The Atma Jyoti Blog

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

This is Part 12 of A Catechism of Enlightenment–a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

23) “The Omnipresent takes note of the merit or demerit of none.” (Bhagavad Gita 5:15)

Since everything is just light and shadow like a motion picture, how can anything really have merit or demerit? This is why Buddhists speak of all things being “empty.” The image of a human being in a movie is not good or evil, healthy or ill, legal or illegal. It is nothing–just an appearance. Since God knows this, how can the Divine possibly look at anything as good or evil, pleasing or displeasing, legitimate or illegitimate, harmful or helpful? It is all just a training film in consciousness for those within the motion picture, within the dream of God. In short: Brahman does not take note of merit or demerit because there is no such thing–only an appearance.

24) “As the mighty wind, moving everywhere, rests always in the ether, even so, know that all beings rest in Me.” (Bhagavad Gita 9:6)

Since Brahman is ether (akasha) this is only reasonable. But since we have spoken of how the entire “creation” is a dream, what rests in Brahman? The individual selves, the jivatmans. For they are not a dream, but part of the Reality that is Brahman. We, too, are dreamers on the finite level, and must always distinguish between Brahman, ourselves, and our dreams, cosmic and individual.

25) “Know Me as the Knower of the Field in all fields.” (Bhagavad Gita 13:2)

Just as all beings abide in Brahman, so Brahman is within them all as The Knower. That is, everything perceived or experienced by them is perceived and experienced by Brahman through them. Brahman actually experiences “being” them, but without forgetting that It is not them–except in essence. We, on the other hand, identify with our experiences and fall into the labyrinth of illusory existence.

26) “Brahman is neither being nor non-being.” (Bhagavad Gita 13:12)

The Sanskrit text has the words sat and asat that are here translated “being” and “non-being.” The more complete definitions are: Asat: Unreal[ity]; nonbeing; nonexistence; false; falsehood. Sat: Existence; reality; truth; being. Brahman is beyond any of this, and the moment we try to drag Brahman down to the level where they apply we are only deluding ourselves. And Brahman could not care less. We need to stop trying to speak or think about Brahman and get busy preparing ourselves through meditation and spiritual discipline to experience Brahman.

27) “Being without beginning and devoid of [any] qualities.” (Bhagavad Gita 13:31)

Here again we see that nothing can be said about Brahman–or about the Self–nor can It or our Self be in any way described. Neither have any attributes whatsoever.

28) “Existing equally in all beings.” (Bhagavad Gita 13:27)

We cannot sensibly have a “more Brahman than thou” attitude! Divinity is equally in all things–as all things. No thing is more Brahman than another. However, that does not mean that some things are not heavier or lighter veilings of the Reality that is Brahman. The seeker after Brahman thus considers what will hinder or help his attainment of Brahmajnana, the Knowing of Brahman, and order his life accordingly.

29) “Distinct is the Supreme Purusha.” (Bhagavad Gita 15:17)

This is the same as Patanjali’s dictum: “Ishwara [God] is a particular Purusha.” Krishna and Patanjali mean that God is a special, unique, conscious Being–not just abstract Existence. God is a “particular Spirit” in the sense that God can be “picked out” or “singled out” from among all other things or beings. Though God is within all things and all things are within Him, yet He stands apart. This is stated several times in the Bhagavad Gita: “They are contained in me, but I am not in them…I stand apart from them all, supreme and deathless” (7:12, 13). “For my spirit stands apart, watching over Maya, the maker” (9:9). “Standing apart, He sustains” (13:14). “He is within and without: He lives in the live and the lifeless: subtle beyond mind’s grasp; so near us, so utterly distant” (13:15). “Although I am not within any creature, all creatures exist within me” (9:4). God is unique in the sense that He is Ekam Evam Advityam Brahman–the God Who is One, Only, Without a Second. He is not one of many, nor is He even one of two. He is ONE in every sense of the term.

• Read more installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

This is Part 11 of A Catechism of Enlightenment–a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

17) “He is the self-luminous and formless Purusha, uncreated and existing both within and without. He is devoid of prana, devoid of mind, pure, and higher than the supreme Imperishable.” (Mundaka Upanishad 2:1:2)

This first point has already been considered, but how is it I said that Brahman is neither inside nor outside anything? It is true–the upanishad’s intention here is to indicate that Brahman is all-pervading. But never does Brahman “contain” anything nor is It “contained” by anything. The Gita emphasizes this, too: “This entire universe is pervaded by me, in that eternal form of mine which is not manifest to the senses. Although I am not within any creature, all creatures exist within me. I do not mean that they exist within me physically. That is my divine mystery. You must try to understand its nature. My Being sustains all creatures and brings them to birth, but has no physical contact with them.” (Bhagavad Gita 9:4, 5)

Prana is the “substance” of life, but it is really not alive at all, any more than the mind–which is only a field of energy–is conscious. We mistakenly attribute life and consciousness to subtle energies, when they are really only mirrors reflecting the life and consciousness that IS Brahman and the Self. It is wisdom to never attribute divine characteristics to anything in relativity.

18) “As a lump of salt dropped into water becomes dissolved in water and cannot be taken out again, but wherever we taste the water it tastes salt, even so this great, endless, infinite Reality is Pure Intelligence alone. This Self comes out as a separate entity from these elements and with their destruction this separate existence also is destroyed. After attaining oneness it has no more consciousness [of separation].” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2:4:12)

Brahman is an absolutely unitary existence which is pure consciousness alone. All “else” is simply a momentary appearance, a dream.

The Self makes for itself dream-bodies from the dream-substances of the various worlds. And so it becomes “separate”–but only in experience, not in reality. When the bodies taken on by the Self dissolve totally, the mirage of independent, separate existence vanishes.

19) “He [Brahman] transformed Himself in accordance with each form and each form of His was for the sake of making Him known.…This Brahman is without antecedent or consequent, without interior or exterior. This Self, the all–perceiving, is Brahman. This is the teaching of the Upanishads.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2:5:19)

Of course Brahman does not change, but enters into each form and appears to do so, making it Its own. The purpose is not to hide or veil Brahman, but to reveal Brahman to the evolving consciousness that is incarnate along with Brahman in those many forms. This is contrary to ordinary thinking, which shows how little value there is to most people’s ideas. Here, too, the problem is insistence on simple–and therefore simplistic–interpretations of the upanishadic teachings.

Nothing precedes Brahman and nothing succeeds It. There is only Brahman–and the Self–in the beginning, middle, and end. Nothing is either inside Brahman and outside Brahman, because there are no “things” at all.

There is another idea presented here: Brahman has no parts, no “in” or “out,” but is a thoroughly homogeneous Being, an absolute Unity. In God there can be no “inner” or “outer,” no “higher” “or lower,” no “greater” or “lesser.” When the upanishads and Gita appear to contradict this, they are only speaking loosely to get their ideas across to Maya-blinded and limited human minds.

20) “It is different from the known; It is above the unknown.” (Kena Upanishad 1:4)

In relative existence there are both the perceived and the unperceived, the known and the unknown. Even the extremely subtle levels of relativity, despite their luminescence and their power, are still material, and not at all Spirit.

The Gita puts it this way: “But behind the manifest and the unmanifest, there is another Existence, which is eternal and changeless.…It is my highest state of being.” (Bhagavad Gita 8:20,21)

21) “That is called the akasha, is the revealer of names and forms. That within which these names and forms exist is, verily, Brahman. That is the Immortal; that is the Self.” (Chandogya Upanishad 8:14:1)

It is understood that Brahman is All, that whatever we see or experience is a manifestation of Brahman. Yes, it is all a dream, but Brahman is the substratum-substance of the dream. So as yogis ascend in awareness of higher and subtler realms of existence–realms of consciousness–there comes a level which is both relative and absolute, both supremely subtle vibratory energy and spirit-consciousness. This level is indistinguishable from pure Spirit because it is pure Spirit. Yet, it is a “level” that has a relative existence. This is the primal Akasha (Ether) that is properly called Chidakasha–Etheric Consciousness. It is the Element of elements, yet it is the Absolute. It is both relative and transcendental, depending on which way the yogi is “looking.” (Please be aware that to try and make some sense out of this I am having to speak a lot of nonsense to give a hint of what actually is the situation.)

From this Akasha all name and form have arisen, and it itself reveals them–makes them manifest by producing awareness of them. This is possible only because it IS name and form–at least seemingly so. So Brahman and the Self are all that “is.”

22) “This is never born, nor does it die.” (Bhagavad Gita 2:20)

Neither Brahman nor the Self have a beginning or ending, an origin or a dissolution. Nothing that is “born” and is therefore inevitably going to “die” is Brahman. But Brahman is all such. Only a yogi untangles this seeming paradox.

• Read more installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

To keep up to date with the latest tips on meditation and practical spiritual life, subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog.

This is Part 10 of A Catechism of Enlightenment–a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

16) “That great, unborn Self, which is identified with the intellect [vijnanamaya] and which dwells in the midst of the organs, lies in the akasha within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not become greater through good deeds or smaller through evil deeds. It is the lord of all, the ruler of all beings, the protector of all beings. It is the dam that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. The brahmins seek to realize It through the study of the Vedas, through sacrifices, through gifts and through austerity which does not lead to annihilation.

“Knowing It alone one becomes a sage [muni]. Wishing for this World [i.e. the Self] alone, monks renounce their homes. “The knowers of Brahman of olden times, it is said, did not wish for offspring because they thought: ‘What shall we do with offspring–we who have attained this Self, this World?’ They gave up, it is said, their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds and led the life of religious mendicants. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds; for both these, indeed, are but desires.

“This Self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is not perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury.

“Him who knows this these two thoughts do not overcome: ‘For this I did an evil deed and For this I did a good deed.’ He overcomes both. Things done or not done do not afflict him.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4:4:22)

This is a great deal of information which needs careful analysis, part by part.

That great, unborn Self, which is identified with the intellect [vijnanamaya] and which dwells in the midst of the organs, lies in the akasha within the heart.

The Self and Brahman are not “born.” This means that they are beginningless, produced from nothing else, and therefore as already seen, self-existent. This also means that they are related to nothing. They are absolutely independent.

Yet, the Self is definitely associated with its dreams, and especially with the level of the mind known as the vijnanamaya–that which is permeated with both the consciousness of the Self and the highest and subtlest part of the individual mind. This Self is pervading all the organs of perception and action, but it is centered–located–in the etheric “heart” that is at the core of all our incarnate complex. (“Heart” here does not mean the organ that pumps blood, but the center from which all radiates and toward which all is oriented when the sentient being is functioning “as intended.”) Here again we see why we use sound in meditation and why the Brahma Sutras close with the statement: “By sound one becomes liberated.”

It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. However separated some part of us may seem to have become the from the Self, ultimately It is always in control, only letting things drift so we will learn from it–learn the results of our mistaken actions and thoughts.

It does not become greater through good deeds or smaller through evil deeds. This is so crucial for all of us learn–especially Westerners who are so enmeshed in identity with the surrounding mirages. They think that kind deeds and words make a person kind, completely confusing the chain of cause and effect. Saying intelligent things does not make a person intelligent, it only reveals that he is intelligent. A lot of evil people try to cover up by doing good things and saying good words. Many cold-hearted people are busy with social action and “helping” others out of a desire for notoriety and the ability to manipulate those they “help.” A lot of sociopaths are busy reforming society so they can control it.

Since the Self cannot be altered in any way, good deeds cannot make it better or bad deeds make it worse. It always is what it is. Naturally, simplistic minds assume this means that we should not care about good or bad, but they are very wrong. Good action reveals the Self and bad action hides it. Good produces wisdom and bad produces ignorance. What is needed is the revelation of the unchanging and unchangeable Self.

It is the lord of all, the ruler of all beings, the protector of all beings. Safety is to be found only in the Self. Fearlessness is a trait solely of the knowers of Brahman.

It is the dam that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. Both Brahman and the Self keep their manifested “worlds” in order, seeing that they do not become mixed and confused. For evolution, differentiation is necessary. Without boundaries, like rungs on a ladder, we could not move from lower to higher. This is very necessary. Spiritual consciousness produces separation from many things, as well, causing the individual to increasingly become intent on what uplifts him and to avoid what degrades him. Again, a kind of simplistic “ain’t it all grand” muddle is ignorance and a hindrance to growth. Spiritual life is maximally clear-sighted, and differentiation is part of the needed clarity. The ability to make distinction is the basis for viveka, the faculty of discrimination between the true and the untrue, etc.

The brahmins seek to realize It through the study of the Vedas, through sacrifices, through gifts and through austerity which does not lead to annihilation. Those who aspire to know Brahman study the teachings of illumined sages. They also engage in disciplines as offerings (sacrifices) to God. In Bhagavad Gita 4:25-32 you can find a list of what offering/sacrifice consists. It is much more than pointless destruction of something. Those who seek God have a heart for the needs of others and give them assistance of various kinds. They also engage in austerity for purification, but not in that which does violence to anyone’s well-being–including their own–and which does not entail any destruction or loss (annihilation). Krishna said: “You may know these men to be of demonic nature who mortify the body excessively, in ways not prescribed by the scriptures. They do this because their lust and attachment to sense-objects has filled them with egotism and vanity. In their foolishness, they weaken all their sense-organs, and outrage me, the dweller within the body.” (Bhagavad Gita 17:5, 6) This is a favorite activity in India I am very sorry to say. But that does not make it any less foolish and destructive. Also, a truly disciplined person does not impose his disciplines on others or make himself troublesome to them. And he certainly never implies to them that he is somehow superior and they are inferior.

Knowing It alone one becomes a sage [muni]. “Muni” means a wise person who is well-disciplined. The upanishad says this because there are a lot of exhibitionists in India who can do all sorts of amazing feats of physical control. One of the most morally bankrupt people I ever met was a super hatha yogi who could float on water (sitting and playing a harmonium!) and miraculously undergo things that would kill a normal person. He was exactly what we mean by the word “crook,” a spiritual and material criminal.

Only he who knows Brahman is a true sage, whether he speaks or remains silent.

Wishing for this World [i.e. the Self] alone, monks renounce their homes. There is the World of Brahman/Self, the divine unity, and then there are the “worlds” of multiplicity and duality. Desiring only the Real World, the pravrajin–wanderers–leave their homes and become homeless. Usually “pravrajin” refers to wandering monks, but here I think it means those who understand that nothing material, nothing that is not the pure Self, can really be a “home.” In their insight they never identify with anything but the Self, never rely on anything but the Self, and abide only in the Self wherever their body may be. This is what Jesus meant when he said: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” (Matthew 8:20) Those who think they are mere humans–“sons of men”–can find rest nowhere. The wise know this to be so and no longer frustrate and torment themselves by trying to find peace and meaning in the fever-dream of the worlds. Because of this they find that their home is Infinity. They find rest and peace in the Self.

The knowers of Brahman of olden times, it is said, did not wish for offspring because they thought: ‘What shall we do with offspring–we who have attained this Self, this World?’ They gave up, it is said, their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds and led the life of religious mendicants. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds; for both these, indeed, are but desires. Any earthly aspirations are pointless–this the awakened yogi knows. Others do not, yet in time they will come to this understanding, too. But the yogi should not bother them with his way of seeing things. Instead he should live his life quietly and unattached. As the Gita says: “He neither molests his fellow men, nor allows himself to become disturbed by the world.” (Bhagavad Gita 12:15) Saint Paul said: “The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” (Galatians 6:14)

This Self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is not perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury. The real escape from suffering and harm is to become fully identified with the Self which is beyond all that.

Him who knows this these two thoughts do not overcome: ‘For this I did an evil deed and For this I did a good deed.’ He overcomes both. Things done or not done do not afflict him. As Saint Paul also said: “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God.” (Philippians 3:13, 14) Taking refuge in the unacting Self, we go beyond all action and their effects. We should neither be satisfied with past good or unhappy about past evil. None of that has anything to do with the Self. It should be forgotten, left behind, and the Self entered and made our only abode. This is wisdom.

Read more installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

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.

This is Part 8 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

12) “Verily, that Imperishable is never seen but is the Seer; It is never heard, but is the Hearer; It is never thought of, but is the Thinker; It is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other seer but This, there is no other hearer but This, there is no other thinker but This, there is no other knower but This. By this imperishable is the unmanifested akasha pervaded.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:8:11)

Brahman and the Self are akshara–imperishable–because they are unchangeable, untouched by anything. Further, they “see” all, but themselves are never seen–as an object. They can be “known” only by themselves, by immediate perception. That is, they can know themselves by themselves, but none else can know them.

The final sentence is of great importance to yogis. Normally we think of there being a sharp demarcation between the Spirit–universal or individual–and Prakriti, the energy of which all levels of relative existence consist. But here we are told that the Spirit interpenetrates the ether (akasha). Here the Chidakasha is being referred to. In Om Yoga I have written this: “In advanced yoga treatises we frequently encounter this term, ‘Chidakasha,’ which means ‘the Space (Ether) of Consciousness.’ This is the level of existence and consciousness so pure and subtle, so interwoven with Spirit, that it is indistinguishable from Spirit.…Various texts inform us that both Om and the breath arise directly from the Chidakasha. For this reason in Om Yoga meditation we join intonations of Om to the breath.”

13) “It is Brahman, which is absolute Knowledge and Bliss.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:9:28)

Here we find one of the happy paradoxes of the upanishadic philosophy. Having been told that Brahman is indefinable, we are given a definition! One of the best approximate definitions or descriptions of Brahman and the Self is sat-chit-ananda. Brahman and the Self are: a) sat–existence, b) chit–consciousness, and c) ananda–bliss (joy). They are blissful, conscious existence itself.

This is a valuable definition, for those that are knowers of Brahman, of the Self, must then of necessity be blissful, fully conscious, and unshaken in the perception of reality.

14) “Brahman is Reality [Satyam], Knowledge [Jnanam] and Infinity [Anantam].” (Taittiriya Upanishad 2:1)

Brahman is eternal, infinite, conscious Reality. And so are we, though eternal, finite, conscious reality. The more we know our Self, the more real, knowing, and eternal we are.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

This is Part 7 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

10) “It [Brahman] is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, neither fiery nor watery; It is neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor akasha; It is unattached; It is without taste or smell, without eyes or ears, without tongue or mind; It is non-effulgent, without vital breath or mouth, without measure and without exterior or interior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anyone.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:8:8)

This is extremely important for us to grasp. Brahman and the Self cannot be spoken about, but they also really do not have any qualities. They are neither gross nor subtle, large nor small, far nor near, within nor without–or any kind of duality whatsoever. They relate to no thing and no thing relates to them. We really cannot say anything at all–except that we cannot say anything at all.

11) “This Self is That which has been described as “Not this, not this.”

“It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury.

“That Person [Purusha] is to be known only from the upanishads, who definitely projects those beings and again withdraws them into Himself and who is at the same time transcendental.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:9:26)

Point Nine speaks of Brahman as “not this, not this,” and now the upanishad says the same about the Self to underline their identical nature.

The second section indicates both that the Self never changes, either of itself or as a result of its experiences within relativity.

It is very easy at this point in time to fall into a major error: to assume that in the upanishads and Gita “veda” means the collection of hymns (samhitas) known as “the Vedas.” In actuality, veda is a derivation of vidya–knowledge–and only means teachings and books of spiritual wisdom. That may include the Vedas, but it certainly is not an exclusive designation of them. Another error would be to think that in this verse “upanishads” means the writings now appended to the Vedic samhitas and officially called “upanishads.” For one thing, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad predates all the other upanishads except perhaps the Isha Upanishad. “Upanishad” comes from shad which means “to sit,” upa which means “near,” and ni which means “down.” So the whole word means “to sit down near,” and refers to the teachings heard while sitting down near. In other words, “upanishad” in this verse means the teaching, the philosophy that later was written down in the upanishads we presently have.

Having said what we must not think, we can consider what this verse does mean–namely that the teaching on the Self, the Purusha, is to be known only from the upanishadic philosophy. An informed person can hardly disagree with this, because in no religion other than Sanatana Dharma can we find such clear, detailed, and uncompromising statements regarding the Self as in these citations by Shankara as “a method of enlightening a disciple.” Certainly, hints are to be found in the words of mystics and the scriptures of all religions, but hints only, never the complete expositions such as can be found in the upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. (The exception would be the modern teachers in various deficient religions who shamelessly plagiarize the teachings of Sanatana Dharma, pretending that they are expressions of their own religions–whose scriptures usually deny or denounce those teachings.)

The description of the Purusha given here indicates that all things proceed from the Purusha and are withdrawn into It as Its conscious intention. Yet the Purusha remains beyond all those things, untouched and untouching.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.