bruhadaranyakopanishad

Glimpses of bruhadaranyaka upanishad

Written by : Vidyavachaspati Bannanje Govindacharya

Translation by : B.Gururajacharya

Nowhere else, the Prana Tattva is so vividly and elaborately considered and discussed, as it is done in Bruhadaranyaka. Bruhadaranyaka advices us to have much of mental preparation before the study of Upanishad is taken up. The main episode in Bruhadaranyaka is a collection of the replies given by Sage Yajnavalkya to the questions raised by the scholars in the assembly of King Janaka. Anywhere in the entire episode the talk or discussion does not take a turn towards logic (Tarka). Precisely the question and answers to the questions, that's all there. During the period of Upanishad, the talks used to be purely based on the experience and realization. And not through logic at all. Acharya Madhwa opines in his Bhasya that where there is no experience (direct perception and realisation within) there is no use of 'making of logic'. And where there is experience there is no need of logic. One's experience only reaches to the other. Other's heart. And hence, we should stand off the logic in order to study the Upanishad.

Inside us, two faculties activating our activities exist; Intellect and Intuition, (Boudhikata and Sphurana). If our approach to the Upanishad is by using our 'intellect' we would see only our intellectual deficiency (insufficiency) and incapability in Upanishad also and never the actual meaning of the Upanishad. Instead, when we surrender to the 'intuition', the vastness and depth of Upanishad we would come to know of. Primarily, we are required to keep open the faculty of intuition while closing the door of intellect.

For the real meaning of Upanishad to be able to reach the 'intuition' we have to keep its door open. Without undergoing such a mental training and a mindset, the study of Upanishad made would result in another logical composition (Tarkika Grantha); another Vadagrantha (a work of disputes and debate on disputes). It would not even dig at the surface of internal experience.

In this regard, Yajnavalkya's dialogue is exemplary. By using the Intuition and not the intellect, the dialogue evokes our mind. Our mode of the teaching should be like this. Normally we would try to see in the Upanishad what we earlier had read and learnt elsewhere. This is a dangerous tendency which might be developed by us due to the usage of Intellect. Intuition is not dangerous like this. It gives vent for the internal experience. That is why, we must make ourselves free for the study of Upanishad abandoning the Tarkika Prajna (logical attitude) and resorting to greater Prajna.

As stated in the statement "Naisha Tarkena Matirapaneya", a clear picture, as to how our approach should be, is shown by Yajnavalkya.

Yajnavalkya was a great Brahmajnani. Still he had no ego. He used to say, "I am a Gokama, because I have less of them in my cowshed" (wishing to have more and more cows) knowledge or Vedavidya is one of the meanings of the word 'Cow') Aspiration for collecting more cows is not a material greed. Yajnavalkya having tasted the Brahmajnana through Vedic studies and experiences had natural affinity for more and more of such Adhyatma knowledge. Cow stands for Adhyatma jnana. He used to collect more and more cows thus. Also, he used to reply to all questions of Brahmajnanis of his period.

Let us consider, for example, one of such questions asked by Jaratkarava Artabhaga. The question was "Kati Grahah, Katyatigrahah" (how many Grahas are there and how many are the Atigrahas?) This question digs at and tests your experience; one can answer to this through the strength of his experience provided he has one. Strength of logic has no place here. The Grahas about which the question is raised here are not the ones we know about. Astrologers might give the numbers as nine, Yajnikas who perform Homa might say it is twelve. But neither Navagrahas nor the grahas known to Yajnikas have Atigrahas. (Atigrahas are extras to Grahas)

Lets us ponder over to find out what should be the reply ?

We have in us two types of organs (Indriyas). One set pulls us inside our 'self' and the other pushes us out. Total of these two sets is eleven.

Eight of these get receive Vishayas into us. The rest three get us out. So, the set of only eight is Graha (the receiver); i.e. sensual organs, speech, hands and mind. The legs, the anus (Payu) and the organ of generation (Upanstha) are Atigrahas (ejectors).

This explanation can occur only out of experience. "Grahatvam nam kim? (what is meant by Grahatva?) This sort of logical approach and queries would not help us to get convincing reply. The actual question here is "What are the Grahas in the Vigraha i.e. body?"

If 'ear' is Graha, Shabda (sound) is Atigraha. We know that all the sounds cannot be heard using the ear. That is why ear is Graha and sound is Atigraha (because some sounds are beyond (Ati) the reach of ear, Graha). Similarly the eye, another Graha, cannot see all the forms (Rupa). So, for the Graha called eye, the form (Rupa) is Atigraha. How much so ever we may be able to see, still we must know that more forms, objects and scenes remain beyond the reach of the eye. This sort of analysis and explanation could occur when our experiences are tallied with what Upanishads say. Surely, not form out of the logic.

Upanishad does not speak using the spoken colloquial laguage. Its's language is different. It would never speak using the logical language; It would speak in the language of experience.

The dispute about the meaning of the statement, "Aham Shreyasi' of the Upanishad comes up because of the above mentioned language-differences. Upanishad, in its language, here asks which is the most auspicious and most blessed (Shreyan) among the Aheya i.e. never fit to be abandoned.

The Bhashya to Upanishad says that the word 'Aham' everywhere means 'Aheya', (Aheya means not to be abandoned). Nowhere in Upanishad it means 'I'. Dictionary should not guide the process of arriving at the meaning of the words in Upanishad.

'Aham' is that thing without or abandoning which this body cannot exist and function. 'I' am 'Aham' to me because I cannot exist without 'Aham'. Similarly, you are 'Aham' to you because you cannot exist without your 'Aham' and you can exist without my 'Aham'. I am not 'Aham' to you nor you are Aham to me. Everyone is Aham to himself only and not 'Aham' to the other. But, Bhagavan is 'Aham' to each and everyone. Because, none can exist without Him; None can afford to abandon Him. That is, He is Aheya (indispensable) to everybody. This is what Upanishad wants to imply. Such several wonderful statements are found in Upanishad.

Due to Indispensability of Pramatma, Uniqueness (Ananyata) of Him, He is 'Aheya'. This 'Ananyata' of Him is indicated in another statement of Upanishad. "Atha Yah Anyam Devatam Upasate Anyah Asow Anyah Aham Asmi'.

The word Anyam is very significantly used. Dictionary meaning of words appearing here would end up us in a mess. So, we have to break the words for getting true meaning of the Upanishad. In brief, the statement says "To worship considering that He is different and I am different is wrong".

To understand what 'Anya' really means here, we have to surrender to our experiences in life.

In our experience we have, for example, a context where such word like Anya is used. Say, two gangs, each comprising of a few people, go to a reception counter of a hotel after they arrive at a tourist place. When both gangs ask for rooms, the receptionist may ask those people of one gang "do the other gang people also belong to you?" Then the gang would reply "No, no, sir, they are separate (Anya) we are separate (Anya). They do not belong to us nor we belong to them". The word 'separate' (Anya) here implies that each gang is self dependent/independent and has no control or obligation of one over the other.

The Upanishad also uses the word 'Anya' to imply that "to think that we are independent of Him and He has no control over us or we can exist separated from Him", is wrong and disastrous. Thus 'Anya' is used here to imply the meaning 'Swatantra' (self-dependent).

The attitude that Paramatma and we have no connection and we have seperate entity with no bearing to Him is wrong. Bhagavan is Ananya viz. He is without any equal. None can replace Him; He is indispensable. He is Ananya to all of us.

"Na Tadasti Vina Yat Syat Mayabhutam chracharam".

This Charachara universe cannot exist without Him. That is why He is Aheya to all.

Once this meaning is revealed there is no scope for logical juggleries. This is how Upanishad speaks.

One more word the Upanishad here brings in to explain another aspect of Bhagavan in conjunction with the word 'Aham' is 'Ahah'. Aham and Ahah, both mean same. But, the form of Bhagavan which is narrated using the word 'Ahah' is "away there in the 'Sun' (Surya)". And the word 'Aham' denotes the form which is within us near here.

"Sa yashchayam purushe yashchasow Aditye''. (He, who is here within the Atma, is also He who is there in the Sun).

Ahah also means light. The Bhagavan residing in the Sun gives light to everywhere and thus He establishes Himself as an all-pervasive energy. And the same all-pervasive Bhagavan gives light to our eyes also residing there and even within us. So both forms of Bhagavan, Ahah and Aham, are Aheya to us, the universe.

Lets us consider another statement for what it means.

"Yatra hi dwaitamiva bhavati". The word 'Iva' is to imply non-independance to the Atma. "It looks as if it is dispensably seperate". But if so understood it is illusion. As a matter of fact, it is never so. This is the whole revealed meaning of this statement.

"Keneshitam Patati....".

The delusive belief like "I only saw, I only heard and I only did... etc.'. are possible to have only when the Atma is in the influence and girp of this Prapancha. In the status of Mukti (liberation/salvation), since Atma has the absolute awareness about his dependence (Adheenata) with Paramatma, he does not hold any such confusion and delution.

bruhadaranyaka gives a marvelous etymological interpretation of the word 'Sattya'.

It splits the word into three letters; 'Sa', 'Ti' and 'Ya'.

'Ti' means, Tata, most widely spread over. It is Ajnana, the ignorance. Mostly Ajnana prevails. Such Ajnana is removed by Him, 'Sadayate'='Sa'. He only provides Ajnana, Ya= 'yapayati'.

In total, 'Satya' means, 'He who gives and removes Ajnana (ignorance) which is widely prevelent.

Such a beautiful etymological interpretation is not found anywhere else. Such interpretation to the word 'Satya' also helps us to derive a special and prominent meaning to 'Satyashabda'. "Tadetat Anurtam Ubhayatah Satyena Parigrutitam". (By this word Satya, the ignorance is considered in its both faculties or faces viz. its provision as well as its removal).

The above statement indicates that 'Satya' means He who gives wisdom, ignorance and also takes them away (Jnana Ajnana - Bandha mokshaprada)

Thus, if you explode the word even letters you could explore and expose the Paramatma; when you master the words and letters our Master we could see in there.

If we do not do the above exercise we would not come to know whether He gives (ya) or removes (sa) our Ti (ignorance). We might even mistake 'Ya' (giving) as 'Sa' (removing) of ignorance or vice versa.

The Bruhadaranyakopanishad pronounces in no uncertain terms the Antaryami Shakti (the capacity to pervade, control and commond from being within) of Narayana. This is what and how it declares, "yah Pruthivyam Tishthan .... Yo Vijnane Tishthan... Esha Ta Atma Antaryamyamrutah".

In ancient times there was no doubt about the fact that the words 'Atma' and 'Purusha' means the Bhagavan. That was why both the words did not need to be proved for their applicability to Bhagavan.

Shankaracharya wrote in his Bhashya "Atma Antaryami Narayanah" which means, Narayana is Atma, Antaryami. By writing this he has endorsed the view that the word Atma is applicable to Narayana. If it is not his view, he could have attributed any meaning other than Narayana to Atmashabda in his Bhashya. He has not done so. Hence, Atma and Purusha words are undoubtedly applicable to Vishnu.

In this way, Acharya Madhwa's Antaryami Tattva (concept) is pronounced explicity with the equal vigour and profoundness by the Antaryami Brahmana of Bruhadaranyaka.

When Bruhadaranyaka explains the superiority of 'Prana' concept it puts it as "Prano Vai Jyeshthascha Shresthascha". (Prana is the senior most and also the greatest.) By his age and by his qualification 'Prana' is Superior (except to Laxmi and Narayana) to everybody.

An incident in which the body (Deha) sustains as long as 'Prana' dwells inside and collapses the moment he abandons it establishes the superiority of Prana Tattva over all other Abhimani Devatas of Indriya.

"Vak Vai Vasishthah", Abhimani Devata of Vak (speech) is also great. But, it is great as long as Prana exists in the body. Hence, Prana is the real great. At last what about the Netra? (the eyes) "Netram Vai Pratishtha". Eye is the support. But eye is a support as long as Prana is inside. So, Prana is the real support.

Is there a Jadasharira (materialistic body) for the absolved liberated (Mukta) soul? This is a question.

The answer to this is, "Yes, if they so wish they can voluntarily opt for and take-up one such body". They can see, hear and do such activities using material-senses and organs. But, the point is that it is not compulsory to or binding on them to do that. To be precise, they have no need of any material organs for their activities to be performed.

Yajnik people (those who perform sacrificial rituals in sacred fire) have some confusion about positions of Agni, Vayu and Aditya.

Upasana (Meditation and Worship) of Bhagavan has been prescribed for Devatas (divine souls) in Vayu Pratika (Vayu as representative form, for Rishis (Sages) in Aditya Partika and for human beings in Agni Pratika.

"Vayouw Mukhya dhiya" is a Bhagavata Purana statement. According to this, the Upasana of Bhagavan should be conducted considering Vayu as His prominent and main form. Keeping this, statement as basis, Devatas who are the highest ranking category of Upasaka Jeevas, have been prescribed Vayu Pratika for their Upasana. But when you consider the configuration of Triloka, (three higher divisions of Universe) Bhu- Antariksha and Swarga, Vayu is placed in the middle region i.e. Antariksha as Devata.

A question may come up here. Vayu is positioned as Devata in the second region i.e. Antariksha among the three upper regions viz.Bhu-Bhuvah-Swah. Instead of Aditya who is positioned as Devata at the top most region (Swarga) being prescribed for the top most Upasakas (Devatas) why Vayu whose Loka (Antariksha) physically falls below the top most Loka (Swarga) is advised as Pratika for Upasana for them? This is answered by the Upanishad. "Tredhatmanam Vyakuruta, Adityam Truteeyam, Vayum Truteeyam". Here again answering sounds confusive from the cursory look. By overall ordinary standards, one may think that Upanishad should have put it in the otherway i.e. : ...... Adityam Dwitiyam, Vayum, Triteeyam.

But, the Upanishad very intelligently has put up its statement. If some thought is applied here, confusion gets cleared.

The intended meaning of Upanishad when it says "Adityam Triteeyam" is that Aditya's position is also three if his place or region of existence is considered and that of Vayu also third i.e. the top most, because his form is suggested for Upasana to the Devatas who occupy the highest position in superiority.

There are many more such instances where Bruhadaranyakopanishad gifts us with rare matters. Mahitareyopanishad stands second in line like Bruhadaranyaka.

shri kRuShNARpanamasthu