Chapter XV - Ānandamaya-kośa

The nature of the Ānandamaya self

With a view to teach that even this Vijñānamayakośa is not the Self, the śruti proceeds to teach the Ānandamaya:

तस्माद्वा एतस्माद्विज्ञानमयात् । अन्योऽन्तर आत्माऽऽनन्दमयः । तेनैष पूर्णः ॥ ३ ॥

tasmādvā etasmādvijñānamayāt | anyo'ntara ātmā''nandamayaḥ | tenaiṣa pūrṇaḥ || 3 ||

3. Than that, verily,—than this one formed of Vijñāna,—there is another self within formed of bliss: by him this one is filled.

To bring about the removal of the idea of agency from the Self, the Śruti proceeds to speak of the Ānandamaya,— the consciousness of the Pratyagātman or the True Self, conditioned by the upādhi of the antaḥ-karaṇa manifested as joy, the fruit of knowledge and action. In the last chapter the Self has been described in His aspect as the agent, under the designation of the Vijñānamaya; and now the śruti teaches of the Self in His aspect as the enjoyer, as the inner self of the Vijñānamaya. Though pure in Himself, the Self becomes the enjoyer by avidyā as He identifies Himself with the upādhi of the Buddhi (antaḥ-karaṇa), this latter taking the form of love and so on.—(S)

 

The Ānandamaya is not Brahman.

(Objection):—There are some soi-disant scholars,^[1] who contend as follows: This one, the Ānandamaya, is the Supreme Being Himself; for (in the sequel) Bhṛgu and Varuṇa close their investigation at this stage, i. e., with the Ānandamaya. Further, the śruti often declares that Ānanda or bliss is Brahman; and hence, too, the appropriateness of the designation ‘Ānanda-vallī’ given to this portion of the Upaniṣad.—(S)

(Answer):—We understand that the Ānandamaya self here treated of is one of the evolved principles,^[2] as shewn by the context and by the termination “maya.” The present section has, indeed, hitherto spoken of evolved principles,—those formed of food and other material elements; and in the same series occurs this one, the Ānandamaya. And here the termination ‘maya’ is used in the sense of product (vikāra), as it undoubtedly is in^[3] Annamaya,’ that which is produced out of food. We should therefore understand that the Ānandamaya is a product.

If, on the contrary, we understand the termination maya’ to mean ‘abounding in,’ the termination would be understood in two different senses in the same context.—(S) And without resorting to any such deviation, it is possible to make out a consistent meaning of the passsge.—(A)

And also because of (the liberated one) passing into it.—To explain: The śruti will teach (in the sequel) that he (who has realised Brahman as his own true Self) “passes into the Ānandamaya self.’Ā We see (in the section whence the passage is quoted) that it is only into things outside the Real Self,—only into the things of the evolved universe,—that he is said to pass: and he passes into the Ānandamaya self in the same way that he passes into the Annamaya. And it cannot be that he passes into the Real Self; because it would be opposed to the context.^[4] And such a thing is also impossible: it is not possible for one to pass into one’s Self, simply because there is no duality in one’s own Self; and Brahman is the very Self of him that passes.

The act of passing, too, spoken of in the śruti, points to the conclusion that the Ānandamaya is a product. That all products pass into or become merged in the Cause is a thing which we all can understand.—To pass into the Paramātman must be either to pass beyond Him or to attain him. None, indeed, can pass beyond Brahman, the Supreme Self, as the śruti itself has clearly taught.^[5] And Brahman, the Supreme Self, is already attained, because He is the very Self: Īśvara never passes into His own Self by Himself; no athlete, however clever, can mount upon his own shoulder.—(S)

And also because of the incongruity of representing the Ānandamaya^[6] as possessed of a head and so on.— It is not of course proper to imagine a head and other members in the One described above,^[7] who is the cause of ākāśa, etc., who does not fall under the category of products.—And the śruti expressly excludes from Him all specific attributes in such passages as the following:

“Transcending sight and self, beyond defining, void of base.”^[8]

“Not great, not small.”^[9]

“Not thus, not thus”^[10]

Since the Supreme Reality is neither corporeal nor incorporeal, we cannot imagine Him as possessed of a head, etc. Moreover, Brahman will be described as “transcending sight and self”, which is opposed to what is said here of the Ānandamaya.—(S)

And also because of the incongruity of the mantra quoted here.—Since no doubt can ever arise as to the existence of Brahman if He were identical with the Ānandamaya self that is immediately experienced as composed of love and other parts, we cannot explain why the śruti quotes the mantra “Non-being verily does one become if he doth Brahman as non-being know.”^[11]

Since the Ānandamaya has a definite form, there is no room for doubt as to its existence. The śruti speaks of a doubt as to the existence of Brahman, and therefore Brahman is not identical with the Ānandamaya.—(S & A).

Further, it would be incongruous to speak of Brahman as the support, i. e., as something distinct (from the Ānandamaya)—in the words “Brahman is the tail, the support.”

Therefore, the Ānandamaya falls under the category of products; it is not the very Supreme Self.

Bhṛgu’s closing of the investigation with the Ānandamaya can be explained even on the theory that the Ānandamaya is a product.—Brahman is first described in the Ānandavallī. And then with a view to teach the means of realising Him, the śruti makes Bhṛgu ask Varuṇa “Teach, Brahman, O Lord.” Brahman, the end, having been already explained, the means of attaining the end remains to be taught. And these means are the five kośas (sheaths), because it is by an (investigation of) these kośas that one attains Brahman. By anvaya and vyatireka,—by the method of conjoint presence and absence,—applied to the five kośas, the Ātman is realised; and they are therefore regarded as the means of attaining Brahman. Thus, the Ānandavallī having explained the end,—namely, the unity of the Self and Brahman,—and the Bhṛguvallī having to concern itself only with the teaching of the means of attaining that end, it is but right that Bhṛgu should close the investigation with Ānanda, which is the last step on the path of investigation.—(S)

(Objection):—The Bhṛgu-vallī does not enjoin the investigation of Brahman. On the contrary, it is concerned with the knowledge of Brahman Himself. Hence the reference at the outset (upakrama) to the knowledge, in the passage “The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.”—(S)

(Answer):— A person can be commanded to do only that thing which altogether depends on his will. But the right knowledge of Brahman does not altogether depend on any one’s will. The connection of the Bhṛgu-vallī with the knowledge of Brahman—spoken of at the outset in the words “The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme”— may be explained as merely pointing to the relation between knowledge and investigation as the end and the means.—(S)

Accordingly Varuṇa has taught to Bhṛgu only the five kośas as the means by which to realise the nature of Brahman described in the Ānanda-vallī; and as the remainder,— namely, the real nature of Brahman to be realised—can be known from the passages where it is described, Bhṛgu stopped his investigation with Ānanda, the fifth kośa; but not because he ever meant that the Ānandamaya is Brahman.—(S)

We even grant that the Ānanda, last spoken of in the Bhṛgu-vallī, is identical with the Supreme Brahman. Who has ever denied that the Bliss (Ānanda) which in its nature admits of no difference whatever is the"same as Brahman? Bliss is verily the essential nature of the Supreme Self (Paramātman). But that bliss which manifests itself as love and so on cannot be identical with the Supreme Brahman. We call that Bliss Brahman, in which such distinctions as love and so on have no place, and which is quite beyond the reach of manas. As the five kośas have been excluded from Brahman as having their origin in ajñāna, it does not stand to reason to identify the Ānandamaya-kośa with that Bliss which is beyond the reach of thought and word.—(S) Just as the other kośas, such as the Annamaya which are products evolved from Brahman, are permeated by Brahman, the Supreme Bliss, so also is the Ānandamaya permeated by the Supreme Bliss and hence spoken of as Ānandamaya evolved from Ānanda.—(S)

Therefore the Ānandamaya self here spoken of is the self associated with an upādhi, with the upādhi of Buddhi manifesting itself in the form of love and so on as the result of thought and action.—(S)

The bliss (Ānanda) here spoken of is the happiness which results from thought and action. Formed of this bliss-stuff is the Ānandamaya. And this lies within the Vijñānamaya, because the śruti declares that it lies within the Vijñānamaya, the source of all sacrificial rites and the like. The result of all thought and action being indeed meant for the enjoyment of the enjoyer, it must lie within the Vijñānamaya, the source of all sacrificial rites.^[12] And so the Ānandamaya self must lie in the innermost recesses of the former kośas. Further, Vidyā (upāsana, contemplation) and karma are intended to secure love and other forms of bliss. It is a fact, indeed, that the object of all contemplation and action is to secure lovej and other (forms of happiness). Therefore, since love and other (forms of happiness) resulting (from thought and action) are very near to the Self, it is but proper to say that this Ānandamaya is within the Vijñānamaya. And, indeed, the Ānandamaya, made up of the vāsanās (latent impressions) of love and other forms of happiness, presents itself to consciousness in svapna (dream) in association with the Vijñānamaya.

Being thus an object witnessed in svapna by the Pratyagātman, this Ānandamaya cannot be Brahman Himself—(S & A).

 

The bliss of the Ānandamaya-kośa.

Bliss is the essential nature of the Supreme Brahman as declared by the śruti in the words “Bliss as Brahman he knew;”^[13] “Consciousness and Bliss is Brahman”^[14] A form (vikāra) of this Bliss is the Ānandamaya,—the aggregate of love, joy, etc.,—to be mentioned below. It is true that the Bliss which is identical with Brahman undergoes no change; still, as ākāśa is imagined to undergo limitation through the upādhi or medium of pots, etc., so in the case of Bliss we may imagine a limitation through the sāttvic vṛttis of antaḥ-karaṇa, through the states of the mind in its parity; and in virtue of this limitation Bliss puts on the form of love, joy and so on. This Ānandamaya self is interior to, and is quite distinct from, the Vijñānamaya looked upon as the agent in all actions. By this Ānandamaya is filled the Vijñānamaya described before. Just as motion which is a function of Prāṇa is experienced throughout the body permeated by the Prāṇamaya, just as senti-ency or sensation (jñāna-śakti) which is a function of manas is experienced throughout the body which is endued with Prāṇa and permeated by. the Manomaya, and just as the consciousness of agency—“I am the doer”—is experienced throughout the body which is endued with both Prāṇa and Manas and permeated by the Vijñānamaya, so also special forms of pleasure are experienced throughout the whole body,—in the hands, feet, etc.,—which are endued with Vijñāna, Manas and Prāṇa, and permeated by the Ānandamaya. This is the idea conveyed by saying that the Vijñānamaya is permeated by the Ānandamaya.

(Objection):—Like pleasure, pain also is experienced in the hands and other parts of the body.

(Answer):—What if it be experienced? It is experienced by reason of the body being permeated by the Manomaya, which gives rise to the state of pain. Pain is a property of the Manomaya, and pleasure is a property of the Ānandamaya as will be clearly explained in the sequel.

 

Bliss is a positive state.

Now we have to discuss the question, what is Ānanda or pleasure? Is it a mere cessation of pain, or is it a positive state?

(Prima facie view):—At first it may be supposed that pleasure is a mere cessation of pain, inasmuch as sensation of pleasure is felt on the cessation of the pain caused by hunger, thirst and sickness.

(Objection):—Pleasure is a positive state in itself; only it is lost sight of during the existence of pain, the opposite state; so that, if pleasure should manifest itself, it is necessary that pain should cease. Thus since the manifestation of pleasure and the disappearance of pain are simultaneous, the one is mistaken for the other.

(Answer):—No. On being rid of fever, we have no experience of any positive state of pleasure apart from the cessation of pain. Therefore, pleasure is nothing but the cessation of pain.

(Conclusion):—As against the foregoing we hold as follows: we conclude that pleasure is a positive state because of the consciousness of pleasure, experienced on hearing all on a sudden the musical strain of a lute when there is no consciousness of pain preceding. But if pleasure were a mere negative state, it should be felt as the absence of some pain, and the consciousness should therefore include a memory of that pain, since every consciousness of a negative state,— such as the absence of a pot, the absence of a cloth,— includes the consciousness of the thing that is absent. This point has been well established by the teachers of old. Thus, because pleasure is presented to mind without any reference to pain, it is not the mere cessation of pain. That which is presented to mind without reference to pain,—as for example, a pot—cannot be the absence of pain.

Or, pleasure is a positive state because, like pain, it admits of higher degrees of intensity and these higher degrees of intensity of pleasure will be enumerated later on at length when dealing with the pleasure of an emperor, etc.

 

Theories of pleasure.

Having thus determined that bliss is a positive state, we have now to discuss the following point: what is bliss? Is it an act? Or a quality? Or a reflection of something else? Is it a conditioned form of something? Or is it unconditioned and independent?

(Prima facie view):—At first sight it may seem that it is of the nature of an act; because the word ‘ānanda’ is derived from the verb ‘nad,’ to be pleased. And when the Kauṣītakins, enumerating the organs of action, speak of the organ of generation, they include, in the scope of its activity, the act of enjoying: “Having by consciousness taken possession of the organ of generation, he obtains enjoyment, amusement and offspring.”^[15] Here the word ‘enjoyment’ denotes the union of the several parts of the bodies in contact, pervaded throughout by the activity called enjoyment (ānanda-kriyā) produced by the organs of generation. ‘Amusement’ is the pastime that is the natural concomittant of the union; the offspring is the generation of children which is the result of the union. Just as speaking and other kinds of activity are generated by the sense-organ of speech and the like, so also enjoying is a kind of activity generated by the sexual organ. Accordingly the Sāṅkhyas say: “Speaking, taking, walking, excreting and enjoying are the functions of the five organs.”^[16] And the Ātharvaṇikas have also declared the objects reached by these organs of action along with their activities mentioned above:

“Both voice and what must be voiced, both hands and what one must handle, both organ of joy and what must be enjoyed, both organ of voiding and what must be voided, both feet and what must be footed.”^[17]

This act of enjoying generated by the sexual organ should properly be included in the Manomaya, and it is not therefore right to speak of the Ānandamaya as something interior to Vijñānamaya.

(Conclusion):—No, because by ‘ānanda’ we mean here something different from the act of enjoying you have referred to. As to the nature of this Ānanda different views are held by different schools of philosophers.

According to the Vaiśeṣikas, ānanda or pleasure is a momentary affection produced in the Ātman by contact with Manas,—the Ātman or Soul being himself the doer and the enjoyer. They hold that the nine affections—such as understanding, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.,—are characteristic attributes of the Ātman.

The Sāṅkhyas hold as follows: The Ātman being free

from all ties, desire and other affections are only modifications (pariṇāma) of the three Guṇas of Prakṛti. Pleasure is a modification of the Sattva-guṇa, activity is a modification of the Rajo-guṇa, and error is a modification of the Tamo-guṇa. And accordingly the Lord has said:

“Sattva attaches one to pleasure, Rajas to action, O descendant of Bharata; while, veiling knowledge, Tamas attaches one to error.”^[18]

Some followers of the Nyāya system hold as follows: The sensual pleasure is a mere pain because of its association with pain. What with the trouble of securing the objects of pleasure, what with the different degrees there are of pleasure, and what with its liability to destruction, one can easily see that sensual pleasure is necessarily associated with pain. But in the state of liberation (mokṣa) ;he eternal bliss which is an inherent attribute of Ātman is perceived in consciousness, which is likewise an inherent attribute of Ātman. Mokṣa is therefore an object of aspiration.

 

The Vedantin’s theory of pleasure.

The Vaiśeṣika and other theories of pleasure which have been just described are founded on human speculation. But the śruti has declared that the sensual pleasure is but a chip of that eternal Bliss which forms the very being of the Self and which is an entity by itself. The śruti says:

“This is His highest Bliss; all other creatures live on a small portion of that Bliss.”^[19]

While giving expression to his wisdom, a certain Yogin has stated this truth in the following words:

“Abiding all the while in the midst of the milk-ocean of bliss, I have foolishly spent all this time, tasting only such drops of the ocean as come forth from the fire of the sense-objects.”

This chip of Bliss may be either a reflection of the original Bliss, or a bit of it chopped off. The theory of Reflection has been stated by the teachers of old as follows:

“Now we shall discuss the sensual pleasure which contains within it a portion of Brahman’s Bliss, and which forms the gateway to it. The śruti has declared that the sensual pleasure is a bit of Brahman’s Bliss;—that the Supreme Bliss, which is one indivisible homogeneous essence, is of this Self, that all other creatures enjoy but a portion of this Bliss.

“Manas is subject to three kinds of states: namely, tranquil (śānta), violent (ghora), erring (mūḍha.) The tranquil states are dispassion (vairāgyā), endurance, generosity, and so on. The violent states are thirst, fondness, attachment, covetousness, and so on. The erring states are delusion, fear, etc. In all these states of mind Brahman’s Consciousness is reflected, while in the tranquil states of mind His Bliss as well is reflected. The śruti says that ‘He becomes in form like to the various forms.’^[20]

“The Vedānta-sūtra (III. ii. 18) compares Brahman’s manifestations in the various forms to the reflected images of the sun. ‘The Self of all creatures is one alone, and He appears in one and many ways like the moon in water.’^[21] The image of the moon is imperfect when reflected in dirty water, whereas it is quite perfect when reflected in clear water. Similarly, Brahman reflected in mental states is of two sorts. Owing to the impurity of the violent and erring states of mind, Brahman’s bliss is unmanifested in them, while, owing to their partial purity, His consciousness is reflected in them. Or, to illustrate more aptly: It is only the heat, not the light, of fire that passes into water, however pure it may be; similarly, consciousness alone is manifested in the violent and erring states of mind. On the other hand, both the heat and the light of fire pass into a piece of wood; and, just so, both Consciousness and Bliss are manifested in the tranquil states of mind.”^[22]

Thus the theory of Reflection has been described. Now as to the theory of Separation. That bliss which constitutes the essential being of the jīvātman, and which is self-manifested in the upādhis or vehicles of Consciousness— the body, the senses, etc.;—is the bliss that has been chopped off, as it were, from Brahman. As the object of highest love, jīvātman is bliss itself. That the bliss is the essential being of the jīvātman and that he is the object of highest love is declared by the Vājasaneyins as follows:

“This Self, who is nearer to us than anything, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else.”^[23]

This Self,—who is immediately experienced in the notion ‘here I am,” who is the witness of the body, senses, etc.,—this self is the innermost principle of our being; and surely it is dearer than wealth, sons and all else,—these being of varying degrees of nearness. These varying degrees of nearness are explained by the Vārtikakāra as follows:

“Sons are dearer than wealth; dearer than sons is one’s own body; the senses are dearer than the body; and prāṇa is dearer than the senses; dearer even than prāṇa is the Self beyond.”

Wealth and other things which are outside the Self are objects of love because of their being subservient to the Self. But love for the Self is the highest because it is absolute. All this has been illustrated in the Maitreyi-Brāhmaṇa by many examples such as the following:

“Verily, a husband is dear to one, not because of love for the husband; but, because of the love for the Self, the husband is dear.”^[24]

And all the examples mentioned in this connection have been compiled by a writer as follows:

“A husband, a wife, a son, wealth, cattle, Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, worlds, Devas, Vedas, creatures—all these are beloved for the sake of the Self.”

As the object of genuine love, the Self is in his essential nature the true Bliss itself; and as dwelling in each body .eparately, the Bliss-Ātman becomes divided as it were. As the genuine Bliss, the Bliss-Ātman is the original, whose reflections enter into tranquil states of the mind when thinking of agreeable objects such as wealth, sons, etc. These reflections are as false as the images reflected in water or in a mirror; and though the bliss which has become separated by the upādhis is real, still, it has the fault of limitation. Consequently, neither the reflected image of Bliss nor its detached bits can constitute the genuine Bliss. On the contrary, that Bliss is real which constitutes the essential nature of Brahman, and which is not subject to any kind of limitation. Accordingly in the dialogue between Nārada and Sanatkumāra, the Chhan-dogas declare as follows:

“‘......This bliss, however, we must seek to know’

‘Sir, I desire to know the bliss.’

‘The Infinite is bliss. There is no bliss in the finite, The Infinite alone is bliss, and the Infinite alone, verily, we must seek to know’

‘Sir, I desire to know the Infinite.’

‘Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, cognises nothing else, that isthe Infinite.

‘Where one sees something else, hears something else, cognises something else, that is the finite. The Infinite is immortal, and the finite is mortal.’”^[25]

Nārada asked Sanat-Kumāra how he might reach the end of grief; and the latter said that, to reach the end of grief, the real nature of bliss should be investigated. Nūrada undertook to investigate it, and the master taught him that the Bhūman, the Infinite, was Bliss. “Bhūman” means infinity. It has been said above that since neither the context nor any accompanying word suggests a limitation in its literal sense, the word ‘Brahman’ denotes absolute or unlimited greatness. So here, too, the word ‘Bhūman’ means absolute infinity. We see that, people find pleasure, not in limited wealth, but only in the vastness of wealth. So, the Infinite is Bliss, and certainly the Infinite alone should be investigated. Seeing that Nūrada was prepared for the investigation, Sanat-kumūra defined the Infinite in the words “Where one sees nothing else,” etc. In our ordinary experience, one sees colour by the eye, i.e., one sees something distinct from oneself. This is one aspect of the tripuṭī or triple consciousness, made up of the seer, what is seen, and the act of seeing. There are other aspects: such as the one made up of the hearer, what is heard, and the act of hearing; the one made up of the cogniser, what is cognised, and the act of cognising; and so on. That which does not admit of triple consciousness in any one of its aspects is the Infinite. The triple consciousness in its several aspects obtains only in forms set up by Māyā; and all such forms are finite. Of the two, the Infinite is imperishable and the finite is perishable. The finite things in this universe of duality contain seeds of pain and are therefore painful in their nature; whereas the Infinite, the Non-dual, is devoid of all seeds of pain and is therefore Bliss itself. This Infinite, in Its genuine nature as Bliss, is felt in the suṣupti and samādhi states in which the triple consciousness is altogether absent. But on awaking from suṣupti and samādhi, i. e., in the jāgrat and vyutthāna states which are associated with triple consciousness, the universe of finite objects, embraced in the consciousness of the ordinary world, is experienced in its painful nature by the enlightened sage as well as by the unenlightened man of the world. Thus as they are mixed with pain, both the limited bliss, which constitutes the essential nature of the jīva, and the reflections thereof in the mental states are not genuine. The Infinite alone is the genuine Bliss.

 

Contemplation of the Ānandamaya.

Now the śruti proceeds to teach of the form in which the Ānandamaya,—which is a vikāra or modified form of the genuine Bliss just described, composed of love, joy and other forms of Bliss—should be contemplated, so that the conviction that the Ānandamaya is the self may be strengthened.

स वा एष पुरुषविध एव । तस्य पुरुषविधताम् । अन्वयं पुरुषविधः । तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः । मोदो दक्षिणः पक्षः । प्रमोद उत्तरः पक्षः । आनन्द आत्मा । ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा ॥ ४ ॥

sa vā eṣa puruṣavidha eva | tasya puruṣavidhatām | anvayaṃ puruṣavidhaḥ | tasya priyameva śiraḥ | modo dakṣiṇaḥ pakṣaḥ | pramoda uttaraḥ pakṣaḥ | ānanda ātmā | brahma pucchaṃ pratiṣṭhā || 4 ||

4. He, verily, this one, is quite of man’s shape. After his human shape, this one is of man’s shape. Of him, love itself is the head, joy is the right wing, delight is the left wing, bliss is the self, Brahman is the tail, the support.

Love, which springs up at the sight of a beloved son and the like, is the head, as it were, of the Ānandamaya self, because of its prominence. Joy is the exultation caused by the acquisition of a beloved object. The same exultation raised to a high pitch is called delight.

The Ānandamaya, lying within the Vijñānamaya, is none other than he who feels “I am happy, I am the enjoyer.” After the pattern of the Vijñānamaya, made up of a head, &c., the Ānandamaya, too, is of human form. Love, joy and delight are reflections of Bliss manifested in the Sāttvic states of mind. Delight is caused by the benefit derived from a beloved object.

Bliss is happiness in general; and it is the self,^[26] as it were, of love and other forms of bliss, because it runs through them all. Bliss (Ānanda)^[27] is the Supreme Brahman. And this Bliss is manifested is that state of mind (antaḥ-karaṇa) which is brought about when sons, friends, or such other objects of regard, are presented to consciousness in virtue of good karma, when the veil of Tamas (darkness) has been lifted and the mind is tranquil.

Under the action of Dharma, darkness vanishes from Buddhi. The more does it vanish, the more is the Buddhi self-collected, and the greater is the happiness.—(S)

This is what is known among people as the sensual pleasure (viṣaya-sukha). And this pleasure is impermanent because the karma which brings about such a state of mind is impermanent

As the antaḥ-karaṇa is more purified by austerity (tapas) which is calculated to dispel darkness, by contemplation (vidyā), by chastity and pious devotion (brahma-charya), and by reverential faith (śraddhā), it becomes more and more free (from Tamas) and becomes more and more tranquil; and then the Bliss manifests itself in a higher and higher degree and expands more and more. The śruti says in the sequel:

“Nectar, indeed, is he. Nectar, indeed, possessing, he becomes a thing of Bliss.’^[28]

“He, verily, it is who bestows bliss.”^[29]

“All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.”^[30]

Thus bliss is of different degrees of intensity, owing to the variety of karma producing it.—(S)

The bliss here referred to is that which is reflected in ajñāna, the upādāna or material cause of the vṛttis or vehicles of consciousness described above. Or, it maybe that the limited bliss, forming the essential nature of the jīvātman, the original counterpart, is reflected in the vehicles described above, (namely, love, joy, delight, etc.).

Accordingly the śruti will describe in the sequel different degrees of bliss, rising in scale a hundredfold higher and higher as the subjugation of desire (kāma) is more and more complete. Of the Ānandamaya self, thus admitting of different degrees of intensity, the Supreme Brahman Himself—the object of the śruti being to give us to understand what Brahman, the Supreme Reality, is^[31]—is the tail, the support.

That one perfect Brahman wherein this increasing bliss attains its highest degree, is the tail, because it is the basis of all.—(S).

It is the Supreme Brahman, forming the main subject of discourse, that has been described as “Real, Consciousness, Infinite;” and it is to impart a knowledge of the Supreme Brahman that the five kośas, beginning with the Annamaya, have been described. The Supreme Brahman, the Innermost One lying within them alibis also the Self of them all. It is this non-dual Brahman that constitutes the support, i.e, the ultimate basic reality underlying all duality which avidyā has set up. Since the Ānandamaya leads ultimately to unity, there does exist the One, the non-dual Brahman, who is the ultimate basis of duality imagined by avidyā, who is the tail, the support, of the Ānandamaya.

The infinite and genuine Bliss is Brahman, and is the basis of all the rest; thence come the finite bliss of jīvātman and the reflections thereof. Love, joy and delight are no doubt states of the mind which is an instrument, and are therefore external to the Vijñānamaya who is the agent. Still, inasmuch as they contain the reflections of the inner finite bliss of jīva or of the inner infinite bliss of Brahman, the Ānandamaya Self is regarded as interior to the Vijñānamaya.

 

Concentration in Brahman attained.

On realising intuitively by contemplation the Ānandamaya Self, the mind attains concentration in Brahman Himself who has been figuratively spoken of as the tail of the Ānandamaya; and then, as conveying no reflection of any kind, the mind surely realises the true nature of Brahman, as the śruti says, “With sharp and subtle mind is He beheld.”^[32] It is like one who mistakes the radiant rays of a gem for the gem itself, and who, on approaching, finds out what the real gem is. This circumstantial realisation of the true nature of Brahman is the fruit of the contemplation (of the Ānandamaya), and therefore, without mentioning any other fruit, the śruti concludes by merely teaching the true nature ot Brahman,—who is the basis of the whole universe,—in the words “Brahman is the tail, the support.” Accordingly, the śruti proceeds to cite a verse which describes Brahman, the chief element in the Ānandamaya-kośa:

तदप्येष श्लोको भवति ॥ ५ ॥
                        ॥ इति पञ्चमोऽनुवाकः ॥

tadapyeṣa śloko bhavati || 5 ||
                        || iti pañcamo'nuvākaḥ ||

5. On that, too, there is this verse:

As bearing on this teaching, too, the following verse may be cited:

The śruti cites the following verse, in order that, through that verse, the student may understand what has been already taught.—(S)

 

Brahman, the one Being.

                        ॥ अथ षष्ठोऽनुवाकः ॥

असन्नेव स भवति । असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत् । अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद । सन्तमेनं ततो विदुरिति ॥ १ ॥

                        || atha ṣaṣṭho'nuvākaḥ ||

asanneva sa bhavati | asadbrahmeti veda cet | asti brahmeti cedveda | santamenaṃ tato viduriti || 1 ||

 

(Anuvaka VI.)

1. Non-being, verilv, does one become if he ns non-being knows līrahman. It one knows thnt Brahman is, then they regard him as being. Thus (reads the verse).

He who knows Brahman to be non-being becomes equal to a non-being himself. That is to say, he attains no human aspirations, any more than one who is non-existent.

If a person knows that Brahman is non-being, though He exists in the form of the Self, he, as identifying himself with the kośas, surely becomes non-existent. The Self does not indeed exist as a kośa without existing as Brahman. How can the (illusory) serpent have a being except as the rope which alone is real?—(S).

If, on the contrary, a man knows that there exists Brahman, who is the basis of all differentiation, who is the seed of alPevolution, and who in Himself is characterised by no distinguishing features (we know of,...—

Now, it may be asked, whence at all arises the supposition that Brahman does not exist? We replv: it arises from the fact that Brahman is beyond sensuous experience. The mind (buddhi), trained as it has indeed been to regard that as existing which falls within the range of sensuous experience and which is but a creature of speech, has also come to believe that what is contrary thereto, i.e., what is beyond sensuous experience, is non-existent. People, for instance, understand that a pot exists, when it is brought within the range of experience, and that it does not exist, when it does not come within the range of experience. Similarly, here too, one may suppose that Brahman does not exist. Hence the supposition “if one knows that Brahman is.”

What of him who knows that Brahman exists? The śruti says: Because of his knowledge that Brahman exists, those who know Brahman regard him as being; they regard that, being one with Brahman, he is the Supreme Being and Reality. That is to say, others regard that he is Brahman Himself.

Suppose a person knows Brahman, the One, the Existent, as distinguished from the kośas which are non-existent; then, the Self (the witness) being none other than Brahman, the Brāhmaṇas (i. e., devotees of Brahman) regard him as Being. Such being the case, one should abandon all thought of the kośas which have been created by ajñāna, and should resort solely to the Paramātman, the Supreme Self, who is free from all change, who has neither a beginning nor an end. Being Paramātman, the Self can never be a non-being, because there is no non-being except as kośas; hence the śruti “Death, verily, is the non-being;”^[33] “‘He exists’; thus alone should one regard;”^[34] “Existent, verily, this at first was.”^[35] Nothing can really have a being anywhere except in Brahman, the Self.—(S)

So far as sensuous experience goes, all living beings think that a pot exists, only with reference to that pot which can be used for bringing water, which can be seen by the eye, and so on. If the contrary were the case, they think that no pot exists. So, with this kind of experience firmly ingrained in his nature, man thinks that Brahman, who is beyond sensuous experience, does not exist. As opposed to him, he who has the power of discrimination thinks that all matter and all material things which fall within the range of sensuous experience are non-existent, because of his conviction of their illusory nature, founded on the śruti, reason and experience. He believes in the existence of Brahman beyond sensuous experience, as proved by the śruti and other authorities. The man who regards Brahman as non-being will be himself non-existent; for, it has been shewn that the Annamaya and other kośas are non-self, and he does not admit the existence of Brahman beyond the kośas. Suppose a man knows Brahman who is beyond the five kośas; then, that very Brahman is his essential being, and therefore, in virtue of his knowledge of the existence of Brahman, those who have exhaustively studied the scriptures say that he, this discriminating man, has a being, has a Self.

Or, (to interpret the verse in a better way): He who understands that Brahman does not exist has no faith in the righteous path of any kind based upon distinctions of caste and religious order (varṇa and āśrama), and he therefore comes to believe that there is no such path,—the path being in fact intended solely for the realisation of Brahman. So that, being an unbeliever (nāstika), he is regarded by people as unrighteous. As opposed to him, he who understands that Brahman exists believes in the righteous path based upon the distinction of caste and religious order, and therefore resorts to it in accordance with the ordinance; and consequently the wise call him a righteous man, a follower of the right path. This is, in effect, to say that we should know that Brahman exists.

He who believes that Brahman is non-existent is certainly unrighteous. Since the whole path of righteousness— based upon distinctions of caste, religious order, and the like—is intended to lead to a knowledge of Brahman, he who condemns the whole path of righteousness by way of denying the existence of Brahman is a thorough unbeliever. On the contrary, him who believes in the existence of Brahman, they regard as righteous, as the pillar of the righteous path. This is the idea which the Kaṭhas express in the words; “‘He exists’: thus should one regard,”

 

Brahman, the Innermost Self.

Now the śruti proceeds to direct the upāsaka to firmly dwell in the idea that the Ānandamaya is his Self, while teaching the aspirant of right knowledge that the Self is identical with the Real Brahman:

तस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा । यः पूर्वस्य ॥ २ ॥

tasyaiṣa eva śārīra ātmā | yaḥ pūrvasya || 2 ||

2. Thereof,—of the former,—this one, verily, is the Self embodied.

Thereof,—of the former,— i.e., of the Vijñānamaya, this one, surely,—namely, the Ānandamaya,—is the embodied Self, i.e., the Self dwelling in the Vijñānamaya body.

That one who has no body, who is the one Existence, the Non-dual, the Partless, is the Self of all other selves mentioned above,—ending with the Ānandamaya. There is no other Self beyond— (S).

There can never arise a doubt that this one (the Ānandamaya) does not exist. But, as to Brahman, there is room for the doubt that He does not exist, since He is devoid of special conditions of existence and is common to all alike.^[36]

This very Ānandamaya is the master of the Vijñānamaya,—the latter being the body of the former. So far as the upāsaka is concerned, the passage should be construed to mean that the Ānandamaya is the Self. As to the aspirant after true knowledge it should be construed as follows: The Brahman just spoken of as the tail is the Self of the former, i. e., of the quaternary made up of love, joy, delight and bliss; the quaternary constituting the body, and Brahman who has the quaternary for His body being the Self. The self-same idéa has been expressed by the Vārtikakāra. Vide ante p. 425 11. 4 - 10.

 

The Ānandamaya construed as the Paramātman.

The meaning of this section has been discussed in the Brahmasūtras (I. i. 12 — 19). One school of commentators has interpreted the sūtras as follows:

(Question):—In the Taittirīya-Upaniṣad, five principles—-the physical body, Prāṇa, Manas, Buddhi, and Ānanda,—have been mentioned under the designations of Annamaya, Prāṇamaya, Manomaya, Vijñānamaya and Ānandamaya,— every succeeding one being interior to the one preceding it. Now a doubt arises as to whether the Ānandamaya, the innermost of them all, is ah entity of tbe world (saṃsārin) or the Supreme Self (Paramātman).

(Prima facie view):—It would seem that the Ānandamaya is an entity of the world; for, the word “ānandamaya” means a modified form (vikāra) of Ānanda and is therefore applicable only to an entity of the world. This word cannot be applied to the Supreme Self, the Immutable one. Moreover, the Ānandamaya has been spoken of as made up of five members: “Love is the head, joy is the right wing, delight is the left wing, Bliss is the self, Brahman is the tail, the support.” Love is the pleasure which arises at the sight of an object of desire. The pleasure caused by the acquisition of that object is joy, and that which arises from its enjoyment is delight. Bliss is pleasure in the abstract, which manifests itself in the upādhi of ajñāna during suṣupti and the like. That bliss which is unconnected with any upādhi or condition whatsoever is Brahman. The five members of the Ānandamaya, spoken of as love and so on, are represented in imagination as the head, etc., only to facilitate our contemplation and comprehension. Of the Ānandamaya thus represented in imagination, the head and the two wings form three members; the central portion is spoken of as the self and constitutes the fourth member; while the tail, the lower part, the support, the basis, constitutes the fifth member. Certainly the partless Paramātman can have no parts. Therefore, the Ānandamaya is surely a samsārin, an entity of the world.

(Conclusion):—As against the foregoing, it is argued as follows; The Ānandamaya is the Paramātman, because of the repetition. Again and again the Ānandamaya is referred to in this section of the Upaniṣad, in the passages like the following.;

“This is the enquiry concerning bliss.”^[37]

“Into this self formed of bliss he passes on.”^[38]

Frequent reference is a mark of the main subject of discourse; and we have shewn that the one main theme of all Upaniṣads (Vedanta) is Brahman, and Brahman alone. Moreover, the section opens with Brahman in the words “Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman,”^[39] and again He is spoken of as the creator of the universe in the words “He created all this;”^[40] and therefore the Ānandamaya is Brahman. It should not be urged that the word ending in the termination “maya,” and meaning “formed of bliss” cannot be applied to Brahman; for, the word may also mean “abounding in bliss.” And as to love, etc. being spoken of as members of the Ānandamaya, it is due to the upādhis, such as perception of the sense-objects. Wherefore the Ānandamaya is Brahman.

Such is the construction put upon the Vedānta-sūtras (I. i. 12 — 19) by one school of the Vedāntins.

 

The Ānandamaya construed as the jīva.

Now the same sūtras will be interpreted according to the orthodox (Śaṅkarāchārya’s) school of the Vedānta:

(Question):—It has been said that “Brahman is the tail, the support.” Here, a doubt arises as to whether the śruti means that Brahman is a member of the Ānandamaya, or that Brahman is to be know n as an independent entity in Himself.

(Prima facie view):—It would appear that Brahman should be comprehended as a member of the Ānandamaya, inasmuch as in common parlance the term ‘tail’ is a ppli-cable only to a member of the body.

(Conclusion):—The word ‘tail’ does not mean a member of the body. It is that long appendage which is attached to the bodies of some animals. And the Ānandamaya cannot be said to be possessed of a tail, which is only a part of the Annamaya or physical body of animals such as the cow. Since the word ‘tail’ does not thus admit of a literal interpretation here, we should understand it in a figurative sense as meaning ‘basis’. Brahman is the basic reality underlying the Ānandamaya or jīva, since Brahman is mistaken for jīva. And the Ānandamaya cannot be the Supreme Self (Paramātman); for, even if we understand the word “ānandamaya” as signifying “abounding in bliss” it would imply some admixture of pain. Wherefore, as the basic reality underlying jīva, Brahman is presented here as the main thing to be comprehended. Hence the frequent reference to Brahman in such passages as “Non-being verily does one become if he as non-being knows Brahman;” as also the opening words of the section, “the knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.” So that, on the principle of interpretation discussed in the case of the Puruṣa spoken of in the Kaṭha-Upaniṣad, it is Brahman alone that is here presented for comprehension, but not the evolution of ākāśa, etc., nor the Annamaya and other kośas.

 

Brahman, the sole theme of the Upaniṣads.

The principle of interpretation above referred to is dis cussed as follows in the Vedānta-sūtras (III. iii. 14—15).

(Question):—In the Kaṭha-Upaniṣad, occurs the following passage:

“Beyond the senses, verily, are objects; and beyond objects is Manas; even beyond Manas is Buddhi; beyond Buddhi is Ātman, the Mahat; beyond the Mahat is Avyakta; beyond Avyakta is Puruṣa; beyond Puruṣa there is nothing whatsoever; That is the farthest, That the Supreme Goal.”^[41]

The meaning of the passage may be explained as follows: A person first craves in manas for sense-objects and then reaches them through the senses. Now, the senses being internal with reference to external objects, everybody can understand that the former transcend the latter. But as objects of desire, these sense-objects are internal, or subjective, in relation to the senses. And beyond these objects of desire is the desire itself, a state of mind, which is quite internal or subjective. Buddhi, the subject experiencing these changes of manas, transcends the changes of manas, and beyond even Buddhi is the Self, the Hiraṇyagarbha, designated as Mahat, the upādā-na or material cause of Buddhi. Transcending even Mahat is the material cause thereof, called Avyakta, the Ajñāna lying at the root of all; and even beyond Avyakta is Puruṣa, the Supreme principle of Consciousness, the basic Reality underlying Avyakta. And there exists naught beyond Puruṣa. Puruṣa is the last rung in the ladder of ascending transcendentality and is the Supreme Goal to be reached by all aspirants of the Highest Good.

Now a doubt arises as to whether the whole series of things enumerated here, or Puruṣa alone, is presented by the śruti for comprehension.

(Prima facie view):—The whole series of things beginning with the senses is presented by the śruti for comprehension, equally with Puruṣa, the main subject of discourse. Otherwise, the exposition of the series would be in vain. It may perhaps be urged that to hold that the section expounds so many things would tantamount to the admission that it treats of different propositions. We answer that the section certainly treats of different propositions, it being impossible to make out that only one single proposition is here treated of.

(Conclusion):—Since knowledge of Puruṣa brings about the cessation of ajñāna which is the source of all saṃsāra, it is Puruṣa alone that forms the subject of discourse. Accordingly, as a means of attaining this knowledge of Puruṣa alone, Yoga has been specially taught in the sequel in the following words:

“This one, the Self, hid in all beings, shines not; but He is seen with sharp subtle buddhi by them that see the subtle.”^[42]

This passage may be explained as follows: As the innermost being in all, the Self lies hidden and does not manifest Himself to him whose mind is turned outward. On the contrary He manifests Himself to Him whose mind is turned inward. For him whose mind is thus turned inward and who always seeks to see the subtle Reality, it is possible to see the Self by means of Buddhi which by practice of Yoga has attained to one-pointedness and is able to grasp the subtle. It cannot be objected that, if Puruṣa alone be the subject of exposition, the description of the whole series of things would be useless; for, this series is the means whereby the mind which is turned outward is enabled gradually to approach Puruṣa. Therefore, Puruṣa alone is the thing to be known.

 

Conclusion.

In accordance with this principle of interpretation, we understand that the evolution of ākāśa, etc., has been expounded with a view to shew that Brahman is the Infinite, and that the five kośas—the Annamaya, etc.,— have been described with a view to shew that Brahman lies in the cave. It is Brahman, and Brahman alone, that is presented everywhere for comprehension. We therefore conclude that Brahman is Real, Consciousness, and Infinite, and that, as lying in the cave, He is also the innermost Self of all.

 

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The Vṛttikāra.—(A)

[2]:

not the Supreme Brahman—(S).

[3]:

Tait. Up. 2-8.

[4]:

In that section, the other things that the knower of Brahman is said to pass into are all outside the Real Self.

[5]:

Kaṭha. Up. 4–9.

[6]:

alleged to be identical with Brahman.

[7]:

As the Real, Consciousness, the Infinite, i. e,, as having no specific attributes and therefore not forming an object of contemplation.

[8]:

Tai. Up. 2-7.

[9]:

Bṛ. Up. 3-8-8.

[10]:

Bṛ. Up. 2-3-6.

[11]:

Tai. Up. 2-6.

[12]:

That is to say, the enjoyer comes(?) after the agent,—(A)

[13]:

Tait, Up. 3-6.

[14]:

Bṛ. Up. 3-9-28.

[15]:

Kauṣ. Up, 3–6.

[16]:

Sāṅkhya-Kārikās, 28,

[17]:

Praśna. Up. 4–8.

[18]:

Bhag. Gītā. XIV. 9.

[19]:

Bṛ. Up. 4–3–32.

[20]:

Kaṭha. Up. 5–9.

[21]:

Brahmabindu. Up.

[22]:

Vedānta-Panchadaśī, XV. 1–11.

[23]:

Bṛ. Up. 1–1–8.

[24]:

Bṛ. Up. 2–4–5.

[25]:

Chhā.  Up. 7–23–1.

[26]:

i.e., the centre.

[27]:

which is devoid of all duality.—(S)

[28]:

Tait, Up. 2–6.

[29]:

Ibid.

[30]:

Bṛ. Up. 4–3–32.

[31]:

That is to say, the śruti teaches thereby that Brahman is the Innermost one in all.

[32]:

Kaṭha. Up. 3-12.

[33]:

Bṛ. Up. 1–3–28.

[34]:

Kaṭha. Up. 6–13.

[35]:

Chhā. Up. 6-2-1.

[36]:

Here the commentator tries once more to impress the notion that the mantra quoted above refers to Brahman, but not to the Ānandamaya as the Vṛttikāra contends.

[37]:

Tait. Up. 2-8.

[38]:

Ibid.

[39]:

Ibid.

[40]:

Ibid.

[41]:

Op. cit. 3-10, 11.

[42]:

Ibid. 3-12.