Koshas (sheaths)

[Martin]

I don't think that "not identify" with them would be the correct way to describe the goal. I would say it's more along the lines of not being attached to them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "relate to neti-neti." Can you elaborate?

For example, assuming the body (first sheath) to be the Self leads to suffering, because the body changes, it gets ill and grows old, etc. Or you could say that identifying with the body as "me" and "mine" leads to suffering.
Neti-neti reminds us that the body is not the Self. And similarly for the other sheaths which "surround" Self (Atman).

 

[SalixIncendium]

For example, assuming the body to be Self leads to suffering, because the body gets ill and grows old. Neti-neti reminds us that the body is not the Self.

Correct. And in that respect, it does relate to understanding that the true self lies hidden beneath the sheaths and can be realized through this analysis.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is like going from the road to a house or a temple and at each stage you light a candle or put on the light switch. From road, to courtyard, to first enclosure, Ardhamandapam (the outer hall), then to Mandapam (the congregation hall), and finally to Garbhagriha, the innermost enclosure where the deity resides or the strong-room where the most valuable things are kept, and where everyone is not allowed to enter. Basically states of mind.

 

[Martin]

It is like going from the road to a house or a temple and at each stage you light a candle or put on the light switch. From road, to courtyard, to first enclosure, Ardhamandapam (the outer hall), then to Mandapam (the congregation hall), and finally to Garbhagriha, the innermost enclosure where the deity resides or the strong-room where the most valuable things are kept, and where everyone is not allowed to enter. Basically states of mind.

Sorry but I'd don't get how the sheaths are "states of mind", based on what Chapters 2 and 3 of the Taittiriya Upanishad describe. In particular, the first two sheaths sound distinctly physical/biological, rather than "mental".
Maybe you could explain how you've arrived at this view?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"According to Vedanta the wise person, being aware of the subtle influences * within each kosha, ever discerns the Self amidst appearances."
Kosha - Wikipedia
* 'of the five elements': That does not apply today in the world of science. That is an old view.

IMHO, the idea is to realize 'where is one in these five Koshas'? How much advance has one made? How much does one understands?

First kosha: Is life only for food and other physical things?
Second kosha: Is just being alive the end of it?
Etc.

 

[Martin]

"According to Vedanta the wise person, being aware of the subtle influences * within each kosha, ever discerns the Self amidst appearances."
Kosha - Wikipedia
* 'of the five elements': That does not apply today in the world of science. That is an old view.

IMHO, the idea is to realize 'where is one in these five Koshas'? How much advance has one made? How much does one understands?

First kosha: Is life only for food and other physical things?
Second kosha: Is just being alive the end of it?
Etc.

To me the koshas look like a spiritual analysis of the person, similar to the modern idea of "body, mind, spirit".
Actually the first four sheaths appear quite mundane (food, breath, mind and understanding) .
The main point of the 3rd chapter of the Taittiriya Upanishad appears to be that all five sheaths are Brahman.
Interestingly this chapter begins:
"'Sir, teach me Brahman.' He told him this, 'Food, breath, the eye, the ear, mind speech.'"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, Upanishads are beautiful, but their teaching has to be understood according to present day science. No five elements.
You are right in saying that in whichever kosha a thing \ person may be, it still is Brahman and no less - 'what exists is one without a second' - 'Ekam eva Dwiteeyo nasti' (not necessarily a God). That is the bed-rock of Advaita.

Two of my favorites which I regularly quote are:
"Yatha saumya, ekena mrit-pindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrittikety eva satyam."
(O gentle one, just as by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all distortions being only in naming, but the truth is that all that is clay.)
Chandogya Upanishad (Sage Uddalaka Aruni instructing his son Satyaketu to complete his education)
and
"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate."
(That is whole, this is whole, this whole arises from that whole, removing the whole from that whole, what remains is still the whole)
Ishavasya Upanishad

Both pointing to the unity of all things in the universe.

 

[Martin]

Yeah, Upanishads are beautiful, but their teaching has to be understood according to present day science. No five elements.
You are right in saying that in whichever kosha a thing \ person may be, it still is Brahman and no less - 'what exists is one without a second' - 'Ekam eva Dwiteeyo nasti' (not necessarily a God). That is the bed-rock of Advaita.

Two of my favorites which I regularly quote are:
"Yatha saumya, ekena mrit-pindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrittikety eva satyam."
(O gentle one, just as by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all distortions being only in naming, but the truth is that all that is clay.)
Chandogya Upanishad (Sage Uddalaka Aruni instructing his son Satyaketu to complete his education)
and
"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate."
(That is whole, this is whole, this whole arises from that whole, removing the whole from that whole, what remains is still the whole)
Ishavasya Upanishad

Both pointing to the unity of all things in the universe.

I don't agree that ancient spiritual texts have to be understood according to modern science, though naturally there is a tendency to view them through that lens. I suppose you could replace "Brahman" with "universe", or whatever, but that is imposing a modern view which possibly misses the point of the original texts. In any case I am still exploring the Upanishads, and at this stage I don't want to over-interpret, or just cherry-pick the bits which happen to coincide with my current views.
As for the elements, I understand them to be an ancient system of classification for the material world. The closest modern equivalent I know is the four phases of matter, ie solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air or wind) and plasma (fire).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Welcome. Find your own answers as I have found mine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vedas themselves (Samhitas) do not much deal with philosophy, unless we include Upanishads as part of them (as per tradition they are considered a part of them).
As for Advaita, I believe it is wholly compatible with modern science including Quantum Mechanics. Not taking cognizance of that and trying to make it into something occult is doing injustice to it.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The Kosha concept comes from Shankara’s commentary on the second section (Ananda or Brahmananda valli) of the Taittiriya Upanishad (TU). Note that the TU itself does not explicitly discuss Koshas (or an equivalent) and so if you attempt to look up Koshas in the Taittiriya text, you will not find it.

The TU comes with an index that indicates it was originally a much bigger text than what was available to Shankara. If that is true, this original, bigger TU is presently unavailable and we do not know what the missing verses contained.

The Anandavalli consists of 9 parts. Shankara has written a large commentary on this section, addressing various objections. He brings in Koshas (layers, strata) with food (annamaya) being the outermost and Brahman being the innermost. In his commentary on 2.8.5, he makes his position very clear.

Purvapakshin: Is it is not unsound to say that the individual soul becomes the Supreme Self?

Shankara: No, for the idea conveyed is that of removal of the identity created by ignorance. The attainment of one's own Self through the knowledge of Brahman, that is taught, is meant for the elimination of the distinct selves - such as the food self, the products of nescience - which are really non-Selves, superimposed as Selves.

Shankara is clear that the layers are ultimately not real and are to be seen as such. The discussion continues with Shankara emphasizing (as he does in several texts) that Knowledge alone is prescribed as the means for attainment of the self. He made this point against the prevailing Vedantic view that a combination of Knowledge and Action (Jnana-Karma-Samuchaya) was necessary for liberation - a position that he disagreed with.

Yoga picked up the Kosha theory at some point ( the exact same layers and the same order), but they use it in a very different sense.

 

[Martin]

The Kosha concept comes from Shankara’s commentary on the second section (Ananda or Brahmananda valli) of the Taittiriya Upanishad (TU). Note that the TU itself does not explicitly discuss Koshas (or an equivalent) and so if you attempt to look up Koshas in the Taittiriya text, you will not find it.

The TU comes with an index that indicates it was originally a much bigger text than what was available to Shankara. If that is true, this original, bigger TU is presently unavailable and we do not know what the missing verses contained.

The Anandavalli consists of 9 parts. Shankara has written a large commentary on this section, addressing various objections. He brings in Koshas (layers, strata) with food (annamaya) being the outermost and Brahman being the innermost. In his commentary on 2.8.5, he makes his position very clear.

Purvapakshin: Is it is not unsound to say that the individual soul becomes the Supreme Self?

Shankara: No, for the idea conveyed is that of removal of the identity created by ignorance. The attainment of one's own Self through the knowledge of Brahman, that is taught, is meant for the elimination of the distinct selves - such as the food self, the products of nescience - which are really non-Selves, superimposed as Selves.

Shankara is clear that the layers are ultimately not real and are to be seen as such. The discussion continues with Shankara emphasizing (as he does in several texts) that Knowledge alone is prescribed as the means for attainment of the self. He made this point against the prevailing Vedantic view that a combination of Knowledge and Action (Jnana-Karma-Samuchaya) was necessary for liberation - a position that he disagreed with.

Yoga picked up the Kosha theory at some point ( the exact same layers and the same order), but they use it in a very different sense.

I'm struggling to follow this explanation, since the "sheaths" are clearly identified and described in the the Taittiriya Upanishad, and they don't sound "unreal".

For example, in Chapter 2 we find: "Food is the oldest of all beings; it is the preserver of life... Different from this (sheath), which consists of the essence of food, is the other, the inner self, which consists of breath. It fills the other and assumes the same shape....
Different from this (sheath), which consists of breath, is the other inner self, which consists of mind. It fills the rest and assumes the same shape..."
And so on - the formula is repeated for understanding and bliss. And Brahman alone causes bliss, "Brahman is it's seat (support)."

And as noted earlier, Chapter 3 explains that all five sheaths are Brahman. So according to this Upanishad, the sheaths are progressively more subtle manifestations of Brahman, and they are to be recognised and experienced as such. Its like understanding that our personal experiences are expressions of Brahman, local manifestations against an infinite background. So I think you could look at the sheaths as different ways of experiencing the ultimate reality that is Brahman.

So I don't get these ideas about trying to "eliminate" the koshas, or ideas about them being "unreal" and "not Self", since all are manifestations of Brahman according to the Taittiriya Upanishad.

Possibly such ideas are derived from another Upanishad, but I haven't come across them yet. As noted previously, at this stage I am interested in exploring the Upanishads with an open mind, and don't want to over-interpret, or cherry-pick. Nor do I want to start banging square pegs into round holes!

 

[shivsomashekhar]

A couple of points -

1. From a strictly neutral frame of reference, the Upanishads are not consistent. They were authored by different people at different times, under different circumstances. At least, some of them have been revised by multiple authors until they achieved canonical status. This method is fine for objective, academic study. However, the traditional approach is to always approach texts such as the Upanishads through the lens of a commentator and sub-commentator. For example, an Advaitin will not read/learn an Upanishad by itself, but will learn it with Shankara's commentary and Anandagiri's gloss. Similarly, a Dvaitin will approach the Upanishads with Madhva's commentary and a sub-commentary by Jayatirtha (or some other scholar). Shankara provides a consistent view through his interpretation, Madhva through his, etc. This consistency is not available without commentaries.

2. Specifically on your above comment, one of the methods to bring consistency - across material that appears inconsistent - is Adhyaropa apavada. This is a method used to teach by introducing basic concepts that are subsequently rescinded. The initial set of concepts are a teaching device like training wheels or the shift from perceived geo-centrism to heliocentrism, etc. In the above case, according to Shankara, we begin with a visible, easy to perceive layer and progressively proceed through inner layers to eventually get to Brahman. But Brahman alone is real and the other layers were temporary/transient concepts only meant to lead to the truth and no true in themselves. This is Shankara's adoption of Adhyaropa Apavada - also appearing in other places such as his commentary on the Gita (13th chapter), Brhadaranyaka, etc.

3. Obviously, this interpretation is specific to Shankara. Ramanuja, Madhva, etc., do not treat Koshas as ultimately unreal. In their interpretations, everything is real and continues to be real.

 

[Martin]

A couple of points -

1. From a strictly neutral frame of reference, the Upanishads are not consistent. They were authored by different people at different times, under different circumstances. At least, some of them have been revised by multiple authors until they achieved canonical status. This method is fine for objective, academic study. However, the traditional approach is to always approach texts such as the Upanishads through the lens of a commentator and sub-commentator. For example, an Advaitin will not read/learn an Upanishad by itself, but will learn it with Shankara's commentary and Anandagiri's gloss. Similarly, a Dvaitin will approach the Upanishads with Madhva's commentary and a sub-commentary by Jayatirtha (or some other scholar). Shankara provides a consistent view through his interpretation, Madhva through his, etc. This consistency is not available without commentaries.

2. Specifically on your above comment, one of the methods to bring consistency - across material that appears inconsistent - is Adhyaropa apavada. This is a method used to teach by introducing basic concepts that are subsequently rescinded. The initial set of concepts are a teaching device like training wheels or the shift from perceived geo-centrism to heliocentrism, etc. In the above case, according to Shankara, we begin with a visible, easy to perceive layer and progressively proceed through inner layers to eventually get to Brahman. But Brahman alone is real and the other layers were temporary/transient concepts only meant to lead to the truth and no true in themselves. This is Shankara's adoption of Adhyaropa Apavada - also appearing in other places such as his commentary on the Gita (13th chapter), Brhadaranyaka, etc.

3. Obviously, this interpretation is specific to Shankara. Ramanuja, Madhva, etc., do not treat Koshas as ultimately unreal. In their interpretations, everything is real and continues to be real.

Sure, I realise the Upanishads are a collection of texts and not a consistent whole, but for me it makes sense to keep an open mind while exploring them. Rather than imposing a particular interpretation from the outset, which to me is like putting the cart before the horse.
I also find it illuminating to "try out" different interpretations in practice, and see what resonates. Possibly not a traditional approach, but it works for me.

As for the sheaths, this is an extract from the notes for the Taittiriya Upanishad in my translation:
"The five sheaths represent a hierarchical order where every succeeding sheath, being subtler than the preceding one, encompasses the previous one. Thus the fifth encompasses all that there is, including the first. From the first onwards, each sheath relates itself to an increasingly vaster and subtler part of the total universe, until the last sheath which subsumes all. The conception of the five sheaths thus becomes applicable to the whole continuum, from microcosm to macrocosm."

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Sure, I realise the Upanishads are a collection of texts and not a consistent whole, but for me it makes sense to keep an open mind while exploring them. Rather than imposing a particular interpretation from the outset, which to me is like putting the cart before the horse.
I also find it illuminating to "try out" different interpretations in practice, and see what resonates. Possibly not a traditional approach, but it works for me.

As for the sheaths, this is an extract from the notes for the Taittiriya Upanishad in my translation:
"The five sheaths represent a hierarchical order where every succeeding sheath, being subtler than the preceding one, encompasses the previous one. Thus the fifth encompasses all that there is, including the first. From the first onwards, each sheath relates itself to an increasingly vaster and subtler part of the total universe, until the last sheath which subsumes all. The conception of the five sheaths thus becomes applicable to the whole continuum, from microcosm to macrocosm."

I am all for an open approach. It just depends on your objective.

The notes you posted from your translation is someone’s commentary. Maybe it is the translator’s or maybe he/she borrowed it from someone else, but it contains ideas not found in the original text and is therefore, interpretation. It goes back to my point that without interpretation and commentary which stitches the parts into a consistent whole, the raw text is more likely to leave you with an incomplete feeling.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What Sankara said was that you yourself are Brahman (just as all other living being and things also are Brahman), but you do not realize this. Even within the layers (of ignorance), you are none other than Brahman (i.e., even in your ignorant state). If you remove these four layers, then you will realize yourself as Brahman. That is the reason Mandukya Uanishad says "Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman).

Yeah, from inside to outside also works, but the normal is from outside to inside, like reaching the Garbha-griha from the road in a temple. The difference is in how one puts it before people.

 

[Martin]

I am all for an open approach. It just depends on your objective.

The notes you posted from your translation is someone’s commentary. Maybe it is the translator’s or maybe he/she borrowed it from someone else, but it contains ideas not found in the original text and is therefore, interpretation. It goes back to my point that without interpretation and commentary which stitches the parts into a consistent whole, the raw text is more likely to leave you with an incomplete feeling.

Sure, it's a commentary, but it appears consistent with the actual text, in both content and meaning. What I don't find consistent with the text is your ideas about the sheaths being "unreal" and so on. It feels like you're ignoring what the text actually says, because it doesn't fit with what you've been told.

Could you provide some clear textual support for your interpretation? Maybe another Upanishad, or the 'Gita, or whatever?

 

[Martin]

What Sankara said was that you yourself are Brahman (just as all other living being and things also are Brahman), but you do not realize this. Even within the layers (of ignorance), you are none other than Brahman (i.e., even in your ignorant state). If you remove these four layers, then you will realize yourself as Brahman. That is the reason Mandukya Uanishad says "Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman).

Alternatively, it's just a failure to realise that these levels of being are all expressions of Brahman. That's what the text actually appears to describe. There is nothing in this Upanishad about "removing" sheaths, or about the sheaths being states of mind, or whatever.
I dont think your interpretation is supported by this Upanishad, but maybe it's supported by another? I'd be interested to know.
"What Sankara said" isn't adequate or convincing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, ignorance is not Brahman, so I would not take the outer sheaths as Brahman, but only the final inner one. If the initial sheaths are ignorance, how would you take them as Brahman. However, as I said, it does not make any material difference. We do not realize our true self because of ignorance and this ignorance has to be removed.

 

[Martin]

Well, ignorance is not Brahman, so I would not take the outer sheaths as Brahman, but only the final inner one. If the initial sheaths are ignorance, how would you take them as Brahman. However, as I said, it does not make any material difference. We do not realize our true self because of ignorance and this ignorance has to be removed.

This Upanishad doesn't say the sheaths are ignorance. It says they are Brahman.
Again, it would be good to see some textual support for your views.
What do the texts actually say about ignorance?