Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika

Citation preview

CHAPTER

I

SIKSAVALLf [i]

qswesrfeq

!

JT^rfRI

qtfei asifiNs*

*r^qi ci Rfriq^r Saluting

with

devotion

the

supreme

n

Brahman

which is existence, knowledge, infinite, and one, which is free from impurity, which destroys ignorance, which is free from difference, which, being seated at the centre of the lotus-heart, is the Witness of all

cognitions, which is the

purport of the Vedanta, and which is realized as the inner¬ most Self by those who are steady in knowledge, I begin this verse commentary on the Taittiriya Upanisad which strings together valid arguments. SureSvara’s verse commentary on Sankara’s bhusya on the Taittiriya Upanisad is known as Vartika.

A Vartika is defined as a work which

examines what is said (ukta), what is not said (anukta), and what is not well-said (durukta) in the original.

It elucidates what is stated in the

original text, Supplements it, and offers wherever necessary alternative interpretations.

Suresvara seeks-to bring out the nature of the existent

Brahman by stringing together valid arguments in his Vartika. The

Upanisads

have

their

purport

in

the non-difference

of

Brahman and Atman as stated in the principal text (mahavakya), tattvam asi. The word tat signifies through secondary sense (laksyartha) Brahman. The secondary significance of the word tvam is Atman.

Brahman is of

212

TAITTIRIVOPANIS AD-BH AS V A-V ARTIK A

the nature of existence (satyam). self-luminous.

It is consciousness ( jnanam) which is

It is infinite (anantam) and eternal (nityam),

limited by time and space.

nothing like it or unlike it; and so it is one (ekam). internal

difference.

It

for it is not

It is not limited by any object, for there is

is free

from

impurity

It is also free from (amalani).

It is the

Supreme or the Highest (param) which transcends cause-effect-relation. By realizing Brahman, ignorance (avidyz) is destroyed. all distinctions superimposed on located in the centre of the heart which

take

place

through

sdk$ibhfitam).

Since

it

(nirdvaitam).

It is free from

The Self (Atman)

is the Witness to all the cognitions

mental

modes

the two words tat and

(aiesabuddhivrttlnam

tvam are in grammatical

apposition, they refer to one and the same entity.

So the principal text

tattvamasi teaches the non-difference of Brahman and Atman.

[2] sqfa qsf qgwtftenqsromqq: q^fi^T^nfei: 'jsqqq Saluting

qgl*qqf# q$ ||

with devotion the most revered teacher by

whose rays of glory, similar to those of the impeccable full moon, this

world is pervaded, who by his grace has

done good to the afflicted caught up in bondage, by whose utterance, similar to the thunder-bolt, the Logicians (and others) being struck ran to different directions, I endeavour to write this explanation on his bhdsya (on the Taittirlya

Upanisad). In this verse Suresvara offers his salutation to his teacher, Sri Sankara, who has written a commentary on the Taittirlya Upanisad.

[3]

fsRqSP-fc^Hi % sqi^q

||

SIKSAVALLI

213

By the grace of my teacher and for the benefit of those who wish to have a clear exposition, this verse commentary on the essence of the Taittirlyaka has been written by me. Suresvara's

Vartika is an explanation of both the Taittiriyopanisad

and Sankara’s bhasya thereon. This verse occurs also in Sankara's bhasya.

m In the previous section called Brdhmana the obligatory (and occasional) rites which cause the removal of sin, as well as the optional rites which give rise to fruits to be attained here and hereafter, have been told. The Upanisad dees not form part of the ritual section (karmakanda) of the Veda, and so there is the need to explain it separately. The ritual section of the optional rites.

Veda deals with obligatory, occasional, and

The different rites enjoined in the ritual section of the

Veda are not intended

to secure liberation.

Since the theme of the

Upanisad is different from that of the ritual section, there is the need to explain it separately.

[5]

fsr^Tf

i -V.

V3

qcT: n

In the subsequent part,viz., the Vedanta, the knowledge of the existent Brahman is commenced, for that alone can destroy action and its causes. The Upani$ad imparts the knowledge of the existent Brahman which one wants to attain after fulfilling the preliminary requisites prescribed therefor.

The performance of good deeds here in this life

or in the earlier life leads to the purity of mind (antahkaranaSuddhi)

214

TAITTIRIYOPANIS AD-BH AS YA-V ARTIKA

which in its turn helps one to have the discriminating knowledge, selfcontrol, and the intense desire for liberation.

The pursuit of various

activities which bind a person is caused by desire; desire arises because of ignorance (avidya).

When knowledge (p;dya) arises, ignorance gets

removed; with the removal of ignorance, its effects, viz., desire and action, disappear.

C6J. ^

In

Qy

so

the passages, “As his desire,” and “He who does

not desire,” Scripture declares to us carefully that desire alone is the cause of bondage and that the absence of desire alone is the cause of liberation. The

two

Sruti

passages

cited

Brhadaranyaka ZJpanisad. (IV, iv, 5-6). is his resolve; as his resolve, so his leads to bondage.

in

the

verse

are

from the

The passage, “As his desire, so

work,’’ clearly shows that desire

The other passage, "He who does not desire,

has no desires...” tells us that the absence of desires leads

to

who the

attainment of Brahman which is liberation.

[?]

Erroneous cognition arises on account of the ignorance of Brahman which is always of the nature of the Self and which is devoid of duality.

From that (ignorance) arises

desire, and from desire arises action. The causal nexus from ignorance to bondage is set forth here.

[81

f^fasiFciq 11

SIKSAVALLX

215

When the Self is known, how can there be the pursuit of activity

which is due to the ignorance of the Self? So,

knowledge (of the Self) is competent tc put an end to all activities. It may be argued that there is activity even for a person who has attained the liberating knowledge of the Self. may be said, is seen to be engaged in various argument

is based

of a jivanmukta.

on a mistaken view

A jivanmukta, it

activities.

But this

of the so-called

activities

Since avidya which is the cause of bondage has been

put an end to, the embodied condition of a jivanmukta and the so-called activities in which he is supposed to be engaged from the standpoint of others do not bind him any more. pursuit of activity accounts for

Since the

root cause

of the

has been annihilated, the prarabdha-karma which

the continuance of the physical body in

the case of a

jivanmukta has really been made ineffective.

What we see in his case

is not real action, but a semblance of action.

This apart, there is no

pursuit of any action for one who has realized the Self.

[9-10]

ST

cT3T

I

f

i cfS*

A person acts

which

faofq: ||

who is desirous of liberation shall not do

are

forbidden

as

well as those

which are

prompted by desire; (but at the same time) with the desire of destroying

sin, he

shall

perform the obligatory and

occasional rites. Thus the soi-disant Mlmamsakas, rejecting Self-knowledge, speak of karma as the means to libera¬ tion.

This view has to be examined.

The first prima facie view which is stated and criticised in verses (9) to (22) is that of the Mimamsaka who holds that karma is the means to liberation.

According to this view, a person

who abstains from

21C

TAITTIPJYOPANISAD-BHASYA-VARTIKA

forbidden acts

and optional rites, and

who

performs obligatory and

occasional rites will, without any further effort, attain liberation at the termination of the present life.

The assumption

is that the entire past karma has given it

comes to

enjoyment in

be exhausted

completely

the present life

rise to another life, a person of the present life, if only

itself. can

rise

behind this argument

to the present life and that

without Since

any

there

is

residue

through

nothing to give

attain liberation at the termination

he performs the

obligatory and occasional

rites while abstaining from forbidden acts and optional rites,

[11

]

-Jr) ajjrcrt This argument is not valid, since many deeds produc¬ tive of opposite results are possible for a person, as shown by Scripture. Let us suppose for the sake of argument desirous of liberation

that a

person who is

abstains from prohibited deeds,

and also does

not perform optional rites. has to face centres round (sancita).

The difficulty which the

accumulated

the Mimamsa view

deeds which

are in store

These accumulated deeds may be of different kinds, good as

well as bad.

Again, there may be many kinds of good deeds and also

many kinds of bad deeds.

If it is admitted that there is a storehouse of

deeds of various kinds which are productive of opposite results, rebirth cannot be avoided. It may be argued

that all

the deeds which have not

yet given

fruit so far in this life of a person will bear fruit together in the next life.

If so, sancita-karma will cease to exist

life.

But this argument is untenable.

at the termination of this

It is not true to say that all the

accumulated deeds bear fruit together at the same

jyotistoma is different

from

that

of a

time.

cold-blooded

fruits have to be reaped in two different bodies.

The fruit of

murder.

These

How is it possible for

a person who has performed these deeds to reap their fruits in one and

S IKS A V ALL I the same life?

217

Scripture dees not justify the view that the fruits of

different deeds can be enjoyed in one and the same life.

Among the

deeds which are in store, that which is powerful bears fruit at the ter¬ mination of life, putting aside other deeds which are not so powerful. [ 12]

XTfc?

I

w£vif

cfq

|l

Crores of deeds which have not yet borne fruit are there for the individual. The status of deeds is known from the text “Those of good conduct.” The text from the Chandogya Upani$ad (V, x, 7) which is quoted here says:

"Among them, those of good conduct here soon attain to a

good womb."

Even for a person who

goes to heaven there is again

rebirth in accordance with the nature of the residual karma.

[13] li Since killing a Brahmin and horse-sacrifice give rise to opposite results to be enjoyed in impure and pure bodies, it is not possible to enjoy them in one body.

[

14]

Wi: I

It is said in the ethical treatises that the result of even one deed done here follows seven births. If so, what more to be said about many deeds? Verses

(13)

and (14) emphasize

the fact that the fruits of the

accumulated deeds which are in store cannot be enjoyed in one birth.

218

TAITTTPvlYOPANISAD-BHASYA-VARTIKA

[

15

] -v

”S

ncNi If it be said that the performance of obligatory ntes destroys the good (as well as bad) deeds which have not yet borne fruit, it is not so; for it (the performance of obliga¬ tory rites) prevents sin arising from non-performance (of obligatory rites). The

Mlmamsaka argues that the

performance

of obligatory

rites causes the destruction of the entire sancita-karma, of all good and bad deeds which are in store.

A person whe performs his obligatory

rites, so he argues, will, without the knowledge of the non-dual Self, attain

liberation when his present

argument is untenable.

life comes to an end.

But this

The Mlmamsaka himself admits that the fruit

which accrues to one who performs the obligatory rites is the removal of sin

which

one will incur as a result of the non-performance of

obligatory rites.

So the Mlmamsaka contradicts himself when he says

that the performance of obligatory

rites

causes

the destruction of

sancita-karma.

[16] qiq^T

^

I

The result of an evil deed is referred to by the expression “sin”. It is destroyed by obligatory rites, for it is opposed to them, but not the deed which gives rise to a good result. Even granting that obligatory rites, when performed, will cause the destruction of sancita-karma, they can destroy only the evil deeds and not the good ones, for the latter are not opposed to them.

If so, there is

bound to be rebirth for the enjoyment of the fruits of the good deeds which are in store.

SIKSAVALLI

219

[17]

5T^T^t^

II

Further, desire is the cause of action. In the absence of the knowledge of the inward Self, its destruction cannot take place. So the view (of the Mlmarhsaka stated earlier) is not sound. One of the

requirements contained in th>; Mimamsa view stated

in verses (9) and (10) is that a person who is desirous of liberation should abstain from

optional rites.

A person gets involved in kamya-karma

because of desire (kama) which in its turn is due to avidyci. It is only by knowledge that avidyS can Ke removed. desire is bound to be there.

It

And so long as avidya exists,

only means that without getting the

knowledge of the Self one cannot be free from kamya-karma.

[18] ^4 3T!B^n^R: ^4

i cTcT: II

All action is enjoined as means for attaining fruits other than the Self. Since the Self is already attained, action is of no use for attaining it. Whenever we

do any action (karma), it is with a view to achieve

one of the four results, viz., production, purification,

transformation,

or attainment; and a fifth use of action cannot be thought of.

In the

matter of attaining liberation, karma is of no use. Since moksa is eternal, it is not something to be produced.

Since it is bereft of all qualities

and impurities, it is not something to be purified. Since it is immutable, it is not something to be transformed.

Since it is always attained as

the Self of every one, it is not something to be attained.

[ 19 ]

fcU I

220

TAITTIRTYOPANISAD-BHASYA-VARTIKA

Non-performance of obligatory rites is negative. From that how can sin arise? What is positive cannot, indeed, come out of what is negative, as there is no evidence for that. The MTmamsa view that the ncn-performance of obligatory rites results in sin is now criticized.

Non-performance of obligatory rites is

abhava;

something (bhava).

but

sin is a positive

What is negative

cannot be the cause of anything positive.

[

20 ]

cI^tt

^ !l

(Since a positive something cannot come out of what is negative), the suffix Satr is, therefore, used in the sense of indication of sin which accrues to the agent as a result of the deeds done in the past. The Mimamsaka may argue that there is pramana to show that a positive something may come out of what is negative. He may cite the smrti text (Manu, XI, 44) which says, “Omitting the prescribed rites... man will have a fall.” This

text, according to the Mimamsaka, sup¬

ports the view that the non-performance of obligatory rites is the cause of sin which is positive.

But

suffix iatr (Satrpratyaya) in sense of cause, but also in

this argument is not acceptable.

the word akurvan is used the sense of indication

The

not only in the

(laksanartha).

The

text which says that the non-performance of what is enjoined (akurvan vihitam karma) is the cause of a man’s fall has to be properly interpret¬ ed.

Here non-performance of obligatory duties is not the cause, but

only an indication, of the sin accumulated in the past.

[

21

]

Since non-performance of obligatory rites, having indicated sin, immediately ceases to function, the suffix Satr is used in the sense of indication.

SIKSAVALLI

221

[22] cWTi^rr: ^iw