[Advaita-l] Teaching the 'Existence' of Brahman - the purpose of many Taittirīya passages

[V Subrahmanian]

Teaching the 'Existence' of Brahman - the purpose of many Taittirīya
passages

In the Taittirīyopaniṣat bhāṣya, Bhagavatpāda is intent upon pointing out
that several passages of this Upaniṣad are aimed at teaching the aspirant
the 'existence' of Brahman. This is because, when the Upanishad wants the
aspirant to realize Brahman and also that when such Brahman is not an
object of our daily cognition, owing to its attributeless nature, the
aspirant will be at a loss to proceed in his goal of inquiry into Brahman.

Here is a list of those passages, only from the Taittiriya (while there are
others in other Upanishads too), for our own mananam:

The Upanishat teaches: तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत् [Brahman created the
world and entered it]. Shankara initiates a very detailed discussion on the
meaning of 'praveśa' and finally says that this teaching is only to draw
the attention of the seeker to his own cognitive / thinking functions that
can happen only with Consciousness, Brahman, being there. It is Brahman
alone that is as though thinking, seeing, hearing, etc. in every body. And
since Brahman is taught as the kāraṇam and since a kāraṇam invariably
'exists', one should know Brahman to 'exist':

स एव तस्य प्रवेशः ; तस्मादस्ति तत्कारणं ब्रह्म । अतः अ
स्तित्वादस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यं तत् ।
 यथा पूर्वेष्वन्नमयाद्यात्मप्रकाशकाः पञ्चस्वपि, एवं सर्वान्तरतमात्मा
स्तित्वप्रकाशकोऽपि मन्त्रः कार्यद्वारेण भवति ॥

At the end of the pancha kosha discussion, the Upanishads concludes: ब्रह्म
पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा - Brahman is the 'tail' that is the ultimate support.
Shankara concludes that this is also a teaching of Brahman's existence; the
support of all the concocted dvaita is Brahman, that exists:

अस्ति तदेकमविद्याकल्पितस्य द्वैतस्यावसानभूतमद्वैतं ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठा पुच्छम्
। [This passage of Shankara is also a proof for the concept that the dṛṣṭi
of the prapancha by the jīva is the very sṛṣṭi of it, that is, perception
or cognition is creation. That is why Shankara uses the expression: the
cognized dvaita is only concocted by / due to avidyā.]


The following passage is an elaboration of what was stated earlier: the
cause has to be existing. If the world had originated from non-existence,
asat, the effect, the world, being without any stuff, would be unavailable
for experience; but it is experienced, hence Brahman, the Sat, exists:
Here Shankara is using logic.

 यस्माच्च जायते किञ्चित् , तदस्तीति दृष्टं लोके, यथा घटाङ्कुरादिकारणं
मृद्बीजादि ; तस्मादाकाशादिकारणत्वादस्ति ब्रह्म । न चासतो जातं
किञ्चिद्गृह्यते लोके कार्यम् । असतश्चेन्नामरूपादि कार्यम् ,
निरात्मकत्वान्नोपलभ्येत ; उपलभ्यते तु ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म । असतश्चेत्कार्यं
गृह्यमाणमपि असदन्वितमेव स्यात् ; न चैवम् ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म ।

The Upanishad says: यद्वै तत्सुकृतं....[That which is the accomplisher of
all auspiciousness...] Shankara says such a cause cannot be an inert entity
and hence Brahman exists:

 यदि पुण्यं यदि वा अन्यत् सा प्रसिद्धिः नित्ये चेतनकारणे सति उपपद्यते,
तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म, सुकृतप्रसिद्धेरिति ।

For this reason too Brahman exists: The Upanishad says Brahman to be 'Rasa'
which is the cause of satiation. Such a thing has to exist. Shankara makes
an interesting observation: One can see knowers of Brahman brimming with
ānanda, bliss, without resorting to any external objects but by drawing
from their own Self. This ānanda hetu has to exist.

इतश्चास्ति ; कुतः ? रसत्वात् । कुतो रसत्वप्रसिद्धिर्ब्रह्मण इत्यत आह -
यद्वै तत्सुकृतं रसो वै सः । रसो नाम तृप्तिहेतुः आनन्दकरो मधुराम्लादिः
प्रसिद्धो लोके । रसमेव हि अयं लब्ध्वा प्राप्य आनन्दी सुखी भवति । नासत
आनन्दहेतुत्वं दृष्टं लोके । बाह्यानन्दसाधनरहिता अपि अनीहा निरेषणा ब्राह्मणा
बाह्यरसलाभादिव सानन्दा दृश्यन्ते विद्वांसः ; नूनं ब्रह्मैव रसस्तेषाम् ।
तस्मादस्ति तत्तेषामानन्दकारणं रसवद्ब्रह्म । इतश्चास्ति ; कुतः ?
प्राणनादिक्रियादर्शनात् । अयमपि हि पिण्डो जीवतः प्राणेन प्राणिति अपानेन
अपानिति । एवं वायवीया ऐन्द्रियकाश्च चेष्टाः संहतैः
कार्यकरणैर्निर्वर्त्यमाना दृश्यन्ते । तच्चैकार्थवृत्तित्वेन संहननं नान्तरेण
चेतनमसंहतं सम्भवति, अन्यत्रादर्शनात् । तदाह - यत् यदि एषः आकाशे परमे
व्योम्नि गुहायां निहित आनन्दो न स्यात् न भवेत् , को ह्मेव लोके अन्यात्
अपानचेष्टां कुर्यादित्यर्थः । कः प्राण्यात् प्राणनं वा कुर्यात् ;
तस्मादस्ति तद्ब्रह्म,
यदर्थाः कार्यकरणप्राणनादिचेष्टाः ; तत्कृत एव च आनन्दो लोकस्य । कुतः ? एष
ह्येव पर आत्मा आनन्दयाति आनन्दयति सुखयति लोकं धर्मानुरूपम् । स एवात्मा
आनन्दरूपोऽविद्यया परिच्छिन्नो विभाव्यते प्राणिभिरित्यर्थः ।

The Upanishad says: भीषास्माद्वातः पवते......[Out of fear of 'X', the wind
blows, the sun rises, etc. without disturbing the order.]  Such a cause of
fear to all these cosmic giants has to exist:

 भयाभयहेतुत्वाद्विद्वदविदुषोरस्ति तद्ब्रह्म । ..... तस्माज्जगतो
भयदर्शनाद्गम्यते - नूनं तदस्ति भयकारणमुच्छेदहेतुरनुच्छेद्यात्मकम् , यतो
जगद्बिभेतीति ।

वातादयो हि महार्हाः स्वयमीश्वराः सन्तः पवनादिकार्येष्वायासबहुलेषु नियताः
प्रवर्तन्ते ; तद्युक्तं प्रशास्तरि सति ; यस्मात् नियमेन तेषां प्रवर्तनम् ,
तस्मादस्ति भयकारणं तेषां प्रशास्तृ ब्रह्म

Thus, the teaching of Brahman as the cause of fear is not to be literally
taken but as the Upanishad's way of instructing the 'existence' of Brahman.
Throughout one can see how Shankara sees logic in those statements of the
Upanishad. For Shankara the Shruti is never divorced from reasoning.

At the very beginning of the Brahma sūtra bhāṣya Shankara has said that
everyone experiences one's own existence; no one denies it.  सर्वो
ह्यात्मास्तित्वं प्रत्येति, न ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति । यदि हि
नात्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः स्यात् , सर्वो लोकः ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति प्रतीयात् ।
आत्मा च ब्रह्म  - If only there was not the well-knownness with regard to
the Atman's existence, everyone would be experiencing 'I do not exist'. But
such is not the case. Atman is Brahman. [Shankara makes this remark in the
context of 'brahma jijñāsā'. If Brahman is being asked to be enquired into,
it should be known, in some way at least, for the aspirant to proceed. No
one can proceed to know something that is totally unknown. The other
extreme is that if something is well known, there is no  need to enquire
about it. So, here is a situation where the Atman is known but not known in
its true nature, free of doubt and non-comprehension.

So, the Taittiriya passages are designed to free the aspirant from the
paricchinnatva bhrama, the delusion that one is finite. By overcoming this
delusion, his parokṣatva bhrama, that 'Brahman is different from me' is
also tackled. In fact Shankara has taken all this into consideration while
introducing the pancha kosha discussion by alluding to the 'you are the
tenth man' (दशमस्त्वमसि) analogy.

Om Tat Sat