Brahman boy Nachiketa is the listener.

6. Chandogya Upanishad : Chandogya Upanishad is the last eight chapters of Chandogya Brahman. It deals with the significance of meditation and depicts the greatness of the holy syllable OM and significance of the main life force Prana.

7. Kena Upanishad : The Kena Upanishad is the part of Sama Veda. It consists of four sections, the first two in verse and last two in prose. Kena Upanishad narrates the uniqueness

of creation and the single power that controls the whole world.

8. Mundaka Upanishad :

It is also called Mantra Upanishad as it has sixty-four Mantras in

it. The Mundaka Upanishad is the part of Atharva Veda. It has two chapters and each chapter

is divided into many subdivisions or Khanda.

9. Mandukya Upanishad :

It is also the part of Atharva Veda. Mandukya Upanishad

describes the importance of the syllable OM. It is the smallest of all the Upanishads.

10. Prasna Upanishad :

The Prasna Upanishad come in the form of six question and answers

asked by six disciples to the sage Pippalada about the origin, existence and destination of life.

11. Svetastara Upanishad :

This is also the part of Krishna Yajurveda. It has thirteen

Mantras in six chapters. The Svestara was a sage who learned this Upanishad and taught it to

his disciples.

The Main Books

Although there are more than 200 Upanishads, only thirteen have been

identified out as presenting the core teachings. They are the Chandogya, Kena,

Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Katha, Mundaka, Taittriyaka, Brihadaranyaka,

Svetasvatara, Isa, Prasna, Mandukya and the Maitri Upanishads. One of the

oldest and longest of the Upanishads, the Brihadaranyaka says:

"From the unreal lead me to the real!

From darkness lead me to light!

From death lead me to immortality!"

The crux of the Upanishads is that this can be achieved by meditating with the

awareness that one's soul ('atman') is one with all things, and that 'one' is

'Brahman', which becomes the 'all'.

Who wrote the Upanishads?

The authors of the Upanishads were many, but they were not solely from the

priestly caste. They were poets prone to flashes of spiritual wisdom, and their

aim was to guide a few chosen pupils to the point of liberation, which they

themselves had attained. According to some scholars, the main figure in the

Upanishads is Yajnavalkya, the great sage who propounded the doctrine of 'neti-

neti', the view that "truth can be found only through the negation of all thoughts

about it". Other important Upanishadic sages are Uddalaka Aruni, Shwetaketu,

Shandilya, Aitareya, Pippalada, Sanat Kumara. Many earlier Vedic teachers like

Manu, Brihaspati, Ayasya and Narada are also found in the Upanishads.

Types of Upanishads

Upanishads are of the following types listed below:

A

Upanishada are the part of Vedanta and Vedanta(Also called Uttar Meemansa) is a spiritual conclusion from the Vedas while Poorva Meemansa(like Brahmans) give Karmakandik explanation of the Vedas.

B

General meaning of Upanishada,

B

The Sanskrit term upaniṣad derives from upa- (nearby), ni- (at the proper place, down) and sad, that is "sitting down near" a teacher in order to receive instruction.

C

Spiritual meaning of the Upanishada,

C

Upa(without obstacle), Nī(complete), Shad(Gyan). So Upanishada means Gyan that is not separated from the source and that is free from the boundaries of country, time and matter, It mean a Poorna Gyan of Brhman applicable everywhere.

D

Right now we have the records of only 220 Upanishadas

E

Name of main Upanishadas

E

1. Ishaavsyopanishad

E

2. Kenopanishad

E

3.Kathopanishad

E

4.Prashnopanishad

E

5.Mundakopanishad

E

6.Maandukyopanishad

E

7.Aitreyopanishad

E

8.Taitireeyopanishad

E

9.Shwetashwetopnishad

E

10.Chaandyopyaopnishad

E

11.Brihadaaryanyakopnishad

E

12.KausheetakiBraahmanopnishad

E

13.ShriRamPoorvaapneeyopanishad

E

14.ShriRamottartaapaniiyopanishad

E

15.GopalPoorvtapaniiyopnishad

E

16.Dvyopnishad

E

17.Sooryopnishad and many others.

F

Some Vidyas in Upanishadas,

1.SadVidya, 2.AnandVidya, 3.AntaradiyaVidya, 4.AkashVidya, 5.PranaVidya,

6.GayatriJyotoVidya, 7.IndraPranaVidya, 8.ShandilyaVidya,

9.NachiketasVidya, 10.UpaKosalVidya, 11.AntaryamiVidya, 12.AksharVidya,

13.VaishwanarVidya, 14.BhoomVidya, 15.GaargyaksharVidya, 16.

Pranavopasya ParamPurushVidya, 17.DaharVidya, 18. AngushthaPramitVidya,

19.MadhuVidya, 20.DevopasyaJyotirVidya, 21.SanvargaVidya,

22.AjaShareerakVidya, 23.BalakiVidya, 24.MairtryiVidya,

25.DruhinRudradiShareerakVidya, 26.PanchagniVidya,

27.AditySthahrNaamakVidya, 28.AkshisthaahannaamakVidya,

29.PurushVidya, 30.EeshaVasyVidya, 31.KaholVidya and

32.VyahritiShareerakVidya.

G)Some basic preachings of Upanishadas

a)ParaBrahman is the soul of every one due to his own determination.

b)He is full of Bliss, welfare and equipped with all eternal luxuries.

c)His form is divine.

d)He is with out any feature because he is above all and the world glitters due to him.

e)He is the source of light.

f)He is the soul of all Devtas and Chetana roop like Indra, agni, Vishnu, Shiva and Brahman. In this way all these name are the representation of souls.

g)Endeavor, position and regime is under His rule.

h)All world will finally be absorbed in him.

i)His is eternally present in our eyes.

j)the world is his body.

k)Karma and rebirth are his tools to run this world.

l)He is only the subject of Mukta Purush.

m)People say Hindus worship 33 crore Gods. I say that Hindus now worship 6 billion Gods along with the souls of animals and plants. Because that Chetana Brahman is glowing in all the creature of this world. So every soul is a representative of God on this earth. Moreover incarnations, great souls are his true symbols on this earth they must be followed and worshiped.

Six Concepts from the Upanishads

My History of World Religion classes are covering Hinduism, and these central concepts from the Upanishads are central to the Hindu tradition;

Six Concepts from the Upanishads

Brahman-The divine reality underlying all things. It is reality itself, pure consciousness, and bliss. It is the way thing are in the final analysis, when we see reality without illusion (maya). Unlike the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, The Hindu Brahman is not a transcendent creator and sustainer of the world but is the universe itself. It is beyond time and space, hence in the Hindu tradition space and time themselves are only the world as it appears to us, not the world as it is in itself.

Hence for the mainstream philosophical tradition of Hinduism, everything is one and everything is God. If I were to convene class and said “I am God” you would all think I was nuts, because our concept of God is a transcendent creator. In Hinduism no one would raise an eyebrow.

Atman: Called the self or soul, but really the deepest self. It is what is fundamental to me as an individual. However, in the last analysis, the Hindus teach that the deepest self really is God. One can achieve moksha, in some tradition, by realizing that atman is Brahman.

Maya is illusion, the root word is the same as the English root word for magic. The world, for the Hindu, is real but not what it appears to be. (I’m really God, but I appear to need glasses in order to see). It appears to be temporal, but it isn’t. It appears to be material, but it really is spiritual, it appears to be unconscious, but it is conscious. I appear not to have lived before, but I have.

Karma: The moral law of cause and effect. It is in accordance with the law of Karma that my past and future incarnations are determined. A bad life may result in my being reincarnated as a poor person or an animal.

Samsara is the cycle of birth and rebirth. Continuously being reincarnated again and again is considered to be a bad thing. As our reincarnations continue, we long to put a stop to the whole thing, to no longer be reincarnated.

Moksha is liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. According to the Upanishads this is the ultimate human goal. (It is not, as we shall see, the only goal worth pursuing.) It involves getting beyond one’s own ego and the limits of

being an individual. Imagine what your day is like. You wake up, you want to

get to work on time, you hope your boss is happy with your work and that you

are successful, you come home and hope your relationships with your family go

well, If you are dating, you hope that those relationships work out and you don't

have to break up, etc. But if you reach moksha you get beyond such concerns.

Detaching yourself from pleasure and pain also helps lead to freedom.

Etymology

Etymology

Etymology

The Sanskrit term Upaniṣad derives from upa- (nearby), ni- (at the proper place,

Etymology

down) and sad ("sitting down near"), implying sitting near a teacher to receive

Etymology

instruction or, alternatively, "laying siege" to the teacher. Monier-Williams adds

Etymology

that, "according to native authorities Upanishad means 'setting to rest ignorance

Etymology

by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit.'" A gloss of the term

Etymology

Upanishad based on Shankara's commentary on the Katha and Brihadaranyaka

Etymology

Upanishads equates it with Ātmavidyā, that is, "knowledge of the Self", or

Etymology

Brahmavidyā "knowledge of Brahma". Other dictionary meanings include

Etymology

"esoteric doctrine" and "secret doctrine".

Classification

Classification

Classification

There are more than 200 known Upanishads, one of which, the Muktika, gives a list of 108

Classification

Upanishads - this number corresponding to the holy Hindu number of beads on a Hindu

Classification

rosary or mala. Modern scholars recognize the first 10, 11, 12 or 13 Upanishads as principal

Classification

or Mukhya Upanishads and the remainder as derived from this ancient canon. If a Upanishad

Classification

has been commented upon or quoted by revered thinkers like Shankara, it is a Mukhya

Classification

Upanishad, accepted as shruti by most Hindus.

Classification

The new Upanishads recorded in the Muktika probably originated in southern India, and are

Classification

grouped according to their subject as (Sāmānya) Vedānta (philosophical), Yoga, Sanyasa (of

Classification

the life of renunciation), Vaishnava (dedicated to the god Vishnu), Saiva (dedicated to Shiva)

Classification

and Sakti (dedicated to the goddess). Several notable and widely used Shakta Upaniṣads

Classification

including the Kaula, the Śrīvidyā and Śrichakra, are not listed in the Muktika Upanishad.

Classification

New Upaniṣads are often sectarian since sects have sought to legitimize their texts by

Classification

claiming for them the status of Śruti.

Classification

Another way of classifying the Upanishads is to associate them with the respective

Classification

Brahmanas. The Jaiminīya Upaniṣadbrāhmaṇa, belonging to the late Vedic Sanskrit period,

Classification

may also be included. Of nearly the same age are the Aitareya, Kauṣītaki and Taittirīya

Classification

Upaniṣads, while the remnant date from the time of transition from Vedic to Classical

Classification

Sanskrit.

Mukhya Upanishads

The Mukhya Upanishads can themselves be stratified into periods. Of the early period are the Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya, the most important and the oldest, of which the former is the older of the two, though some parts were composed after the Chandogya.

The Aitareya, Taittiriya, Kausitaki, Mundaka, Prasna, and Kathaka Upaniṣads show Buddha's influence, and must have been composed after the fifth century BCE. In the first two centuries CE, they were followed by the Kena, Mandukya and Isa Upanishads. Not much is known about the authors except those few, like Yajnavalkayva and Uddalaka, mentioned in the texts. A few women authors, such as Gargi and Maitreyī, the wife of Yajnavalkayva, also feature occasionally.

Each of the principal Upanishads can be associated with one of the schools of exegesis of the four Vedas (shakhas). 1,131 Shakhas are said to have existed, of which only a few remain. The new Upanishads often have little relation to the Vedic corpus and have not been cited or commented upon by any great Vedanta philosopher: their language differs from that of the classic Upanishads, being less subtle and more formalized. As a result, they are not difficult to comprehend for the modern reader.

An early 19th century manuscript of the Rigveda

Veda-Shakha-Upanishad association

Veda Recension Shakha Principal Upanishad

Rig Veda Only one recension Shakala Aitareya

Sama Veda Only one recension Kauthuma Chāndogya Jaiminiya Kena

Yajur Veda Krishna Yajur Veda Katha Kaṭha Taittiriya Taittirīya and Śvetāśvatara Maitrayani Hiranyakesh (Kapishthala) Kathaka

Shukla Yajur Veda Vajasaneyi Madhyandina Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Īṣa

Atharva Only one recension Kannav Shaunaka Māṇḍūkya and Muṇḍaka

The Kauśītākī and Maitrāyaṇi Upanishads are sometimes added to the list of the mukhya Upanishads.

New Upanishads

New Upanishads

There is no fixed list of the Upanishads as newer ones have continued to be composed. On many occasions, when older Upanishads have not suited the founders of new sects, they have composed new ones of their own. 1908 Arsheya and Saunaka, by Dr. Friedrich Schrader, who attributed them to the first prose period of the Upanishads. The text of three, the Chhagaleya, Arsheya and Saunaka, was reportedly corrupt and neglected but possibly re-constructable with the help of their Perso-Latin translations. Texts called "Upanishads" continued to appear up to the end of the British rule in 1947. The Akbar Upanishad and Allah Upanishad are examples, having been written in the 17th century, at the instance of Darah Shikoh, in praise of Islam.

The main Shakta Upanishads mostly discuss doctrinal and interpretative differences between the two principal sects of a major Tantric form of Shaktism called Shri Vidya upasana. The many extant lists of authentic Shakta Upaniṣads vary, reflecting the sect of their compilers, so that they yield no evidence of their "location" in Tantric tradition, impeding correct interpretation. The Tantra content of these texts also weaken its identity as an Upaniṣad for non-Tantrikas and therefore, its status as shruti and thus its authority.

Philosophy

Philosophy

Impact of a drop of water, a common analogy for Brahman and the Ātman

Two words that are of paramount importance in grasping the Upanishads are Brahman and Atman. The Brahman is the universal spirit and the Atman is the individual Self. Differing opinions exist amongst scholars regarding the etymology of these words. Brahman probably comes from the root brh which means to grow. The present day connotation of Brahman is "the source of all existence or from whom the universe has grown". Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent, the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or shall be. The word atman's original meaning was probably "breath" and it now means the soul of a living creature, especially of a human being. The discovery by the Upanashidic thinkers that Atman and Brahman are

one and the same is one of the greatest contribution made to the thought of the

world.

The Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the most important of the mukhya

Upanishads. They represent two main schools of thought within the Upanishads.

The Brihadaranyaka deals with acosmic or nis-prapancha, whereas the

Chandogya deals with the cosmic or sa-prapancha. Between the two, the

Brihadaranyaka is considered more original.

The Upanishads also contain the first and most definitive explications of the

divine syllable Aum, the cosmic vibration that underlies all existence. The

mantra Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti, translated as "the soundless sound, peace,

peace, peace", is often found in the Upanishads. The path of bhakti or

"Devotion to God" is foreshadowed in Upanishadic literature, and was later

realized by texts such as the Bhagavad Gita.

Quotations from some of the Upanishads

Sanskrit quote

English meaning

Prajñānam brahma

"Consciousness is Brahman"

Aham brahmāsmi

"I am Brahman"

Tat tvam asi

"Thou art that"

Ayamātmā brahmā

"This Atman is Brahman"

Metaphysics

The three main approaches in arriving at the solution to the problem of the

Ultimate Reality have traditionally been the theological, the cosmological and

the psychological approaches. The cosmological approach involves looking

outward, to the world; the psychological approach meaning looking inside or to

the Self; and the theological approach is looking upward or to God. Descartes

takes the first and starts with the argument that the Self is the primary reality,

self-consciousness the primary fact of existence, and introspection the start of

the real philosophical process. According to him, we can arrive at the

conception of God only through the Self because it is God who is the cause of

the Self and thus, we should regard God as more perfect than the Self. Spinoza

on the other hand, believed that God is the be-all and the end-all of all things,

the alpha and the omega of existence. From God philosophy starts, and in God

philosophy ends. The manner of approach of the Upanishadic philosophers to

the problem of ultimate reality was neither the Cartesian nor Spinozistic. The

Upanishadic philosophers regarded the Self as the ultimate existence and subordinated the world and God to the Self. The Self to them, is more real than either the world or God. It is only ultimately that they identify the Self with God, and thus bridge over the gulf that exists between the theological and psychological approaches to reality. They take the cosmological approach to start with, but they find that this cannot give them the solution of the ultimate reality. So, Upanishadic thinkers go back and start over by taking the psychological approach and here again, they cannot find the solution to the ultimate reality. They therefore perform yet another experiment by taking the theological approach. They find that this too is lacking in finding the solution. They give yet another try to the psychological approach, and come up with the solution to the problem of the ultimate reality. Thus, the Upanishadic thinkers follow a cosmo-theo-psychological approach. A study of the mukhya Upanishads show that the Upanishadic thinkers progressively build on each others' ideas. They go back and forth and refute improbable approaches before arriving at the solution of the ultimate reality.

Schools of Vedanta

Adi Shankara Bhagavadpada, expounder of Advaita Vedanta and commentator (bhashya) on the Upanishads

The source for all schools of Vedānta are the three texts – the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahmasutras. Two different types of the non-dual Brahman-Atman are presented in the Upanishads:

• The one in which the non-dual Brahman-Atman is the all inclusive ground of the universe and

• The one in which all reality in the universe is but an illusion

The later theistic (Dvaita and Visistadvaita) and absolutist (Advaita) schools of Vendanta are made possible because of the difference between these two views. The three main schools of Vedanta are Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita. Other schools of Vedanta made possible by the Upanishads include Nimbarka's Dvaitadvaita, Vallabha's Suddhadvaita and Chaitanya's Acintya Bhedabheda. The philosopher Adi Sankara has provided commentaries on 11 mukhya Upanishads.

Advaita is considered the most influential sub-school of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy, though it does not represent the mainstream Hindu position. Gaudapada was the first person to expound the basic principles of the Advaita philosophy in a commentary on the apparently conflicting statements of the Upanishads. Advaita literally means non-duality, and it is a monistic system of thought. It deals with the non-dual nature of the Brahman and the Atman.

Advaita school is said to have been consolidated by Shankara. He was a pupil of Gaudapada's pupil. Radhakrishnan believed that Shankara's views of Advaita are straightforward developments of the Upanishads and the Brahmasutra and he offered no innovations to these, while other scholars found sharp differences between Shankara's writings and the Brahmasutra, and that there are many ideas in the Upanishads at odds with those of Shankara. Gaudapada lived in a time when Buddhism was widely prevalent in India, and he was at times conscious of the similarity between his system to some phases of Buddhist thought. His main work is infused with philosophical terminology of Buddhism, and uses Buddhist arguments and analogies. Towards the end of his commentary on the topic, he clearly said, "This was not spoken by Buddha". Although there are a wide variety of philosophical positions propounded in the Upanishads, commentators since Adi Shankara have usually followed him in seeing idealist monism as the dominant force.

The Dvaita school was founded by Madhvacharya. Born in 1138 near Udipi, Dvaita is regarded as the best philosophic exposition of theism. Sharma points out that Dvaita, a term commonly used to designate Madhava's system of philosophy, translates as "dualism" in English. The Western understanding of dualism equates to two independent and mutually irreducible substances. The Indian equivalent of that definition would be Samkya Dvaita. Madhva's Dvaita differs from the Western definition of dualism in that while he agrees to two mutually irreducible substances that constitute reality, he regards only one - God, as being independent.

The third school of Vedanta is the Vishishtadvaita, which was founded by Ramanuja. Traditional dates of his birth and death are given as 1017 and 1137, though a shorter life span somewhere between these two dates has been suggested. Modern scholars conclude that on the whole, Ramanuja's theistic views may be closer to those of the Upanishads than are Shankara's, and Ramanuja's interpretations are in fact representative of the general trend of Hindu thought. Ramanuja strenuously refuted Shankara's works. Visistadvaita is a synthetic philosophy of love that tries to reconcile the extremes of the other two monistic and theistic systems of vedanta. It is called Sri-Vaisanavism in its religious aspect. Chari claims that has been misunderstood by its followers as well as its critics. Many, including leading modern proponents of this system, forget that jiva is a substance as well as an attribute and call this system "qualified non-dualism" or the adjectival monism. While the Dvaita insists on the difference between the Brahman and the Jiva, Visistadvaita states that God is their inner-Self as well as transcendent.

Development

Development

Chronology and geography

Chronology and geography

Scholars disagree about the exact dates of the composition of the Upanishads. Different researchers have provided different dates for the Vedic and Upanishadic eras. Ranade criticizes Deussen for assuming that the oldest Upanishads were written in prose, followed by those that were written in verse and the last few again in prose. He proposes a separate chronology based on a battery of six tests.The tables below summarize some of the prominent work:

Dates proposed by scholars for the Vedic and/or Upanishadic era

Author

Star t (BC )

End (BC )

Method employed

Deussen (1000 or 800 – 500 BC)

Ranade (1200 – 600 BC)

Radhakrishnan (800 – 600 BC)

Tilak (Winternitz expresses agreement)

6000

2000

Astronomical

prose Upanishads: Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Kena

Group I: Brihadaranya ka

Pre-Buddhist, prose: Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Taittiriya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka

B. V. Kameshwara Aiyar

2300

2000

Astronomical

Group II: Isa, Kena

Group III: Aitareya, Taittiriya, Kaushitaki

Max Muller

1000

800

Linguistic

Poetic Upanishads: Kena, Katha, Isa,

Group IV: Katha, Mundaka, Svetasvatara

Ranade

1200

600

Linguistic, ideological development, etc

Svetasvatara, Mundaka

Later prose: Prasna, Maitri, Mandukya

Radhakrishnan

800

600

Ideological development

Prasna, Mandukya, Maitrayani

Dates and chronology of the Principal Upanishads

Group V: Maitri, Svetasvatara

Svetasvatara

Mandukya

Maitrayani

Prasna,

Maitri,

Mandukya

Transitional phase: Kena (1–3), Brihadaranyaka (IV 8–21), Katha, Mandukya

Elements of Samkhya and Yoga: Maitri, Svetasvatara

India, 600 B.C.

The 16 Mahajanapadas

The Mahajanapadas were the sixteen most powerful kingdoms and republics of the era, located mainly across the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains, however there were a number of smaller kingdoms stretching the length and breadth of Ancient India.

Map of northern India showing kingdoms in which the oldest Upanishads - the Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya were composed. River Indus is shown by it's Sanskrit name Sindhu

The general area of the composition of the early Upanishads was northern India, the region bounded on the west by the Indus valley, on the east by lower Ganges river, on the north by the Himalayan foothills, and on the south by the Vindhya mountain range. There is confidence about the early Upanishads being the product of the geographical center of ancient Brahmanism, comprising the regions of Kuru-Panchala and Kosala-Videha together with the areas immediately to the south and west of these.

While significant attempts have been made recently to identify the exact locations of the individual Upanishads, the results are tentative. Witzel identifies the center of activity in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as the area of Videha, whose king, Janaka, features prominently in the Upanishad. Yajnavalkya is another individual who features prominently, almost as the personal theologian of Janaka. Brahmins of the central region of Kuru-Panchala rightly considered their land as the place of the best theological and literary activities, since this was the heartland of Brahmanism of the late Vedic period. The setting of the third and the fourth chapters of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads were probably intended to show that Yajnavalkya of Videha defeated all the best theologians of the Kuru Panchala, thereby demonstrating the rise of Videha as a center of learning. The Chandogya Upanishad was probably composed in a more Western than an Eastern location, possibly somewhere in the western region of the Kuru-Panchala country. The great Kuru-Panchala theologian Uddalaka Aruni who was vilified in the Brihadaranyaka features prominently in the Chandogya Upanishad. Compared to the Principal Upanishads, the new Upanishads recorded in the Muktika belong to an entirely different region, probably southern India, and are considerably relatively recent.

Development of thought

While the hymns of the Vedas emphasize rituals and the Brahmanas serve as a liturgical manual for those Vedic rituals, the spirit of the Upanishads is inherently opposed to ritual. The older Upanishads launch attacks of increasing intensity on the ritual. Anyone who worships a divinity other than the Self is called a domestic animal of the gods in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The Chandogya Upanishad parodies those who indulge in the acts of sacrifice by comparing them with a procession of dogs chanting Om! Let's eat. Om! Let's drink. The Mundaka launches the most scathing attack on the ritual by comparing those who value sacrifice with an unsafe boat that is endlessly overtaken by old age and death.

The opposition to the ritual is not explicit all the time. On several occasions the Upanishads extend the task of the Aranyakas by making the ritual allegorical and giving it a philosophical meaning. For example, the Brihadaranyaka interprets the practice of horse-sacrifice or ashvamedha allegorically. It states that the over-lordship of the earth may be acquired by sacrificing a horse. It then goes on to say that spiritual autonomy can only be achieved by renouncing the universe which is conceived in the image of a horse.

In similar fashion, the pattern of reducing the number of gods in the Vedas becomes more emphatic in the Upanishads. When Yajnavalkaya is asked how

many gods exist, he decrements the number successively by answering thirty-three, six, three, two, one and a half and finally one. Vedic gods such as the Rudras, Visnu, Brahma are gradually subordinated to the supreme, immortal and incorporeal Brahman of the Upanishads. In fact Indra and the supreme deity of the Brahamanas, Prajapati, are made door keepers to the Brahman's residence in the Kausitaki Upanishad.

In short, the one reality or ekam sat of the Vedas becomes the ekam eva advitiyam or "the one and only and sans a second" in the Upanishads.

Worldwide transmission

The Upanishads impressed Schopenhauer. He called them "the production of the highest human wisdom"

Given that Indian Brahmin seers are reputed to have visited Greece, it may be that the Upanishadic sages influenced Ancient Greek philosophy. Many ideas in Plato's Dialogues, particularly, have Indian analogues – several concepts in the Platonic psychology of reason bear resemblance to the gunas of Indian philosophy. Professor Edward Johns Urwick conjectures that The Republic owes several central concepts to Indian influence. Garb and West have also concluded that this was due to Indian influence.

A. R. Wadia dissents in that Plato's metaphysics were rooted in this life, the primary aim being an ideal state. He later proposed a state less ordered but more practicable and conducive to human happiness. As for the Upanishadic thinkers, their goal was not an ideal state or society, but moksha or deliverance form the endless cycle of birth and death. Wadia concludes that there was no exchange of information and ideas between Plato and the Upanishadic thinkers: Plato remains Greek and the Indian sages remain Indian.

The Upanishads were a part of an oral tradition. Their study was confined to the higher castes of Indian society. Sudras and women were not given access to them soon after their composition. The Upanishads have been translated in to various languages including Persian, Italian, Urdu, French, Latin, German, English, Dutch, Polish, Japanese and Russian. The Moghul Emperor Akbar's reign (1556–1586) saw the first translations of the Upanishads into Persian, and his great-grandson, Dara Shikoh, produced a collection called Sirr-e-Akbar (The Greatest Mysteries) in 1657, with the help of Sanskrit Pandits of Varansi. Its introduction stated that the Upanishads constitute the Qur'an's "Kitab al-maknun" or hidden book. But Akbar's and Sikoh's translations remained unnoticed in the Western world until 1775.

Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, a French Orientalist who had lived in

India between 1755 and 1761, received a manuscript of the Upanishads in 1775

from M. Gentil, and translated it into French and Latin, publishing the Latin

translation in two volumes in 1802–1804 as Oupneck'hat. The French

translation was never published. The first German translation appeared in 1832

and Roer's English version appeared in 1853. However, Max Mueller's 1879

and 1884 editions were the first systematic English treatment to include the 12

Principal Upanishads. After this, the Upanishads were rapidly translated into

Dutch, Polish, Japenese and Russian.

Global scholarship and praise

Global scholarship and praise

Global scholarship and praise

The German philosopher Schopenhauer read the Latin translation and praised

Global scholarship and praise

the Upanishads in his main work, The World as Will and Representation (1819),

Global scholarship and praise

as well as in his Parerga and Paralipomena (1851). He found his own

Global scholarship and praise

philosophy was in accord with the Upanishads, which taught that the individual

Global scholarship and praise

is a manifestation of the one basis of reality. For Schopenhauer, that

Global scholarship and praise

fundamentally real underlying unity is what we know in ourselves as "will".

Global scholarship and praise

Schopenhauer used to keep a copy of the Latin Oupnekhet by his side and is

Global scholarship and praise

said to have commented, "It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace

Global scholarship and praise

of my death". Another German philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph

Global scholarship and praise

Schelling, praised the mystical and spiritual aspects of the Upanishads.

Global scholarship and praise

Schelling and other philosophers associated with German idealism were

Global scholarship and praise

dissatisfied with Christianity as propagated by churches. They were fascinated

Global scholarship and praise

with the Vedas and the Upanishads. Similarly-minded English and European

Global scholarship and praise

writers, such as Thomas Carlyle, Victor Cousin, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and

Global scholarship and praise

Mme. de Staël, claimed to find deep wisdom in these non-Western writings. In

Global scholarship and praise

the United States, the group known as the Transcendentalists were influenced

Global scholarship and praise

by the German idealists. These Americans, such as Emerson and Thoreau, were

Global scholarship and praise

not satisfied with traditional Christian mythology and therefore embraced

Global scholarship and praise

Schelling's interpretation of Kant's Transcendental idealism, as well as his

Global scholarship and praise

celebration of the romantic, exotic, mystical aspect of the Upanishads. As a

Global scholarship and praise

result of the influence of these writers, the Upanishads gained renown in

Global scholarship and praise

Western countries. Erwin Schrödinger, the great quantum physicist said, "The

Global scholarship and praise

multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of

Global scholarship and praise

the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly

Global scholarship and praise

leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West." Eknath

Global scholarship and praise

Easwaran, in translating the Upanishads, articulates how they "form snapshots

Global scholarship and praise

of towering peaks of consciousness taken at various times by different observers

Global scholarship and praise

and dispatched with just the barest kind of explanation".

Criticism of the Upanishads

The Indian constitution of January 26, 1950 outlaws the caste system, a system that finds mention in the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Citicisms of the Upanishads range from an ill-conceived and half-thought out bluster,to scholarly but scathing ones. An early European writer on the Upanishads wrote:

"They are the work of a rude age, a deteriorated race, and a barbarous and unprogressive community."

—An early European writer

The Brihadaranyaka gives an unorthodox explanation of the origin of the caste-system. It says that a similar four-tier caste system existed in heaven which is now replicated on earth. This has been criticized by the Dalit leader Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. He studied the philosophy of the Upanishads pragmatically and concluded that they were most ineffective and inconsequential piece of speculation and that they had no effect on the moral and social order of the Hindus. Ambedkar implies that the voluminous Upanishads are a useless work because of their inability to affect any change in the caste-biased, inherently unequal Hindu society. He dismisses the Upanishads by quoting Huxley in saying that Upanishadic philosophy can be reduced to very few words. Ambedkar agrees with Huxley:

"In supposing the existence of a permanent reality, or "substance", beneath the shifting series of phenomena, whether of matter or of mind. The substance of the cosmos was "Brahma", that of the individual man "Atman"; and the latter was separated from the former only, if I may so speak, by its phenomenal envelope, by the casing of sensations, thoughts and desires, pleasures and pains, which make up the illusive phantasmagoria of life. This the ignorant, take for reality; their "Atman" therefore remains eternally imprisoned in delusions, bound by the fetters of desire and scourged by the whip of misery."

—Thomas Huxley

According to another writer, David Kalupahana, the Upanishadic thinkers came to consider change as a mere illusion, because it could not be reconciled with a permanent and homogeneous reality. They were therefore led to a complete denial of plurality. He states that philosophy suffered a setback because of the transcendentalism resulting from the search of the essential unity of things.

Kalupahana explains further that reality was simply considered to be beyond space, time, change and causlity. This caused change to be a mere matter of words, nothing but a name and due to this, metaphysical speculation took the upper hand. As a result, the Upanishads fail to give any rational explanation of the experience of things. Paul Deussen criticized the idea of unity in the Upanishads as it excluded all plurality, and therefore, all proximity in space, all succession in time, all interdependence as cause and effect, and all opposition as subject and object.

Association with Vedas

Association with Vedas

All Upanishads are associated with one of the four Vedas—Rigveda, Samaveda, Shukla Yajurveda, Krishna Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda. The Muktika Upanishad's list of 108 Upanishads groups the first 10 as mukhya, 21 as Sāmānya Vedānta, 23 as Sannyāsa, nine as Shākta, 13 as Vaishnava, 14 as Shaiva and 17 as Yoga. The 108 Upanishads as recorded in the Muktika are shown in the table below. The mukhya Upanishads are highlighted.

Place of Upanishads in Vedanta

Place of Upanishads in Vedanta

Modern thinkers generally hold that the earliest literature of India is the Vedas, of which Rg Veda was the first to be composed. These were hymns in praise of nature gods, which emphasised ritualism and had little philosophic content. Some have even attempted statistical analysis of the number of times individual god names were taken up for praise and concluded that Vishnu , later extolled as the Supreme God, has fewer hymns than the more common Indra, Agni and Varuna. Subsequent compositions called braahmaNa-s and araNyaka-s both in verse and prose contain attempts in explaining philosophical and cosmological questions. Upanishads were composed next in order and contain the highest flights of philosophical speculation in Vedantic thought. While perhaps it is comforting to reduce the entire source material of Vedanta philosophy into a well ordered scheme which the modern mind can easily understand, there are serious discrepancies in this theory. Vedantins who profess the Vedic streams of all hues have traditionally believed that the Vedas and Vedanta literature is apaurushheya, not composed by anyone (including God) and hence beginningless and eternal. Even the name used for the Vedas for thousands of years of human memory -- Shruti indicates this fact, which is also justified by rigorous logic. Far from being a collection of disjointed hymns, which the Vedas are made out to be by people ignorant of them, there is in them a thread of unity of thought, in describing a Supreme Being, who is different and who is the inner controller of all other beings , including the so called nature gods. The artificial division of the mass of Vedic literature into karma kaaNDa (dealing with rituals) and j˜nAna kANDa dealing with Philosophy is untenable, in the

context of the three fold interpretation of the Vedas, explained for the first time

by Sri Madhva, in his Rgbhashya.

According to Madhva, the Brahma Suutra's OM gatisAmAnyAt.h OM clearly

indicates the decided position of its author, Veda Vyaasa, that all the Vedas,

believed to be infinite in extent, have eka-vaakyata unity in stating the

conclusion. Be as that as may, the ten principal Upanishads contain the essence

of the philsophical teaching of the entire Vedic religion. The Brahma Suutra,

composed by Veda Vyaasa, accepted as the authority for the correct

interpretation of the Vedas refers to a number of well known Upanishadic texts

and gives clues regarding their correct and consistent interpretation. All the

different founders of Vedanta schools have started from the basic position of the

infallibility of the Vedas, Upanishads and the Brahma Suutra and have tried to

justify the claims that their own conclusions are in accordance with them.

Central Theme of the Upanishads

Sri Shankaracharya and some of his modern followers take Monism or

Atmaikya, and Absolutism or nirguNa-brahmaavaada to be the central theme of

Upanishads. Consequently, Idealism or the world being merely a projection,

which is unreal, is also taken to be a tenet of the Upanishads. Thus upaasanaa

(worship) and bhakti (devotion) are relegated to a secondary position, being

needed only up to a point in the spiritual evolution of the soul. Liberation,

the final goal of spiritual development becomes less attractive, as the seeker loses

his own identity in his merger with the Absolute. The entire process of Creation

delineated with such great care in the Upanishads is reduced to a mere illusion.

Texts describing Brahman, the Supreme Being, as sarvaj˜na (all knowing),

sarva-shaktimaan (All Powerful) are also relegated to be descriptions of Ishwara

or the Saguna Brahman, who is also a product of the universal Avidya, while

Brahman is actually nirguNa or without any attributes in absolute reality. Some

of the richest material in the Upanishads delineating the glory of God, the

process of creation, prescribing different methods of upaasanaa, Eschatology,

recommending meditation, devotion etc. have to be relegated to a secondary

position, as they are essentially dealing with the machinations of the unreal

Avidya, which vanishes into "nothing," when the soul is liberated and discovers

its identity with the formless and attributeless Brahman. In other words, much

of Upanishadic texts are worthless and untrue in the domain of the final reality.

On the other hand, a few passages are elevated to decisive importance, as they

can be interpreted, in a limited sense, to convey Monism. Anyone who has an

acquaintance with the deep and mystical atmosphere conjured up by the

Upanishads can not accept this position. The central theme of the Upanishads is

not Monism but Monotheism, the concept of an all pervasive, immanent

supreme being. He is not nirguNa (attributeless), but is guNaparipuurNa -- full

of all possible auspicious qualities. The very word brahma indicates this basic

delineation of the Supreme Lord. Such a theme brings all the rest of the

passages in the Upanishads into proper focus and makes them fully meaningful

and essential for the aspirant. All of them will contribute in one way or the other

to the development of this central theme and none of them will look secondary

or suprefluous. In the larger context of the Vedanta, as a whole, the Vedas,

Brahmana-s, Aranyakas, Upanishads and the great Epics which include the

other Prasthaana texts -- Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Suutra are woven into

a glorious tapestry of the indescribable but realizable, fathomless but

understandable glory of the Supreme Person, who has been extolled by great

devotees in all Bhakti compositions. The artificial concept of two Brahmans,

Saguna and Nirguna simultaneously existing, though totally different in

essence, created by Monism to explain away the wealth of texts describing the

glory of the Lord is done away with, with a simple explanation of nirguNa

being One who completely transcends the three guNa-s -- sattva, rajas and

tamas constituting prak.rti, which is responsible for the world as we know it.

Canons of Interpretation

It is not very difficult to decide between guNaparipuurNa and nirguNa Brahman

being accepted as the purport of the Upanishads. There are well-known canons

of interpretations, priority and preference laid down for the purpose, which are

accepted as valid by all schools. These are:

1. upakrama, upasamhaara, etc. -- 6 determinatives of purport.

2. Shruti, Linga, etc. -- 6 aids for fixing the meanings.

3. saavakaasha and niravakaasha position of Shruti-s.

4. upajiivya and upajiivaka position of pramaaNa-s, to accord preference.

However, the Niravakaashatva and Upajiivyatva criteria are not strictly

followed in the Advaita tradition, leading to undue priority being accorded

therein to Monistic-looking texts or passages, and the relegating of others to

secondary positions. This has led to another criteria being evolved by the

Advaita school, viz., tatvaavedaka and atatvaavedaka. These are defined as

passages which expound the final truth or a tentative position, which is shown

to be incorrect after due examination. Such a basis would have to be primarily

arbitrary, as it seperates the innately valid Shruti-s into two groups depending

on whether they appear to support Advaita or otherwise. There is nothing

available in the Shruti-s themselves to determine this, and to decide on the

classification on the basis of the purport of the Shrutis, which is yet to be determined is admittedly invalid. Another basis relied upon by Advaita, to relegate a group of Shruti-s to a secondary position is that they are anuvaadaka. Any Shruti text which appears to speak of something that can be known from some other valid means such as pratyaksha (direct cognition) is given this handicap and considered as inferior in value to one, which can be known only by Shruti pramANa. In fact, this is the exact opposite of even the modern concept of evidence, which considers corroboration as a factor which strengthens the evidentiary value, particularly when each source has independently concluded the same. In view of these adverse features, these criteria peculiar to Advaita are not accepted by other commentators.

Sri Madhva has shown in his compositions, especially in his Brahma Suutra Bhaashya, Anu-vyaakhyaana and other Suutra-prasthaana compositions that application of these principals de novo, without any bias, to the Upanishads yields only a guNapari pUrNa Brahman and not the attributeless nirguNa Brahman of Advaita.

Methodology Of The Upanishads

The Upanishads have their own unique style. Their exposition is in four different ways:

1. Dialogue with questions and answers.

2. Narration and episodes.

3. Similes, metaphors and illustrations.

4. Symbolism.

Normally, it is not difficult to ascertain the purport of the texts in the first two types. In some cases, the questions and answers are of the reductio-ad-absurdum type and the correct conclusion has to be drawn. In the cases 3 and 4, it is more difficult to ascertain the purport, as which aspect or shade of meaning of the simile or illustration is being used to illustrate the meaning. However, clues are available in the wording of similes etc and also in the following passages. These have been exploited effectively by Sri Madhva in his interpretations. Symbolisms employed by the Upanishads are essentially of 3 types -- Nature symbolism, sacrifices and sacrificial items used as symbols, and mystic sound syllables such as Aum being used as symbols. These need careful study. Many symbols, similities, illustrations, and episodes are repeated in different Upanishads, sometimes with slight changes. A good many verses are also repeated. The correct meaning can be derived by applying the supreme test

of consistency to the different occurences, in addition to the other criteria mentioned earlier.

The Brahma Suutra indicates three main guidelines to understand the purport of the Upanishads:

1. tattu samanvayaat.h -- The total material available on the point of study in the entire Shruti literature has to be taken into account and interpreted correctly by applying the canons of interpretation.

2. gati samaanyaat.h -- All the Shruti literature have the same purport and apparent contradictions are resolved by proper study and interpretation.

3. sarvavedaantapratyayam.h -- The underlying purport of the Upanishads is found to be one consistent truth, which when understood fully will lead to God-realization.

It is only the lack of utilisation of the guidelines fully and properly that has led many commentators to derive Monism and Absolutism out of Vedanta.

Traditional monistic commentators had a committed approach towards "proving" their school irrespective of the actual correct meanings derived from Vedanta texts. Modern neo-Vedantic scholars have very limited equipment in terms of knowledge and intelligence with which to exhaustively use the critical apparatus, and have hence made a thorough mess in their interpretations, which often conflict with or misinterpret the positions adopted by the senior scholars whose lead they are supposed to be following.

Delineation Of A Supreme Lord Is The Central Theme

The central theme of Upanishads is Monotheism or the delineation of a Supreme Being as the cardinal principle of the universe. This is designated as Brahman, Atman, Akshara, Akaasha, PraaNa, etc. In the Upanishads, Akaasha and PraaNa can also mean the element Akaasha, the deity Vayu etc. The meaning applicable in a particular text has to be derived with the help of attributes mentioned therein. The Supreme Principle is described as the Creator, Sustainer, Regulator, Destroyer, Enlightener and Liberator of all. It is also the one and only Independent Principle upon which all other entities are dependent.

It is Immanent and Transcendent. It admits of contradictory features of everyday experience being present in it simultaneously -- aNu (atomic) and mahat.h (infinite), etc. Being Infinite in all respects, it cannot be comprehended by anyone completely. It has no drawbacks or blemishes of any kind. It directs all and is not directed or constrained by anyone. It is absolutely independent in its very nature and essence, functions and comprehension and innate unlimited bliss, none of which need any element external to it for its completeness. All

others derive their limited qualities and capacities from it. It is thus described as Sat, Chit and Ananda in its essential nature. The features of the Supreme Lord are described almost in all the Upanishads. PraaNa occupies an important place in the Upanishads next only to the Supreme being. The Chhaandogya and ShaTprashna Upanishads, in particular, bring out the role of PraaNa, who is His chief aide and is superior to all other deities. He is however eternally and completely subservient to Lord Vishnu, the Supreme being. Upanishads clearly distinguish between the Supreme Being and other souls. Their basic differences which are in their essential nature itself are contrasted in several texts. The metaphor of the two birds, one reaping the fruits of its past deeds and the other not doing so is found more than once. The Causus-belli of the Upanishads -- to enable the souls to attain liberation by the grace of God, would be totally incongruent and lost, if they have no locus standi in their essential nature as distinct fron the world and the Lord. Upanishads are also clear about the reality of the external world (other than the souls) and state it clearly more than once. prakrti or primordial Nature is the material cause of the world, while God is the efficient cause. The text eka vijnAne sarvavijnAna does not support the Vivarta theory of Advaita, which reduces the external world to an unreal state in essence. A number of upaasana-s are described. The importance of shravana, manana etc. Is stressed. The need of vairaagya (detachment from material entities), bhakti (devotion towards the Lord), etc., for the aspirant in his efforts to achieve salvation is delineated. The doctrine of prasaada (God's grace) is mentioned more than once. Eschatology is described through texts explaining devaayaNa and pitrayaNa. Thus all that is necessary to pursue the spiritual path is covered in the Upanishads. With a view to give a more detailed picture of the contents of each of these Upanishads, a summary of the subjects dealt with along with essential points in each is now given under separate headings.

IshAvAsyopanishhad

The E-Book (ISBN 0-9703421-2-8); includes the commentary, with two levels of subcommentary, and a separate gloss, all in the original Sanskrit, each by a renowned scholar of the tradition. Includes Table of Contents, Foreword by Prof. D. Prahladacharya, Preface, a translation of the Upanishad into English, indices, footnotes.

This Upanishad belongs to the Vaajaseneyi Samhita of the Shukla (White) Yajur Veda and forms the last chapter of this Samhita. It is also called a Mantropanishad, as it forms a part of a Samhitâ.

Central Theme

The IshAvAsya has the central theme of extolling the sarva-vyaapakatva (all pervasiveness) and sarva-niyaamakatva (all regulating) nature of the Supreme Lord. These are mentioned in the very first expression used in the Upanishad -- IshAvAsyam, which not only conveys His all-pervasiveness but also that He controls all. The next phrase used -- yat.h kincha jagatyAM jagat.h -- makes this more clear. This phrase tells us that all the things in the world are in Prakrti and dependent upon it. Prakrti itself is dependent upon Him. Hence the Lord alone is independent and all others are dependent upon Him. This point is stressed in verses 6 and 7, where in the Lord's presence and control in all things is brought out. In order to bring home these two characteristics of the Lord, the Upanishad gives a full exposition of the concepts. Two requirements for a seeker to know the Lord are also mentioned -- vairaagya, brought out by the phrase "tena tyaktena bhunjiitha" -- accept with equanimity what ever is given by Him, and vihita karmanushhThaana, brought out by kurvanneveha karmaaNi.

Nature of God

The Unique nature of the Supreme is explained in the verses anejadekam ...," etc. (verses 4 to 8). He is everywhere. He is near and yet also far away. He is within and without. He moves but does not move. These apparently contradictory attributes reveal his achintya shakti -- unthinkable ability. He has no praak.rta body, either subtle or gross. He is eternal, free from defects. He is a "sarvaj~na" (knows everything). He regulates all. He has truly created this real world.

Vidya & Avidya

Those who do not know correctly the nature of the Lord will go down to the worlds of misery. One has to have the right knowledge (vidyA) and not only avoid wrong knowledge (avidyA), but should also condemn and refute it. Not condemning knowledge known to be wrong is more sinful than not having right knowledge. Both acquiring vidyA and condemning avidyA serve their respective purposes in leading to Liberation. Similarly, it is also necessary to know that He is a Creator and Destroyer. Knowing Him as Creator only is sinful.

Prayer

At its end, the Upanishad contains a beautiful prayer -- hiraNmayena patreNa -- wherein the devotee appeals to the Supreme to reveal His nature to him. A number of pratiika-s (symbols) are also mentioned -- Suurya maNDala, Yama, Prajaapati, etc. Each devotee is expected to meditate upon Lord in a pratiika suitable to him. The passage yo asau asau purushhaH teaches the most

important doctrine that the Supreme Lord present in all the pratiika-s and in the devotee himself is one and the same. Both from the context and the words used in the prayer, it is apparent that no Identity between the devotee and Lord is intended. The word ahaM is used in the sense of asmadantaryAmi -- the Lord immanent in my heart. The second asau refers also to Mukhya PraaNa -- it means Mukhya PraaNa, in whom Lord is specially present. The words ahaM and asmi refer to the Lord with special meanings. ahaM means aheyaM -- that which is never capable of being separated, while asmi means being always present and to be known. Upanishads use a code language to convey special meanings. Thus, both by way of normal construction of language and the special construction, the phrase yo asau asau describes His everywhere, which is the main theme of the Upanishad. Finally the devotee appeals to the Deity to remove the contamination of bandhaka karma (results of past deeds which bind him to the world) and to provide him with svarUpa j~nAna (innate knowledge) to reveal his true nature. This is one of the best prayers found in the Upanishads, deep in its spiritual content and exciting in its poetic appeal.

This Upanishad has three special features.

1. The Referent described here is fully Theistic.

2. Reality of the world is expressly mentioned.

3. An active life with performance of prescribed Karmas is given importance. Escape from one's duty is not accepted.

Kenopanishhad

Kenopanishhad

This belongs to the Talavakara Brahmana of the Saama Veda and is also called Talavakaropanishad.

Central Theme

Central Theme

This Upanishad which is in the form of a dialogue between Chaturmukha Brahma and Sadashiva, and brings out the sarva-prerakatva (controller of all others), sarvottamattva (superiority over all else) and sakalyena avedyatva (Unknowable in its entirety) of the Supreme Person.

Who Directs Us?

Who Directs Us?

The Upanishad asks three questions at the outset:

1. Who directs the mind towards its good or bad objects?

2. Who directs Mukhya PraaNa to discharge his duties?

3. Who directs the senses -- eye, ear, etc., towards the respective objects?

All these questions have but a single answer. He who gives the power of seeing to the eye, hearing to the ear, thinking to the mind and power to move to PraaNa directs their respective activities. He is evidently the Supreme God. Those who realise that He is the director of the mind, senses and even of Mukhya PraaNa, will attain liberation. This takes us to the question of the nature of God.

The Supreme Is Infinite And Therefore Cannot Be Fully Comprehended

God is beyond the reach of the senses, beyond words and even beyond the mind. Being Infinite, He cannot be brought within the compass of limited knowledge. One cannot know how He directs the senses, mind, etc. However, He does not remain altogether unknown, but is not completely known because of His infinite nature. He is unique, distinct from and Superior to all known things manifest or unmanifest. He cannot be known through speech, mind, eyes, etc., but knows all that is known through these and regulates them. He is immanent in all the jiiva-s and directs them, but He is not identical to them.

Those who think that they know Him fully do not really know Him, as they have not comprehended His Infinite nature. On the other hand, those who think that they do not know Him fully, know Him, as they have realised His Infinite nature. The knowledge of God to the best of one's ability is adequate for one's salvation. The presence of God as the Inner resident and controller of all is brought out by an interesting story of ahaMkaraakhaNDana (humbling the pride) of Agni, Nasikya Vayu and Indra in this Upanishad.

Tapas, Dama And Karma -- Means Of Spiritual Progress

The Upanishad concludes its teaching by stating that tapas (penance), dama (subduing the senses) and karma (prescribed action) are the means to obtain spiritual knowledge. The Vedas, Vedangas and Mimamsa constitute the source Literature of philosophical inquiry.

The exposition of the sarva-prerakatva and the sarvottamattva of the Supreme Lord is the key note of this Upanishad.

KaThakopanishhad

This belongs to Taittiriiya Shaakhaa of the Krishna Yajur Veda and is in the form of a dialogue between Yama and Nachiketas.

Central Theme

The Upanishad explains that God regulates the souls even after death and Liberation. Though the Kena also states that God regulates all the souls, the question whether He does so during Transmigration or even after Liberation is not specifically raised. In the KaThaka, it is answered in the affirmative.

Yama offers Nachiketas three boons as a compensation for having kept him waiting for three days at his door. Nachiketas asks for the following three boons:

Three Boons Asked by Nachiketas:

1. Let my father be freed from anger towards me, let his calm be restored and let him recognize me when I return.

2. Teach me the nature of the Supreme God Hari, also bearing the name of Agni (Agninaamaka Paramaatma), who can bestow the immortal world to those who worship Him by performing the Nachiketas sacrifice.

3. Teach me the nature of the Supreme God, who controls the souls after death and Liberation.

The first boon was simple and readily granted by Yama. He also granted the second boon being pleased with Nachiketa's wisdom and devotion and also taught Nachiketas the practice of sacrifice through Nachiketaagni. In fact, this Agni, earlier known as svargya agni (Agni who leads the soul to the immortal world) was renamed on account of Yama's boon. Even the Sacrifice was renamed after Nachiketas.

The discussion around the third and most important boon granted by Yama is the central theme of this Upanishad. Yama tries at first to dissuade Nachiketas from asking this question, by offering him many temptations such as wealth, progeny, kingship, etc. Nachiketas steadfastly refused all these offers and insisted on knowing whether God regulates the souls even after death and Liberation.

Nature Of The Third Boon

Some commentators have interpreted the third question of Nachiketas as: Is there a soul after death? This interpretation in obviously incorrect. Nachiketas, having already died and arrived at the doors of the god of death, cannot have a doubt whether a soul exists after death, when his own experience is available. Though there can be a doubt in this context whether Nachiketas reached Yamaloka dead or alive, it is clearly stated in the Taittiriiya BraahmaNa, where the full story is given, that he was dead and reached Yamaloka. Other

circumstances such as Nachiketas father performing Visvajid yaaga to attain

heaven, etc., also show that continuity of the soul after death is not being

questioned here. Even the second boon of Nachiketas leading to the renaming of

Svargya Agni confirms the same belief. Therefore, the third question cannot be

"Is there a soul after death," but "Are the souls regulated by God after death and

Liberation?"

This question is specially relevant for the period after Liberation, as some

systems do not accept even the separate existence of souls after Liberation,

while some accept equality of the souls with God after it.

shreyas and preyas

shreyas and preyas

Yama congratulates Nachiketas on his steadfastness in obtaining sacred

knowledge and sets the distinction between shreyas and preyas -- the Good and

the Pleasant. Normal worldly interests such as family, property, etc., constitute

the second category, while interest in God is the first. Yama expresses his

happiness that Nachiketas has chosen shreyas.

Theism Of The Upanishad

Theism Of The Upanishad

Yama makes it clear that God knowledge cannot be obtained only by logic or

learning the scriptures. It is God who chooses the deserving and gives them His

vision. The statement yameva eshha vR^iNute, embodying this principle of God

choosing His devotee for revealing Himself, is the cornerstone of Theism and

Bhakti. It is clear from this that the Upanishads do not profess Absolutism, but

support Theism. The reference to prasaada (grace) in the expression prasiidati

may be noted in this connection.

The rest of the Upanishad is an excellent exposition of the nature of God, the

fact of His being a regulator after death and Liberation, necessity of controlling

the senses and the methodology of Yoga.

Nature Of God

Nature Of God

God's unique nature is aptly explained -- anyatra dharmAt.h anyatra

adharmAt.h, etc. The verses asino dUraM vrajati and aNoraNiiyan.h mahato

mahiiyAn.h bring out His nature of possessing simultaneous attributes like

Movement without moving, Atomicity and being Bigger than the biggest, etc.,

which are contradictory to each other. ashabdaM asparshaM, etc., brings out His

special nature of not possessing prAk.rta attributes and of His being beyond the

reach of the Senses like the Eye, Ear, etc. nityo nityAnAM, brings out that He is

eternal, and chetanaH chetanAnAM shows that He is the only independent

Chetana (Svatantra Chetana). R^itaM pibantau, etc., mentions that He is in the

heart of all living creatures in two forms -- AtmA and AntarAtmA, and accepts

the fruits of auspicious deeds -- shubha karmaphala. There is no difference

between the Muula (original) and Avatara (incarnation) rUpa-s or forms of the

Lord. His attributes are not different in essence from Him.

God Regulates Souls At All States

God Regulates Souls At All States

svapnAntaM jagaritantaM, etc., states that He regulates the souls during waking

and deep sleep. yathA cha maraNaM prApya states that bhayadasya agniH

tApati, etc., shows that the Sun, Moon, Wind, Fire, etc., all function under His

direction. UrdhvaM prANaM unnayati, etc., states that He regulates our

breathing. He is resident in our hearts with the dimension of an angushhTha

(thumb) and regulates us always -- past, present and future.

He is called Hamsa as He is free from all defects and is the essence of every

thing. His presence in Mukhya PraaNa is special, for various reasons. He is

present in all men, prak.rti, Sky, antariksha, in the senses and everywhere. He

regulates all these entities in all states.

Metaphor Of Ashwattha Tree, Fire And Spark, Chariot

Metaphor Of Ashwattha Tree, Fire And Spark, Chariot

The beautiful metaphor of the Ashwattha tree is used to show that God is the

foundation of all. The metaphors of the Fire and Sparks, the Wind and its

various manifestations are used to show the Bimba-pratibimba (Object and

Image) relation between God and the souls. This emphasizes the total

dependence of the soul on God, like an image on the object, but does not preach

identity between the two. The metaphor of the Charioteer, Chariot and Horses is

employed to stress the need for regulating the senses.

Devataa Taaratamya, Yoga, And Moral Purity

Devataa Taaratamya, Yoga, And Moral Purity

Devataa Taaratamya or the Hierarchy of gods is explained to bring out the

supremacy (SarvottamAtva) of the Lord. The Yoga methodology of controlling

the breath and the senses is explained. The importance of securing the teaching

from a good teacher is also stressed. The KaThaka also particularly stresses the

need for moral probity for spiritual pursuits in the verse navirato dushcharitAt.h,

etc.

A number of adhikaraNa-s in the Brahma Suutra such as guhAdhikaraNa,

vAmanAdhikaraNa, etc., derive their name and subject matter from

KaThakopanishhad. A number of passages from this Upanishad are referred to

in the Suutra-s. These are shown in the khaNDaartha of Sri Raghavendra Swami

in the respective places.

The main teachings of the KaThakopanishhad may be summed up as follows:

1. A full exposition of the concept of God.

2. God is the regulator of all even after death or Liberation.

3. The distinction between shreyas and preyas.

4. The importance of moral purity, controlling of senses and certain details

of Yoga methodology.

MaaNDuukyopanishhad

This Upanishad is in four sections. In each, there is a portion in prose, followed

by verses which explain and support the points made in prose earlier. Some

verses which are considered part and parcel of the Upanishad by Sri Madhva,

are considered as part of the Gaudapada-karika, in the Advaita tradition. B N K

Sharma has discussed the controversy whether they form part of the Upanishad

in detail in several papers, and has conclusively proved that they are indeed a

part. The main points to be noted in this context are:

1. Sri Ramanuja also quotes some of these verses as Shruti and interprets

them.

2. A number of Advaita commentators such as Anandagiri, Brahmananda,

and Appayya Dixita, etc., also quote these texts as Shruti.

3. Sri Shankara himself quotes these as Shruti elsewhere.

It is clear that these form part of the Upanishad text. Gaudapada must have

considered these as his source texts and put them together as Agama-prakaraNa

at the commencement of his Karika. The very description of these as Agama-

prakaraNa also shows that these were not his compositions, but were verses

revealed to Chaturmukha Brahma (Brahma d.rshhTa). It is noteworthy, that

some of these appear to be supportive of Advaita, and the Dvaita tradition

would not have taken the trouble to elevate them to the impregnable status of

the Shruti and interpret them in a different manner, unless they were indeed a

part of the Upanishad.

Meaning of Omkaara

This Upanishad makes the opening statement that OM means Akshara. Three

important points are mentioned about OM or Akshara. It is guNapUrNa (full of

auspicious attributes), trikAlAtIta (beyond the three modes of time) and Atma or

sarvaniyAmaka (controller of all else). The expressions sarva and brahma

convey guNapUrnatva, and the term akshara conveys trikAlAtItatva. AtmA

conveys sarvaniyAmakatva. The implication of trikAlAtItatva is that it does not

undergo any modification or change at any time (shAshvadekaprakAra).

shrItatva or Lakshmi also has the same characteristic by the grace of God.

ayaM AtmA brahma

This expression in the second passage means that the guNapUrNa Brahman conveyed by Om and AtmA present in all entities who regulates and controls, is one and the same. The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God who is immanent in them. akshara or Brahman conveyed by OM, and AtmA present in all as their inner controller is the same. Thus, God's characteristic of sarvaniyAmakatva is brought out here. The context of giving an exposition of the meaning of Om and the purpose of the statement ayaM AtmA brahma show that the identity of the jiiva and God is not plausible. On the other hand, three important characteristics of God, guNapUrNatva, trikAlAtItatva and sarvaniyAmakatva are conveyed with the minimum of words. The Upanishad also clearly explains the correct interpretation of the words OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all of which denote Brahman by describing Him with His special attributes.

Four Forms Of God (conveyed by the syllables of Omkaara)

After explaining OM as a whole, the Upanishad proceeds to explain the meaning of each syllable constituting Om. These are a, u, ma, and nAda, each of which convey one form of God. a conveys Vishva or Vaishvanara form of God, which regulates the jiiva, being present in his right eye and enables the Jiva to cognize external objects. This form has the face of an elephant at the centre and nine human faces on either side -- nineteen in all. With 4 arms, 2 legs, and one trunk (of the elephant face), he has 7 limbs (saptAN^ga). u conveys the taijasa form, which is present in the neck and controls the dream state. He enables the jiiva to cognize dream objects. This form also has nineteen faces and seven limbs like the Vishva form. ma conveys Praajna form, present in the heart (h.rtkarNika) and regulates deep sleep. This form enables the jiiva to cognize its own svarUpa (essence) , ajnAna (primordial ignorance) , kAla (efflux of time) and sushupti sukha (bliss associated with deep sleep). This form also has 19 faces and seven limbs.

Turiya is not Nirguna Brahman

The fourth form of God, called Turiya Rupa is described in the Upanishad in a sort of a code language. One has to go beyond the literal meaning to grasp the full significance of the terms used with reference to Turiya. This form present in the centre of the head described by the word nantaHpraj~nA, is contrasted with the other three. He does not control waking, dream or deep sleep. He does not

control the cognition of external objects, dream objects, jivaswarUpa, aj˜nAna,

etc. This does not mean that He is neutral or indifferent. He controls the

Liberated. The Unliberated souls in samsAra therefore cannot realize, describe,

grasp, or otherwise deal with Him in any way. He removes mithyAj˜nana or

erroneous knowledge and helps to put an end to the transmigration of the jiiva.

He is called Advaita in this context, as He puts an end to Dvaita

(mithyAj˜nAna). The negative attributes given here have two implications --

1. To contrast Turiya form of the Lord with the other three Vishva, Taijasa

and Praaj˜na.

2. To bring out the distinction between comprehension of the Liberated and

Unliberated.

In view of these facts, the efforts of some commentators to equate Turiya form

with Nirguna Brahman do not appear to be correct.

Theories of Creation

At the end of the first section, different theories of creation are postulated and

the final view is stated. These are:

1. brahma vibhUti -- creation is a modification or manifestation of

Brahman.

2. vivarta -- It is merely a projection of an illusion like a dream or magic.

3. kAla -- Time is the substratum for all creation.

4. sR^iṣhTi -- Creation is the outcome of God's will to create.

The Upanishad rejects the first three views and affirms the last. The Upanishad

also rejects the views that creation by God has the objectives of bhogArtha (for

enjoyment) or krIDArtha (for sport). The Upanishad holds that it is the very

nature of God (svabhAva). God's will to create is because it is His nature to do

so.

jaganmithyatva Is Not the Purport

Two verses of this Upanishad have given rise to much controversy in their

interpretation. This controversy is discussed in several contexts and the

untenability of the Advaita interpretation has been shown in detail. Hence,

without going into details, the correct interpretation will be noted here.

I. prapaJNcho yadi vidyeta This verse is interpreted as follows --

● The erroneous knowledge leading to bondage in the form of attachment to

the body, material wealth, etc. (Called Dvaita here) is not natural to the soul and

independent of God. It can be overcome with the grace of God. God, who

removes it and is understood as such is called Advaita.

The fivefold differences between inert world, souls and God would have been destroyed, if they were created (not natural and eternal). These are not destroyed, but are observed by God, who alone is supreme.

II. vikalpo vinivarteta, etc. This verse is also interpreted as follows --

The attachment to the body, material wealth etc. even were it to be natural, could be removed by instructions by a proper teacher. When one knows the supremacy of God, his erroneous knowledge leading to attachment will be removed.

The fivefold differences would have been withdrawn, were they to be the projections (unreal) of some one else. It is only the ignorant who fail to see Difference. One has to understand the supremacy of God and reality of difference, by receiving proper instructions.

These interpretations will remove the erroneous notion that these two verses state jaganmithyatva. This subject is discussed threadbare in the Vishnu-tattva-vinirNaya and other texts.

The main teachings of the MaaNDuukyopanishad can be summed up as:

1. Exposition of the meaning of Omkaara.

2. Explanation of the four forms of God viz. Visva, Taijasa, Praajna and Turiya.

3. Theories of creation.

The explanation of the nature of Turiya and verses like prapaJNcho yadi vidyeta, etc., offer some interpretational issues.

AtharvaNopanishad

This belongs to Atharvaveda. The central theme of this Upanishad is to give an exposition of Akshara. Before this is given, it also gives an idea of Paravidya and Aparavidya.

parAvidyA And aparAvidyA

The sacred literature consisting of Vedas, Vedaanga, Itihaasa, PuraaNa, etc., known as 14 vidyasthana-s constitute both parAvidyA and aparAvidyA. The classification of Paravidya or otherwise is not a division of texts, but a classification based on view points. When Akshara or God is understood with the help of the same literature, it is called parAvidyA, while when one uses these texts to understand rituals, other deities etc., it is aparAvidyA. Therefore, the

contention of some schools that only Upanishads constitute parAvidyA, while Samhita-s, etc., aparAvidyA is incorrect.

Nature of Akshara

Nature of Akshara

The Akshara has no beginning, no end. It is all-pervasive, subtle. It has no sense organs of Prakrta type and is beyond the senses and the mind. It can never be fully comprehended. It is not subject to any modification, but is the cause of all.

Process And Purpose Of Creation

Process And Purpose Of Creation

The process of creation by Akshara is explained with three beautiful illustrations. An UrNanAbhi (spider) creating its web threads and taking them back, plants growing from earth, and hairs growing on the body are the three examples of creation of all things by Akshara. The illustrations make the the nature of creation very clear. An UrNanAbhi does not convert itself into thread, but functions as an efficient cause for the material taken in by it to be so converted. Similarly, God takes Prakrti into His womb during laya (universal dissolution) and creates mahat.h and other constituents of the world during srshhTi. This illustration clearly rules out both the pariNAma (transformation of God Himself into the world) or vivarta (projection of an unreal world) theories of creation. It is clear that God is described as the Efficient and Prakrti, the material cause of creation. The second example of plants being born out of different seeds on the earth shows that things and beings are born with a variety of natures and different capacities, based on their intrinsic natures and past karmas. The differences cannot be attributed to God, who is thus free of the blemishes of vaishamya (discrimination) and nairgh.rNya (cruelty). The third example of hairs growing out of a body, indicates that for Akshara, creation is spontaneous and without exertion.

The three illustrations thus show that:

1. God is the efficient cause of creation and not its material cause.

2. No discrimination or cruelty can be attributed to God, based on the endless variety in creation.

3. His creation is spontaneous and effortless.

It is noteworthy that not only do none of the examples support pariNAma or vivarta theory. It is also impossible to explain why there are three different examples conveying three different aspects, if the purpose was to convey the single theory of pariNAma or vivarta.

Purpose Of karmaanushhThaana

Purpose Of karmaanushhThaana

Purpose Of karmaanushhThaana

An important question raised in the Upanishad is as to what is the purpose of performance of prescribed rituals and sacrifices. The answer given is that these have to be performed with dedication to God, for purification of mind for acquiring knowledge of God. The final objective of bhagavadj~nAna or God-knowledge is of utmost importance and the other steps as well as knowledge of other deities and rituals find their fulfilment with it. Performance of rituals with this awareness and in total dedication to God will not function as an obstacle to higher knowledge. Performance without such awareness is like trying to cross the sea with a leaking boat. The essential point to note here is that Karmas are to be performed as prescribed with the right perspective and are not to be rejected.

Purpose Of karmaanushhThaana

The Upanishad also explains tatvas.rishhTi, yajnas.rishhTi, etc. In this context, an important point stated here is that there is no difference between God and His s.rishhTikaarya (act of creation), jnaana (universal all encompassing knowledge), bala (strength, capacity), etc. This is especially brought out in the passage purushha eva idaM vishvaM karma, tapo, brahma, etc. The Upanishad thus rejects any difference between God and His attributes. The same doctrine is also stated in the passages ekameva advitiyaM and neha nAnAsti kiJNchana, etc. All these texts state the abheda (non-difference) between God and His Attributes, and not the abheda of Advaita (Identity of God with the souls).

Methodology Of Meditation

Methodology Of Meditation

Methodology Of Meditation

A beautiful simile of the bow and arrow is given to explain the methodology of meditation. Pranava or Omkara is the bow, mind is the arrow and Akshara or Brahman is the aim. The devotee should carefully aim at hitting the target. Akshara controls not only p.rthivii (earth), dyau (heavens), antariksha (space), prANa (life), etc., but also all the nADi-s (control centres) within our body. When He is realized, the bondage due to avidya etc is loosened, and the past deeds (karma) are destroyed. The Supreme being to be realized is at the heart itself, in sUryamaNDala (solar orb), in front and behind, above and below, and everywhere. The parable of the two birds sitting on the same tree is given here. One of them, jiiva or the soul enjoys the fruits of his deeds, while the other only watches without eating any fruits. The jiiva is released from bondage only when he realizes the glory of God. The Upanishad also states emphatically that God cannot be realized by merely studying the scriptures, or by stretching the efforts of one9s intelligence to the utmost. He will be realised only by those who are chosen by Him.

The Liberated Discovers Similarity But Not Identity With God

The Liberated Discovers Similarity But Not Identity With God

Two important statements describing the liberated state in the Upanishad merit special attention. These are:

1. niraJNjanaH paramaM sAmyaM upaiti, and

2. pare avyave sarve ekibhavanti.

The first statement brings out the fact that the liberated soul being free from aj~nAna or avidyAdoshha attains similarity with God in respect of being free from sorrow, enjoying bliss etc. God and the soul are similar to each other as they are Bimba and Pratibimba. This similarity has been eclipsed by avidyA, etc., earlier and is made manifest in the liberated state. This fact brought out in this text leaves no room for jiiva-brahmaikya or identity. The second text states that the liberated souls stand together with God and in tune with His will. In the context of this passage, there is a reference to the deities of 15 Kalas, the deity controlling the Karma and the liberated soul. All these stand in tune with His will. It is therefore incorrect to take this text in isolation and read identity between the liberated soul and Brahman. The illustration of rivers joining the sea, in the next passage indicates attainment of God and not Identity with Him. It is also stated that the liberated soul casts away his prAk.rta form, name, etc., and attains his svarUpabhUta form and name. The reference to parAtpara purushha is a reference to Sarvottama (greater than all) God. Therefore, there is no scope for interpreting any texts in this context as favoring Identity.

The main teachings of the Atharvanopanishad may be summed up as follows:

1. Nature of Akshara.

2. Para and Apara Vidya.

3. Purpose of karmAnushhThaana.

4. Purpose and process of creation (with three illustrations).

5. Status of the liberated soul.

ShhaTprashhNopanishhad

This Upanishad belongs to the Pippalaadashakha of Atharva Veda where six sages ask six questions to Sage Pippalaada. The answers given deal with some aspects of Vedanta which have also been dealt with elsewhere, but clarify and elaborate the points. The questions and answers are given briefly here.

I. Who Creates Living Beings And Nonliving Matter?

Kaatyaayana asks the first question.

Pippalaada elaborates the process of creation as follows:

Prajapati desired to create beings and thought about it. He created at first Rayi

and PraaNa (Bharati and Mukhya PraaNa) as the first couple. He then entered

into them and created the Sun and Moon. The first couple also entered into the

Sun and the Moon, through whom Prajapati created all other things. Tejas

(energy), Ap (water) and Anna (food) are mUrta (having a physical body).

Prakrti, etc., are a-mUrta. Rayi entered mUrta and PraaNa into amUrta. They

activated the utpAdana shakti (ability to cause transformation) and assisted the

process of creation. Rayi and PraaNa are also the presiding deities of

dakshiNAyana (Southern solstice) and uttarAyana (Northern solstice),

k.rshhNapaksha (fortnight ending in new moon day) and shukla paksha. (ending

in full moon day), etc., and assist the process of creation. Finally Rayi in the

wife and PraaNa in the husband also assist procreation.

Prajapati, the Supreme God, is the Creator of all at all stages. Rayi and PraaNa

assist Him at all stages for creating deities and other sentient beings, non-living

matter or entities, both mUrta and amUrta, the time spans of dakshiNAyana,

uttarAyana, etc. Prajapati’s role of creation extends from the first divine couple

of Rayi and PraaNa, to the normal wife and husband, and to all parents. Thus

Prajapati, the Supreme God is the Creator of all.

II. Who Is Superior Among The Deities?

Bhargava asks the next question: Which deities take care of the created beings

and enable them to understand things? Who is the leader of the deities?

Pippalaada answers that tattvaabhimAni deities of AkAsha, vAyu, etc., take care

of the respective things. Mukhya PraaNa is the leader of them all and is superior

among them. He quotes an episode to illustrate this. Once, the tatvAbhimAni

deities thought that they could manage their respective roles in a living body,

without the presence and leadership of Mukhya PraaNa. To show them the error

of their thinking, Mukhya PraaNa started moving out of the body. Immediately

they were all forced to move out and were no longer able to take care of the

respective functions of the body. They realised that Mukhya PraaNa was

superior and controlled them also. They also saw that when Mukhya PraaNa

returned to the body, they were able to perform their functions as before. The

deities then praised Mukhya PraaNa by describing him as one who enables

everyone else such as Indra, Surya, Agni, etc., to play their respective roles in

controlling the various parts of the body. The senses such as the eye, ear, etc.,

and their abhimAni deities (controlling deities) function only under the direction

of Mukhya PraaNa, who controls life itself. He is the leader of all the other

deities and is superior to them. How ever, Mukhya PraaNa also functions under the control of the Supreme Being, Vishnu.

In answer to the first question, Pippalaada had said that Prajapati creates through Rayi and Mukhya PraaNa, and now in answer to the second question, he is explaining that through Mukhya PraaNa and the tatvAbhimAni deities under his control, Prajapati takes care of all created things and gives them understanding. All these are under the absolute control of Prajapati, the Supreme being.

III.

Who Created Mukhya PraaNa And How Does Mukhya PraaNa Function?

Ashvalaayana asks the third question: Who created Mukhya PraaNa? How does the latter enter the body and take five forms? How does he come out of the body?

Pippalaada answers that the Supreme God creates Mukhya PraaNa. The latter has five forms -- PraaNa, Apaanaa, etc. These forms are of two kinds: The first set are the very forms of Mukhya PraaNa himself, and another set of five -- those who have arisen from these forms. These forms are located in different parts of the body and perform their respective functions. There are one hundred and one chief naaDi-s in the body, all of which have further branches and subbranches. The grand total of all these comes to 72,000. Vyaana functions through these naaDi-s. Mukhya PraaNa takes the soul away at the time of death, in his Udaana form. Thus Mukhya PraaNa plays very vital roles in the functioning of the body. However, he does so under the control of Vishnu.

IV.

Whow Regulates Dream And Deep Sleep?

Gaargya asks the fourth question: When the soul is asleep, which of the senses and their presiding deities are withdrawn? Who shows dreams to the soul? How does the soul get happiness in deep sleep?

Pippalaada answers that during the dream state, the ten senses such as the eye, ear, etc., are withdrawn and their presiding deities also withdraw to the Taijasa form of the Supreme Being. The faculty of manas (mind) is not withdrawn. However, during deep sleep, this faculty is also withdrawn. The presiding deities of all ten senses and the mind are withdrawn to the Praajna form of the Lord, during deep sleep. Both during dreams and deep sleep, the five PraaNa-s are active and are not withdrawn. Dreams are shown by God. The soul experiences happiness during deep sleep, as he is close to the Supreme Being at that time. The most important point to be noted is that all the senses and their objects, their controlling deities and even Mukhya PraaNa are always under the control of God and function because of Him. The Supreme Being endows them

with their respective capacities and all are eternally dependent on Him. He is Akshara. Those who know Him as such reach Him. The texts -- sarvaM pare Atman.h sampratishhTate and sarvameva avisheshha have to be understood in this light.

V.

With Which Hymn Should One Meditate Upon God?

Satyakaama asks the fifth question: With which hymn should one meditate upon God and what is its effect?

Pippalaada answers -- One should meditate upon the Supreme Being with Omkaara, which conveys God. He further elaborates as to how the meditation of each syllable of Omkaara leads to special appropriate results.

VI.

Who Is ShhoDashhakalA Purushha?

Bharadwaja asks the sixth question: Who is the Purushha (Person) with shhodashhakalA (16 attributes) and what are these?

Pippalada answers that the Supreme God Himself is that Purushha. The abhimAni devata-s such as PraaNa, ShraddhA, etc. (who are the controlling dieities), are the sixteen kalA-s. These are different from the 16 Kalas which constitute the linga shariira of the soul, which are created by God to enable the soul to get God-knowledge. After Liberation, the abhimAni devatA-s of these kalA-s attain God -- God is called shhoDashhakahalA Purushha for this reason.

Through the six questions and answers, this Upanishad brings out the importance of Mukhya PraaNa, Omkaara and ShhoDashhakalA Purushha.

Taittiriiyopanishhad

The Taittiriiyopanishad belongs to Krishna (Black) Yajur Veda and forms the 7th - 9th chapters of the Taittiriiya Aranyaka. The Narayana Upanishad is the 10th chapter of this Aranyaka.

This Upanishad is arranged in three VaLLi-s or sections. The second and third sections discuss Brahnavidya, while the first one discusses certain preliminary matters which are required to assist the study of Brahnavidya.

The shAntimantra of this Upanishad is quite interesting. It makes a specific reference to Vaayu by namaste vAyo and describes him as pratyaksha (visible)

Brahman. These references bring out that the Supreme Being is specially present in Vaayu, who is also called Brahman here to show that he possesses much higher knowldege as compared to the rest of the deities. He is also the abhimAnidevatA of the five Samhita-s mentioned.

varNa, svara, etc., Convey God

In the first section, matters connected with shikshA or Vedic phonetics such as varNa, svara, etc., are mentioned at first. This reference is not merely from the point of view of grammar, but more significantly for their spiritual significance. These convey God, as they are the names of God, who is specially present in them. The Upanishad next proceeds to describe five samhita-s in respect of five adhikaraNa-s viz., adhiloka, adhijyotishha, etc. Here again it is not mere enumeration of loka-s, different aspects of jyoti-s etc., but to provide an exposition of the presence of five forms of God -- Naarayana, Vaasudeva, SaMkarshaNa, etc. Even the mere enumeration of adhiloka, adhijyotishha, etc., given here makes a fascinating presentation of the cosmos, the realization of the vyUha forms of the Lord in these making it a rich presentation.

The prayer yachchhandAsaM..., etc., for the necessary intellectual ability to acquire spiritual knowledge, to get appropriate disciples, to use the tongue, ear, etc., for the recitation and listening of the glory of God, etc., is a beautiful prayer, which comes after the samhita-s. Let my tongue be sweet, let my ears listen to great things, let my knowledge be protected from evil, etc., are the points in this prayer that specially merit attention. Appeal to God to secure good students with good conduct, temper, intelligence and coming from many gotra-s (lineages) is very touching. A good teacher prays: like water flowing naturally, let students flow towards me; like months rolling on over the years, let the students roll over to me. The teacher wants to establish a good reputation by teaching such good students.

Significance Of vyAhR^iti-s And Omkaara

Next there is an exposition of vyAhR^iti-s -- bhUH, bhuvaH, svaH, and mahaH. The vyUha forms of God -- Aniruddha, Pradyumna, etc., present in them are explained. Omkaara conveys God, while the vyAhR^iti-s further explain His forms. The Gayatri mantra is an exposition of the vyAhR^iti-s and the Purushha Suukta explains the Gayatri. Thus from Omkaara, the entire sacred lore is elaborated stage by stage right up to the three Vedas, to teach about God. The important role of vyAhR^iti-s in explaining God through their meanings conveying the vyUha forms of the Supreme Being is brought out here. The significance of Omkaara conveying guNapUrNabrahmA (Brahman with countless auspicious attributes) is especially brought out in the passage -- OM iti brahma. It is also stated that OM conveys not only the mUlarUpa (Original

Form), but also all the incarnated forms of the Supreme Being -- OM iti idaM sarvam.h. In this manner, the Upanishad not only shows that Omkaara conveys the Supreme Being in all His forms, but also describes Him in all His forms as guNapUrNa. This interpretation of the Upanishad suits the context perfectly, as the Upanishad is giving an exposition of the various forms of God in vyAhR^iti-s, etc. Identity between God and the soul cannot be deduced here, as the description of such a guNapUrNa God clearly highlights the difference with the soul. The prayers for obtaining good students, etc., also support the same viewpoint.

The Upanishad also brings out the importance of R^ita, satya, dama, shama, etc., which are essential ingredients for acquiring sacred knowldege. svAdhyAya (self-study) and pravachana (discourse) are specially stressed here.

Instructions To Students

The most instructive part of the first VaLLi of the Taittiriiya is the section which gives instructions to students who have completed their education. These commencing with satyaM vada, dharmaM chara..., etc., contain valuable guidelines, which are relevant even today. The first and foremost thing in life is to be honest, which has to be translated in good conduct. Prosperity in both worldly and otherworldly affairs have to be kept in mind. Teaching and study should be continued. Parents, Teachers and Guests have to be attended upon appropriately. Charity commensurate to one's wealth must be practiced with conviction, and with a sense of social involvement and an enlightened attitude to life. In case of doubts with respect to any specific action or a code of conduct, one has to seek guidance from the learned and the wise. Elders should be followed only when they are themselves in the right. These instructions are commands to be followed invariably. Such is the essence of teaching of the Vedas. These instructions have an universal application and are valid today. They are also applicable to all societies. The first section closes with these injunctions.

Definition Of Brahman

The second section known as BrahmavaLLi defines Brahman in the famous passage -- satyaM jnAnaM anantaM brahma. Each expression, satyaM, etc., brings out an important characteristic of Brahman. In fact more than one definition is implied by each of these expressions. satyaM implies creation, sustenance, regulation, and destruction (sR^ishhTi, jagajjivanapradAtva, jagachcheshhTakatva and saMhartR^itva). jnAnaM means God's knowledge

of all in a general way as well as in detail. ananta conveys the limitless nature

of God with respect to space, time and attributes. Thus the entire concept of

Brahman is presented in this brief text.

In the text -- AtmanaH AkAshaH sambhUtaH, etc., the process of Creation is

explained. An important point that is worth noting is that God not only initiates

Creation, but intervenes at every step. He Creates the first step, enters into it,

Creates the next, and so on. Therefore, the expressions AkAsha (space), vAyu

(gas), etc., not only refer to these elements, but also to the immanent Brahman,

who really does Creation. From AkAsha to Purushha, the whole process is due

to His Creative activity.

annamaya, etc., Five Forms Of God

The five koshha-s (physical sheaths), viz., annamaya, prANamaya, etc.,

described here are intended to bring out the implications of the definition of

Brahman given in the earlier text satyaMj~nAnaM.... They do not merely refer

to the koshha-s (shells), but convey the Brahman immanent in them. It is not

correct to conclude that only Anandamaya (Full of Bliss) conveys Brahman, but

all the five, as fully explained in the Anandamaya adhikarana of the Brahma

Suutra. It is also incorrect to take Anandamaya also as a koshha and to take

brahma puchchha only as Brahman. The Upanishad is giving an exposition of

the concept of Brahman and explaining its own brief definition given in the

earlier text -- satyaMj~nAnaM.... To conclude that it is subsequently content to

explain merely the four or five koshha-s of the souls is not coherent. Giving up

the concept that Brahman is Anandamaya, by including that also as a koshha

and describing Brahman by the expression brahmapuchchha is even less

acceptable. It is clear therfore that the whole approach has to be different and

pertinent to the context indicated by the text satyaM.... This is done by

explaining the five forms of Brahman annamaya, prANamaya, etc., as

immanent forms present in the five koshha-s. Thus all these forms mean

Brahman only. There is also no difficulty in interpreting brahmapuchchha,

when Anandamaya is also taken as referring to Brahman, as there is no

difference between avayava and avayavi (Part and the Whole) in Brahman.

Another point to be noted here is that the expression yato vAcho nivartante...

does not mean that Brahman is totally beyond words. It only states that

Brahman being Infinite can not be completely comprehended or explained.

Bhrigu Discovers God

The third VaLLi called BhriguvaLLi describes eight forms of God -- five

already stated -- annamaya, etc., and three more chakshurmaya, shrotrumaya

and vAgmaya. Bhrigu approaches Varuna for instructions and Varuna guides

him to discover Brahman step by step. Bhrigu undertakes penance at each step

as per instructions and realises the eight forms of God at each step. Certain

upAsana-s (methods of worship) such as kshem, yogakshema, etc., and tR^ipti,

bala, yashas, etc., are also explained. The manner in which chaturmukha-

Brahm realizes these eight koshha-s: annamaya, etc., attains Liberation, and

enjoys the Liberated state are described.

The passage -- satyaMj~nAnaM anantaM that gives the definition of Brahman,

the five forms of Brahman -- annamaya, prANamaya..., etc., and the exposition

of the process of Creation are the important topics of Taittiriiya, the very first

two adhikaraNa-s, and AnandamayAdhikaraNa of the Brahma Suutra derive

their subject matter from the Taittiriiya. This Upanishad thus makes very

important contributions to Vedanta philosophy.

From the above brief summary of the seven Upanishads, it is clear that

Delineation of the Supreme God is the central theme for all of them. The seeker

is advised to follow certain upAsana-s, develop bhakti (devotion), vairAgya

(detachment), etc., undertake shravaNa (listening), manana (assimilation), etc.,

and attain Liberation with the grace of God. Upanishads are not merely

documents of speculation for intellectuals, but are fully Theistic texts

developing the concept of a Supreme God. They also provide knowledge and

Vision of God to the seeker.

The Doctrine of the Upanishads

by Swami Krishnananda

Human life is a composite continuum of varying phases of consciousness, of

different processes of thought. It comprises a few links in the long chain of

development, a few rungs in the lofty ladder of evolution. It is a series of

conditions, becomings, events, which ever stretch beyond themselves and point

to something remote, something wider and yet unattained. Life is, therefore, an

ever-increasing organisation of consciousness, never resting in itself, never

satisfied, but always hoping to be completed in a state of existence which is

dimly foreshadowed in the present experience of the individual. Every condition

of experience appears to be real and complete when it takes the role of being the

one immediately above that which is directly being experienced in

consciousness. It reveals its unsatisfactory character when it becomes the

content of immediate experience. Unachieved ends seem to promise fulfilment

and perfection, but they become pointers to another unachieved state when they

are actually experienced. This shows that life is only a step, a stage, means, and

not the final goal, destination or end of endeavour. Every lower stage of life

appears to be unreal in a higher stage, though no stage is unreal from the point

of view of its own temporary existence. Though all stages are real in a sense,

they have differing values, and so we are to admit degrees in reality. The higher includes and transcends the lower; the higher is the fulfilment of the lower, and the sense of satisfaction is more in the higher than in the lower. The aim of life is to experience in immediate consciousness the highest state of reality, i.e., the Ultimate Reality, where all aspirations find their consummation and the supreme purpose of life reaches its realisation.

Philosophy starts with the recognition of the inadequacy of the present state of life. It is the outcome of the discovery that something beyond human life does exist. Dissatisfaction with what is presented to the empirical consciousness is the source of all speculation and spiritual effort. The method adopted in realising the Supreme Being is dependent on the conception of it which one has. The conception of reality is a form of the mental consciousness objectified as the complement of the subjective need or the extent to which incompleteness is felt in the depths of the individual. Thus, conceptions of the nature of reality are bound to differ from one another, as different persons feel dissatisfaction in varying intensities. We have, therefore, to consider the views which directly influence the methods of approach to reality.

Existence and Value

The problem of reality has direct bearing on that of existence and value. Existence is what is independent of everything else, different from relations of every kind. Value is the nature of existence as it is related to a perceiving subject; it is the manner in which an external existence becomes a content of an internal consciousness. An object as cognised or perceived is, therefore, a value, and not an existence as such. But the true nature of the object, without being related to a cogniser, is its existence. The problem of perception involves the determination of the nature of existence and value. For, on this depends the worth of perceptive knowledge. What do we really perceive? Is it only an illusion, an error, or is it a fact in itself? Do we grasp phantoms in sense-perception or do we have real and genuine grasp of anything truly existent? The investigation of this phenomenon of the relation between existence and value, truth and error, leads one to various kinds of metaphysical and epistemological speculations. The Upanishads synthesise all empirical views of reality, dive deep into the facts of experience and proclaim what is most authoritative, direct and in harmony with the various phenomena of the universe. To understand the exact value of the philosophical position of the declarations of the Upanishads, we may proceed from the first views of things held by those who depend on what is given on the surface of human experience.

Naive Realism

There is a theory which is generally termed naive realism. According to it, what

is perceived through the senses is the true nature of the object thus perceived.

The datum of experience is identical with the reality that is presented to the

perceiving consciousness in the form of the external object. There is no

difference between object as perceived and object as it is in itself. The universe

of objective perception is really in the very form in which it is experienced

through the senses. The universe is material in nature, diverse in form and even

mind which is the perceiver is a kind of modification of cosmic matter. This is,

in other words, the materialistic view of reality. The great defect of this view is

that it cannot account for the fact of error in perception. What is meant by

erroneous knowledge? What is wrong perception? Why is it that sometimes we

are unable to know things as they are, but are made to take a phantom as the

given in experience? How can the perception of water in a mirage be explained,

if what is experienced through the senses is the same as what is in fact

externally in the world? The theory that reality is material and is as it is

experienced individually is untenable for various reasons. That which is really

material cannot be assimilated into one's consciousness, and what is thus not

assimilated cannot be known by the consciousness on account of there being a

gulf between the experiencer and the experienced.

If mind and consciousness are products of matter, they must be inherent in

matter. What is not in the cause in some form or the other cannot be produced

as the effect. If the cause is matter, the effect also would be matter. If mind and

consciousness are facts of experience, and if they are said to be effects, they

must have a conscious cause, too. How can something arise from nothing? The

attempt to merge the entire individual experiencer in a material universe is

bound to end in failure. Epistemologically and metaphysically the theory of

naive realism is found to be unsatisfactory on account of its inability to explain

facts of consciousness and experience of matter by consciousness.

What is the relation between the experienced object and the experiencing

consciousness? Taking for granted that the object is material and is different

from consciousness, we would be obliged to fall into a chasm of the unceasing

difference between the given in experience and the experiencer. What is it that

exists between the experiencer and the experienced? According to crude

realism, it can be neither matter nor consciousness. For, if the relation is

material, it would be indistinguishable from the object; if it is conscious, it

cannot be separated from the subjective experiencer. If it is neither, the relation

remains unexplained, unless a purely arbitrary and unwarranted neutral stuff is

brought forward as the explanation thereof. If the subject and the object are

totally different from one another, there cannot be knowledge. Nor can it be said

that the subject and the object are of identical nature, and this nature is material,

for materiality being not the same as consciousness, there cannot be

apprehension of anything on the supposition that the experiencer is material in

nature. Matter is unconscious and it cannot know anything.

Naive Idealism

There is another of reality which goes by the name of naive idealism. It is the

view that what is experienced is the same as the real, and that this real is

identical with the idea of the individual subject. This is equal to merging the

whole cosmos in the idea or the consciousness of the individual. All the

substance of the earth and the heavens is my idea; you all are contained in my

conception or notion. There is no cosmos independent of the subjective idea.

The world is the projection of the experiencing subject.

This view is quite good as far as it is confined to the private reactions which the

subject manifests towards the objects of the universe in consonance with the

interests which the subject cherishes on account of the presence of various kinds

of desires and impressions imbedded in itself. But when this theory is taken to

be metaphysical one, i.e., a theory of reality, it falls to the ground. It cannot be

said that an individual can perceive external objects even if there is nothing at

all outside in the form of some degree of reality. There cannot even be an

appearance of externality if there is no support for this appearance. Appearance

presupposes reality. Further, it is not true that the individual experiencer has full

control over what is experienced outside as the universe. Experience shows that

the individual is bereft of knowledge of and power over the vast universe and

that the other individuals of the universe are not in any way inferior to their

experiencer as far as their status as existence is concerned. All exist in the same

degree of reality in a particular plane of existence; otherwise, there cannot be

subject-object-relationship. If the subject is more real than the object, there

cannot be interaction between the two, and there cannot be knowledge. This

proves that the external universe is not subservient to the ideas of the subject. It

has an independent reality which no individual can deny. The knower and the

known are in the same status, on a parallel basis. There is no difference in

degree of truth between the experiencer and the experienced. The theory of

naive idealism, or subjective idealism, is not tenable.

Critical Realism

The theory of critical realism is that the percept of the individual is neutral and

the real object presented in experience is different from the percept. The datum

in experience through the senses is different in quality and reality from the true

object which is in the external universe. There is thus a dualism between the

actual percept of the senses and the reality behind the sense-experience. There is what is called the universe of the subject and the universe independent of experience by the individual. Reality is not known through sense-experience.

What is known is private to the individuals and what is there in fact in the universe is quite a different thing. Reality, therefore, cannot be known through means possessed by the individual. We are given an epistemological trinity and a metaphysical indeterminism. There are some who take this real as material in nature. That the metaphysical reality cannot be matter has already been shown.

Objective Idealism

Objective Idealism

Objective idealism is an epistemological dualism, and it differs from critical realism in holding that the true object of experience is a Cosmic Mind or Universal Thought. This Universal Mind is independent of individual minds. Empirical perception is the form taken by subjective consciousness, but the reality behind this perception is the Universal Mind. The nature of the Universal Mind cannot be known through individual perception. Reality is different from appearance. It is necessary that the individual should expand its consciousness to universality in order that it may be enabled to experience Reality.

God, the Universe and the Individual

God, the Universe and the Individual

These considerations lead us to the problem of the relation of God, the universe and the individual. It must be remembered at the outset that all processes of reasoning proceed from experience-experience of the individual self. 'I am'-this experience does not require any other proof outside itself. It is self-evident. All proofs are the results of and developments from this indubitable fact. The consciousness of my existence as an individual at once brings into my notion the existence of other individuals in an external universe. 'I am' means 'you also are', i.e., 'the world also is'. The being of the world is the correlative of the existence of my individuality. There cannot be a subject without an object of experience. The world is the necessary implication of the individual.

But the position, as it is known to us, of the individual and the world does not explain all matters that arise out of this position. Thinking beings, capable of reflection, become eager to know the relation between the world and the individual. What is the cause of this world? How am I connected with the other things of the world? What is my duty here? Questions of this kind crop up in the minds of several persons. And these questions cannot be answered by anything that is the content of sense-experience. But the need for a solution of the difficulties that arise out of the appearance of the world and the individual is stringent. The solution can be arrived at by higher synthesis brought about through the deeper consciousness implied in ordinary experience, the

consciousness which becomes the direct experiencer in such higher

contemplations. The link between the world and the individual should be either

of the nature of the object or of the subject. The objective universe is seen to be

material, and if this is taken to be the nature of the relation between the world

and the individual, it would be another name for another part of the universe. In

other words, there would be no such thing as relation. And, at the same time, the

zeal with which one identifies the universe with the experiencing consciousness

should not lead one to subjective idealism; for the defects of this view have

been pointed out. Somehow, we are made to feel that this relation should be

conscious, and yet it cannot be identical with the subjective consciousness. The

relation between two things cannot be any of these two things. It must be a third

thing. Otherwise there would be no perception of difference. Difference is a

third category, and there cannot be knowledge of this difference without an

underlying unity between the knower and the known. Absolutely unrelated

things cannot become correlatives of each other. The higher synthesis which is

in consciousness should therefore be transcending the empirical distinction

between the subject and the object. The world and the individual should be

included in this higher consciousness, and yet, none of these should lose their

intrinsic worth in it. If we are able to establish this universal conscious relation

between the world and the individual, we have established the existence of God.

God is the necessary postulate which alone can explain the true nature of the

various phenomena of the universe. The order, the system, the regularity and

harmony of the universe cannot find an adequate explanation without the

admission of this all-comprehending Being, which we term God. It does not

matter by what name we refer to it, but it has to be admitted in order that we

may be consistent in our explanation of the consistency that is in the universe.

Our deepest reality is an irrefutable consciousness, and it asserts itself in every

one of our endeavours to give an account of experience, subjective or objective.

Without consciousness, there can neither be a universe nor an individual.

Nothing can be, if consciousness is not to be. All value and existence come to a

nought when consciousness is abolished from the field of experience. Supreme

Intelligence or Consciousness has to be equated with the Sovereign of the

Universe-God.

The Essence of Upanishads

By Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

Of the 120 or so Upanishads which are extant, about twelve are considered to be

major Upanishads. Almost every religious teacher has commented on most of

these major Upanishads. They are all discourses and dialogues on spiritual

experiences and pursuits. Long or short, in prose or poetry, they are expositions

and theses on fundamental questions transcending the phenomenal realities of

day-to-day life.

However, the one under-current of everything in the Upanishads would seem to

be the concept of one Godhead, amidst the plethora of names and forms that

confront us in nature as well as in the mental universe in each one of us. The

word 'Brahman' is used by the Upanishads to refer to this absolute Reality. It

pervades everything animate and inanimate. It is the One and only One

intangible power behind all tangible forces. It is the vast boundless ocean of

which everything that is experienced is only a wave. Everything that is

perceptible to the senses, including the feeling of I-ness of each human being is

only a fragment of that wave. We are implored by the Upanishads in all

earnestness to delve beneath the names and forms of the outside world and seek

the peaceful Infinite within. Agitation and perturbation are only on the surface

of this Ocean of Bliss.

It is certainly elementary to say that God is everywhere. To children we narrate

the story of Prahlada from the Bhagavatam on the manifestation of the

Almighty God as Nara-Simha (= man-lion-combination) in a pillar. We think

that this convinces the child (and us!) that God is everywhere. But to a spiritual

seeker the Upanishads declare that more is true. God is not only everywhere,

but in addition, there is nothing but God everywhere. This implication of the

Upanishadic teaching is missed by all but the true Seer. To say that there is

nothing but God, means we must be able to see God, Godliness and Godhead in

everything that we see. When a wooden replica of, say, a horse, is seen the child

sees only the horse, but the experienced adult should be able to see the wood

'behind' the horse, inspite of the horse that stares us in the face. The Seer, says

the Upanishads, sees only the Self (=Atman, which is the immanent Reality in

everything). For him, the plurality of the universe is only an outward

appearance, like the waves in the ocean. This sama-dṚṢTi (= equanimous

vision) is the goal of all teaching in the Upanishads. To bring home this point

the rishis of the Upanishads get into elaborate dialectical arguments,

competitive discourses, provocative dialogues, revealing reminiscences of

spiritual experiences, descriptions of tentative conclusions after initial

experimentations, numerous questions and varied answers to each of them,

meditative searches after truth, joyous declarations of the Ultimate Wisdom and

last of all, very involved comparisons and analogies some of them very

complicated and involved as to defy our understanding and some of them as

elementary as may verge on the naïve. All this constitutes the ICEBERG we

referred to in

However much we may write about it we shall still be floating only on the TIP!

It is the experience that is the Iceberg!

The Seers of the Upanishads employ several techniques to give us the message.

In the 7th chapter of the Chandogya Upanishad the divine sage Narada goes to

Sanatkumara, one of the four most enlightened sons of Brahma the Creator,

born out of His will, and asks for spiritual enlightenment. Sanatkumara bids

Narada to tell him what he knows already. The latter gives a long list of the

names of all the arts and sciences that he has learnt. Starting from the four

vedas, then the vedAngas, the various SAstras, Narada in one breath lists all of

them and concludes by saying that inspite of all this knowledge he has not learnt

about the Ultimate Truth.

All this is only a name, says Sanatkumara. 'Meditate on the name; he who

meditates on Name as brahman becomes independent. 'Is there anything greater

than Name?' asks Narada. Yes, there is Speech and Sanatkumara elaborates on

Speech as the Ultimate. Is there anything greater than Speech? Yes, there is

Mind. Then there is Will, then Thought, then Contemplation, then

Understanding, Strength, Food, Water, Heat, Space, Memory, Hope, Prana the

Life-principle. Thus Narada is led on step by step to subtler and subtler

principles. Narada does not ask whether there is anything greater than prANa

the life-principle. But Sanatkumara leads him on to further to satya (Truth), then

vijnAna (Knowledge with Experience), SraddhA (Faith), Steadfastness,

Activity, Happiness and then to the Infinite. Says Sanatkumara: What is Infinite

is happy. There is no happiness in the Finite. And then comes a most profound

declaration from Sanatkumara: Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else,

is aware of nothing else, that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else,

hears something else, is aware of something else, that is the Finite. The Infinite

is immortal while the Finite is mortal. (Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1). In other

words, the Ultimate is non-dual. Any presence or awareness of duality makes

the awareness finite. The Infinite (bhUmA) is the fullest expression and

manifestation of the Absolute Reality. That is everywhere. That is above, that is

below, that is in front of you, behind you. That is Atman, the immanent Reality.

That is brahman, the Transcendent Reality. What you see before you physically,

is not brahman, but what makes you see is brahman. (Kenopanaishad 1 - 4) It

cannot be heard by your ears, because it is what makes you hear. It cannot be

thought of as an object of thought by your mind, but it is what makes your mind

think. Such profound descriptions abound everywhere in the Upanishads.

The Upanishad known as bRhad-AraNyaka is in fact the largest Upanishad. Its

third chapter describes a seminar-like discussion in the assembly of the great

Janaka, wherein Yajnavalkya comes out the victor. Arrayed against him are

stalwarts like Uddalaka, Aswala, Arthabaga, Ushastha and many more. The

occasion itself constitutes an interesting anecdote. King Janaka had invited all

these brahma-vAdins (speakers and researchers about the Absolute) for a yajna,

provokes them into a discussion by announcing that he has earmarked one

thousand cows, each with a bag of ten gold coins and all these constitute the prize for the one among them who is ‘anUcAnatamaH’ (meaning, the most erudite in vedas and vedAngas. The entire assembly is stunned at this announcement, stupefied by the challenge of the occasion and the seriousness it demanded and kept silent. But after a little period of silence, Yajnavalkya rises up and with his assistant makes preparations to take possession of the cows. Then it is that the assembled scholars begin to challenge him one by one. Each one asks him a few questions about the subtleties of the Knowledge about the Absolute. Yajnavalkya shoots forth his answers without any hesitation or confusion and with such clarity that they withdraw their challenge and sit down. Finally one lady, Vacaknavi Gargi, announces that she is going to ask just two questions of Yajnavalkya and if he answers them well, there should be no more doubt about who carries the day.

‘That of which they say it is above the heaven and below the earth, which is between heaven and earth as well, and which was, is and shall be - tell me, Yajnavalkya, in what it is woven, warp and woof?’

In space (=AkASa), replies Yajnavalkya. ‘And in what, is this AkaSa woven, warp and woof?’ shoots back Vacaknavi Gargi. The answer (bRhad-AraNyaka-Upanishad 3.8.8) of Yajnavalkya to this profound question is one of the most famous passages in all of Upanishadic literature and should be engraved in letters of gold at all spiritual centres of the world:

‘The Seers, O Gargi, call Him akshara, the Imperishable Reality. He is neither gross nor fine, neither short nor long, neither hot nor cold, neither light nor dark, neither of the nature of air, nor of space. He is without relations, without taste or smell, without eyes, ears, speech, mind, vigour, breath, mouth; he is without measure, without inside or outside. He experiences nothing and nothing experiences him.’

In another context in the same Upanishad, the same Yajnavalkya explains all this to his wife Maitreyi more elaborately. The conversation (bRhad-AraNyaka-Upanishad 1.2.4) is on the non-duality of the Atman :

It is - as from a lighted fire, kindled with damp fuel, various clouds of smoke arise, even so, my dear, from this Great Being have issued forth what we have as Rg Veda, yajur-veda, sAma-veda, AtharvAngirasa, history, legends, arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, glosses and commentaries. From Him indeed are all these breathed forth.

It is - as of all waters the ocean is the centre , as of all kinds of touch the skin is the centre, as of all smells the nose is the centre, as of all tastes the tongue is the centre, as of all sounds the ear is the centre, as of all intentions the mind is the

centre, as of all arts the heart is the centre, as of all actions the hands are the

centre, as of all movements the feet are the centre, as of all the vedas the speech

is the centre.

It is - as a lump of salt thrown into water becomes dissolved into water and

could not be seized again, but wherever one takes the water one tastes salt, even

so, my dear, this great Being, infinite and boundless, is only a mass of

consciousness. It emerges from these elements and vanishes again with them.

When it is gone, there is no more (individual) consciousness. This is what I say,

my dear. Thus spoke Yajnavalkya.

Then Maitreyi said: 'Here you have bewildered me, Sir, by saying that when he

is gone there is no more consciousness'.

Yajnavalkya replied, 'Surely, I am not saying anything bewildering. It is

wisdom enough, my dear. For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells

another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks

of another, one understands another. But when everything has become the Self,

then by what and whom should one hear, by what and to whom should one

speak, by what and of whom should one think, and by what and whom should

one understand? By what should one know that by which all this is known? By

what, my dear, should one know the knower?'

How then, does one realise that? Yes, the comprehension is certainly difficult.

But by internal self-discipline one can reach that state of self-realisation in this

very life itself, assures Lord Yama, the God of Death, in the Katha-upanishad,

in his very lucid presentation to young Naciketas.

Naciketas as a boy is watching his father give away all his wealth and

possessions and out of sheer curiosity asks: To whom, dear father, are you

going to give me? Irritated by repetitions of the same question from the boy, the

father, in a bad mood, replies, 'To Yama, the God of Death'! The boy

accordingly goes to the world of Yama, waits for three days before he gets to

see the Lord and in return for his waiting patiently is given three boons of his

choice. By the first the boy asks for the appeasement of his father's anger on his

return to Earth; by the second he seeks to know about the ritual sacrifices that

Yama performed to attain the status of the God of Death. Both are easily

granted. By his third request the young boy clean bowls the Lord of Death, for

he seeks to know about the secret of after-life, i.e. the secret of life after death.

Yama is embarassed and tries to dissuade the boy, by offering him, instead, all

the riches and sensual pleasures of the Earth. But the boy refuses and steadfastly

asks only for the Ultimate Wisdom. It is then that Yama elaborates the science

of brahma-vidyA (the knowledge about brahman). The ensuing chapters of

Kathopanishad constitute the most poetical, at the same time most lucid presentation of the knowledge of brahman-cum-Atman, the summum bonum of all the Upanishads.

What does all this mean to the layman of the modern world?

It is this. Every religion says that man should behave in a noble way with compassion, love and sympathy and should spread happiness everywhere. The Upanishads add a punch line to this and say: Man should behave in a divine way because his essential nature is divine. The animal instincts that he usually exhibits are the ones acquired by him through his thoughts and deeds in his several lives. But if he is himself, he can conquer these lower tendencies in him and bring out his natural divine instinct in him which will prompt him to love to be happy and to revel in that Inner Glory of the inherent Divinity in Him.

Therefore, say the Upanishads: Don’t seek happiness from outside. Be yourself, turn to the Atman, see the same Atman in every other self. And that way see the same positives and not the negatives of every other self. If only we set our mind to do this the Lord will help us; because, the Lord resides in us. He is not an absentee landlord; He is working with us all the time. This is the fundamental guideline of the Upanishads for practical living.

It is necessary here to record the flexibility and frankness exhibited by the Upanishadic seers. The knowledge of brahman-Atman elucidated in these ancient texts is of course a declaration of the great sages who ‘saw it all’. But they never say it as a dogma. Nor are we supposed to receive them as dogmatic assertions. The beauty of their teaching is that they ask you to enquire within yourself and arrive at your own conclusions, step by step, checking with the Upanishadic revelations at each step. To help you in this search after truth they give you their intermediate conclusions also. The final conclusion, according to them, is a realisable truth, which forms therefore an axiom - a single axiom from which the entire science of vedanta and metaphysics is built up by accepted forms of logic. This single axiom is enunciated in four different ways in the vedas. These are the four Grand Pronouncements ( = mahA-vAkyas):

• praJAnaM Brahma - Rgveda, aitareyopanishad, 5.3

• aham Brahma asmi - yajurveda, bRhadAraNyaka Upanishad, 1.4.10

• tat tvam asi – sAmaveda, cAndogya Upanishad, 6.9.4

• ayam AtmA Brahma - atharva veda, mANDukya Upanishad,

meaning, respectively

• Absolute Consciousness is brahman;

• I am brahman;

• Thou art That;

• This Atman is brahman.

Each of these pronouncements is subjected to an intensive analysis by the commentators belonging to each school of philosophy. However the differences in the interpretations by the different AcAryas should not matter in one’s daily life. It is as if there exists a multidimensional Reality of which each individual perception has only an one-dimensional projection of the Reality before it, and, perhaps, each in a dimensional axis. You are free to choose that one which is appropriate to your taste, evolution, training and tradition.

Before we bring this discussion on the Upanishads to a close we should talk about the mystic syllable oM which is most important for the religious and spiritual pursuit by a Hindu. Without an explanation and study of this word no understanding of Hinduism can be complete. The word consists of a triad of three sounds ( mAtrAs) , namely the syllable ‘a’ (as the ‘u’ in ‘but’), the syllable ‘u’ (as the ‘u’ in ‘put’) and the syllable ‘ma’. This is why many texts using this word use the spelling ‘aum’ thus emphasizing the three mAtrAs which make up the word oM. The term mAtrA is used for the upper limb of the nAgari characters and a syllabic instant in prosody. The esoteric significance of these three mAtrAs and the myriads of connotations that they stand for are the subject matter of many a passage in the Upanishads, the Gita and other scriptures. In fact, a whole Upanishad (though a very small one), namely, mANDUkyopanishad, devotes itself entirely to the explanation of the word oM. The Upanishad, for this very reason, has been termed the quintessance of vedanta. If a person cannot study all the hundred and odd Upanishads, it will be enough, it is so declared in the muktikopanishad, if he reads the one Upanishad of mANDUkya. The first extant commentary on this Upanishad was written by Gaudapada, before the time of Sankara and this commentary called mANDUkya-kArikA is still the earliest known systematic exposition of the advaita point of view of vedanta. Its importance can be gauged by the fact that when Sankara wrote his commentary on the mANDUkyopanishad, as he did for ten other Upanishads, he merged the kArikA of Gaudapada with the Upanishad and wrote a commentary on the kArikA also.

The word oM is spoken of as the primeval word which stands for the entire universe permeated by brahman and therefore brahman itself. The three sounds that go tomake up oM constitute, symbolically, the entire universe of words. For ‘a’ is the syllable with which one opens the mouth to speak any word and ‘u’ is the syllable which allows the tongue all positions from the palate to the lips and ‘m’ is the vocal movement one makes to close the lips. Every sound which man can produce is between the extremes of ‘a’ and ‘m’ and so, together with the intermediate stage of ‘u’ it represents everything words may represent.

Esoterically, the ‘a’ stands for the first stage of wakefulness, where we experience in our gross body the totality of external experiences through our mind and sense organs. The ‘u’ stands for the dream state of sleep in which mental experiences are available, though erratically, by the mind which is the only thing awake, without the help of the external sense organs or the presence of the rationalizing intellect. The two kinds of experience, namely those of the waking state and of the dreaming state , contradict each other, in the sense that a man may experience hunger in a dream though he might have eaten in the waking state a few minutes earlier. In the state of deep sleep, represented by the sound ‘m’ there is no consciousness of any experience; even the mind has gone to sleep. But still there is an awareness after the deep sleep is over that one has been sleeping and that one was conscious of nothing. (Go to Beach2-Wave 2 for a further explanation) The mANDUkyopanishad says that in the state of deep sleep the Atman which is always present, was witness to the sleep of the body and since Atman is nothing but Consciousness, one was conscious of the state of Ignorance arising from deep sleep. It is this cognizance of Ignorance that makes us say, after the sleep is over, that ‘I was sleeping, totally oblivious of anything’. It is the Atman which is present in the three states of consciousness, and also in the state beyond the three states, namely the turIya (= fourth) state, i.e., the state corresponding to the silence that ensues after one has steadily pronounced oM. It is the state of no mAtra, that is, amAtra. In that state of silence consciousness alone is present and there is nothing else and therefore nothing to be cognized or conscious of. So when we recite the mystic syllable oM, we are advised to meditate on this common substratum of all the three states of experience, and during the silence that follows, merge in the Consciousness that alone persists as a substratum. That Consciousness is the Atman or brahman.

This is the symbolism behind the repeated insistence of the Upanishads that the word oM is the supreme prop (Alambana) to reach brahman, it is the one thing which is talked about by all the vedas and it is for this alone that the sages do penance and undergo austerities. It represents both the brahman with attributes and the brahman without attributes. It is a reminder of our true state of Being. Hence it is that the word oM is recited at the beginning and conclusion of every religious reading or prayer. It indicates that we emanate from brahman and finally dissolve into brahman. The soul which leaves the body in the midst of conscious oM recitation is said to merge into brahman itself, that is, attain mokSa. Meditation on the word is recommended for the yogi as a direct path to realisation. As the generality of human beings cannot realise the ultimate reality which is beyond all categories of time, space and causation, the mAnDUkyopanishad and its commentator, Gaudapada recommend the contemplation of the three sound symbols as the three states of man’s totality of experiences, and thus, analysing one’s experience, the student endowed with the

mental and moral qualifications requiring for the understanding of vedanta, is

helped to rech ultimate reality. Specifically, if one identifies the amAtra state of

silence with the fourth state of experience and meditates on it without

intermission, one realises one’s Self and ‘there is no return for him to the sphere

of empirical life’.

THE MESSAGE OF THE UPANISHADS

In India we refer most often to our vast and rich cultural as well spiritual

heritage. But while making such a statement we hardly realize that the source of

this heritage is the great Upanishads. The Upanishads are the transactions of the

forest universities, which functioned in India ages ago. In these forest

universities, the great teachers expounded fundamental truths of life to students

who came to learn under their guidance. The teachings of the Upanishads are as

fresh today as when they were imparted to earnest students. This is so because

the approach to life which the Upanishads indicated is as relevant today as it

was then. Even in the scientific and technological civilization of today one

realizes its relevance and appropriateness. One may ask what indeed is the

fundamental keynote of the Upanishadic approach to life?

Scientific Approach

It may seem strange, but it is true that the approach of the Upanishads is

supremely scientific, and yet at the same time it is integral in its nature. The

integral aspect of the Upanishadic approach can be seen if one only turns to the

different major Upanishads. While in the Upanishads, like the Isavasya, the

Chandogya and the Brihadaryanaka, there are philosophical and metaphysical

teachings; in the Aitareya Upanishad one comes across a scientific explanation

of the creation of the universe and the beginnings of life. In Mandukya

Upanishad, the fundamental teaching of Hindu psychology in terms of the

different states of consciousness is explained. In Taittiriya Upanishad, we see

profound discussion of the problems of education. In Mundakopanishad, we see

the teacher discussing the question of Knowledge and Wisdom, the apara vidya

and the para vidya. In Prasnopanishad the teacher instructs the students about

being qualified to ask questions not from the superficial layers of inquiry but

from the deep layers of consciousness.

There is hardly any subject under the sun which is not discussed in the

Upanishads. The approach of the Upanishads is very catholic in nature. They

indicate to us what an integral understanding of life can be.

Modern educated man born and brought up in the traditions of science and technology may tend to regard the Upanishads as somewhat antiquated and irrelevant to present-day conditions. But nothing can be farther from truth. The Upanishads are thoroughly scientific in their approach. To be scientific is to be objective, and the Upanishads are indeed most objective in their understanding of life. In a scientific approach, it is not enough to concern oneself with the nature of the object, it is equally necessary to understand the nature of the subject, for, the subject all the time projects itself in the act of objective perception. So long as the subject is allowed to project, there can never be a true perception of the object. The idea of subjective projection is being more and more recognised by modern scientific thinkers. Physical science and technology have no means to tackle the problem of subjective projections.

It is this which is contained in the approach of the Upanishads. In all the Upanishads the subject matter is Brahman and Atman. One may say: Are the subjects like Brahman and Atman relevant to our modern conditions? Such a question betrays utter ignorance of what Brahman and Atman really mean. As Dr. S. Radhakrishnan says: "Brahman is Reality objectively comprehended, while Atman is Reality subjectively perceived." And so in Brahman and Atman we see a discussion of the objective and the subjective aspects of man's understanding. They together constitute a real scientific approach to life. It is in the Upanishads that we see this beautifully expounded by teacher after teacher.

Comfort versus Happiness

In one of the Upanishads we see the illuminating conversation between Yagnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi. When Yagnavalkya expresses his desire to retire to the forest, he tells his wife that he would give her the necessary share of her property. But Maitreyi says: "Will this property make me immortal? Will it give happiness to me?" Then Yagnavalkya says: "Property will give you comfort; it cannot give you happiness." We see here the distinction between comfort and happiness. And one of the major problems of our age arises out of a feeling that comfort and happiness are identical.

In another Upanishad we come across a conversation between Sanatkumar and Narada. Narada tells Sanatkumar that even though he has learnt many sciences and arts, he is far from happiness. Then Sanatkumar asks Narada to tell him what he had learnt. Narada gives a long and a very imposing list of subjects which he has learnt under the direction of a guru. Sanatkumar says: "All that you have learnt is mere words, a mere verbiage."

There is an intellectually brilliant and philosophically profound dialogue between Swetaketu and his father. When Swetaketu returns after completing education in the gurukula, his father enquires as to what he had learnt. Swetaketu enumerates the whole list of subjects. The father then asks him: “Have you learnt that by learning which nothing else needs to be learnt?” Swetaketu answers in the negative. The father says: “I will teach you that science of sciences.” He asks his son to bring a fruit of the banyan tree lying on the ground. When Swetaketu brings it, the father asks him to break it and tell him what he finds after breaking the fruit. The young man says he finds countless tiny seeds. The father asks him to break one of those tiny seeds and tell him what he finds. Swetaketu replies: “Father, I have broken the tiny seed, but I find nothing therein.” Then the father says: “Swetaketu, what you describe as nothing, out of it the vast banyan tree has come into existence. Out of nothing everything has grown.” He told his son that if he would understand that nothing, then he would come to the understanding of the science of sciences, for That Art Thou.

Everything being born out of Nothing–that is the illuminating instruction which the father gives to his son. One is reminded of what one of the brilliant scientists of our times, Fred Hoyle, has said. He says that every moment new matter is being created in this universe, but this creation comes from Nothing, and as nothing can never be exhausted, the creation of new matter in the universe will never stop. It looks as if the modern scientist is speaking the language of the ancient Upanishads.

In our age of science and technology, if only we would realize not only the potentialities of science but also its limitations we would be enabled to turn to the living philosophy of the Upanishads.

Dr. Radhakrishnan once said: “Look at the modern man–he sweeps the sky with the telescope and finds no God and therefore comes to the conclusion that God does not exist!” This is indeed the unscientific attitude we seem to be displaying today in this scientific age. Scientific instruments have great capacities, but they have their limitations. When modern man begins to see the limitations of science he will turn to the inspiring message of the Upanishads, and the time for such realization has come.