[Advaita-l] a possible reference to kundalini in brhadaranyopanishadbhashya?

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

bhUH, bhuvaH, etc are mentioned in the mahanaarayaaNa upanishhad, the
10th prashna of the taittiriiya aaraNyakam:

aayaatu varadaa devii ...
tripadaa shaTkuxiH pancashiirShopanayane viniyoga 
om bhUH | ... | Om satyam | ...

There is not much discussion on it though. bhUH, etc are known as the
vyaahR^itis, literally meaning speech.

In the Yajurvedic sandhyaavandanam (Tamil smaartha sampradaaya) we
have before the praaNaayaamam performed before the gaayatrii japam the
following identification

bhUH - atri R^ishi,  gaayatrii chhandas, agni devata
bhuvaH - bhR^igu R^ishi, uShNik chhandas, vaayu devataa
suvaH - kutsa R^ishi, anuShTup chhandas, arka (sun) devataa
mahaH - vasiShTha R^ishi,  bR^ihatii chhandas, vaagiisha devata
janaH - gautama R^ishi, paGktii chhandas, varuNa devata
tapaH - kaashyapa R^ishi, triShTup chhandas, indra devata
satyam -aaGgiirasa R^ishi, jagatii chhandas, vishvedeva devata

which basically follows the identification scheme in the
mahaanaaraayaNa upanishhad, but not exactly. Sri Mahaasannidhaanam,
the previous aachaarya of Sringeri, in his bhaashya to the
sandhyaavandanam (in Tamil) quotes the amR^itopanishhad ("minor
upanishhad") to support to this identification.

However the taittirriya upanishhad shiixaavallii (taittiriiya
aaraNyaka, prashna 7, auvaakam 5) says:

bhuur-bhuvas-suvariti vaa etaas-tistro vyaahR^itayaH | taasam uhasmai
taaJ-caturthiim | maahaacamasya pravedayate | maha iti | tad brahma |
etc

Basically vyaahR^itis are three in number - bhUH, bhuvaH and suvaH.
But maahaacamasya taught a fourth, namely brahman - identified with
mahaH!

The anuvaakam is basically a meditation that brahman is indeed the
cause of everything - sarvaM khalvidam brahma.

As shankara points out in his suutra bhaashya about the theories of
creation, the aim of the texts is to show that brahman is the cause
and not expound theories how things came about. Hence seeming
contradictions like tR^ivitkaraNa, paJciikaraNa are irrelevant.
Similarly, the vyaahR^iti-s are similarly for meditation that brahman
is the basic cause behind various manifestations experienced commonly,
be it epistemological or ontological. That is clear from the
taittiriiya passage quoted above where the three worlds are identified
with the vyAhR^itis, the three vedas and also praaNa, apaana and
vyaana. Note especially the last one where udaana and samaana are left
out just like the tR^ivitkaraNa passage. These two are well known from
other "major upanishads".

So to sum up, the vyAhR^itis, be it 7 or 3 or whatever, can be
identified with certain ontological and epistemological divisions
found in the empirical existence. The basic thread of the meditation
is that brahman is the cause of these (seeming) divisions like the
three lokas, three praaNas, etc. That being said, the shrutis usually
seem to have the vyaahR^itis fixed at 3 or 7.

For what it is worth, the maitraayaNiiya upanishhad mentions the
sushhumnaa naaDii by name. This is considered to be "earlier" than
upaniShads like the maaNDuukya. The chhaandogya also talks about a
central naaDii I think, not sure of the exact location, I will have to
check up on this.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:56:32 -0500 (EST), Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:

> [I think the use of sushumna, yogis etc. shows that Shankaracharya was
> aware of the Kundalini philosophy but not in favor of it.  The clincher
> would be if the chakras were refered to by colors.  Is that so?

Not in favor of it as a direct means of release, which can be attained
only by knowledge, but also not disapproving it with regards to
purification of the mind. I think Vidyasankar has quoted the
bhagavadgiita bhaashya with regards to this many times before. The
same restrictions as the patanajala yoga would apply - paramatam
apratiShiddham sammatam bhavati.

BTW, it just struck me that the name vyAhR^iti, also meaning speech,
may not be accidental. vaacaarambaNam naamadheyam ... as the
chhaandogya says!!

Rama