Chapter 2.3 - Śaṅkarācārya on Brahman

The term Brahman is derived from the root bṛh, which means to increase. So, etymologically, the Brahman means the greatest one.^[1] In the Upaniṣads, the Brahman is thought over as the substratum of all the variety. It is defined in the tradition of the Kevala-advaita-vedāntaphilosophy in two ways. They are: svarūpa-lakṣaṇa (essential definition) and taṭastha-lakṣaṇa (secondary definition). In the svarūpa-lakṣaṇa, the essential nature of a thing is defined. For instance, the essential nature of the Brahman is Reality, Consciousness and Bliss.^[2] The taṭastha-lakṣaṇa is that which does not endure till the duration of a thing to be defined, but it differentiates that thing from other things. For example, in the taṭasthalakṣaṇa of the earth, its possession of the smell is considered. The smell is absent in the atoms of the earth during the time of dissolution and also it is absent in the pot etc. at the time of their production. In the taṭasthalakṣaṇa, the Brahman is defined as the cause of creation, continuance and dissolution of the world.^[3]

The definition saccidānandaṃ Brahma is not found in the major ten Upaniṣads. However, these characteristics of the Brahman are separately found in these Upaniṣads. In the Taittiriya Upaniṣad (II.1.1), the Brahman is described as satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ Brahma i.e. the Brahman is Reality, Knowledge or Consciousness and Infinite. Herein, Śaṅkarācārya comments that this sentence is meant for defining the Brahman. The three words satya etc. are adjectives of the word Brahman. Here, the Brahman is a substantive, since it is intended to be spoken of as a knowable thing. It is distinguished from the other substantives by the adjectives satyaṃ etc.^[4]

The Brahman is of the nature of Sat, which is considered as Satya (Reality). Śaṅkarācārya explains the Sat as mere Existence, which is subtle, devoid of any distinction, all-pervasive, non-dual, uncontaminated, partless and consciousness.^[5] Further, considering the Chāndogya Śruti ‘…tat satyaṃ…’ (VI.8.7), he mentions that the satyatva is said by assertion of the sattva viz. the existence, since the Śruti proclaims that the Existence is Real itself.^[6] The Satya, according to him, is that which does not change the nature, which is determined as its own. On the other hand, that thing is anṛta (unreal), which changes its own nature. So, the vikāra (effect) can never be real. In the Śruti ‘All the modifications are mere names arising from the speech and the clay alone is real’ ([Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.1.4), it is determined that the truth is that, which exists. So, the characteristic Satya distinguishes the Brahman from all the effects or the modifications.^[7] Although the Brahman is the ultimate truth, it is suspected to be non-existent when one is experiencing the empirical plane. According to Śaṅkarācārya, the Brahman is beyond all the empirical dealings, so its existence is suspected. The intellect, which tends to believe in the existence of the unreal empirical objects, considers the non-existence of the transcendental thing that has characteristics opposite to the empirical objects.^[8]

Since the Brahman is not an effect, it is understood that the Brahman is a cause. Now, the Brahman is a material cause and hence a kāraka (instrument of action) on account of being a substance, so it follows that it is inert like the earth. So, according to Śaṅkarācārya, the characteristic jñāna is used in the definition to avoid this problem. The Brahman cannot be either jñātā (knower) or jñeya (thing to be known). The word jñāna indicates the cognate sense of the verb jñā. So, it means the Knowledge or the Consciousness.^[9] Again, the meaning of root depends on the kārakās. So, it might follow that the Knowledge of the Brahman is impermanent as well as dependent on the kārakas. Here, Śaṅkarācārya answers that the Knowledge is the essential nature of the Brahman and so, it is permanent. The sense of activity is told in it only in a secondary sense. Primarily, the intellectual cognitions denote the verbal sense of activity, i.e. the sense of knowing. The intellect, which is an adjunct of the Self, converts itself into the forms of objects while coming out through the channels of the eye etc. These intellectual cognitions, which are the objects of the Knowledge of the Self, arise being covered up by the Knowledge of the Self. These cognitions are changeable in nature. The ignorant people imagine them to be the attributes of the Self. On the other hand, the Knowledge of the Brahman is the intrinsic nature of the Brahman. So it is inseparable from the Brahman, just like the light from the sun or the heat from the fire.^[10] The worldly knowledge, namely the relative knowledge is finite. So, by the word jñāna, one might misunderstand that the Brahman is finite. In the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the adjective ananta is used to avoid this mistake.^[11] The Brahman is infinite regarding place, time and object. So, it is the absolute truth.^[12]

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (III.9.28.7), the Brahman is stated as Knowledge and Bliss.^[13] Śaṅkarācārya comments that the Vijñāna means Knowledge, which is the Ānanda itself. This Ānanda is not blended with the misery, just as found in the case of relative knowledge. However, it is pure, auspicious, unequalled, spontaneous, ever contented and uniform. In empirical usage, the word ānanda is used in the sense of pleasure, but here this very word is used in the sense of the adjective of the Brahman. The Brahman is pure Bliss by nature. In the state of the Brahman, there does not remain relative knowledge. It transcends the triad of knowledge, namely the knower, the things to be known and the knowledge. It is a non-dual state. Hence, the Bliss of the Brahman is not saṃvedya i.e. it cannot be cognized. The Bliss is intrinsically identical with the Brahman. ^[14] In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (II.8.1-4) and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (IV.3.33), the Bliss of the Brahman is thought over by counting the quantity of the worldly happiness, increasing from a human-being to the Brahma-loka. In the commentary on these passages, Śaṅkarācārya says that the worldly happiness, experienced by Brahmā down to the human beings, is only a mātrā (particle) of supreme Bliss of the Brahman. The calculation of worldly happiness is explained by the Śruti for the sake of advising the supreme Bliss through the particles of Bliss, like the mountain of salt can be known through the fragments of the salt.^[15] The worldly happiness, which is nothing but a particle of the Bliss of the Brahman, is produced by the avidyā and it is experienced during the contact of the senses with the objects. All the creatures, appearing as if different from the Brahman due to the avidyā, live only on this particle of the Bliss.^[16] When the distinction between the subject and the object, created by avidyā, is annihilated by the means of the vidyā, there remains only the Bliss of the Brahman, which is natural, complete and non-dual. In that non-dual state of supreme Bliss, there does not remain the distinction between the happiness and the enjoyer of the happiness.^[17]

In the taṭstha-lakṣaṇa, the Brahman is defined as a source of the world. According to Śaṅkarācārya, the Brahman is the omniscient and omnipotent cause of creation, continuance and dissolution of the world, which is manifested as names and forms; which contains various agents and enjoyers;which is a substratum of the actions and their results having controlled place, time and causation; and which is of the nature that cannot be thought over even by the mind.^[18] When the Brahman is thought over as the cause of the world, it is regarded as possessing of the qualities. Ācārya points out these qualities, such as omnipresence, eternity, omniscience, omnipotence and being the Self of all the things.^[19]

Śaṅkarācārya accepts the word Īśvara also, instead of the word Brahman. But, it must be noted that he has not strictly used the term Īśvara in place of the term Brahman while explaining its relation with the world. The word Īśvara is derived from the root īś, to rule over. The Īśvara governs all the creatures, being the innermost Self of all.^[20] Further, Śaṅkarācārya clearly mentions that the supreme Self is called the Īśvara, only when it is connected with the adjuncts of names and forms created by the avidyā. The Īśvara depends on these adjuncts just as the space is seen to have the conformation of the pots etc. In the empirical world, the Īśvara governs the jīvas, which depend on the aggregate of the body and the organs, created by the avidyā. In real sense, the jīvas are not different from the Īśvara, just as the space in a pot is not different from the cosmic space. In short, the rulership, omniscience and omnipotence of the Īśvara depend on the divisions created by limiting adjuncts. However, in truth, these empirical dealings, like the ruler, the ruled jīvas, omniscience etc. are not possible in the supreme Self, who is devoid of all the limiting adjuncts created by the avidyā. ^[21]

According to Ācārya, the Īśvara is inactive by nature. His activity or inactivity is imagined on account of the māyā. He is omniscient, omnipotent and the possessor of the great māyā. So, his seeming involment in the activity and also his inactivity do not become contradictory.^[22] The Īśvara is reluctant or inactive in his nature, but he is said to be the motivator considering the māyā. ^[23] He can make the world act, even if he is without any motion. It is just like the magnet, inactive in itself, still motivates the iron; or the objects of perception such as colour etc. are not active, but they motivate the eye etc. to act. In the same way, the Īśvara, who is without any tendency, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and the Self of all, motivates all the things. Even if the Īśvara is non-dual and so there cannot be other things to be motivated, the Īśvara can be said as the motivator considering his imaginary relation with the names and the forms, which are not different from the māyā and which are created by the avidyā. ^[24]

The next question is raised about the purpose of the Īśvara in creating such a vast universe. The Brahma-sūtra ‘lokavattu līlākaivalyam’ ([Brahma-sūtra] II.1.11.33) proclaims that the activity of the Īśvara is a mere sport, just as sports without any purpose seen in the empirical world. Hereupon, Śaṅkarācārya comments that a king or a minister, who has fulfilled his desires, proceeds to do some activities, such as moving in the garden etc. without any intention. And, also one proceeds to do inhalation and exhalation naturally even without any purpose. Similarly, the Īśvara proceeds spontaneously even without any specific purpose. His activity is of the nature of līlā (sport). Any other purpose cannot be stated in this connection, since this other purpose cannot be proved logically and also it has no support in the Śrutis. And, any question cannot be raised about one’s nature. Although the creation of the world is seen to be vast, yet it is a mere sport of the Īśvara due to his infinite power. In the empirical usage, the purport, although small, is seen in the case of sports also. But, according to the Śrutis, the Īśvara is always fulfilled, so there cannot be any slightest desire in him. Again, it cannot be said that the Īśvara acts without any purpose just as a mad man losing control of the intellect, since the Īśvara is omniscient.^[25] Further, the objection is raised regarding the creatorship of the Īśvara. He creates the inequality in the world. He makes someone happy and other one unhappy, so he is partial and cruel. Śaṅkarācārya replies that this fault does not occur in the case of the Īśvara, since he creates the world expecting the dharma (merit) and adharma (demerit) of the creatures. So, he is not guilty for the inequality in the world. The Īśvara should be regarded just like the rain. The rain is a common cause in the production of rice, barley etc., but the inequality in their production takes place owing to the specific causes found in their seeds. Similarly, the Īśvara is the common cause in the creation of deities, human beings etc., but the inequality is found in them because of their own actions.^[26]

Śaṅkarācārya has considered two aspects of the Brahman due to the limiting adjuncts. They are: para Brahman (supreme Brahman) and apara Brahman (lower Brahman). In the opinion of Ācārya, when the Brahman is instructed in the words ‘not gross’ etc. by rejecting the distinctions of names and forms created by the avidyā, it is called para. And, when that very Brahman is instructed as having a specific name and form and it is explained for the sake of spiritual practice in the succeeding words: ‘possessing of the mind, having the body of prāṇa’ etc., it is called apara. Even by accepting this distinction, the Śruti declaring the non-duality of the Brahman is not obstructed, since it is accepted that the limiting adjuncts of names and forms are created by the avidyā. ^[27] In this manner, the Brahman is described in both the ways, namely with attributes and without attributes. But, here Śaṅkarācārya points out that the Brahman does not have both these aspects in itself in real sense, since one and the same thing cannot be determined as possessing the attributes like form etc. and devoid of these attributes in itself. Otherwise, there will be contradiction. And, the nature of anything cannot change into another even in the contact of the limiting adjuncts. The clear crystal does not become unclear owing to the contact of the alaktaka (red lac), since the idea of unclearness is only the illusion. The limiting adjuncts are the product of the avidyā. So, even if one of these two aspects has to be chosen, then it must be known that the Brahman is devoid of all the qualities and the distinctions and not vice versa.^[28] Thus, in the viewpoint of Śaṅkarācāya, the Brahman is absolute alone, although it is regarded as having attributes at some places.

The Brahman is well-known as the Self of all. Hence, according to Śaṅkarācārya, the existence of the Brahman cannot be doubted. The existence of the Brahman is well-Known, since everyone experiences the existence of the Self and not the non-existence of the Self in the form ‘I do not exist’. Everyone would have experienced ‘I do not exist’, if the Self would be non-existent.^[29] The Self is one’s own nature.^[30] It is the very core of the subject, hence it can never be denied by anyone. The Self is not a stranger to anyone, since it is self-established. It does not need other pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge) to prove itself. Only the unknown objects are proved by the means of knowledge. The Self is the basis of the empirical usages, such as pramāṇa etc. and hence it is always present even before such usages. That is why, the Self cannot be rejected. One can deny the thing outside, but not one’s own nature. The Self is the very nature of the denier. It is like the fire that cannot deny its heat. Secondly, the knower always remains same in all the three periods viz. past, present and future, since it is of the nature of always being present. Even the objects of the knowledge change but not the knower. So, there cannot be confusion about the existence of the knower. The Self remains the same even after the destruction of the body.^[31]

In the Upaniṣads, the abode of the Self is stated as hṛdaya (heart). The Self is said to reside in the cavity of the heart.^[32] In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the derivational meaning of the hṛdaya is said as hṛdi ayam i.e. the Self is in the heart. According to Śaṅkarācārya, it should be known through this well-known etymological sense of hṛdaya that the Self resides in one’s own heart.^[33] The connection of the heart with the Self is mainly seen to be shown in the six Upaniṣads. These are: the Kaṭha, the Praśna, the Muṇḍaka, the Taittirīya, the Chāndogya and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. In the commentaries on these Upaniṣads, excluding the commentaries on the Kaṭha and the Muṇḍaka, Śaṅkarācārya mentions the heart as a lump of flesh having a size of lotus.^[34] In the commentary on the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, he mentions the heart as having a shape of a lotus.^[35] In the commentary on the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, he explains the heartlotus as of the measurement of a thumb.^[36] Thus, in these commentaries, Śaṅkarācārya considers the heart as having a specific shape.

At some places, Śaṅkarācārya has asserted that the hārdākāśa, namely the cavity in the heart, is none other than the Self.^[37] He says this, especially while explaining the unification of the jīva with the Self at the time of suṣupti. In deep sleep, the jīva rests in the heart-space. Here, according to Śaṅkarācārya, the heart-space is not an ether-element but the supreme Self itself. This can be understood by the Chāndogya-śruti (VI.8.1) also, which says that one becomes united with the Existence in the deep sleep. The jīva stays in the heart-space, i.e. in the undifferentiated, intrinsic and non-dual Self by giving up the specific form created owing to its association with the delimiting adjunct of the subtle body.^[38] Secondly, in the commentary on the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (II.1.1), he interpretes the supreme space as avyākṛta (unmanifested), and further equates the supreme space with the space in the heart. Then, interpreting the word guhā as intellect, he says that the intellect is located in the heart-space and the Brahman is placed in the cave of the intellect, wherein it can be clearly experienced apart from the intellect.^[39] He also mentions that the Īśvara, possessing the qualities such as minuteness etc., is instructed to be meditated upon in the heart-lotus. He is perceived there through the intellect.^[40] Further, at various places, according to the specific contexts, he accepts the meaning of the word hṛdaya as buddhi. ^[41] Specifically, when the certain qualities of the intellect are seen to be connected with the heart, Śaṅkarācārya regards the heart as the intellect. For example, In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (VI.14), it is said that all the desires dwell in one’s heart. Hereupon, Ācārya comments that the residing place of the desires is the intellect and not the Self, so here ‘in the heart’ means ‘in the intellect’.^[42] Furthermore, in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (VI.15), the granthis (knots) are said to be of the heart. Here, Ācārya interprets the heart as the intellect and explains that the knots means all the ideas, which are the product of the avidyā and which bind a person tightly. These knots are of the nature of the superimposition of the ideas ‘I’ and ‘mine’ on the Self. When these knots get destroyed by the realization of the unity of the jīva with the Brahman, all the desires based on these knots get totally vanished.^[43]

The Brahman is accepted as all-pervading, indivisible and limitless. In the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the abode of the Brahman is instructed as the heart for the sake of upāsanā (meditation). It is the heartspace wherein the Brahman can be directly perceived and so it can be meditated upon. Hence, it is regarded as the place of the Brahman, just as the śālagrāma viz. a stone-symbol of Viṣṇu is said to be a place of Viṣṇu. The Brahman having the characteristics such as full of mind etc. can be directly experienced, when it is meditated upon in the heart. Its perception therein is as clear as the āmalaka (myrobalan) on a palm.^[44] About the Kaṭha-śruti (IV.12-13) declaring the Self as of the measurement of a thumb, Śaṅkarācārya asserts that the Self is all-pervading, yet it is declared as of the measurement of a thumb only due to the consideration of its abode viz. the heart. In truth, the Self is limitless, so it is not appropriate to say that it has a limited size of a thumb.^[45] In short, the Brahman that is meditated upon in the heart is said to be possessing of qualities. It is the upāsya Brahman, namely the object of meditation. According to Ācārya, the Brahman is free from all the differences, such as direction, place, time etc. However, people having dull intellect believe in these differences. Their mind cannot be easily turned to the truth that the Brahman is the indivisible whole. Moreover, without knowing the Brahman, the highest goal of a human being cannot be achieved. So, considering these people, the place of the heart-lotus is instructed to know the Brahman. ^[46] The qualified Brahman is meditated upon in the heart-space. The gati (course) after death, is told in the Upaniṣads through the nerve opening at the top of the head i.e. the suṣumnā nerve, for the sake of the meditator, who firmly believes in the ideas, like traveller, travel etc. and who meditates upon the qualified Brahman residing in the heart. He attains the gradual liberation.^[47] This will be further explained while discussing the types of the liberation.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.1.1

[2]:

[Vedānta-paribhāṣā] p. 273

[3]:

Ibid p. 276

[4]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.1.1

[5]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.2.1

[6]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.6.1; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.8.7

[7]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.1.1

[8]:

Ibid II.6.1

[9]:

Ibid II.1.1

[10]:

Ibid II.1.1

[11]:

Ibid II.1.1

[12]:

Ibid II.1.1

[13]:

[Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] III.9.28.7

[14]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] III.9.28.7

[15]:

Ibid IV.3.33; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.8.1-4

[16]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.32; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.8.1-4

[17]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.8.1-4

[18]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.2

[19]:

Ibid I.2.1.1 Preface

[20]:

ĪUŚB I; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.2.5.18; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] VI; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] III.7.3-23

[21]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.6.14

[22]:

Ibid II.2.1.4

[23]:

Ibid II.2.1.7

[24]:

Ibid II.2.1.2 [Bhāṣya-ratna-prabhā Ṭīkā] on [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.2.1.2

[25]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.11.33

[26]:

Ibid II.1.12.34; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.6.1

[27]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] IV.3.5.14; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.6.12 Preface, I.1.7.20, I.1.10.24, IV.3.5.9

[28]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.5.11; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.5.12, III.2.5.15

[29]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.1.1

[30]:

Ibid I.1.5.6

[31]:

Ibid II.3.1.7; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.4.4

[32]:

[Taittirīya Upaniṣad] I.6.1; [Praśna Upaniṣad] III.6

[33]:

[Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.3.3 ... [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.3.3

[34]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] III.6 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] I.6.1; Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.6.1; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.19

[35]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] II.2.7

[36]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] IV.12

[37]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.3.3

[38]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.17; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] III.2.2.7, [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.3.2;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.4.22

[39]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.1.1; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] IV.12; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.1.3;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.7

[40]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.2.1.7; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] III.1.9; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.6.1

[41]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] VI.9; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] V.12; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] II.2.7;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.7; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.17, XV.15

[42]:

[Kaṭha Upaniṣad] VI.14 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] VI.14; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] IV.3.22

[43]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] VI.15; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] II.1.10, II.2.8

[44]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] I.6.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.2.1.7, I.2.3.11, I.2.7.29, I.2.7.30; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.7.1

[45]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.7.25

[46]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.1.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] VI.16 Preface

[47]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VIII.1.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] I.6.1