BHUMAN
[BRAHMAN]
BHUMAN
(BRAHMN)
Sanatkumara distinctly says
to Narada—
“But verily he is an Ativadin who declares
‘the highest Being to be the True’ (Satya)” (Chh Up. VII-16-1).
This clearly indicates that it refers to
something higher than Prana or the vital air. One can become truly an Ativadin
by knowing this Supreme Truth only. Though Narada does not ask Sanatkumara “Is
there anything greater than the vital air?”, a new topic about Brahman (Bhuma)
which is the Supreme Truth is begun.
Narada said to Sanatkumara: “Sir, may I
become an Ativadin through the Truth.”
Sanatkumara leads Narada step by step,
stage by stage to the knowledge of Brahman (Bhuman) and instructs him
that this Bhuman is Brahman.
Narada at first listens to the instruction
given by Sanatkumara on various matters, the last of which is Prana and
then becomes silent. Thereupon the wise Sanatkumara explains to him
spontaneously without being asked that “He only is an Ativadin who has
knowledge of the Highest Truth”, and that the knowledge of vital air
which is an unreal product is destitute of substance.
By the term “The True” is meant the
Supreme Brahman, because Brahman is the only Reality. Sanatkumara
there upon leads Narada by a series of steps beginning with understanding up to
the knowledge of Bhuman. ‘Bhuman alone is Brahmn’ or the Highest
Truth. Selfhood does not belong to Prana. Moreover one can free
himself from grief only by knowledge of the Supreme Brahman.
‘Brahman only is Purnam’, i.e., All-Full.
Bhuman means also Purnam, Fullness. The quality of the Bhuma
agrees best with the Supreme Brahman which is the cause, source, support and
substratum for everything. Bhuman is taught as the last of the series.
It is Infinite Bliss. Therefore it is the highest of all. “He who thus
meditates on Prana is called an Ativadin”. He is an Ativadin
compared with those below him. But, the meditation on the Supreme Brahman is
superior even to that on Prana. Hence, he who meditates on Brahman or
the Bhuma is the real Ativadin.
Narada thought that the instruction about
the Atman is now completed. Therefore he did not ask any further question.
Sanatkumara knew that the knowledge of Prana is not the highest knowledge.
Therefore he spontaneously continues his teaching to Narada and tells him that
the knowledge of Brahman or the Bhuma is the highest knowledge. The
Srutis say that Prana springs from Brahman. Therefore Prana is inferior
to Brahman. Brahman alone is the Bhuma of the passage of the Chhandogya
Upanishad under discussion.
The Sruti declares “Where one sees
nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else that is the Bhuma”.
We know from another text that this is the
characteristic of the Supreme Self.
“But when the Atman only is all this
Brahman, how could he see another?” (Bri. Up. IV-5-15).
The qualities of being the True, resting on
its own greatness, non-duality, bliss, Infiniteness, the self of everything,
Omnipresence, Immortality, etc., mentioned in the text under discussion can
belong to the Supreme only, not to Prana which is an effect and as such cannot
possess any of these attributes.
By all these statements, it is proved that
“the Bhuma is the Supreme Self or Brahman.”
Will as Brahman : He who meditates
on will as Brahman can, of his own free will, reach as far as will reaches-he
who meditates on will as Brahman. Narada said: Venerable Sir, is there anything
greater than will? Of course there is something greater than will. Please tell
that to me, venerable Sir. [Sama Veda, Chandogya Upanishad VII, IV – Will as
Brahman, 1- 3]
Hope as Brahman: He who meditates
on hope as Brahman-all his desires are fulfilled through hope, his prayers are
not in vain; he can, of his own free will, reach as far as hope reaches-he who
meditates on hope as Brahman. Narada said: Venerable Sir, is there anything
greater than hope? Of course there is something greater than hope. Please tell
that to me, venerable Sir.
THE PRANA AS BRAHMAN: THE PRANA is,
verily, greater than hope. As the spokes of a wheel are fastened to the nave,
so are all these beginning with the name and ending with hope fastened to the
prana. The prana moves by the prana. The prana gives the prana to the prana.
The prana is the father, the prana is the mother, the prana is the brother, the
prana is the sister, the prana is the teacher, the prana is the Brahmin. If one
says something unbecoming to a father, mother, brother, sister, teacher or
bject, then people say: ‘Shame on you! Verily, you are a slayer of your father,
a slayer of your mother, a slayer of your brother, a slayer of your sister, a
slayer of your teacher, a slayer of a bject.’ But if; when the prana has
departed from them, one shoves them together with a poker and burns every bit
of them, no one would say: ‘You are a slayer of your father, a slayer of your
mother, a slayer of your brother, a slayer of your sister, a slayer of your
teacher, a slayer of a bject. The prana, verily, is all this. He (i.e. the
knower of the prana) who sees this, reflects on this, is convinced of this,
becomes an ativadi (superior speaker). If people say to such a man: ‘You are an
ativadi,’ he may say: ‘Yes, I am an ativadi’; he need not deny it. [Sama Veda,
Cha.Upa.VII,XV-The Prana as Brahman, 1 – 4]
AKSHARA
BRAHMAN
Gargi asked her learned husband sage
Yajnavalkya about the Supreme Self, the Brahman.
He replied: “O Gargi, the Brahmanas call
this Akshara (the Imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short
nor long etc.” (Bri. Up. III-8-8).
Here the doubt arises whether the word ‘Akshara’
means syllable ‘OM’ or Brahman. ‘Akshara here stands for Brahman
only’.
Why is it so?
Because, “the Akshara is said to
support everything from earth up to ether.”
The text says “In that Akshara,
Gargi! Is the ether woven like warp and woof” (Bri. UP. III-8-11).
“Akshara is without eyes, without ears,
without speech, without mind etc.” (Bri. Up. III-8-8).
Akshara or the imperishable is the
Supreme Brahman only.
The Highest Brahman is so
described as He is stated to be the object of Ikshana (realization by
vision). The reference is clearly to the Supreme Self as the object of Ikshana
(vision).
In Prasna Upanishad (V-2), it is said, “O
Satyakama, the syllable OM is the highest and also the other Brahman;
therefore, he who knows it arrives by the same means at one of the two”.
The text then goes on, “Again, he who
meditates with the syllable Om of three Matras (A-U-M) on the Highest Person”
(Prasna Up. V-5).
What is here taught as the object of
meditation is the Highest Brahman and not Hiranyagarbha (the lower
Brahman).
Why is it so?
It is on account of its being spoken of as
the object of sight—“He sees the Highest Person”. This tells us
that he actually realizes or gets himself identified with the Highest Person. Hiranyagarbha
also is unreal from the highest or transcendental view point. He is within the
realm of Maya. He is associated with Maya. Therefore, the Highest
Person, Purusha, means the Highest Brahman only which is the only
Reality.
The attainment of Brahma Loka (salokya
with Brahman) by the worshipper should not be considered as an inappropriate
or insignificant fruit of the worship of the Highest Person, because it
is a step in gradual liberation or emancipation by degrees (Krama Mukti).
He who meditates on the Supreme Self by means of the syllable OM as
consisting of the Matras, obtains for his first reward salokya- Brahma Loka,
and, after that, Kaivalya Moksha or oneness with Supreme Brahman (Braha
sayujya).
In Prasna Upanishad we read “He arrives
at this by means of the Omkara; the wise arrives at that which is at rest, free
from decay, from death, from fear, the Highest”. Free from decay, free from
death, free from fear, the Highest can apply only to the Supreme Brahman and
not to the lower Brahman. The word Brahma Loka does not mean the Loka of
supreme Para Brahman but the Loka or condition which is Brahman Himself,
just as we explain the compound word Nishadasthapati, not as the head man of
the Nishadas but a headman who at the same time is a Nishada. It is a
Karmadharaya compound (as per grammar) which does not mean the “world of
Brahman, but that world which is Brahman.” ‘Dahara’ refers to Brahman, because
the reason stated in the later portions of the passage show this clearly.
Shruti says, “Now there is this city
of Brahman, Brahmapuri (the body), and in it the place, the small lotus,
Brahma Kamala (the lotus-heart) and in it that small ether (‘chidAkasa’)”.
“Now what exists within that small ether is to be sought, that is to be
understood.” Here, the
doubt arises whether the small ether within the small Lotus of the heart, which
the Sruti speaks, is the elemental ether, or the individual soul, or the
Supreme Soul. (Ch. Upa. VIII-1-5)
“The Self or Atman is sinless,
ageless, deathless, griefless, free from old age, hunger, thirst, with true
desire (Satkama), true thought (Satsankalpa) that ever comes true.”
This cannot apply to mere physical ether.
These are all distinct qualities of the Supreme Brahman. The description cannot
refer to the individual soul, because the comparison to the infinite ether and
the statement that heaven and earth are contained in it cannot apply to the
finite individual soul. The word ‘Brahma’ in Brahmapuri shows the reference to
Brahman only. Even if you take the word as referring to Jiva the
teaching relates to Brahman who is realized in the heart which is the Brahmapuri
(the city of soul or Brahman). anoreover the promise of Infinite Bliss to the
knower of Dahara Akasa intimates that the reference is only to the
Supreme Brahman. For all the reasons explained, that ether is the Highest Self
or Supreme Brahman. (Ch. Upa. VIII-3-2}
“All these creatures day after day go
into this Brahmaloka (i.e. they are merged in Brahman during deep sleep) and
yet do not discover it”, etc.
This passage shows that all Jivas or
individual souls go daily into the ‘small akasa’ called here Brahma
Loka. This intimates that the ‘small akasa’ (daharaakasha) is
Brahman. This going of the individual souls into Brahman which occurs daily in
the deep sleep is mentioned in the other Sruti text:
“He becomes united with the true (Sat),
he is merged in his own Self” (Chh. Up. VI-8-1).
In common parlance or ordinary life also
we say of a man who is in deep sleep “He has become Brahman”. “He is gone into
the state of Brahman”. The word ‘Brahma Loka’ is to be interpreted as
Brahman Himself, and not as the world of Brahman (Satya Loka) because
there is the indicatory sign in the passage. What is that indicatory sign or Lingam?
It is said in the text that the soul goes to
this world daily. It is certainly impossible for the Jiva to go to the
world of Brahman daily. Hence, the term ‘Brahma Loka’ means here Brahman
Himself. Daharakasa or the small ether referred to in Brahma Sutra 14
indicates Brahman, as the glory of supporting all the worlds can be reasonably
true only in respect of Brahman. And also on account of the ‘supporting’ the
small ether can be the Supreme Brahman only.
How is it? To begin with the text introduces
the general subject of discussion in the passage “In it is that small ether”.
Then the small ether is to be compared with the universal sky, the ether.
Everything is contained in it. Then the term Self is applied to it. Then it is
stated that it is free from sin etc.
Finally it is said,
“That Self is a bank, a border, a limiting
support (Vidhriti) so that these worlds may not be confounded” (Chan. Up.
VIII-4-1).
In this passage the glory of small ether
by way of supporting the worlds is seen. Just as a dam stores the water so that
the boundaries of the fields are not confounded, so also that Self serves like
a dam in order that the world and all the different castes and Asramas may not
be confounded. Other texts declare that this greatness of supporting belongs to
Brahman alone.
“By the command of that Imperishable
(Akshara) O Gargi, the sun and moon are held in their positions” (Brih.
Up. III-8-9). “He is the lord of all,
the king of all kings, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a limiting
support, so that these worlds may not be confounded” (Brih. Up. IV-4-22).
This also shows that to be a boundary and
support of the worlds is the distinctive attribute of Brahman only. Therefore,
on account of the ‘supporting’ also, the small (ether) is nothing else
but Brahman. Akasa has the settled meaning of Brahman. It is a
well-known fact in Sruti that Brahman is indicated by the term Akasa.
Therefore, ‘Daharakasa’ also stands for Brahman.
We read in Chan. Up. VIII-14 - 1 “Akasa is the revealer of all names and
forms”. “All these beings take their origin from Akasa alone” (Chh. Up.
I-9-1). “For who could breathe if that Akasa (ether) were not bliss?”
(Tait. Up. II-7). In all these texts ‘Akasa’ stands for Brahman.
“Now that serene being, the individual
soul (Jiva) indeed which having risen above this earthly body, and having
reached the highest light, appears in its true form, that is the Self.”
(Chhandogya Upanishad)
Prajapati finally explains the individual
soul in its true nature as identical with Brahman. The reference is to the individual
soul in its true nature as identical with Brahman or, in other words, who
has bjectm his oneness with Brahman and not to the individual soul as
such.
“As soon as it has approached the highest
light it appears in its own form. Then It is the Highest Purusha” (Chan.
Up. VIII-12-3).
The individual soul is free from evil etc.,
when it becomes identical with Brahman and not when it is enveloped by limiting
adjuncts and remains as the finite Jiva or embodied soul. Agency (Kartritva),
enjoying (Bhoktritva), like and dislike (Raga-dvesha) indicate Jivahood. If
these blemishes are removed the individual soul shines as Brahman. As long as
the individual soul does not free itself from Avidya (ignorance) in the form of
duality and does not rise to the knowledge of the Self or Brahman, whose nature
is unchangeable and Satchidananda which expresses itself in the form ‘I am
Brahman’, so long it remains as an individual soul. The ignorance of the Jiva
may be compared to the mistake of a man who in the twilight mistakes a post for
a man, a rope for a serpent.
When it gives up the identification with the
body, sense organs and mind, when it bjectm its identity with the Su preme
Brahman it becomes Brahman itself whose nature is unchangeable and
Satchidananda, as is declared in Mun. Up. III-2-9 “He who knows the
highest Brahman becomes even Brahman” (Brahma Sutra 555). This is the
real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body
and appears in its own real form.
The manifestation of this whole universe
has for its cause the existence of the light of Brahman, just as the existence
of the light of the sun is the cause of the manifestation of all form and
colours. Brahman is self-luminous. It remains in Its own glory. It
illumines the sun, the moon, the stars, the lightning, the fire, the senses,
the mind and the intellect and all objects. It does not need any other light to
illumine it. Sruti vakyas like “Brahman is the light of lights (Jyotisham
Jyotih)” clearly intimate that Brahman is Self-effulgent. It is quite
possible to deny the shining of sun, moon etc., with reference to Brahman,
because whatever is seen is seen by the light of Brahman only.
As Brahman is Self-effulgent, it is not seen
by means of any other light. Brahman manifests everything else but is not
manifested by anything else.
“By the Self alone as his light man exsits”
(Bri. Up. IV-3-6). The word ‘Sarvam’ denotes that the entire world of names and
forms is dependent on the glory of Brahman. The word ‘anu’
intimates that the reference is to Brahman because it is from Him that all
effulgence is derived.
“Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor
the fire illumines that, having gone into which men do not return, that is My
highest seat.” And “The light which abiding in the sun illumines
the whole world and that which is in the moon and that which is in the fire,
all that light know to be Mine” (Gita XV- 6, 12).
As regards the size of the Self, the Atman,
it is said,
“The person of the size of a thumb
resides in the middle or centre of the body etc.” and “That person, of the size of a thumb is like a
light without smoke, lord of the past and of the future, he is the same to day
and tomorrow. Knowing Him one does not seek to hide oneself any more. This is
That.” (Kathopanishad II-4-12-13),
The person of the size of a thumb can only
be Brahman.
Why?
On account of the term ‘Isana’, ‘Lord
of the past and of the future.’ The highest Lord only is the absolute ruler of
the past and the future. Further, the clause “This is that” connects the
passage with that which had been enquired about, and therefore forms the topic
of discussion. What had been enquired about by Nachiketas is Brahman.
Nachiketas asks Lord Yama, “That
which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither effect nor cause, as
neither past nor future, tell me that” (Katha Up. I – 2 – 14).
Yama refers to this person of the size of a
thumb thus “That which you wanted to know is this, the Self, the Brahman.”
Brahman is said to be of the size of a
thumb, though He is all-pervading, because He is bjectmen in the limited
chamber of the heart of a man. The measure of a thumb is ascribed to Brahman,
although all-pervading, which with reference to Him, residing within the heart
which is generally as big as the thumb. Brahman dwells within the heart
of all living beings.
The hearts differ according to the animals,
some have larger hearts, some have smaller, some are more than a thumb, some
are less than a thumb. Why is the ‘thumb’ used as a standard? Why a man’s heart
only and not that of any other animal, also?
The second half of the Sutra gives an
answer—‘on account of man only being entitled’.
Man only is entitled to the study of the Vedas
and practice of meditation and bjectme Upasanas of Brahman prescribed in them.
Therefore, the thumb is used as the standard of measurement with reference to
him alone. The aim here is to show the identity of individual soul with Brahman
which is inside the body and is of the size of a thumb.
The Vedanta passages have two fold purport.
Some of them aim in giving a description of the nature of Brahman, some in
teaching the unity of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul. Our passage
teaches the unity of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul or Brahman, not
the size of anything. This point is rendered quite clear further on in the Upanishad.
“The person of the size of a thumb, the
inner Self, always abides in the heart of men. Let a man draw that Self forth
from his body with steadiness, as one draws the pith from a reed. Let him know
that Self as ‘Bright as the Immortal’.” (Katha Up. II-6-17).
The Devas like Indra and the rest are mere
thought-forms (‘thoughtrons’) created by the chanting of Mantras. They
have no desire for the possession of Vairagya (dispassion), Viveka
(discrimination) etc. in fact, Indra is called the Lord of the luminous mind.
He is adored as the Deva of the Davas. He is none else but Shri Hari Narayana!
However, the status of his (Indra’s) Lordship of the heavens depends on the
will of supreme Lord, Parabrahman, for all his powers and Lordship.
Sage Badarayana thinks that gods also who are
above men are entitled for the study of Vedas, practice of meditation and
attainment of knowledge of Brahman.
How?
Because, it is possible for them also to
attain to Brahman as they too are corporeal beings.
The Upanishads, the Mantra portion of the
Vedas, the Itihasas and the Puranas all unanimously describe that the Devas
have bodies of subtler forms. They(the embedded souls?) may have the desire of
final release caused by the reflection that all effects, objects and power are
non-permanent. They may have the desire to possess the four fold qualification
which is necessary for attaining the knowledge of Brahman. The gods undergo
discipleship in order to attain knowledge.
We read in Chh. Up. VIII-7-11 “Indra lived
as a disciple with Prajapati for one hundred and one years”; “Bhrigu Varuni
went to his father Varuna, saying, “Sir, teach me Brahman” (Tait. Up.III-1).
The god Varuna possessed the knowledge of Brahman which he teaches to his son
Bhrigu.
The gods also possess all the requisites for
bjectmen meditation. Therefore, they are also entitled for the study of the
Vedas and attaining Self-realisation even without Upanayana and study the
Veda. It is manifest of itself to the
gods.
The passage about “that which is of the
size of a thumb” is equally valid when the right of the gods is accepted.
In their case the Sruti describing the Lord of the size of a thumb refers to
the size of their thumbs.
It is possible for a Devata to assume
several forms at the same time. He can appear in sacrifices performed
simultaneously at different places. Smriti also states “A Yogin, O hero of the
Bharatas, may by his power multiply his self in many thousand forms and in them
walk about on earth. In some he may enjoy the objects, in others he may undergo
dire penance, and finally he may again withdraw them all, just as the sun
withdraws its many rays”. There is an artist’s imagination of the last sunset
which paints the Sun very big and setting once and for all!
If such Smriti passage declares that even
Yogins, who have merely acquired various extraordinary powers, such as subtlety
of body and the like, may assume several bodies at the same time, how much more
capable of such feats must the gods be, who naturally possess all super natural
powers?
A god may divide himself into many forms and
present himself in many sacrifices at the same time. He can remain all the
while unseen by others, in consequence of his power to make himself invisible.
Moreover, why can not the same god be the object of many sacrifices, just as
the same man can be the object of salutation of many persons?
The Vedic names for gods signify their
types and not the individuals. Therefore, the births or deaths of individual
gods can not affect the types, much less the permanent character of Vedic
words. Cows are innumerable but it is with the type that the word ‘cow’ is in
separably connected. The word ‘cow’ is eternal. It does not depend on the birth
and death of individuals belonging to that type. Words representing the gods
have for their counterpart objects that are types and not individuals. Indra
refers to a divine function like the office of the Viceroy and whoever is
called to that function is called Indra. Therefore, here is no non-eternality
with reference to the Vedas.
No comments:
Post a Comment