Svarupa Lakshanam from Taittireeya Upanisad

Prologue: Let's Prepare our mind for Mananam on Svarupa Lakshanam

Taittireeya Upanisad has the famous svarupa laskshana mantram 2.1.1 - satyam jnAnam anantan brahma. This three words satyam, jnAnam, anantam are given as indicators of Brahma Lakshanam.

This Brahma lakshanam, of satyam ~ existence, jnAnam ~ intelligence (or sentience or awareness or consciousness) & anantam ~ limitlessness (or infinite Being, limitless awareness), is very critical for the jnAna marga jijnasu (aspirant/seeker of knowledge in path of Advaita), to recognize his True Self (Atman) with the very same indicators ~ lakshanas.

With the internalization of the import of svarupa lakshanam, one can directly recognize one's Nitya-Shudda-Mukta-Bodha-Atma Svarupam. This svarupa pratyabhijna (direct recognition of one's Self as the attributeless, infinite reality ~ Brahman), is termed moksha, in Advaita sampradhAya.

Hence according to Advaita, Moksha is not an event that commences in time, i.e. has a beginning. It's merely the recognition of the fact that I am eternally Brahman - i.e. is, was, always, ever Brahman

Even the notions of time, space, name, form - are so many appearances upon Me - the Infinte Self.

How can there be any partition in the impartite Self, which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness?

Even here and now, between two thoughts, I abide as pure Awareness?

What then of the thoughts? Do they break the consciousnesses? No - Not any more than waves breaking up the ocean!

It is in consciousness that notions of union and separation - parts and whole, arise.

It is in consciousness that time and space are known.

This consciousness is existence. These are not two different attributes of the Self but are two things indicative of the same non-dual Self. How to test this ?

Can there by consciousness apart from existence ? No. Since nothing exists apart from existence (Satyam).

Can there be existence apart from consciousness ? No. There would be no awareness (jnAnam) of such existence.

These two indicators are recognizable beyond doubt, independent of sense perception, in One and Only One aspect of our human life - namely Self.

"I am" - is my experience of Being, my knowledge of Being. This Being is Sat, Chit.

"My experience of bliss" - is uncaused by any notion of time, space or causation - as is evident in Deep Sleep (i.e. dream less sleep - susupti, gaada nidra). Hence this Being is Anandam - bliss. In DeepSleep there is no notion of time, space and causation as well. So that bliss is not conditioned by time, space or causation. So that bliss is indeed infinite (anantam).

Thus the svarupa lakshanam of Brahman is known - directly, immediately - as "I am" - hence this is called "aparokshAnubhuti". Every other experience is parOksham - even knowledge of my Ista deivam with form, is "parOksham", whereas experience of Self as Satyam, jnAnam, Anantam is "aparOksham" (direct, immediate).

Truly speaking, this alone is anubhuti, everything else is prateeti!

Few words on svarupa lakshanam vs. tatasthalakshanam

When we think of svarupa lakshanam, we must also think about tatasthalakshanam.

If "satyam jnAnam anantam brahma" is indicator of Brahman then verses like "yato va imani bhutani jayante" Tait (3.1.1) are indirect indicators of Brahman or also sometimes called accidental indicators of Brahman. So any Vedic mantra that talks about duality, serves the purpose of revealing to us that Brahman is the source, support, and end of all phenomena and that Brahman is the changeless (i.e. ultimately real) source from which all changeful phenomena (i.e. relatively real) has appeared. Since ultimately, Brahman alone Is. This "apparent creation", as only a relative order of reality (vyavahArika satta) - i.e. it appears, sustains and it disappears, into Brahman.

Thus tatasthalakshanam, is not a essential indicator of what Brahman is in itself; on the contrary, it is a definition of Brahman in relation to something else. Whereas svarupa lakshanam, is the essential definition of Brahman.

Thus, contemplation on svarupa lakshanam, helps us know who we really are - namely that "I am Brahman".

With this I conclude the reflection on svarupa lakshanam as revealed in Taittireeya Upanisad.

Now let's carefully observe what our beloved Acharya - Sri Bhagavaan Bhaasyakaara has to say on this particular subject of svarupa lakshanam.

We know that Bhagavatpaada follows a dialectical style in his commentary, so there are questions raised by the purvapaksha and siddhanta (i.e. reply) is offered therein.

Happy reading!

2.1.1 Tait Upanisad - Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma Commentary
- abridged/edited and paraphrased.

Note/Disclaimer: I have pasted my comments by prepending them with acronym "EXT".

Even though most of the text below is based on reliable translations, I took the liberty of editing them, for easier reading experience, hence Its not verbatim reproduction of the translations, but paraphrased versions. Hence I do not use "QUOTE" and "UNQUOTE", except in Epilogue, where I have quoted from BG 18.50 Bhasyams.

But most of what is below is gleaned from my notes - of Tait Up 2.1.1. Bhasyam of our Bhagavatpaada - translations by Sri Swami Gambhiranandaji, V. Panloi, Alladi Mahadeva Sastri, Swami Nikhilananda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Start.........

The knower of Brahman brahmavit attains the highest

Brahman is called that (in the etymological sense because of) being the greatest. He who vetti, knows, that Brahman is brahmavit. He apnoti, attains; param the absolutely highest.

Question: How can finite (Jiva) attain infinite (Brahman) ? It seems logical fallacy.

Refutation:

Because the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman is contingent on Its realisation or nonrealization.

The individual soul, though intrinsically none other than Brahman, still identifies itself with, and becomes attached to, the sheaths made of food etc. (Panchakoshas)

....the individual soul, under a spell of ignorance, that is characterized by the non-perception of one’s own true nature as Brahman, accepts the non-selves, such as the body composed of food, as the Self, and as a consequence, begins to think, “I am none other than those non-Selves composed of food etc.”

EXT: This is the primary motivation of doing sravanam of svarupa lakshanam, namely to recognize my true nature as Brahman.

EXT: During the commentary our Bhagavatpaada refers to the 10 persons crossing the river story, in the passing. In the story, everyone counts the other, except oneself and thus they all lament the death of one among the 10, in the crossing of the river. A passer by comes to point this error out and thus, with the knowledge that "I am the 10th", thier suffering is put to an end. Thus knowledge of Truth, about who I am, (i.e. Brahman), relieves me from suffering, caused due to ignorance of my True Self (as Brahman).

Brahman, that is the Self, appears to behave (as it were) the non-Self (UnAtman) through ignorance.

EXT: Hence, if I were to ask, to whom is realization a goal ? Answer would be to the ignorant - see passage below.

....to whom Brahman remains unattained owing to his ignorance, there may be a discovery of that very Brahman by realizing that omnipresent Brahman to be none other than one’s own Self—a realisation that comes through enlightenment consequent on the instruction of the scriptures.

---------

Purpose of Swarupa Lakshanam declaration in Taittiriya Upanisad

1. (First) It is sought to determine the true nature of Brahman through a definition that is capable of indicating the intrinsic nature (fundamental definition) of that very Brahman which was briefly referred to as a knowable entity in the pithy sentence, “The knower of Brahman attains the highest” (brahmavidāpnoti param).

2. (secondly) the knowledge of that Brahman having been spoken of (earlier) in an indefinite way, it is now sought to make that very Brahman realizable as non-different from One’s own indwelling Self.

EXT: I know that my existence is essentially that of Self-awareness, but it is not sufficient to liberate me from suffering. Why? Because knowledge of my self-aware existence is not sufficient to liberate me from suffering, since the suffering is mainly due to the ignorance of my infinite nature - as Brahman. So this the Sruti, grants us.

3. (and lastly) the idea is to demonstrate that the attainment of supreme Brahman by a knower of Brahman - is the fruit of realisation of Brahman. This is really nothing but identity with the Self of all, which is Brahman Itself, transcending all worldly attributes. (i.e. I am verily all this)

The sentence satyam jnanam anantam brahma-Brahman is Existence (Absolute Truth), Knowledge, Infinite (Limitless) —is meant as a essential definition of Brahman.

EXT: Here it is clear that these three indicators, ensure that Brahman is recognized as it really it, apart from the changeful phenomena. The purpose of any indicator, is to distinguish it from what it is not.

Thus, indeed, does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others; as for instance, in common parlance, a particular lotus is known, when it is described as blue, big, and sweet-smelling.

EXT: Brahman is not untrue or unreal (hence satyaṃ), is not in-sentient (hence jnAnam), is not limited (hence anantam). This svarupa lakshanam tell us what Brahman is not, while simultaneously indicating, what it really Is.

Question: Does the usage of words like Satya, Jnanam etc. as adjectives imply that there are other nouns which ought to be distinguished by the usage of adjectives like satyam etc... ? In other words does this compromise the non-duality of Brahman ?

Reply

No, there is nothing wrong, since the adjectives are used by way of definition also.

EXT: Here Adjectives are used in the later sense of being a definition. There is nothing else similar to Brahman, with which we can compare it to. So the adjectives are not used to distinguish It from things of it's own class, instead they are employed as definition that marks it, as different from everything else - namely this phenomenal world (i.e. changeful, impermanent world).

Each of the attributive words is related with the word Brahman, independently of the others : satyaṃ brahma, jnAnam brahma, anantam brahma.

EXT: Reflection on the three words with insights from our Acharya.

----------

Satyam : -

----------

(That which is Real is determined by it's eternality and changelessness)

As for satya, a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own ; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.

Hence anything that changes is unreal.

EXT: Sri Swami Bhaskaranandaji's pet analogy ~ If a magician produces an apparition, that keeps changing form every second - elephant, goat, pot, man etc.. and finally vanishes, then can the audience "really know" that its "really Is" ? Thus even in everyday life - we use only these two criterions to judge reality - it must last and it must not change. When it comes to Advaita - these two criterions becomes - eternality and changelessness.

==> So the phrase satyam brahma - (Brahman is truth) distinguishes Brahman from unreal things.

Hence that which becomes modified is unreal, for by the Sruti passage, "Modification (as in the case of a mud-pot) dependent on speech is only name (and is unreal) and the clay alone is real" (Cha. Upa. VI, I - 4), it has been determined that that which exists alone is real. Hence the sentence, "Brahman is Satyam", helps us recognize Brahman as Real - devoid of all unrealities

----------

Jnanam : -

----------

From this it may follow that (the unchanging) Brahman is the (material) cause (of all subsequent changes); and since a material cause is a substance, it can be an accessory as well, thereby becoming insentient like earth.

EXT: Here the clarification is given to suggest that because Brahman is not a insentient material cause of this world. It's of the nature of pure consciousness.

Hence it is said that Brahman is jnAnam. Jnana means knowledge, consciousness.

EXT: Now another doubt may come...

If Brahman is Jnanam - does it imply It's involved in the act of knowing - so it's caught in cause-effect relation ?

If Brahman be the agent of knowing, Satyam and Anantam cannot justly be attributed to It. For as the agent of knowing, It becomes changeful ; and, as such, how can It be true and infinite?

That, indeed, is infinite which is not separated from anything. If it be the agent of knowing. It becomes delimited by the knowable and the knowledge, and hence there cannot be infinitude, in accordance with another Vedic text: “That is the Infinite in which one does not know anything else. And that in which one knows anything else is limited” (Ch. VII. 24-1).

Can the Self be called the knower and known, while maintaining its non-duality?

No, this cannot be simultaneously, since the Self is without parts. A featureless (indivisible) thing cannot simultaneously be both the knower and the known.

The word jnAna (knowledge), having been used adjectivally along with truth and infinitude, is derived in the cognate sense of the verb, and it is used to form the phrase, jnAnam Brahma (Brahman is knowledge), in order to rule out (from Brahman) all instrumentality as that of an agent, as also for denying non-consciousness as that of earth etc.

EXT: The Key learning here is Brahman is Consciousness or Sentience. Hence one cannot mistake Brahman to be existence but like Space, Earth etc...which are generally viewed to be jadam. Brahman is not jadam. If Brahman, were Existence but Jadam - then that would be absolute materialism ! Thus Sruti clarifies that Brahman is not jadam but chaithanyam - key indicator.

Another key lesson here, is Brahman is not an agent - i.e. "knower" it is "knowledge" - in other words - we cant impute "personality" or "doership" or "agency" on Brahman. It's beyond karya-kaarana sambhandham.

------

Anantam

-----

From the phrase, jnAnam brahma, one may think that Brahman is limited, for human knowledge is seen to be finite. Hence, in order to eliminate this doubt, Sruti says, anantam, infinite.

Among these words, the word, ananta, becomes an adjective by way of negating finitude; whereas the words, satya and jnana, become adjectives even while imparting their own (positive) senses to the substantive - (i.e. Brahman being the Substantive).

EXT: Very important point made above by Acharya.

Brahman, then, is spatially infinite, being the cause of space etc. For space is known to be spatially infinite; and Brahman is the cause of that space. Hence it is proved that the Self is spatially infinite; for no all-pervading thing is seen in this world to originate from anything that is not so. Hence the spatial infinitude of Brahman is absolute.

EXT: This is an extention in reason of the Satkaarya vaada. Wherein the cause inheres in the effect. Since Akasa appears in consciousness and we see Akasa being spatially infinite, its source - namely consciousness ought to be absolutely infinite. Simple and elegant reasoning - irrefutable. Ought to be internalized, to develop Sraddha in "anantam brahma" - phrase.

-------------------------

EXT: Sri Anandagiri on Nature of the terms signifying Swarupa lakshanam
“Etymologically, the word satya indicates an existing entity that is not sublated (i.e. never goes out of existence); the word jnAna means the self-revealing cognition of things; and the word ananta is used with regard to something pervasive, as (the expression) ‘the sky is infinite’ etc. Hence they negate opposite ideas by the very fact of their imparting their own meanings to the substantives. Therefore they cannot be reduced to mere negation."
EXT: Here Sri Anandagiri says besides negating the opposite ideas, the svarupa lakshana also impart thier distinctiveness for our considerations, w.r.t recognizing the svarupa. This is very important to understanding the Sruti and also the Bhasyam.

----------

Epilogue: These are my reflections based on the guidance offered by Bhagavatpaada and Sruti.

1. If svarupa lakshanam grant us the knowledge of Brahman, then it implies these words comprehend the nature of Brahman. So Brahman is comprehended by mind of the aspirant. Hence the Sruti starts with

ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम् ॥ १ ॥

brahmavidāpnoti param || 2.1.1 ||

2.1.1. The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme.

2. Brahman is not the agent of cognition. Brahman is indicated, by the word jnAna which actually stands for prajnAnam or consciousness - objectless independent reality. Normally jnAna in human parlance indicates knowledge, which presupposes knower & means of knowing (part of the triad). But Brahman is independent of this triad - its existence is of the nature of pure non dual consciousness. Hence jnAna is only an indicator, of the essential nature of Brahman - as Pure Awareness, which I experience here and now and always.

3. “Brahman is Satyam”, implies its never sublated by time, space or causation - its absolute existence. However normally the word Satyam is meant true, as in a fact, which is conditioned by time, space causation. The Statement "ABC is president" is conditionally true - the condition being time. Whereas in the svarupa lakshanam vaakyam, the word "satyam" means - its eternally true - adhisthAna (substratum) satyam of all jagat, desa, kala, nimittam, which are only a vivarta - an appearance on Brahman on Me.

4. Brahman was described as “yato vaco nivartante aprApya manasA saha...” someone may get the doubt, since Brahman (which is same as our Self – Atman) is Unknowable, it must be non-existent. But that is not the intent of the Sruti.

Brahman is Unknowable to one who tries to know BRAHMAN, while thinking of himself or herself as apart from it. Brahman is the Atman of the seeker. So in the truest sense, it intimately known

Brahman can only be known fully as Atman, not as something apart from the seeker.

Here the svarupa lakshanam plays an important role.

5. Let’s conclude this Mananam with Gita Bhasyam quotes of Bhagavatpaada (BG 18.50)

QUOTE
Therefore, what needs to be done is merely the rejection of what is erroneously attributed to Brahman through avidya, and not any effort to acquire a knowledge of Brahman, as He is intimately well-known.

Though Brahman is extremely well-known, easily grasped, very near, and is the very Self, He appears to the unenlightened as unknown, difficult to grasp, and very far, and as if He were different (from themselves)

UNQUOTE

EXT: Above - its very clear that Brahman is Atman and removal of any idea of separation is what constitutes the disciple of Jnana Nista.

Swami summarizes again as follows

QUOTE

So we conclude that cognition (consciousness) is perfectly well-known (to every one); and that
the cogniser (Atman as Self Aware Intelligence) also is thereby well-known.

Consequently, effort need not be made for (securing) knowledge (of the Self or Brahman), but it
(effort) is necessary only for getting rid of the conception of the not-Self as the Self.

Therefore, devotion to the path of knowledge (jñāna-nisthā) is quite feasible of attainment.

UNQUOTE

Search This Blog

Mananam