Atman and Brahman in the Upanisads

[sayak83]

I thought it would be a good idea to create a thread specifically to discuss the ideas of Atman and Brahman in the primary Upanisads. As far as I know, they are the earliest extensive source that goes into the details of these foundational concepts of Hinduism (as well as reincarnation) and hence serves as a cornerstone for all orthodox and even heterodox traditions that arise in the subsequent centuries. I won't go into the Upanisads verse by verse, but rather pick out those sections that have attracted my attention. Others here can do the same.

I will first look at the Brihad-Aranyaka upanisad, considered the largest and oldest of them all. I will look at Section 2.1 where King Ajatasatru converses with Drpta-Balaki of the Gargya clan on the nature of Brahman.
LINK (page 18)

The narrative flows as this:-
Balaki says he will instruct the King about Brahman. Then he points to various aspects of the observable world and says that the Being (or Purusha) within that is Brahman. Ajatasatru always replies that he already knows and worships that Being as a chief God with attributes and that he wants to know of a more fundamental Brahman.

So in 2.1.2 the narrative goes:-
Gargya then said: "It is the person (purusha) up there in the sun that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied: " Don't start a discussion with me about him! I venerate him only as the most eminent of all beings, as their head and king. Anyone who venerates him this way will become the most eminent of all beings; he will become their head and king."

Similarly in 2.1.7:-
Gargya then said : "It is the person here in the fire that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied: "Don't start a discussion with me about him! I venerate him only as the irresistible one. Anyone who venerates him this way will become irresistible, and so will his children."

And so it goes for many such instances.

Interestingly Gargya Balaki eventually also identifies the person in the self as Brahman, but Ajatasatru says the same thing.

2.1.13
Gargya then said: " It is the person here in the self that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied : " Don't start a discussion with me about him!" I venerate him only as the one possessing a self. Anyone who venerates him in this way will come to possess a self, and so will his children."

While Ajatasatru's meaning is not quite clear, it appears to me that he is denying the idea that the "I-awareness" that I have and the feeling of I possessing myself (free-will etc.) are the features of the person (purusha) present in myself and is still not the fundamental level of Brahman.

At this Gargya falls silent. It will now be Ajatasatru's turn to instruct Gargya Balaki.

However, before going there, what do you guys think of the passages 2.1.1-2.1.13? What do these people mean by the person (purusha) in the sun, the moon, the fire etc.? Did they think them to be gods? How should we think of them in a modern terminology while keeping their meaning intact.

I am also linking an English translation of Sankara's commentary on these verses if its useful.
Relative Aspects of Brahman [Section I]

 

[Aupmanyav]

Your link was slow. Drpta Balaki sees Brahman in sun, moon, fire and any individual. Seems OK to me. Ajatsatru does not differ. But when Brihadaranyaka says 'Prajnanam Brahma', I can't understand it. Consciousness, awareness, for me, is an activity of brain. What really is the meaning of 'prajna' in Brihadaranyaka?

 

[निताइ dasa]

However, before going there, what do you guys think of the passages 2.1.1-2.1.13? What do these people mean by the person (purusha) in the sun, the moon, the fire etc.? Did they think them to be gods? How should we think of them in a modern terminology while keeping their meaning intact.

Hmm, the purusha refers to Ksirodakshayi Vishnu (aka the paramatma). The absolute Truth manifests in three forms, Brahman (impersonal effulgence), Paramatma (localized expansion) and Bhagavan (personal form).

Of these three, the paramatma (who is known as a purusha avatar) is present in very atom. Not only that, but the paramatma rests alongside the jivatma (us) and gives us the power to perform Karma as well as the fruits of our Karma. When this passage glorifies the sun, fire, moon, within the individual etc, they are in actuality glorifying the paramatma within each of these who is responsible for its maintenance. Just like Gayatri is not a hymn to the Sun god, but rather a hymn to Surya-Narayana, the form of God that rests within Surya and gives him his power. There was a very nice verse from Mahabharata about this, but I can't find it

 

[Terese]

Reminds me of another verse about Purusha (Paramatma)

"He who dwells in the sun, and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who rules the sun within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal."

 

[sayak83]

Hmm, the purusha refers to Ksirodakshayi Vishnu (aka the paramatma). The absolute Truth manifests in three forms, Brahman (impersonal effulgence), Paramatma (localized expansion) and Bhagavan (personal form).

Of these three, the paramatma (who is known as a purusha avatar) is present in very atom. Not only that, but the paramatma rests alongside the jivatma (us) and gives us the power to perform Karma as well as the fruits of our Karma. When this passage glorifies the sun, fire, moon, within the individual etc, they are in actuality glorifying the paramatma within each of these who is responsible for its maintenance. Just like Gayatri is not a hymn to the Sun god, but rather a hymn to Surya-Narayana, the form of God that rests within Surya and gives him his power. There was a very nice verse from Mahabharata about this, but I can't find it

I would consider this to be case of forcing the scripture to conform to theology than theology being guided by the scripture. In the Ajatasatru-Gargya dialogue, the Purusha within each entity seems to be representing the presiding deity behind that element of nature, each deity having their distinctive traits. However each his own.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Reminds me of another verse about Purusha (Paramatma)

"He who dwells in the sun, and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who rules the sun within, he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal."

Actually you have quoted an awesome verse! In this series of verses, Yagnavalkya confirms that that who resides within the water, within the earth, with the sun, is the same personality who rests within us, giving us strength. He is that antaryami (indweller) who rests within and maintains all beings.

 

[sayak83]

I thought it would be a good idea to create a thread specifically to discuss the ideas of Atman and Brahman in the primary Upanisads. As far as I know, they are the earliest extensive source that goes into the details of these foundational concepts of Hinduism (as well as reincarnation) and hence serves as a cornerstone for all orthodox and even heterodox traditions that arise in the subsequent centuries. I won't go into the Upanisads verse by verse, but rather pick out those sections that have attracted my attention. Others here can do the same.

I will first look at the Brihad-Aranyaka upanisad, considered the largest and oldest of them all. I will look at Section 2.1 where King Ajatasatru converses with Drpta-Balaki of the Gargya clan on the nature of Brahman.
LINK (page 18)

The narrative flows as this:-
Balaki says he will instruct the King about Brahman. Then he points to various aspects of the observable world and says that the Being (or Purusha) within that is Brahman. Ajatasatru always replies that he already knows and worships that Being as a chief God with attributes and that he wants to know of a more fundamental Brahman.

So in 2.1.2 the narrative goes:-
Gargya then said: "It is the person (purusha) up there in the sun that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied: " Don't start a discussion with me about him! I venerate him only as the most eminent of all beings, as their head and king. Anyone who venerates him this way will become the most eminent of all beings; he will become their head and king."

Similarly in 2.1.7:-
Gargya then said : "It is the person here in the fire that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied: "Don't start a discussion with me about him! I venerate him only as the irresistible one. Anyone who venerates him this way will become irresistible, and so will his children."

And so it goes for many such instances.

Interestingly Gargya Balaki eventually also identifies the person in the self as Brahman, but Ajatasatru says the same thing.

2.1.13
Gargya then said: " It is the person here in the self that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied : " Don't start a discussion with me about him!" I venerate him only as the one possessing a self. Anyone who venerates him in this way will come to possess a self, and so will his children."

While Ajatasatru's meaning is not quite clear, it appears to me that he is denying the idea that the "I-awareness" that I have and the feeling of I possessing myself (free-will etc.) are the features of the person (purusha) present in myself and is still not the fundamental level of Brahman.

At this Gargya falls silent. It will now be Ajatasatru's turn to instruct Gargya Balaki.

However, before going there, what do you guys think of the passages 2.1.1-2.1.13? What do these people mean by the person (purusha) in the sun, the moon, the fire etc.? Did they think them to be gods? How should we think of them in a modern terminology while keeping their meaning intact.

I am also linking an English translation of Sankara's commentary on these verses if its useful.
Relative Aspects of Brahman [Section I]

Its the next part of the dialogue that gets interesting (2.1.14 - 2.1.20) where Ajatasatru now instructs Gargya about Brahman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is that all?" asked Ajatasatru.
"That's all." (Gargya)
"It isn't known with just that." (Ajatasatru)
"Let me come to you as a student." (Gargya)

...........................
Taking Gargya by the hand, he got up, and the two went near a sleeping man (purusha). He greeted that man in these words: "O Soma, great king, dressed in white!" But he did not get up. Ajatasatru touched him with his hand and woke him up. Then the man got up.

Ajatasatru asked: "When this man was asleep here, where was the person (purusha) consisting of perception? And from where did he return?"
Gargya did not know the answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK (Part Two, Chapter I)

From the previous verses and the ones I quoted here, I personally believe a few things become clear:-
1) Many of the early Vedic brahmanas believed that there existed a specific and distinct personal being (or mind or will or purusha) behind each and every aspect of the natural world. Thus the sun had an animating persona, the moon had one, the lightning had one, the fire had one. The greater the phenomena, the more significant the being animating it, who could be meditated upon and prayed to in order to imbibe a part of their powers within the worshiper. In this context Brahman is considered the supreme Person behind them all and in which all depend.

2) Gargya, in Rig Vedic style, sequentially meditates on each phenomena as if it is that Supreme Person (Brahman). But Ajatasatru discounts this mode of meditation. Then he directs Gargya's attention to something that is not in the incantation portion (Samhita-s) of the Vedas, the person behind the mind/consciousness of man himself (vijñānamayaḥ puruṣaḥ), and what happens to it in every sleep-awake cycle.

The next section of the discussion rests on an analysis of the answer to this question.



It is interesting to know that science of consciousness to is today looking at the difference in the awareness states of the person during the sleep-wake cycle to understand what consciousness is supposed to be. Here is an excerpt from a very poetic book by a prominent neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in "Phi: A Voyage from the Brain to the Soul". where he describes the same problem using an imaginary conversation between Galileo and Frick (Francis Crick) and a sleeping man whom they wake up (Descartes).

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

On the far side of the room a stove was glowing, a military cloak and a dagger hung from the wall, and underneath a man was asleep, half-covered by a sack.
Frick had returned, and Galileo did as he was told: he shook the man's shoulder . "Tell me what was on your mind just before I woke you up?" he almost shouted. The young man slowly opened his eyes. "Nothing was on my mind." he said after a while with a strong accent.
"Was there anything on your mind?" asked Galileo again. "Did you see anything, hear anything, think of anything?"
"No", repeated the man, "I was fast asleep."
Frick looked straight at Galileo. "Is it not remarkable?" he said. "You just witnessed a man emerge from unconsciousness, from utter absence of any thoughts, feelings, awareness or perception, from utter nothingness."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Aupmanyav]

He is that antaryami (indweller) who rests within and maintains all beings.

'Rests within' or 'is it'. That is where people differ.
The early Vedics were worshipping the being in the sun, but the later Vedics were much smarter.

 

[sayak83]

Its the next part of the dialogue that gets interesting (2.1.14 - 2.1.20) where Ajatasatru now instructs Gargya about Brahman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is that all?" asked Ajatasatru.
"That's all." (Gargya)
"It isn't known with just that." (Ajatasatru)
"Let me come to you as a student." (Gargya)

...........................
Taking Gargya by the hand, he got up, and the two went near a sleeping man (purusha). He greeted that man in these words: "O Soma, great king, dressed in white!" But he did not get up. Ajatasatru touched him with his hand and woke him up. Then the man got up.

Ajatasatru asked: "When this man was asleep here, where was the person (purusha) consisting of perception? And from where did he return?"
Gargya did not know the answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK (Part Two, Chapter I)

From the previous verses and the ones I quoted here, I personally believe a few things become clear:-
1) Many of the early Vedic brahmanas believed that there existed a specific and distinct personal being (or mind or will or purusha) behind each and every aspect of the natural world. Thus the sun had an animating persona, the moon had one, the lightning had one, the fire had one. The greater the phenomena, the more significant the being animating it, who could be meditated upon and prayed to in order to imbibe a part of their powers within the worshiper. In this context Brahman is considered the supreme Person behind them all and in which all depend.

2) Gargya, in Rig Vedic style, sequentially meditates on each phenomena as if it is that Supreme Person (Brahman). But Ajatasatru discounts this mode of meditation. Then he directs Gargya's attention to something that is not in the incantation portion (Samhita-s) of the Vedas, the person behind the mind/consciousness of man himself (vijñānamayaḥ puruṣaḥ), and what happens to it in every sleep-awake cycle.

The next section of the discussion rests on an analysis of the answer to this question.



It is interesting to know that science of consciousness to is today looking at the difference in the awareness states of the person during the sleep-wake cycle to understand what consciousness is supposed to be. Here is an excerpt from a very poetic book by a prominent neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in "Phi: A Voyage from the Brain to the Soul". where he describes the same problem using an imaginary conversation between Galileo and Frick (Francis Crick) and a sleeping man whom they wake up (Descartes).

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

On the far side of the room a stove was glowing, a military cloak and a dagger hung from the wall, and underneath a man was asleep, half-covered by a sack.
Frick had returned, and Galileo did as he was told: he shook the man's shoulder . "Tell me what was on your mind just before I woke you up?" he almost shouted. The young man slowly opened his eyes. "Nothing was on my mind." he said after a while with a strong accent.
"Was there anything on your mind?" asked Galileo again. "Did you see anything, hear anything, think of anything?"
"No", repeated the man, "I was fast asleep."
Frick looked straight at Galileo. "Is it not remarkable?" he said. "You just witnessed a man emerge from unconsciousness, from utter absence of any thoughts, feelings, awareness or perception, from utter nothingness."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As seen in the previous section Ajatasatru believes that the key to a real understanding of Brahman lies in the cycles of consciousness in man (or woman). He goes on to answer the question he originally asked:-

Ajatasatru asked: "When this man was asleep here, where was the person (purusha) consisting of perception? And from where did he return?"

Ajatasatru told him: "When this man was asleep here , the person consisting of perception (vijñānamayaḥ puruṣaḥ), having gathered (or absorbed) the cognitive powers of these vital functions (prana) into his own cognitive power, was resting in the space (akasha) within the heart. When the person (purusha) takes hold of them (the vital functions). then that man is said to be asleep. During that time the breath remains in the grasp of that person (purusha), as do speech, sight, hearing and mind (manah).

Wherever he (the purusha) may travel in his dream, those regions become his worlds. He may appear to become a great king or an eminent Brahmin, or to visit the highest and the lowest regions. Just as a great king, taking his people with him, may move around in his domain at will, so he, taking the vital functions here with him, moves around his body at will.

When he (the purusha) is in a deep sleep, on the other hand, and is not aware of anything at all, this is what happens. There are seventy-two thousand veins named Hita that run from the heart to the pericardium (the outer decentralized sheath). He rests there oblivious to everything, just as a young man, a great king, or an eminent Brahmin remains oblivious to everything at the height of (sexual) bliss [atighnim anandasya].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several important points need to be mentioned here,
1) To their credit, Ajatasatru (and others) were aware of the two stages of sleep. In one a person dreams, and in one they do not dream and is truly without awareness.

2) The theory propounded here is that the person behind our conscious perception collects our sensory and intellectual faculties and contracts into a hidden dimension/space (akasha) within the heart and travels to the various worlds of the dreams. (the ontology of the dream worlds is left unmentioned here). Clearly the ancient seers thought that the heart and the veins of the circulatory system were the system through which sensory information flows in and out and are synthesized within the heart. Modern biology will replace this with the nervous system and the regions of the brain. But the philosophical point of the purusha retracting to the center along with its sensory powers during sleep is not affected by this biological detail.

3) During the dreamless sleep, it is theorized that the purusha decentralizes itself and locates itself in the dimension of the outer circulatory (nervous) sheath through 72000 veins and rests there in supreme bliss oblivious to everything.

This formulation of what happens to the purusha behind our consciousness becomes very important to explain the nature of Brahman and Atman, as will be seen in the next set of verses, and is quoted again and again in later Upanisadic passages.

LINK

 

[Aupmanyav]

"When this man was asleep here, where was the person (purusha) consisting of perception? And from where did he return?"

That is where Ajatasatru faltered. I did not expect this from him. Unnecessary creation of a being other than the person, confusion about which increases and takes many dimensions. No, the 'internal purusha' does not go anywhere. It is still in control, takes care of the basic needs, through the autonomous nervous system, and wakes up the person if any special action is required. Dream or not dream is immaterial. The brain is on rest, it plays games, just as an employee of a computer firm or a student will do. But I await further discussion.

Checked on the link. Overall, excellent and beautiful.

 

[sayak83]

That is where Ajatasatru faltered. I did not expect this from him.

You haven't read the Upanisads before?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have read some, but perhaps not Brihadaranyaka. Either because it is big or the views did not ring with me. But I got what I wanted from others (Chandogya, Mundaka, etc.). I have firmed my views with the help of our Hindu scriptures, Buddhism and science. There are things with which I differ.

 

[sayak83]

I have read some, but perhaps not Brihadaranyaka. Either because it is big or the views did not ring with me. But I got what I wanted from others (Chandogya, Mundaka, etc.). I have firmed my views with the help of our Hindu scriptures, Buddhism and science. There are things with which I differ.

Cool.

 

[sayak83]

As seen in the previous section Ajatasatru believes that the key to a real understanding of Brahman lies in the cycles of consciousness in man (or woman). He goes on to answer the question he originally asked:-

Ajatasatru asked: "When this man was asleep here, where was the person (purusha) consisting of perception? And from where did he return?"

Ajatasatru told him: "When this man was asleep here , the person consisting of perception (vijñānamayaḥ puruṣaḥ), having gathered (or absorbed) the cognitive powers of these vital functions (prana) into his own cognitive power, was resting in the space (akasha) within the heart. When the person (purusha) takes hold of them (the vital functions). then that man is said to be asleep. During that time the breath remains in the grasp of that person (purusha), as do speech, sight, hearing and mind (manah).

Wherever he (the purusha) may travel in his dream, those regions become his worlds. He may appear to become a great king or an eminent Brahmin, or to visit the highest and the lowest regions. Just as a great king, taking his people with him, may move around in his domain at will, so he, taking the vital functions here with him, moves around his body at will.

When he (the purusha) is in a deep sleep, on the other hand, and is not aware of anything at all, this is what happens. There are seventy-two thousand veins named Hita that run from the heart to the pericardium (the outer decentralized sheath). He rests there oblivious to everything, just as a young man, a great king, or an eminent Brahmin remains oblivious to everything at the height of (sexual) bliss [atighnim anandasya].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several important points need to be mentioned here,
1) To their credit, Ajatasatru (and others) were aware of the two stages of sleep. In one a person dreams, and in one they do not dream and is truly without awareness.

2) The theory propounded here is that the person behind our conscious perception collects our sensory and intellectual faculties and contracts into a hidden dimension/space (akasha) within the heart and travels to the various worlds of the dreams. (the ontology of the dream worlds is left unmentioned here). Clearly the ancient seers thought that the heart and the veins of the circulatory system were the system through which sensory information flows in and out and are synthesized within the heart. Modern biology will replace this with the nervous system and the regions of the brain. But the philosophical point of the purusha retracting to the center along with its sensory powers during sleep is not affected by this biological detail.

3) During the dreamless sleep, it is theorized that the purusha decentralizes itself and locates itself in the dimension of the outer circulatory (nervous) sheath through 72000 veins and rests there in supreme bliss oblivious to everything.

This formulation of what happens to the purusha behind our consciousness becomes very important to explain the nature of Brahman and Atman, as will be seen in the next set of verses, and is quoted again and again in later Upanisadic passages.

LINK

The final explanation provided by Ajatasatru connects the explanation of the activity of the person (Purusha) behind our consciousness duiring the sleep-wake cycle with Brahman:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a spider sends forth its thread, and as tiny sparks spring forth from a fire, so indeed do all the vital functions (prana), all the worlds, all the gods, and all beings spring forth from this Self (Atman). Its hidden name (Upanisad) is "The Real behind the real", for the real consists of the vital functions, and the Self is the Real behind the vital functions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This very important passage:-
1) Basically defines the purpose and meaning of the Upanisads:- explication of the hidden name/reality behind the apparent reality.

2) Identifies the person (purusha) behind our consciousness, the owner and gatherer of the sensory, mental and vital functions as the Self (Atman) and the Real behind the real. It therefore identifies this Self as Brahman, the ultimate truth, and the one about which the entire conversation was about.

3) It also states that the world, reality and the gods...everything....emerge from this self itself. So this passage at least appears to deny a seperate and independent reality apart from the self, and (based on the previous section about dreams) strongly suggests that this world too is essentially like the dream worlds created by and spun out of the Purusha through its vital functions during sleep.

4) Ajatasatru himself does not state anywhere whether the dream-worlds themselves are real or fictional and leaves the ontological status of both this world and the dream world unmentioned. They may be fictions or true realities (like the web and the sparks) that emerge from and depend on the self. Such things (and many more) are discussed in other segments of the Upanisad I find interesting.

 

[Terese]

Please continue this thread!

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is where I differ - 'the purusha behind our consciousness'. That is seeing a ghost. There is no 'purusha' behind our consciousness, it is a chemical and electrical process. Abandon the 'purusha' (I know, not every one's view, actually of very few) and things are better explained. This self itself is Brahman - 'Ayamatma iva Brahman'. 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'.

 

[sayak83]

That is where I differ - 'the purusha behind our consciousness'. That is seeing a ghost. There is no 'purusha' behind our consciousness, it is a chemical and electrical process. Abandon the 'purusha' (I know not every one's view actually of very few) and things are better explained. This self itself is Brahman - 'Ayamatma iva Brahman'.

As usual, I am merely pointing out some interesting passages in the Upanisads and what kind of reality they depict. Nobody has to agree with them.

 

[ajay0]

I thought it would be a good idea to create a thread specifically to discuss the ideas of Atman and Brahman in the primary Upanisads. As far as I know, they are the earliest extensive source that goes into the details of these foundational concepts of Hinduism (as well as reincarnation) and hence serves as a cornerstone for all orthodox and even heterodox traditions that arise in the subsequent centuries. I won't go into the Upanisads verse by verse, but rather pick out those sections that have attracted my attention. Others here can do the same.

I will first look at the Brihad-Aranyaka upanisad, considered the largest and oldest of them all. I will look at Section 2.1 where King Ajatasatru converses with Drpta-Balaki of the Gargya clan on the nature of Brahman.
LINK (page 18)

The narrative flows as this:-
Balaki says he will instruct the King about Brahman. Then he points to various aspects of the observable world and says that the Being (or Purusha) within that is Brahman. Ajatasatru always replies that he already knows and worships that Being as a chief God with attributes and that he wants to know of a more fundamental Brahman.

So in 2.1.2 the narrative goes:-
Gargya then said: "It is the person (purusha) up there in the sun that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied: " Don't start a discussion with me about him! I venerate him only as the most eminent of all beings, as their head and king. Anyone who venerates him this way will become the most eminent of all beings; he will become their head and king."

Similarly in 2.1.7:-
Gargya then said : "It is the person here in the fire that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied: "Don't start a discussion with me about him! I venerate him only as the irresistible one. Anyone who venerates him this way will become irresistible, and so will his children."

And so it goes for many such instances.

Interestingly Gargya Balaki eventually also identifies the person in the self as Brahman, but Ajatasatru says the same thing.

2.1.13
Gargya then said: " It is the person here in the self that I venerate as Brahman."
Ajatasatru replied : " Don't start a discussion with me about him!" I venerate him only as the one possessing a self. Anyone who venerates him in this way will come to possess a self, and so will his children."

While Ajatasatru's meaning is not quite clear, it appears to me that he is denying the idea that the "I-awareness" that I have and the feeling of I possessing myself (free-will etc.) are the features of the person (purusha) present in myself and is still not the fundamental level of Brahman.

At this Gargya falls silent. It will now be Ajatasatru's turn to instruct Gargya Balaki.

However, before going there, what do you guys think of the passages 2.1.1-2.1.13? What do these people mean by the person (purusha) in the sun, the moon, the fire etc.? Did they think them to be gods? How should we think of them in a modern terminology while keeping their meaning intact.

I am also linking an English translation of Sankara's commentary on these verses if its useful.
Relative Aspects of Brahman [Section I]

Perhaps Gargya might be referring to Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without attributes ) when he refers to Brahman in the sun, moon, the fire etc.

Ajatashatru on the other hand may be constantly referring to Saguna Brahman ( Brahman with attributes and personalized).


I can understand Gargya's perspective as I had met an enlightened master who told me that upon enlightenment, he was able to perceive everything around him as pure consciousness in the fundamental form.

I had actually read a lot about this, but it was meeting an enlightened master in person that helped me in properly comprehending it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I had actually read a lot about this, but it was meeting an enlightened master in person that helped me in properly comprehending it.

Good that you now comprehend it.

 

[sayak83]

Last Post

In the context of the above dialogue between Ajatasatru and Gargya, the doctrine of the honey found in BHU 2.5 forms a natural continuity and I will talk about this first. Let me highlight the verses first,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The earth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this earth. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the earth and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person(purusah) residing in the physical body - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole (All).

These waters are the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of these waters. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the waters and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in the seed (semen) - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole

This fire is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this fire The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the fire and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in speech - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This wind is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this wind. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the wind and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in breath - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This sun is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this sun. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the sun and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in sight - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

These quarters (directions) are the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of these quarters. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the quarters and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in hearing - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This moon is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this moon. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the moon, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in the mind - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This lightning is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this lightning. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the lightning, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person in the effulgence of life - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This thunder is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this thunder. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in thunder, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person connected with sound and tone - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This space (akasa) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this space. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in this space, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in the space within the heart - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This Law (Dharma) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this Law. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the Law, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person devoted to the Law (Dharma) - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This Truth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this Truth. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the Truth, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person devoted to Truth - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This humanity is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this humanity. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in humanity, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person existing as a human - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This self (atman) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this self. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the self, and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person existing as a self - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.

This very Self (atman) is the Lord and King of all beings. As all the spokes are fastened to the hub and the rim of a wheel, so to one's Self (atman) are fastened all beings, all gods, all the worlds, all the breaths, and all these bodies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this extremely poetical set of verses the seers portrays the relationship between the great natural and social elements (earth, fire, wind, water, law, truth..) and the living beings to be that of symbiotic interdependence (mutualism). Bees make honey. Thus the existence of honey is entirely dependent on the hard work of the bees. But similarly the bees eat the honey in order to sustain themselves. Thus the bees are entirely dependent on the honey for their existence.

So for example in the second verse
These waters are the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of these waters.

The seer says that
1) All beings are like the bees and the waters are like their honey. That is, just like the bees, the beings create and sustain the existence of water by their activity and in turn the waters sustain the existence of the beings just like honey does for the bees.
AND
2) The waters are like the bees and all the beings are like their honey. That is just like the bees, the waters create and sustain the existence of the beings by its constant action, and in turn the beings sustain the existence of the water just like honey does for the bees.

3) This strong mutualism goes for all elements of nature and the social world.

But what is the underlying reason why such a strong interdependent mutualism exists between all phenomena and the living beings? The underlying reason, is the hidden connection (upanisada) as Ajatasatru would say, is that the person (Purusha) established in the nature of the phenomena and a specific feature of the living being is identical. So again in the case of the waters, we have

The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the waters and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in the seed (semen) - they are both one's Self (atman).

Thus the proposition is that the purusha established in the waters and the purusha established in the reproductive powers of beings is the same and that they are both also identical to one's Self (atman). Thus a triple identity is made. But that is not all, the seer goes on to say,

It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole

Thus the Purusah in the waters, the purusah in the reproductive powers are not only identical to each other and to the Self in beings, they are also identical to Brahman, the one immortal entity/principle/Truth/active-power that is established in and animates the entirety of existence (the Whole/All).

We get the same formulation for

Earth and Body
Fire and Speech
Wind and Breath
Sun and Sight
Quarters and Hearing
Moon and Mind
Lightning and Effulgence of Life
Thunder and Sound/Tone
Space and the Space of the Heart (where consciousness resides during sleep, see previous posts)
Dharma and Devotion to Dharma
Truth and Devotion to Truth
Humanity and being a Human
Self and the state of being a Self


One now sees why Ajatasatru objected to Gargya Balaki's formulation of the Brahman, because it was incomplete. For example Gargya said

It is the person existing in the sun that I venerate as Brahman.

But this formulation is only partial (according to these verses above). Without a connection made with the person of the Self through the capacities of beings, the full truth (Brahman) is not formulated. Thus:-

This sun is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this sun. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the sun and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person residing in sight - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole.


The verses end with what will prove to be one of the most enduring image of the connection of the Self (and the Purusha of the Self) with the world.

This very Self (atman) is the Lord and King of all beings. As all the spokes are fastened to the hub and the rim of a wheel, so to one's Self (atman) are fastened all beings, all gods, all the worlds, all the breaths, and all these bodies.

We have come to the enduring simile of the wheel. The Self (Atman=Purusha, =Lord of Beings, = Brahman) is the central hub from which thousands of spokes emanate as the capacities of the Self and connects to the various phenomena of the social and the natural world , thus creating, sustaining and impelling the activity of the entire universe through interdependent - just a the spokes connect to and support the ever rotating rim of the wheel. I would consider this the key statement of all Vedantic Hinduism. Now some focus on the Self as Atman, other as Brahman and others as the Lord of Beings (Prajapati/Isvara). Those distinctions differentiate the various yogic and vedantic schools of Hinduism.

It is instructive to note how the wheel had transmitted from these ancient texts into the arts of medieval India where the Self as the Lord of Beings (Siva) animates the center, from whom a thousand spokes of his matted hair emanate and connect to and sustain the wheel of the universe.