The Atma Jyoti Blog

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This is Part 9 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

15) “In the beginning all this was non-existent. From it was born what exists. “That created Itself by Itself; therefore It is called the self-made.

That which is Self-made is delight [rasa]; for truly, on obtaining delight one becomes blissful.

“Who could direct the prana and the apana if this Bliss did not exist in the akasha?

“Brahman verily exists because It alone bestows bliss.

“When a man finds fearless support in That which is invisible, incorporeal, indefinable and supportless, he has then obtained fearlessness.

“If he makes the slightest differentiation in It, there is fear for him.

“That becomes fear for him who does not reflect.” (Taittiriya Upanishad 2:7)

In the beginning all this was non-existent. From it was born what exists. Here we have an example of the frequent ambiguity of Sanskrit–an ambiguity based on the fact that a Sanskrit word can have so many meanings, some of them contradictory. There are upanishadic passages that speak of the absurdity of the idea that something can come from nothing, but here we have what seems an assertion of that very idea. The words used here are Sat and Asat. Normally they mean Real and Unreal, or True and Untrue. But they can also mean manifest and unmanifest–a temporary existence or non-existence. These two sentences mean that at first there was nothing in relative existence, but from that Unmanifest Itself all things came into manifestation. That is, Brahman alone was, but everything was potentially within Brahman and eventually came into being.

That created Itself by Itself; therefore It is called the self-made. This has two meanings, internal and external. The external meaning, based on the previous statement is that Brahman the manifest “made” Itself by projecting Itself from Its unmanifest being. The internal meaning is that from its transcendent being Brahman expanded and became immanent within creation as its guiding intelligence. This is the “begetting” of the “only-begotten Son of God” which causes such turmoil (and in the past, bloodshed) in the minds of Christians who bother to think about it. My gratitude was inexpressible when after years of confusion the scriptures of India made clear to me what in the Bible was a complete muddle I was supposed to accept “on faith.” There was a question I had asked many ministers, who all shuffled and sputtered and said they had never studied it “in seminary.” They could not even refer me to a theological book on the subject! Then one blessed day, after having awakened to the reality of Sanatana Dharma, I wrote that question to a sadhu whose answer came back right away. It was a single sentence that answered my question completely. As Shankara says in one of his writings, the philosophical concepts that are common in India have never been dreamed of outside India. Why settle for a second-rate religion?

That which is Self-made is delight [rasa]; for truly, on obtaining delight one becomes blissful. Brahman as Absolute is bliss, and so is Brahman as Relative, but whereas the bliss of the Absolute is exclusively internal, a matter of Brahman rejoicing in Itself, the bliss of the manifest or Saguna Brahman can be “tasted” by the individual spirits evolving within creation. Whereas the bliss of the Transcendent is known only to Itself, the bliss of the Immanent can be experienced by others, by the individual beings. First we savor the bliss-delight of God, and then we rise higher to our own transcendent nature and experience of own inner, eternal bliss, just as does Brahman.

Who could direct the prana and the apana if this Bliss did not exist in the akasha? If the bliss of Brahman (Brahmananda) did not arise in the ether, in the Chidakasha how could anything “breathe”–alternate in polarity–and thus enter into relative existence? The dual movements of prana and apana are the basis of relative existence, and manifest in all sentient beings as the inhaling and exhaling breaths. We could not breathe, could not live, if Brahmananda was not perpetually welling up from the heart of the Absolute. It exists in the ether, the abode of subtle sound. For this reason we join the mental sound of our repetition of Om to our inhalations and exhalations and return our consciousness to its Origin.

Brahman verily exists because It alone bestows bliss. Bliss is the manifestation of Brahman, the indication of Its existence. Bliss (ananda) is not the mere happiness of ego gratification or the thrill of the senses. It is much more, and these lesser things should not be mistaken for it. The truth is, it takes a marked degree of evolution for a human being to experience bliss, for such experience indicates nearness to God. Watch an infant who is still in touch with its Source and see how suddenly it will smile and radiate joy, bliss sweeping through and moving its entire body. It is aware of nothing but that overwhelming bliss.

When a man finds fearless support in That which is invisible, incorporeal, indefinable and supportless, he has then obtained fearlessness. Swami Gambhirananda renders it: “This unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting Brahman.” Sanskrit can often be interpreted in different ways, and sometimes in opposite ways. This is intentional, so we should consider both these translations as equally accurate.

Brahman–and therefore the Self–is imperceptible to any relative entity. To “see” either of them we must divest ourselves of relative consciousness and see with the “single eye” of the atman. As Jesus said: “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” (Matthew 6:22) Interestingly, the Greek word in the Gospels is aplous, which means something that has been unified–made one. So to enable us to “see” Brahman we need to cultivate the consciousness of Unity.

Perhaps even more interesting is the statement that Brahman and atman are without a body. Usually we think of the universe as God’s “body,” and the five koshas as the bodies of the Self. In the cosmic dream, that is so, but in awakened reality, Brahman and the Self relate to absolutely nothing but each other. Nothing “covers” them, nor are they capable of being “inside” anything–or “outside” anything, either. Their mode of being prevents this. Nothing that can be said about the body can be applied to the Self, nor can what is said about the Self be applied to the body.

Both Brahman and the Self are beyond any form of expression, which is why point nine says that “not this, not this” is the only possible description for them.

Finally we come to an interesting “contradiction” that is an important exposition of truth. Nikhilananda translates that Brahman and the Self are “supportless,” whereas Gambhirananda translates it as “unsupporting.” Both concepts are intended. Brahman is not “supported” by anything, being totally self-existent, depending on nothing else for Its existence. At the same time, Brahman does not support anything because Brahman never touches or enters into relation with anything. Yes, through the illusion of Maya it seems that Brahman is the source and maintainer of all, the controller of all. But Maya is a dream. If we dream that we tame and ride an elephant, can we boast about it? It was just an image without substance.

Actually, Brahman and the Self are antithetical to any “other.” Brahmajnana (knowledge of Brahman) and atmajnana (knowledge of the Self) cause the experience of all “else” to cease. So they not only do not support anything, they dispel them as illusions.

If he makes the slightest differentiation in It, there is fear for him. That becomes fear for him who does not reflect. Belief in duality is productive of fear. Fearlessness is possible only in the consciousness (not mere belief) of unity–of Brahman. To the ignorant–including those that have no knowledge of the upanishads–the very idea of Brahman is fearful because Brahman is antithetical to what they cherish: the ego and its “diversity.” I have heard radio preachers foaming at the mouth about “becoming one with a Cosmic Nothing” when faced with Advaitic truth. The concept of union with Brahman terrifies the ego and those in its grip. No matter how much they fawn on Mighty Gawd they are thrown into a panic at the idea that Mighty Gawd might be all there is! Frankly, all religions that focus obsessively on an avatar (divine incarnation) or prophet are doing so in hope that by focusing on a little personality they can avoid the truth of Infinity and the possibility of total union with It–leaving behind their little sandbuckets and shovels on the shores of the sea of samsara.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.