Taittiriya Upanishad

by A. Mahadeva Sastri | 1903 | 206,351 words | ISBN-10: 8185208115

The Taittiriya Upanishad is one of the older, "primary" Upanishads, part of the Yajur Veda. It says that the highest goal is to know the Brahman, for that is truth. It is divided into three sections, 1) the Siksha Valli, 2) the Brahmananda Valli and 3) the Bhrigu Valli. 1) The Siksha Valli deals with the discipline of Shiksha (which is ...

Chapter II - Brahma-vidyā in a Nutshell

Homage to the eternal Consciousness, That which is present in all divers things, never a thing of the past, the Innermost one, the Immutable, neither to be secured nor to be avoided!—(S)


Brahma-Vidyā is the specific theme of this section.

In Book I. were first taught those contemplations— the contemplations of Samhita and the like—which are not incompatible with works; then was taught the contemplation of the Conditioned Self through the Vyāhṛtis, whereof fruit is independent sovereignty (svārājya). But these alone cannot bring about a complete annihilation of the seed of samsāra.[1] With a view, therefore, to the extinction of ajñāna or ignorance which is the seed of all trouble,—with a view to impart a knowledge of the Self divested of all conditions,[2] the sruti proceeds with this section (Book II) as follows:

ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम् ॥ १ ॥

brahmavidāpnoti param || 1 ||

1. The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.


The Seeker of Brahmajñāna should renounce works.

Brahmavidyā is intended for that person who has become pure in mind (antaḥ-karaṇa) by the observance of obligatory duties, with no more attachment for the immediate fruits of actions than for the sons, etc., seen in a dream. From sense-perception, from the Scriptures, and from inference, he learns that all fruits accruing from works are perishable; and thus knowing, he loses all attachment for them as for a hell. That (state of liberation) which is free from all faults, which is marked by the extinction of all desire, is unattained merely because of our Tamas(ajñāna or nescience); for, this non-attainment of liberation rests in popular belief, unsupported by reason. No factor of action can destroy the nescience which has placed mokṣa beyond reach; and therefore he alone who has renounced all works and is equipped with the qualifications stated above is qualified for a knowledge of the Inner One. Renunciation is verily the best of all means to mokṣa. He alone who has renounced all can know It, his own Inner Self, the Supreme Abode. “Give up dharma and adharma, and likewise the true and the false.” And so the Taittirīya-śruti also says: “Renunciation is Brahman.”[3] The disciple should, therefore, see that whatever is brought about by works is perishable; and then, equipped solely with the renunciation of works, he should strive for knowledge of the Inner Self. If a thing comes of itself into existence, of what use is action there? If it be in the nature of a thing never to come into existence, what have works to do there either? But when a thing is capable of being produced and needs only a cause for its birth, then alone action is necessary to cause the birth as in the case of a pot which has to be produced from clay. On the other hand, that which, like a flower in empty space, never comes into existence, or that which, like ākāśa, always exists, can never be brought into existence by an act. And the śruti does not purpose to enjoin that anything should be done.—It does not enjoin that the end in view should be achieved, because everybody knows it without an injunction. Nor does the śruti purpose to command the performance of the mere sacrificial act, because the mere act is painful.[4] The śruti[5] purposes to instruct merely as to the means of attaining the desirable. “Do thou by tapas seek to know Brahman well;”[6] in these words the śruti stimulates us to work for Brahmajñāna, and in the words “Whence (all) these beings are born”[7] the śruti speaks of the characteristic nature of Brahman whom -we seek to know. And the means of realising Brahman consists in abandoning the sheaths (kośas) one after another, in rejecting everything that has any concern with action, and thus entering the Innermost Being, That which is at the back of all Kośas.—(Ś).


Cessation of Avidyā is the specific end.

And the aim of this Brahmavidyā is the extinction of avidyā, and, through it, the final cessation of saṃsāra. The śruti will accordingly declare “Brahman’s bliss knowing, he fears not from anything whatever.”[8] So long as the cause of saṃsāra exists, it cannot be said that “the Fearless he attains as the mainstay;”[9] nor that “sins committed or virtues neglected burn him not.”[10] We are thus given to understand that from this knowledge of Brahman as the All-Self, comes the cessation of saṃsāra.

In the words “the knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme” the śruti itself speaks of the purpose with a view to shew, at the very outset, the bearing and the purpose of the Brahmavidyā. The bearing and the purpose of Vidyā being known, one will try and listen to the teaching, grasp it, and hold it in the mind; for Vidyā is attainable only through these processes, such as śravaṇa (listening to the teaching), as elsewhere the śruti says:

“Ātman should be heard, should be thought of” etc.[11]

In speaking of the end as conceived by a person who owing to avidyā, longs for it (as though it were something external, as something he has yet to attain to), the śruti means to stimulate the effort whereby to attain the end which—being one with the true Self of the seeker—is really infinite. Since all the works which have been spoken of in the ritualistic section are intended to bring about some effects, i.e., to yield fruits external to the Self, the disciple will act in no other way. On learning that results of all actions are perishable, the man loses all longing for them; but, as avidyā, the root of kāma, is yet not destroyed, he still cherishes a desire to rise up from this lower region (of causes and effects) to the Supreme. Thus, in the words “the knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme,” the śruti speaks of an end and a means, only with a view to the attainment of what is quite the contrary, by way of leading the disciple to the Innermost One. Like a mother inducing her child to drink a medicinal mixture, by saying that thereby his hair will grow in profusion, the śruti induces one who is yet a child in knowledge to strive for that which cannot be attained except by knowledge. As to the notion that it detracts from the nature of mokṣa to thus think of it as an effect produced by a means, that notion is burnt away into nothing in the fire of the knowledge that Brahman is one. That inborn desire of every man which expresses itself in the form “May I not be put to the slightest misery, may I always be happy,” is possible only when the object of that desire—namely, mokṣa—exists. Though he has not realised the true nature of mokṣa, still man works for liberation all the same, his mind burning with the desire described above, and filled with the fear of saṃsāra. Since everywhere activity can be induced only by (stating) the end to be attained, the śruti starts with the words “the knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme,” with a view to allure man (to the proper course of action). Attracted by the fruits declared in the śruti, he betakes himself to śravaṇa and other processes of acquiring knowledge; for, these are the only processes by which knowledge can be acquired, as the śruti itself has declared. No activity, here, of whatever kind,—be it the one enjoined in the Vedas or that which is concerned with a worldly pursuit,—is without an end in view. It is therefore the end in view that can induce activity.—(Ś).

Brahman will be defined in the sequel. Brahman is so called because He is the greatest. The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme, the Unsurpassed. The Supreme here spoken of must be Brahman himself, inasmuch as by knowing one thing something else cannot be attained. Elsewhere the śruti clearly says that the knower of Brahman attains Brahman:

“He who doth truly know that Brahman Supreme, he Brahman Himself becomes.”[12]

Here the end is stated in the words “reaches the Supreme.” The attainer of the end is spoken of as “the knower of Brahman.” By this sentence the śruti necessarily implies that Brahmavidyā is the means of attaining the Supreme. Just as a sacrificer achieves svarga by means of Agnihotra, so the knower of Brahman can attain to the Supreme by means of Brahmavidyā.—(Ś).


To speak of Brahman as one to be reached is only a figure of speech.

(Objection):—The śruti declares in the sequel that Brahman is present in all and forms the Self of all; so that He is not one to be reached. We generally speak of one thing being reached by another, of one limited object by another limited object. Brahman being unlimited and the Self of all, it is not proper to speak of His attainment as though He were limited and distinct from one’s own Self.

Attainment being always associated with duality, with the limitations of space, time &c., how can it be predicated of Brahman who is not limited by them.—(S).

(Answer):—There is no incongruity here.—How?—Because of the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman being dependent on perception or non-perception. [To explain): The Jīva who, though in reality one with Brahman, yet identifies himself with the physical (annamaya) and other bodies which are limited and external to the Self and formed of material elements, and he becomes engrossed in them. Then, just as a man, whose mind is engrossed in the enumeration of those that are external to himself, is oblivious of his own existence, though in reality he is immediately present there to make up the required number,[13] so the jīva is quite oblivious of his being in reality one with Brahman; and regarding, in virtue of this avidyā (nescience), the physical and other external bodies,— the non-self— as his own Self, he thinks himself to be none other than the physical and other bodies, the non-self; so that by avidyā, Brahman, though one’s own Self, becomes unattained. Thus, we can quite understand how jīva, owing to avidyā, has not attained his true nature as Brahman, and how he attains it by vidyā, on seeing that Brahman, who is the Self of all, as taught in the śruti, is his own Self,—like a man who, owing to ignorance, misses himself making up the required number, and who, when reminded by some one else, finds himself again by knowledge.

The non-attainment of the One Self, who is the All, is due to avidyā, like the missing of the tenth man, the avidyā consisting in regarding the five bodies severally annamaya etc,—as his own seifs. By the knowledge that “I am the tenth”, the tenth man is attained only through the destruction of ajñāna; and similarly Brahman is attained by the removal of ajñāna. So long as we admit that the knower, the knowable and the like are distinct from Brahman, we understand the word Brahman in its secondary sense. To understand the word in its primary sense, we should know that the knower, the objects of knowledge, etc., are all one with Brahman. There is then no occasion for an injunction^niyoga) of an act,[14] as there is during our recognition of duality, inasmuch as here the evil is removed by the mere destruction of ignorance, as a sick man becomes himself on the eradication of his malady. He who invests his Inner Self with agency and then wishes to attain that Self who is not an agent is like one who, suffering from an intense chill and seeking for fire, approaches a fire demon. Granted that, by a man still chersing the notion of agency, Brahman is attained; we ask, what is the cause of His non-attainment? There is indeed no cause other than non-perception. Wherefore, here, by way of removing the evil of avidyā and all its effects, the śruti teaches that the Inner Self, whose agency is due to avidyā, is really immutable. Displacing the consciousness of the universals and other external objects which pre-supposes the agency of the knower, by means of that (immutable) Consciousness of the Inner Self which is the essence of the other consciousness, one attains the Supreme.—(Ś).

Having given in the First Lesson, the mantra to be recited for the removal of all possible obstacles, such as mutual enmity between the master and the pupil, the śruti states at the outset of the Second Lesson, concisely and in an aphoristic form, the essence of the whole Upaniṣad. The doctrine of Liberation by knowledge of Brahman is the essential teaching of the whole Upaniṣad.

The primary meaning of ‘Brahman’.

The word ‘Brahman’ derived from the root “bṛṃh” to grow, denotes ‘a great thing’. And unsurpassed or absolute greatness must be here intended, inasmuch as there is nothing in the context, nor any word or particle in the sentence, pointing to a limitation. If we have been speaking of a thing which is relatively great, or if there be a significant word or particle in the sentence (implying limitation), then limitation may be meant. In fact, neither of them is found here. Absolute greatness consists in being eternally pure and so on. This is evidently what His Holiness (Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya ) means when He writes in the commentary on the Śārīraka-Mīmāmsā (or the Vedānta-sūtras) as follows:—

“There must exist Brahman, who, by nature, is eternally pure, conscious and free, omniscient and omnipotent. The etymology of the word ‘Brahman’ points indeed to what is eternally pure and so on, in accordance with the meaning of the root ‘bṛṃh’.”

That this is the intended meaning of the word will be clear from the definition “Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman.”


Brahman is knowable.

He who knows—i. e., realises intuitively by manas—-Brahman thus described is here spoken of as ‘Brahmavid’, the knower of Brahman. The Vājasaneyins read as follows:

“By manas alone can He be realised; there is here no duality whatever.”[15]

By means of manas operating through the eye and other senses, one perceives, not the pure Brahman, but the Brahman associated with name and form. Accordingly the śruti says that Brahman has to be seen ‘by manas alone’, by manas unassociated (with the external senses).

(Objection):—Though independent of the eye and other senses, manas depends (for its knowledge of Brahman) on Vedic Revelation, Brahman being knowable only through Śāstra (Revelation).

(Answer):— Yes; hence the word “realised.” That is, Brahman as taught in the Vedas can be brought home to one’s mind by means of manas acting independently of the senses. By the word ‘alone,’ all organs of external sensation, such as the eye, are excluded; and by the word ‘realised’—Sk. anu-draṣṭavya = can be seen after—Revelation is admitted.


An immediate knowledge of Brahman possible.

It should not, however, be supposed that, Brahman being revealed by the Vedas, an indirect (parokṣa) knowledge of Brahman is alone possible, as in the case of Dharma and Adharma. The analogy between the two is not so complete; for, Brahman is, by His very nature, the Immediate (aparokṣa),—as the śruti has declared, “That Brahman which is the very Immediate”[16]—whereas Dharma and Adharma are, in their nature, remote. We admit that though Brahman is in Himself the Immediate, there is the illusion that He is remote. Hence it is that in the subordinate propositions—such as “Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman”—the śruti speaks of Brahman in His aspect as the Cause of the universe, and then, with a view to remove the false notion of remoteness, teaches in the main propositions that Brahman is one with the Pratyagātman, the Inner Self. Accordingly, the Vājasaneyins declare, “He that knows ‘I am Brahman’ becomes this all”[17] Here, too, in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Brahman’s identity with the Inner Self is taught in the words “Whoso knoweth the One hid in the cave,” etc. It is not possible even to imagine that anybody will ever fall into the error of supposing the Pratyagātman to be remote; for, by all men including children and cowherds, the Inner Self, the Pratyagātman, is regarded as immediately perceived in manas. If things like a pot,—which are apprehended by the Pratyagātman or Inner Self through sight and other senses, and which are even insentient in themselves,[18]—can be regarded as immediate because they are not apprehended through a medium—such as liṅga (a mark, forming the middle term of a syllogism),—how is it possible for one to suppose, even by a mistake, that the Pratyagātman is remote (parokṣa),—that Pratyagātman whose remoteness we cannot so much as imagine, the very Chit or Conscious Principle which is self-luminous and illumines all? That the Pratyagātman is self-luminous and illumines all is taught in the śruti in the following words:

“After Him alone shining, all things shine; by His light does all this clearly shine.”[19]

Such being the case, it is not possible to suppose that any one will, even by a mistake, regard as remote the Pratyagātman who is really the illuminator of all, the very Chit or Consciousness shining forth in the notion of ‘I’ even in our consciousness of practical life.

(Objection):—The Witness fsākṣin), as distinguished from the physical body and other sheaths (kośas), five in all, is remote (parokṣa).

(Answer):—No, because of His being absolutely immediate. Because He is regarded as immediate even when associated with the physical body and other sheaths which are insentient (jaḍa) and therefore capable of obscuring Him, much more therefore is He immediate when unassociated with them. Thus, because of His being one with the Inner Self who is immediate, Brahman, though knowable through Revelation, is apprehended in manas as the Immediate.


Brahman realisable through manas.

(Objection):—What is apprehended by manas can never be Brahman, as the Talavakāras say:

“What by manas one thinks not, by what, they say, manas is thought, That alone, do thou know, is Brahman, not that which they worship thus.”[20]

This passage may be explained as follows:—That Witness-Consciousness (Sākṣi-Chaitanya) which no born creature can apprehend by manas as an object of thought, and by which, as those who know the mysteries of the Vedas declare, that manas is illumined,—do thou, O disciple, understand that the Witness-Consciousness is Brahman. As to the Brahman whom the Upāsakas worship as the Cause of the Universe revealed in the scriptures, as something external to their own Self, like a pot presenting itself as an object of perception,—the Being thus worshipped cannot be the Brahman properly so called, because no being that is external to one’s own Self, that is an object of perception, that is conditioned by an upādhi, can be the Brahman proper. Because of such denial, what is perceived immediately by manas as an object of thought cannot be Brahman.

(Answer):—No such objection can be raised here. We do not indeed admit that the śruti means that Brahman cannot be apprehended by manas. If, on the contrary, that be the meaning of the passage, how is it that the śruti teaches “That alone, do thou know, is Brahman”?

(Objection):—As the Witness is self-luminous, it does not stand to reason to say that He is illumined, like a pot, by the consciousness proceeding from manas.

(Answer): —Well, we explain thus. Certainly, Brahman is not illumined by the phala, by the resulting or generated consciousness of manas. He is, however, illumined by the vṛtti, by the mental modification, i.e., by the manas thrown into a particular mode. When Brahman is grasped by the mano-vṛtti, by manas in that particular state into which it is thrown by the teaching of the mahāvākya or main proposition which teaches that Brahman is identical with the Witness-Consciousness,—when manas is thrown into this state, i.e., when the right knowledge of the Reality has been attained avidyā which is the cause of all distinction between Brahman and the Inner Self vanishes altogether. It cannot be urged that this state of manas is only a remote knowledge; for, contaét with the object can alone bring about a change in the mode (vṛtti) of manas. When a change in the mode of manas is brought about through the eye, it then assumes the form of a pot in virtue of its contact with the pot, and people call it immediate perception. Why should we not in the same way regard as immediate perception that mode also of manas in which it assumes the form of the Witness-Consciousness by coming in contruft with it?


How Revelation helps the realisation of Brahman.

It should not be objected that, if only by contact with the object the manas can be made to assume the form of the Witness-Consciousness, Revelation (Vākya) has no purpose to serve. For, Revelation alone can remove the illusion that Brahman, defined as the Cause of the Universe, is distinét from the Pratyagātman, the Inner Self. Thus, that mode of manas which apprehends the unity of the Inner Self and Brahman is brought about only by contact with the viṣaya or object of knowledge in consequence of the śruti having denied all distinction; so that, this knowledge, though produced by Revelation, is immediate. But in the case of a person whose mind is turned outward and does not therefore come in contact with the Witness-Consciousness dwelling within, the knowledge he has of the unity of the Inner Self and Brahman has been brought about by Revelation alone. Such knowledge is mediate, remote (parokṣa), like the knowledge we have of Dharma, Adharma, Svarga, Naraka, and soon. And here the absence of sākṣātkāra or immediate perception is not due to any fault in Revelation. It is due to the fault of the person himself in that his mind is turned outward. We do not, for instance, think it a fault of the eye that a person who faces the east does not see the color and form of the things in the west. When the person whose mind has been turned outward resorts to Brahma-dhyāna—to nididhyāsana as it is called,—and thereby brings about that state of the mind (buddhi) wherein, being turned inward and becoming one-pointed, it is competent to investigate and apprehend the subtle, then, the mind (buddhi) comes in contact with the Inner Self, puts on His form, and, aided by Revelation, casts away the illusion of duality. And this state of buddhi is called Sākṣātkāra. In the case of a mukhyādhikārin or duly qualified disciple whose mind has been turned inward even prior to listening to the Revelation (of unity) by the contemplation of Saguṇa Brahman, or by nididhyāsana after listening to the teaching of the unity, and who, by a course of logical reasoning based upon agreement and difference, has been able to distinguish the Witness-Consciousness from the physical body, etc., and to realise It, and who has determined the nature of Brahman as taught in the subsidiary passages (avāntara-vākya),—the mahā-vākya gives rise to the very sākṣātkāra or direCt perception of the Self as one with Brahman, not a mere indirect knowledge. This very idea is explained in the Vākya-vṛtti as follows:

“The Inner Consciousness that shines forth is the very non-dual Bliss,[21] and the non-dual Bliss is the very Inner Consciousness. When the knowledge of their mutual identity thus arises, then, indeed, the non-Brahmanness of the ‘Thou’ ceases, as also the remoteness of the ‘That.’ If so, what then? Listen: The Inner Consciousness is established as the very Perfect Bliss”[22]


Absolute Identity of Brahman and the Self.

(Objection):—Though mutual unity (anyonya-tādātmya) may be predicated of Brahman and the Self, yet they cannot be One Impartible Essence (akhaṇḍa-eka-rasa); for despite the unity of ‘blue’ and ‘lotus,’ they are yet distinct as attribute and substance. Accordingly, here, too, there may still remain the distinction as Brahman and the Self.

(Answer); —No; there is a difference between the two cases, because of the failure of unity in the case of a substance and its attribute. The attribute of ‘blue’ is found in the clouds and the like, and thus its unity with the lotus fails. Even the substance, namely the lotus, fails to coexist with blue colour inasmuch as there are white and red lotuses. Being thus distinct from each other, an impartible unity (akhaṇḍa-artha) between a substance and its attribute is impossible; whereas the unity of Brahman and the Self never fails, and they are therefore one and the same thing, the One Impartible Essence. And this truth has been taught by Viśvarūpāchārya[23] in the following words:

“No Self-ness (Ātma-tā) can be outside Brahman; nor Brahman-ness (Brahma-tā) outside the Self. Therefore the unity of these two is different from that of ‘blue’ and ‘lotus’.”

(Objection):—If so, the words ‘Ātman’ and ‘Brahman’ being synonymous, there would be no use having two separate words.

(Answer):—Not so. Despite the absence of all distinction in the thing denoted, a distinction yet exists in the ideas to be removed which are creatures of delusion, namely, the non-Brahman-ne 9 s (of the Self) and the remoteness (of Brahman). This, too, has been taught by the Āchārya as follows:

“Though the very Self, Brahman is, owing to delusion, tainted with remoteness. So also, though the very Brahman, the Self thinks as if there is some other being.”[24]

The Thing is one alone. In Its aspect as revealed only in the śruti, It is called Brahman. In Its aspect as the one immediately perceived in manas, It is called Ātman, the Self. Its nature, as the Cause of the universe, as the Omniscient Being, and so on, is revealed only by the śruti; and the mediateness of our knowledge thereof leads to the illusory idea that Brahman Himself is remote. And since the physical body and the like called up in the immediate manasic perception of ‘I’ are non-Brahman, we fall into the error of thinking that even the Witness, the Conscious Self, is non-Brahman. Because the distinction between Brahman and Ātman thus conceived accounts for the two separate words in use while the real thing spoken of is the One Impartible Essence, an immediate knowledge of Brahman as identical with the immediate Self within, arises from the mahāvākya. A person who is endued with this kind of knowledge is here spoken of as Brahmavid, the knower of Brahman.

He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman.

Such a one is fit to attain the Supreme; and so indeed the śruti says: ‘He reaches the Supreme’. The (Sanskrit) word ‘para’(here translated as ‘Supreme’) means also ‘other’. But the word cannot mean ‘other’ here, inasmuch as the Thing is non-dual, the śruti having denied all duality in the words “Here is no duality whatever.”[25] If the word signifies ‘highest’, Brahman must be the thing denoted by the word ‘para’, all the rest being low as made up of māyā. Thus it is tantamount to saying that he who knows Brahman reaches Brahman Himself. The Ātharvaṇikas expressly say: “he who verily knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman Himself.”[26]

(Objection.);—The act of reaching spoken of in such sentences as “he reaches the village” consists in a contact with the village preceded by a passage. Therefore, just as an upāsaka of the Saguṇa Brahman rises up through the nādī of the head, and after passing on the Path of Light, reaches the Brahma-loka, by a similar process,—we should explain,—the knower of Brahman reaches Brahman.

(Answer): —No, because of the denial of ascent and passage. Ascent is denied by the śruti in the words “His prāṇas (the vital air and the senses) do not ascend.” The denial of passage is conveyed by the sṛuti in the following words:

“As to the path of the person who has become the Self of all beings and who rightly sees all beings, Devas are confounded, looking out (as they do) for the path of the pathless.”

To explain: The Brahmavid, who is the Self of all beings of life, sees all those beings rightly as one with himself. What his path is, even Devas are at a loss to know. These Devas are the Guiding Intelligences (the Ātivāhikas, Transporters) on the ‘northern,’ ‘southern’ and downward paths; and they get confounded when looking out for the path of the pathless, of the Brahmavid who has no path; they are at a loss to find his path, whereas they can trace the course of those who have to pass through the three paths, namely, the upāsakas (those who have practised contemplation), the performers of sacrificial rites and acts of charity and non-performers of these acts. Wherefore, it is only a figure of speech to say that Brahman is reached. And the dissolution (of the Brahmavid’s life-principles in the universal life) is spoken of by the śruti in the following words:

“His prāṇas ascend not;” “here alone they are dissolved.” “Being Brahman himself, he is merged in Brahman.”[27]

Though he is the very Brahman even prior to knowledge, by ajñāna he imagines himself, to be a jīva, and on the attainment of knowledge he himself, i.e., the upādhi in whose association he has become a jīva, disappears altogether so that he becomes Brahman even in consciousness. A man, not being aware of the jewel on the neck, searches for it elsewhere; and when reminded by some one, he feels the jewel and then says, as if by a figure, that it has been attained. Similarly, to say that Brahman is attained is only a figure of speech.


Footnotes and references:


For, these Upāsanas have their origin in kāma and karma, in desire and works.—(S)


i. e., to impart a knowledge of the Thing in itself, of the Self as He is.—(S).


Mahānārāyaṇa-Up, 21-2.


And it cannot be that the śruti which has man’s happiness in view teaches what primarily is painful to him.


The source of all stimulus to action lies in our own rāga or passion.


Tait. Up. 3–2; i.e., if you want to know Brahman, you should resort to tapas,


Ibid 3–1.


Tait. Up. 2-9.


Ibid. 2-7.


Ibid. 2-9.


Bṛ. Up. 2-4-5.


Muṇḍ. Up. 3-2-9.


A story is told of ten way-farers who, after crossing a stream, wanted to see whether all the passengers were alive. But each of them, counting all the nine.’others except himself, found that one was missing and all began to weep bitterly for the loss of one of them, till at last they were disillusioned by some one telling each of them that the reckoner himself was the tenth.


Such as the act of meditation by which Brahman may actually be reached.—(A),


Bṛ. Up, 4-4-49,


Bṛ. Up. 3-4-1.


Ibid. 1–4–10.


and which may therefore be regarded as remote from the Self.


Kaṭha. Up. 5–15,


Kena. Up. 1–6,


i. e., Brahman.–(Tr.)


Op. cit. 39–41.


alias Sureśvarāchārya.


Bṛ. Up. Saṃbandha-Vārtika 909.


Bṛ. Up. 4-4-19.


Muṇḍ. Up. 3-2-9.


Bṛ. Up. 4-4-7; 3-2-11.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: