Sankaracharya and Taittiriyopanishad

Author(s): Vijay Pandya
Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269125/1

Page #1

Šankarācārya and the Taittiriyopanisad (with reference to his bhāsyas)
- Vijay Pandya The Taittiriyopanişad (T.U.) is one of those few Upanişads which have exercised a tremendous influence upon the course of Indian philosophy over the centuries. It is this Upanisad which has formed the core of the Brahmasūtra available at present along with some other classical Upanişads. Some of the sätras of the extant Brahmasutra have been based upon this upanişad. The very second sutra Ep 16 i (1-1-2) has the passage from this Upanişad i.e. at ar ghifa भूतानि जायन्ते, येन जातानि जीवन्ति, यत्प्रयन्ति, अभिसंविशन्ति, तद्विजिज्ञासस्व, NIGSEL for its visayavākya. The whole of the Anandamayādhikarana (1-1-12to 19) has the anandamimāmsā of this upanışad as the basis.
Then, there is one theory according to which there were various Brahmasūtras belonging to the various Upanişads, the Taittiriyopanişad likely being one of them.
Sankarācārya was not to miss the enormous philosophic significance of this Upanişad, as is evidenced from the fact that he has quoted the T.U. in his Brahmasūtrašānkarabhāsya (B.S.S.B.)142 times. He has also written a commentary on the T.U.
Here, before we go deeper into the discussion, it should be made clear that, we assume both the bhāsyas viz. B.S.S.B. and the Taittiriuopanisadbhāsya to be authentic from the pen of Sarkarācārya, though occasionally the doubts have been raised about them. Scholars like Deussen think that the second interpretation of the Anandamayādhikaraṇa is an interpolation. Similarly the T. U. bhāsya is also authentic as Sureśvarācārya has commented upon it and there are sub-commentaries upon the Vārtika, a commentary by Suresvarācārya on the T, U.

Page #2

3TTEN-• 111 Bhāsya. It may also be noted that the second interpretation of the Anandamayādhikaraṇa is quite in consonance with T. U. Bhāşya.
If we want to understand Sankarācārya's philosophical position towards the T.U., then, his bhāşyas on Anandamayādhikarana (1-1-12 to 19) of the Brahmasutra and the relevant portion of the T.U. are indispensable.
We know that Sankarācārya has given two interpretations of the Anandamayādhikarana. The relevant portion of the T. U. which has been taken up as a discussing point in the Brahmasūtru begins as follows:
तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाश सम्भूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः । वायोरग्निः । अग्नेरापः । अद्भयः पृथ्वी । पृथिव्या ओषधयः । ओषधीभ्योऽन्नम् । अन्नात्पुरुषः । स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्नरसमय तस्येदमेव शिरः । अयं दक्षिणः T&: 344: 981: | 3727174 ya urais
From the Atman, the ether proceeded, from ether, the wind, from the wind the fire, from the fire the waters, from waters the earth, from earth the plants, from plants food, from food man, he is made up of food.
And then in the similar fashion the T. U. proceeds further. In this self of food dwells inside another self of breath (Prānamaya), again in the self of breath, there is self of mind (manomaya). Further in the self of mind is the self of understanding (vijñānamaya) and in the self of understanding is the inner self which consists of bliss (ānandamaya).
Now the crucial point of discussion in the Brahmasūtra and in the T.U.bhāsya is this self consisting of bliss, Anandamaya.
Who is this Anandamaya ?
Sankarācārya puts forth two interpretations ih his commentary on the Anandamayādhikarana.
According to the first interpretation put forth by Sankarācārya,

Page #3

3 TEN-89. 112 Anandumaya is Brahman.
According to the second interpretation which some scholars like Deussen have dubbed as an interpolation, (but we believe it to be as authentic as the first one), Anandamaya is not Brahman. It is one of the five sheaths, as Sankarācārya says in his B.S.S.B., af f a15142762 31144H49fati: Y of The five sheaths extending from the sheath of food upto the sheath of bliss are merely introduced for the purpose of setting forth the knowledge of Brahman.
Similar interpretation is offered in the TU.bhāsya, and in the T.U.bhāsya by Sankarācārya the interpretation resembling that of the first interpretation in the B.S.S.B., is nowhere in sight. It is most interesting and edifying to see how Sarkarācārya fortifies the thought that Anandamaya is not Brahman. The bhāsya in the Upanişad runs as follows :
अन्नमयादिभ्य आनन्दमयान्तेभ्य आत्मभ्योऽभ्यन्तरतमं ब्रह्म विद्यया प्रत्यगात्मत्वेन दिदर्शयिषुः शास्त्रं अविद्याकृतपञ्चकोशापनयनेन अनेकतुषकोद्रववितुषीकरणेनेव तदन्तर्गत तण्डुलान्प्रस्तौति । तस्माद्वा एतस्मादन्नरसमयादित्यादि ।
Brahman is the inmost of all selves beginning from the physical sheath and ending with the blissful one. The scripture starts with the text तस्मात् वा एतस्मात् अन्नरसमयात् etc. with a view to revealing through knowledge that Brahman as the indwelling self by following a process of eliminating the five sheaths just as rice is extracted from the grain called Kodrava that has many husks.?
Thus Anandamaya is not Brahman and it is one of the sheaths which one has to transcend in order to realise Brahman.
The TU. bhāsya is running close parallel to the second interpretation offered by the great ācārya in his B.S.S.B.
As Sarkarācārya was writing an elaborate bhāsya on the T.U., he makes some other subtler points which he did not mention in his bhāsya on the Anandamayadhikarana in the

Page #4

अनुसंधान - १७• 113
Brahmasutra.
We know that in the T.U., after Annamaya comes Prāṇamaya and so on. At this place, Sarikarācārya in his T.U. bhāsya observes एवं मनोमयादिभिः पूर्वपूर्वव्यापिभिरुत्तरोत्तरैः सूक्ष्मैरानन्दमयान्तैराकाशादिभूतारब्धैरविद्याकृतैरात्मवन्तः सर्वे प्राणिनः । तथा स्वाभाविकेनाप्याकाशादिकारणेन नित्येनाविकृतेन सर्वगतेन सत्यज्ञानानन्तलक्षणेन पञ्चकोशातिगेन सर्वात्मना आत्मवन्तः ।
Similarly all creatures are possesed of selves by virtue being provided with the bodies beginning with the mental and ending with the blissful which successively pervade the preceding ones and which are made up of the elements, beginning with akasa, that are the creations of ignorance. So also they are blessed with the self by the Self that is common to all, selfexistent, the source of ether etc., everlasting,unchanging, all-pervading, defined as truth, knowledge and infinite and beyond five sheaths."
Further one more finer point Śankarācārya makes in the T.U.bhāṣya which he did not make in his bhāṣya on the Anandamayādhikaraṇa.
संक्रमणाच्च ‘आनन्दमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामति' इति वक्ष्यति । कार्यात्मनां च संक्रमणमनात्मनां दृष्टम् । संक्रमणकर्मत्वेन चानन्दमय आत्मा श्रूयते । यथान्नमयमात्मानमुपसंक्रामतीति । न च आत्मन एवोपसंक्रमणम् । अधिकारविरोधादसंभवाच्च । न ह्यात्मनैवात्मन उपसंक्रमणं संभवति । स्वात्मनि भेदाभावात् । आत्मभूतं च ब्रह्म संक्रमितुः 110
This also follows from the fact of Samkramaņa (attaining). The text will say 'He attains the self made of bliss. (T.U. 25) and things that are non-selves and effects are seen to be attained by others. Moreover the self made of bliss is mentioned in the text as the object of the act of attaining just as it is the annamayam ātmānam upasamkrāmti, he attains the self made of food. Nor is the (unconditioned) Self attainable since such an attainment is repugnant to the trend of the passage and it is logically impossible. For the (unconditioned)

Page #5

3
1
-89.114
Self cannot be attained by the Self in as much as there is no split within the self and Brahman is the Self, of the attainer."
So this argument of attaining is a very subtle one, and additional too, to the points made in the BSSB by Sankarācārya. The great acārya offered two interpretations of which he elaborated the second interpretation and the first one he altogether ignored in the T.U.bhāsya.
About the second interpretation it may be stated that the äcārya was not wavering between änanda and ānandi so to say as Belvalkar and Ranade seem to be averring. 12 We may, in fact, conjecture that, the first interpretation was handed down to Sankarācārya by the tradition and he felt bounden by the tradition to mention the interpretation of which he himself was little convinced.
The second interpretation is consistent with his overall relentless pursuit of absolute, rigorous unflincing non-dualism and which gets reflected in the T.U.bhāsya. In fact, as we could mark, in the T.U.bhāsya, he is more original, vigorous and incisive unshackled by the tradition.
Regarding Sankarācārya's Brhadāranyakopanişadbhāşya, Daniel Ingalls has observed that Sankarācārya breaks with traditional interpretations frequently whereas in the Brahmasūtrabhāsya, he is very careful not to depart from the tradition..? This observation, I think, is applicable to T.U.bhāsya by Sarkarācārya.
So from the forgoing discussion, it would be seen that Sankarācārya sets aside that interpretation which connects Brahman with Anandamaya. I may venture even further, that had it been in Sarkarācārya's power, he would even have rejected the term Ananda, devoid of any suffix like mayat which obviously, under no circumstances, he could admit.

Page #6

TICHETT-919. 115
Tradition sanctified by usage and hallowed by time was too overwhelming for him to reject the term ananda. In support of this statement, it may be mentioned that, in the whole of literature by Sarkarăcārya the most frequent phrase in the Indian philosophy, i.e. succidānanda taken as a whole does not occur. Individually sat, cit and even ananda did occur in the literature by the ācārya, but as a definition of Brahman and even otherwise by way of inserting such phrases, this phrase saccidānanda, is conspicuous by its absence.
So, as with anandamaya, Sankarācārya considered ananda epithet of Brahman as qualifying it. The epithet änanda goes against the tenor of his philosophical strain and despite Sankarācārya, in the Post-Sankara period the epithet and the phrase saccidānanda have continued to reign unchallenged.
Though there is no direct evidence to prove it but, according to Sankarācārya, it appears ānanda would bring the worldly content which would pollute, so to say, Sankarācārya's Brahman.
And perhaps (not sure) the connotations of the word ānanda contextually used in the classical Upanisadic literature, had strengthened his aversion to the word ananda being applied to Brahman.
It is not very infrequently that in the Upanisads the word ānanda has a sextual connotation. To point out a few :
In the Brhadaranyakopanişad (2-4-11) it is statet that
स यथा सर्वासामपां समुद्र एकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषां स्पर्शानां त्वगेकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषां गन्धानां नासिके एकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषां रसानां जिहवैकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषां रूणाणां चक्षरेकायनम, एवं सर्वेषां शब्दानां श्रोत्रमेकायनम, एवं सर्वेषां सङ्कल्पानां मन एकायनम्, एवं सर्वेसां विद्यानां हृदयमेकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषां कर्मणां हस्तावेकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषामान्दानामुपस्थ एकायनम्, एवं सर्वेषां विसर्गाणां पायुरेकायनम्, To nicht gan tai pagi atai aro 17 i (B.U.24-11)

Page #7

अनुसंधान-१७. 116 It is - as of all waters the uniting poing is the sea, so of all touches the uniting point is the skin, so of all tastes the uniting point is the tongue, of all smells the uniting point is the nostrils, so of all forms the uniting poing is eyes, so of all sounds the uniting point is the ear, so of all intention (sankalpa) the uniting point is the mind (manas), so of knowledge the uniting point is the heart, so of all acts (karma) the uniting point is the hand, so of all pleasures (ānanda) the uniting point is the generative organ (evem sarveśāmānandānām upustha ekāyanam) so of all evacuations the uniting point is the anus, so of all journeys the uniting point is the feet, so of all Vedas, the uniting poing is speech.''
Similarly in the Praşnopanişad a question is asked : In whom, pray, are all things established ? (कस्मिन्नु सर्वे सम्प्रतिष्ठिता भवन्तीति) And in the answer to this question are supplied couples having the cause-effect relationships. As birds resort to a tree for a resting place, even so, O friend (Pippalada addressing to Gārgya, a questioner) it is to the Supreme Soul (ātman) that everything here resorts.
स यथा सोम्य वयांसि वासोवृक्षं सम्प्रतिष्ठन्ते । एवं ह वै तत्सर्वं पर आत्मनि सम्प्रतिष्ठते । पृथिवी च पृथिवीमात्रा चापश्चापोमात्रा च तेजश्च तेजोमात्रा च वायुश्च वायुमात्रा चाकाशश्चाकाशमात्रा च चक्षुश्च द्रष्टव्यं च श्रोत्रं च श्रोतव्यं च घ्राणं च घ्रातव्यं च रसश्च रसयितव्यं च त्वक् च स्पर्शयितव्यं च वाकच वक्तव्यं च हस्तौ चादातव्यं चोपस्थश्चानन्दयितव्यं च पायुश्च विसर्जितव्यं च पादौ च गन्तव्यं च मनश्च मन्तव्यं च बुद्धिश्च बोद्धव्यं चाहारश्चाहर्तव्यं च चित्तं च चेतयितव्यं च तेजश्च विद्योतयितव्यं च प्राणश्च विधारयितव्यं च ।
(Praśnopanişad 4-87, 8) Earth and the elements of earth, water and the elements of water, heat (tejas) and the elements of heat, wind and the elements of wind, space and the elements of space, sight and what can be seen, hearing and what can be heard, smell and what can be smelled, taste and what can be tasted,

Page #8

BILHET-89 • 117
the skin and what can be touched, speech and what can be spoken, the hands and what can be taken, the organ and what can be enjoyed (upastjascānandayitavyumca), the anus and what can be excreted, the feet and what can be walked, mind (manas) and what can be perceived, intellect (buddhi) and what can be conceived, egoism (ahamkāra) and what can be connected with 'me', thought (citta) and what can be thought, brilliance (tejas) and what can be illumined, life-breath (prāņa) and what can be supported.
Similarly in the Kuusitaki Upanişad ānanda has been associated with upastha - a generative organ. The passage runs thus :
He says to him 'Wherewith do you acquire (āp) my masculine names.
'With the vital breath (Prāņa masc.)' he should answer. *Wherewith feminine names ? 'With speech (vāc, fem.)' "Wherewith neuter ones ? ‘With the mind (manas, neut.)' 'Wherewith odors ? "With the breath. (Prāna)' 'Wherewith forms ? "With the eye' 'Wherewith sounds ?' "With the ear 'Wherewith the flavors. of food ?' With the tongue 'Wherewith actions ?' With the iwo hands.'

Page #9

3FTHETA-P10118 'Wherewith pleasure and pain ?' “With the body 'Wherewith bliss, delight and procreation ? 'With the generative organ' (*Ken anandam, ratim, prajātimiti, upasthena') 'Wherewith goings ?" *With the two feet 'Wherewith thoughts, what is understood and desired' 'With intelligence (prajñā), he should say.'
Similarly in the same Kausitaki Upanişad, further, father says 'My bliss, delight and procreation in you I would place. The son replies : Your bliss, delight and procreation in me I take.'
(37747 you for at afá de fa : 1 (Kau. U. 2. 11)
It is noteworthy that in the Kau. U. therse three words viz ānanda, rati and prajāti are being repeatedly used. 18 Prajāti may be connected with jan to generate, procreate. Rati may be dealing more with the aspect of sexual pleasure from ram verb, and ananda may mean a general over-al! sexual gratification or satisfaction.''
In the B.U., ananda, as if, has been defined and it is not difficult to see that context is associated with sexual pleasure. Yājñavalkya says 4771 à or fapenafarta, nei farina: E ma, 73HI (B.U. 4-1-6) Verily, your majesty, by the mind one betakes himself to a woman. A son like himself is born of her. He is bliss.
In the TU. context also, the word prajāti along with ānunda occurs and there is a word amstu also alongwith prajatiramstumānanda ilyupasthie (T.U.3-10-3).
Il can be seen that all these words prujāli. amric and

Page #10

ITAE17-89 • 119 ānanda are connected with upastham, a generative organ.
In the Kau. U., it appears that a process of sextual intercourse is purported to be described.
7514 342) HATTEN JURUAN fá yfiawati (Kau. U. 36) With intelligence having mounted on the generative organ, with the generative organ, one obtains bliss, delight and procreation.
So far, we have discussed that the word ānanda is explicitely connected with the generative organ and has sexual connotations,
And there are some places in the Upanişad where no direct connection can be perceived, but at the same time, there are sexual allusions. The celebrated passage from the B.U. gives an illustration of the erotic or amorous congruence in 4-3-21 WETT for f i aficato 7 GIEI feel II. As a man in the embrace of a beloved woman knows nothing, without, nothing within.
In the C.U.(7-25-2) 7 ay gay ang pa fainalchefur DAS TEHAYA BICHIG: Verily who sees thus, who thinks thus, who understands thus, who has pleasure in the soul, who has deligiit in the soul, who has intercourse with the soul, who has bliss in the soul. It can be seen that this passage endeavours to define anunda almost in erotic terms.
Similarly in the Mundakopunişad, the same words are employed in the following context, viz
प्राणो ह्येष यः सर्वभूतै विभाति विजानन्विद्वान्भवते । नातिवादी आत्मक्रीडः आत्मरति: क्रियावानेष ब्रह्मविद्यां वरिष्ठः ॥
(M.U.3-1-4) Truly it is life that shines forth in all beings. Understanding this, one becomes a knower. There is no superior speaker. Having delight in the soul látman), having pleasure in the

Page #11

अनुसंधान - १७• 120
soul, doing rites, such a one is the best of Brahma-knowers.
From this discussion, it is certain that the word ananda, originally used to have an erotic or sexual connotation and hence, might have been considered profane by the philosopher like Śańkarācārya. Of course, it cannot be gainsaid that, in the Upanisads, the word ananda has been employed in the non-sexual and unerotic contexts also. But it did not remain a pure, unalloyed, non-contextualised and shorn of all undesirable association. Hence the word ananda was not suitable to Sankarācārya's steadfast, and unflinching pursuit of the absolute
monism.
Śankarācārya did not want to dilute his rigorous, absolute monism and so he shunned the phrase saccidananda along with ānanda. That was also the reason, why he, having offered two interpretations in the anandamayādhikarana, left the first interpretation of anandamaya as Brahman, in the lurch, so to say, completely ignored it in the T.U.bhāṣya.
This is how I have endeavoured to unravel the mystery ɗ Śankarācārya's having two interpretations in the Ānandamayādhikaraṇa, having abandoned one in his T.U.bhāṣya and not mentioning ever the phrase saccidānanda in his entire literature.
References
Belvalkar S.K, Shree Gopal Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, 1929, p. 140-146
2. Dr. Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta, Reprint 1972, p. 31. 3. Ibid, p. 139
3(1).Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Advaita Vedanta, ed. by Karl H.
Potter, 1981, pp. 116, 204.
4.
Dr. Paul Deussen, The System of the Vedanta, p. 139
5.
Bruhmasutraśänkarabhyāṣya NSP edition, 1938, p. 185.
6. Taittiriyopanisad with the commentary by Sankarācārya, in the Volume Fanfezapftuc:, ang, Pub, Motilal Banarasidass, reprint 1978, p.
1.
294.

Page #12
अनुसंधान-१७. 121 Here and hereafter, this edition is utilised for the T.U.bhasya by Sarikaracarya 7. Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanisads, Vol I, Second Edn., 1948, p. 322. 8. 7.bhasya, p. 291. 9. Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, p. 326. 10. T.U.bhasya, p. 294. 11. Translation p. 335-336. 12. Belvalkar and Ranade, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol II, The Crea tive Period, 1927, p. 252. 13. Daniel Ingalls, The Study of Sankaracarya, Annals of Bhandarkar Orien tal Institute, 33, 1952, quoted by E. A. Sotoman, in Sankaracarya's Bhasya on the Brhadaranyankoparisud. A Few Salient Points in the Volume Adi Sankaracarya (12th Centenary Connotation Volume 1992) ed. by Dr. Gautam Patei, Pub. by Directorate of Information, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. 14. Translation by R. E. Hume, The Thirteen Principal Upansads, OUP, 1995, p. 131. 15. Ibid, pp. 386-387. 16. Ibid, pp. 306-307. 17. तमाह केन में पौंस्यानि नामान्याप्नोतीति प्राणेनेति ब्रूयात् / केन स्त्रीनामानीति वाचेति केन नपुंसकानीति मनसेति केन गन्धानीति प्राणेनेत्येव ब्रूयात् / केन रूपाणीति चक्षुषेति केन शब्दानीति श्रोत्रेणेति केनान्नरसानिति जिह्वयेति केन कर्माणीति हस्ताभ्यामिति केन सुखदुःखेति शरीरेणेति केनानन्दं रति प्रजातिमित्युपस्थेनेति, केनेत्या इति पादाभ्यामिति केन धियो विज्ञातव्यं कामानिति प्रज्ञयेति ब्रूया-- त्तमाह (Kausitaki U. 1-6, उपनिषत्संग्रह:-p.196, ed. by पण्डित जगदीश शास्त्री, pub. Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 1970.) 18. Further in the Kau.U., उपस्थ एवास्या एकमङ्गमदूह्ळं तस्यानन्दो रतिः प्रजाति: परस्तात्प्रतिविहिता,3-5, Again in 3-7, न हि प्रज्ञापेत उपस्थ आनन्दं रति प्रजाति काञ्चन प्रज्ञापयेदन्यत्र मे मनोऽभूदित्याह / Ibid pp:202-203 19. G. Glasperl Sauch S. J., Bliss in the Upanisads, pub. Oriental Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1977, p. 134.