Tag Archives: Upanishad

About Upavarsha … Part Three

Continued from Part Two


 Upavarsha – Bodhayana

1.1. Sri Sankara, in his commentary on Brahma sutras, adopts a particular way of presentation. On each subject (vishaya), he first gives one interpretation and then follows it up by the other interpretation. It is explained; the first one represents the opposing views (purva-paksha) of ‘others’ (apare); and, it is meant to be rejected.  But, Sri Sankara does not quote the opposing views nor does he mention the name of the opponent. He merely sums up, raises them as the views of ‘others’, and finally dismisses them. Sri Sankara’s own views are presented in the later set of interpretation.

1.2. In contrast, Sri Sankara whenever he refers to the views of Upavarsha not only he mentions the Vrttikara by name but also treats him with great respect, as Bhagavan. Sri Sankara in his Brahma-sutra-bhashya (3.3.53) quotes the views of Upavarsha as being authoritative.  Following his lead, the latter Sub-commentators of Advaita School, Anandajnana and Govindananda, recognize Upavarsha as the most eminent Vrttikara.

1.3. Similarly, in the Mimamsa School also, Sabarasvamin a noted Mimamsaka, in his Bhashya (Sabara bhashya) on the fifth sutra of Mimamsa sutra of Jaimini refers to a Vrttikara prior to his (Sabara’s) time, without, of course, mentioning his name. At the same time, in his Bhashya on the same sutra (1.1.5), Sabarasvamin refers to Upavarsha by name addressing him with the epithet ‘Bhagavan’. It, therefore, seems reasonable to conclude that the Vrttikara referred to by Sabara was not Upavarsha.  And yet; it is not clear who that Vrttikara was.

[An unfortunate feature of the traditional texts is that they do not mention the names of the old teachers-commentators whose opinions are being quoted. Such practice might have been an idiom of a well-understood literary etiquette. But, it has led to needless debates and speculations.  Very often, it is left to a commentator who comes perhaps a century or more later to tell us that (let’s say) Sri Sankara actually meant such-and–such commentator when he said ‘someone ‘or ‘others’. Similar is the position with regard to those commentators that are referred to as ‘Vrttikara ‘or ‘Vakyakara’ without mentioning their names or the titles of their texts.  There is therefore always an element of skepticism associated with such sub-commentaries. ]

1.4. The Advaita scholar, Govindananda in his Ratna-prabha explains that the ‘others’ (apare) referred by Sri Sankara in his Bhashya does actually, stands for the Vrttikara Bodhayana.  Another Advaita scholar Anandagiri agrees with this identification.

1.5. The Advaita School, thus, believes that Upavarsha and Bodhayana are two different persons.  And, the other dimension of the debate is that many wonder whether the terms ‘others ‘or ‘some’ truly refer to Bodhayana. That debate is still not concluded.



2.1. The mention of Bodhayana in this and similar other contexts give rise to number of questions such as: Who was this Bodhayana? What were his views? Why Bodhayana and Upavarsha are often mentioned in the same breath? Do the names Bodhayana and Upavarsha refer to one and the same person; or they two different persons? And so on.

2.2. Bodhayana is a very celebrated name in the long line of scholars of very ancient India. There have been many eminent persons in various fields of study going by the name of Bodhayana. It is also said that Bodhayana is the southern form of Baudhayana. Further, the name Baudhayana itself stands for ‘descendent of Budha or Bodha’. The linage of Bodhayana stretches at least from about 800 BCE to 200 BCE.

But for the limited purpose of our discussion here, let us confine to Bodhayana the Vrttikara.  His commentary on the Brahma sutra was recognized as an authority by many teachers of the later period, particularly by Sri Ramanuja.

2.3. And again, not much is known for certain about Bodhayana, other than his authorship of the Vritti (commentary) on the Brahma-sutras, the guidebook to understanding Vedanta. This Vritti is of cardinal importance to the history of Sri Vaishnava philosophy, because Sri Ramanuja mentioned that he followed the interpretations of Bodhayana while commenting on the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana.

In the opening verse of Sri Bhashya, Sri Ramanuja mentions: ‘The previous masters have abridged the detailed commentary on Brahma sutra which had been composed by Bhagavad Bodhayana. The words of the sutra will be explained in accordance with their views.

(Bhagavad Bhodayana kritam vistirnam Brahma-sutra – vrttim purvacharyah samskipuh I tan-mata-anusarena sutraksarani vyakhyasyante II)

2.4. In the Sri Bhashya of Sri Ramanuja, Bodhayana is generally addressed as Vrttikara, the commentator. He quotes the views of the Vrttikara Bodhayana seven times.

The interpretations of Bodhayana are traditionally respected by the followers of Sri Ramanuja. And, their tradition regards Bodhayana second only to the author of Brahma sutra (Badarayana). Yet; the commentary of Bodhayana is not extant today, apart from its fragments quoted by Sri Ramanuja. Sri Ramanuja quoted the above seven comments of the Vrttikara Bodhayana. And, these are his only words that have survived.

Even though they are few in number, each of them expresses a special point of Bodhayana’s thought.

2.5. As regards time of Bodhayana, the scholars surmise that the Vrttikara may have lived in the fifth century (?) A D.



3.1.   As mentioned earlier, the Advaita School believes that Bodhayana is different from Upavarsha.  That is also quite possible because of the vast time difference between the two. While Upavarsha may belong to about the fourth century BCE, Bodhayana the Vrttikara may have lived in the fifth or the sixth century AD.

3.2. However, there are very interesting references and comments linking Bodhayana with Upavarsha.

(a) A  Vedanta text of a much later period Prapancha-hrdaya mentions that Bodhayana wrote a very detailed commentary titled Krtakoti on  all the twenty parts of Mimamsa, covering both the Purva and Uttara Mimamsa (Mimamsa sutra 12 parts and Samkarshana-kanda 4 parts – ascribed to Jaimini; together with  the Brahma sutra 4 parts ascribed to Badarayana). It was also said that the commentary on Brahma sutra (Brahma–sutra Vrtti), in particular, was quite detailed.

It was said that these three works were unified under a title called Krtakoti. Fearing that the great length of the commentary would cause it be cast into oblivion, Upavarsha somewhat abridged it.

Tad grantha bahulya –bhayad upekshya kimchid samsksiptam Upavarshena krtam (Prapanchahrdaya .45)

And later, it is said, Devasvamin further abridged Upavarsha’s abridged version.

But, all those works ascribed Bodhayana are dispersed and lost; and none is available now. Since Sri Ramanuja quoted from the condensed version of Bodhayana’s commentary on Brahma sutra, it could be said the rare fragments of those texts were extant until his time (11th century). But, Bodhayana commentaries on Mimamsa sutra, if any, were lost much earlier; and had passed out of existence by the time of Kaumarila Bhatta (8th century).

(b) There is also a tradition which recognizes Krtakoti as the name of an author. According to Avanti-sundari-katha of Dandin, Krtakoti was the name of Upavarsha who was also known as Bodhayana.   And, also according to Manimekhalai, Krtakoti was a scholar of Mimamsa and was reckoned along with Vyasa and Jaimini. And, in the Sanskrit lexicon Vaijayanti, Krtakoti-kavi is said to be another name of Upavarsha]

(c) There is another complication. Some scholars believe that Bodhayana and Upavarsha were the two names of one and the same person; and Bodhayana might have been the Gotra name of Upavarsha. The great scholar Sri Vedanta Desika (14th century) in his Tattvatika, a commentary on Sri Ramanuja’s Sri Bhashya, identified Bodhayana with Upavarsha- Vrttikarasya Bodhayanasyiva hi Upavarsha iti syan nama.

It is surmised that Sri Vedanta Desika might have come to conclusion because ‘Bodhayana’ might have been the Gotra of Upavarsha. The other reason could be that the Vedanta scholars frequently referred to a Vrttikara, without, however, mentioning his name. In the process, both Upavarsha and Bodhayana were each addressed as Vrttikara. There might have been a mix-up. In any case, Sri Vedanta Desika does not cite any authority or a tradition in support of statement.

(d) Sri Ramanuja reckons Bodhayana as being the foremost among his Purava-acharya-s (Past Masters of his tradition) Viz. Bodhayana, Tanka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardi and Baruchi. But, he does not, anywhere, equate Bodhayana with Upavarsha.

(e) Another reason for not identifying Bodhayana with Upavarsha is the stand taken by their followers on the question of the unity or otherwise of the Mimamsa as a whole.

It is said; Bodhayana laid equal importance of Jnana and Karma Kandas; as   the two together constituted the doctrinal system (Shastraikatva).   He held the view that directly after completing the rituals one should take up the investigation into Brahman, which is the study of Vedanta. His position was coined by the later Vedanta Schools as jnana-karma-samucchaya-vada, the doctrine that synthesizes jnana and karma.  This was also the position taken by Sri Ramanuja in his Sri Bhashya.

 Sri Sankara, on the other hand, did not accord much significance to rituals, naturally, tended to differ from Bodhayana.

(f) Bodhayana’s position also meant that Purva and Uttara Mimamsa are two sections of the same text.

But, Sri Sankara’s basic position was that the Mimamsa Sutra which commences with the statement Atato Dhrama jijnasa is quite separate from the Brahma Sutra commencing with Atato Brahmajijnasa.  Sri Sankara’s Shatra-aramba refers to the beginning of the Brahma sutra; and not to Mimamsa that covered both Purva and Uttara. Sri Sankara presents his commentary as a sort of Mimamsa by calling it as Vedanta-mimamsa. He does not use the terms Purva Mimamsa or Uttara -Mimamsa. He did not seem to regard Brahma Sutra as a latter part of the same text.

Sri Sankara maintained that the two systems are addressed to different class of persons. Karma-kanda consist injunctions to act in order to achieve certain results. But, liberation is not a product or a thing to be achieved. Jnana-kanda is about Brahman that already exists; it pertains to the ultimate purpose which is true knowledge of Self, and it is addressed to one who is intent on liberation.   Each section of Veda is valid in its own sphere; but, the two sections cannot logically be bound together.

Sri Sankara generally followed the explanations provided by Upavarsha. And, these were not the same as the views attributed to Bodhayana.  Naturally, these led to doctrinal differences between Sri Ramanuja and Sri Sankara.

(g) It, therefore, seems safe to assume that Upavarsha, Krtakoti and Bodhayana as being three different persons.


Sphota – Varna

4.1. Sri Sankara, in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, mentions Upavarsha on two occasions. First, in the commentary on the Sutra at 3.3.53 which discusses the existence of Atman (We have talked about this aspect in the earlier part of this article).

And, the second, in a passage   comments on the Sutra which deals with the doctrine of words (Varna Vada). At the end of the discussion, he states: Bhagavan Upavarsha says the words (Pada) are none other than the various letter-sounds (Varna). He agrees with Upavarsha. Before that, he goes through the opposing view (Purva-paksha) put forward by a Sphotavadin a votary of the Sphota theory.

4.2. Sri Sankara, of course, does not usally name the Purvapakshin the one who hold the opposing view point. Accordingly, in the commentary on the Sutra in question also he does not name or specify the Sphotavadin who in the present case is the Purvapakshin. But his commentators identify the Sphotavadin with the Grammarian (Vyakarana-kara) Bhartrhari who generally is referred by the epithet

5.1. Bhartrhari (c. 450-510 CE?) was a Grammarian and also a philosopher. He was well versed in the study of Mimamsa and Vedanta. In the citation to the  later editions of the text Bhartrhari  is celebrated as a great Grammarian ( Maha-vaiyyakarana) , Great poet (Maha-kavi) , Yogi (Maha Yogi) , a great warrior  (Maharaja) and the ruler of Avanti (Avantisvara)  who composed Vakyapadiya   (iti Sri Bhartrhari virachitam Vakyapadiyam ).

5.2. In his celebrated work the Vakyapadiya (a treatise on sentences and words) Bhartrhari expounded the Sphota-vada (doctrine of Sphota) which had its origins in the germ-ideas mentioned in ancient texts.

6.1. The term ‘Sphota’ does not easily translate into English, as it usually happens.  The Sphota is derived from the root ‘sphut‘ which means ‘to burst’, but it also describes what ’is revealed’ or ’is made explicit’. Sphota can also refer to the abstract or conceptual form of an audible word. Sphota is somewhat similar to the Ancient Greek concept of logos or Word.

[ The Sphota theory is one of the significant contributions of India to the philosophy of Grammar. The Sphota concept was developed over long periods; but, it was fully put forward by Bharthrhari .

The earliest historical figure who dealt with linguistic study seems to be Sakalya, the author of the Pada-paatha of Rig-Veda, and who is mentioned by Panini. Sakalya is credited with breaking down the Samhita (the original text of the verses) into words, identifying the separate elements of compound words. Later, Brihad-devata attributed to Saunaka said that a sentence is made up of words; and the words, in turn, are made of phonemes (Varna).

Nagesha Bhatta (author of Manjusha and Shpota-vada) identifies Sage Sphotayana, mentioned by Panini in one of his rule, as the originator of the Sphota concept.  Bharthrhari quotes Yaska as mentioning that another ancient authority, the sage Audumbarayana together with Varttaksa held views similar to the Sphota theory. Yaska had mentioned (Nirukta: 1-2) about a theory suggested by Audumbarayana that a sentence or an utterance is primary and is a whole,  an indivisible unit of language. Audumbarayana, it appears, had also mentioned that the four-fold classification of words into : noun, verb, upasarga and nipata does not hold good(2). And therefore, Bharthrhari claimed that the views of these ancients support his own theory –Sphota-vada.


 [But, Yaska himself had not agreed with Audumbarayana; and, had went  to talk about Bhava – the being and becoming of  verbs from their roots’ and about their transformations (Vikara) .]

In any case, the original idea of Sphota seems to go back to the Vedic age when Vak or speech was considered to be a manifestation of the all – pervading Brahman , and Pranava (Aum) was regarded as the primordial speech sound from which all forms of Vak were supposed to have evolved.  Perhaps, this claim provided the model upon which the Vyakarana philosophers based their concept of Sphota. Indeed Sphota is often identified with Pranava.

 Bharthrhari maintained that the primary function of the words was to combine into a sentence, in its complete utterance, to give forth a meaning.  The sentence with its words is to be taken as an integral unit; and, not as a clutter of fragments. Bharthrhari argued that for the purpose of linguistic analysis it might be fine to split the sentence into words, then into the roots and suffixes of the words, syntaxes etc. Such analytical splitting might be useful for study of language and its grammar.

But, such fragmented approach is surely not suitable in the real world where men and women live, communicate and transact. In a speech-situation where the speaker communicates ones ideas and the listener grasps his/her speech, it is necessary that the utterance has to be complete. The speaker communicates and the listener understands his/her utterance as a single unit. The listener grasps it as a whole; and the understanding is like an instantaneous flash of insight (prathibha). Just as the meaning derived from the sentence is unitary, the symbol (the sentence) which signifies it is also an integral unit.  Its meaning is experienced, known through perception. This, rather roughly put, is the concept called Sphota – the sentence being taken as an integral symbol.

Let’s say, when a painter conceives a picture in his mind and gives it a substance on the canvass he does use variety of strokes, different colors, varying shades etc. But, that does not mean one has to look for individual strokes shades etc. or as a permutation of those that went in to make the picture. The viewer, rightly, takes in, absorbs the picture and its spirit as a whole, as an integral unit.

 Bharthrhari says those who know the language well, listen to the sentence. And those who do not know the language may hear words only as sound bits.  Sphota in essence is the real experience of listening to a sentence as a whole and grasping its meaning through perception.]

6.2. In his Sarva-darshana-samgraha, Sri Madhava (generally accepted as the pre-ascetic name of Sri Vidyaranya who was the Jagadguru of Sri Sringeri Mutt from 1380 to 1386) describes Sphota in two ways. The first as: that from which the meaning bursts forth or shines forth. And, the second as: an entity that is manifested by the spoken letters and sounds. Sphota may, thus, be conceived as a two sided coin. On the one side it is manifested by the word-sound; and, on the other it simultaneously reveals word meaning.

6.3. In philosophical terms, Sphota may be described as the transcendent ground on which the spoken syllables (Varna) and conveyed meanings (Artha) find their unity as word or Sabda. To put it in another way, that which expresses a meaning; or the process of expressing a meaning through a word could be called Sphota.

7.1. Bhartrhari deals with Sphota at two levels: one on the metaphysical plane and the other on the empirical plane. . Sphota refers to the ‘non-differentiated language principle’. This gave rise to the theory of “word monism – Sabda-advaita. The theory is that Brahman first manifested itself as Sound and then as form. The Sphota, Sabda-Brahman, manifested as Logos or Word, is the power through which the Lord manifests in the universe. Liberation is achieved when one attains unity with that ‘supreme word principle’. Within this theory, consciousness and thought are intertwined; and Grammar becomes a path to liberation. Sphota-vada is a monistic (Advaita) philosophy based on Sanskrit grammar (as per Swami Vivekananda’s   explanation).

7.2. At the empirical level, Bhartrhari is concerned with the process of communicating meaning. He deals with the word and the sound distinctions; the word meaning; the unitary nature of the whole sentence; the word object connection; and the levels of speech, etc. His focus is on cognition and language.

8.1. Bhartrhari explains : If the letters  float away and disappear the instant we utter them and if each sound is replaced by another in quick succession, then one can hardly perceive the word  or a sentence as a whole. And the question that comes up is- then, how does one grasp the meaning of a word or of a sentence?

Bhartrhari goes on to say that a sentence is not a mere collection of words or an ordered series of words. A sentence-Sphota is the primary unit of meaning. A sentence is a sequence-less, part-less whole that gets expressed or manifested in a sequential and temporal utterance. A word or sentence is grasped as a unity by intuition (pratibha). According to Bhartrhari, Sphota is an auditory image of word. It is indivisible and without inner-sequence.

8.2. Bhartrhari explains that initially the word exists in the mind of the speaker as a unity, but is manifested as a sequence of different sounds, giving raise to the appearance of differentiation. Bhartrhari states: “All difference presupposes a unity”; and where there is a duality there is an identity pervading it. Otherwise one cannot be related to the other or each would constitute a world by itself.

8.3. For Bhartrhari, Sphota is the real substratum, proper linguistic unit, which is identical with its meaning. Language is  the vehicle of meaning or of thought. Thought anchors language and the language anchors thought. In this way, there are no essential differences between a linguistic unit and its meaning or the thought it conveys.

[Bhartrhari argues that the words do not designate the objects in the external world directly (sakshat), but indirectly through the intervention (upadana) of universals which are mental, and which reside in words. Universals which are thus intimately connected with the language and mind, on the one hand, and with the whole of existence, on the other, constitute the basis of our knowledge of the external world.]

9.1. However, Upavarsha rejected the Sphota-vada; and, argued all this talk of unity of meaning etc. is largely an illusion, for it is the words, its articulated elements (Varna) that make the unity.  By rejecting the Sphota -theory ,  Upavarsha , in effect , dismissed its notion that  every act of creation and every sound that issues forth in the universe is the duplication of the initial Big Bang. When we utter a sound or word the Big Bang is duplicating itself in our mind.

(For that reason, some Western scholars call Upavarsha the Fred Hoyle of ancient India.)

9.2. Upavarsha, in turn, came up with his theory of   Varna-vada; according to which the smallest phonetic units that can carry the meaning (phonemes =Varna-s) alone are real constituents of a word.  He said: what is called as a ‘word’ (Sabda) is its individual letters – (for instance the word ‘gauh’ – cow is made of ‘g’, ’au’ and ‘h’). He decaled sounds are only Varna -s; and, there is no need for a Sphota.

9.3. The position so taken by  Upavarsha opposes the Sphota doctrine (Sphota Vada) which is based in the philosophical principle which  in effect says that ‘gauh’ is the essence of the word; and, its individual letter-sounds are artificially distinct from that word.

[10 .1. The Sphota theory developed by Bhartrhari had its supporters as also its opponents.

The main opposition seems to have come from Mimamsa School. Sabarasvamin presents Upavarsha’s views in his Mimamsa-sutrabhasya. But, pointed attack came in the later periods, particularly in the works of Kaumarila Bhatta, a noted Mimamsa Scholar (7th -8th century). He attacked the manner in which the Sphota phenomenon was supposed to reveal the meaning of word-sounds (Sabda). Kaumarila argued that the word (Sabda), whether be it individual or be a part of sentence, is nothing more than a collection of word-sounds or spoken words . And, it is with this collection of sounds alone that the meaning is associated. The listener grasps the sound of the words and their meaning. There is nothing else here, he said, one need not assume a mystical process of Sphota etc. Kaumarila the Mimamsaka was, thus, in agreement with Upavarsha on the issue of Sphota.

10.2. Interestingly, the support to Bhartrhari also came from another Mimamsa Scholar Mandana Misra, a contemporary of Kaumarila Bhatta. Mandana wrote a brilliant book (Sphota-siddhi) based Bhartrhari’s Vakya-padiya. He supported Bhartrhari’s presumption of the whole being prior to the parts as also the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. He agreed with Bhartrhari, it is not the individual words but the complete thought of the sentence that ultimately matters.

Mandana offers the example of a picture. He points out that in our perception of a picture; it is conceived as a whole, over and above its various parts. Similarly when we perceive a piece of cloth our cognition is of the cloth as whole; and it is quite distinct from the particular threads and colors involved.

He says: This aspect is brought out clearly by Bhartrhari who describes the painter as going through three stages when he paints a picture:  “when a painter wishes to paint a figure having parts like that of a man, he first sees it gradually in a sequence , then as the object of a single cognition ; and then he paints it on the surface of a cloth or whatever”.

10.3. The Jain philosopher Prabhachandra in his Prameya-kamala-marthanda attempts to reconcile the two opposing views; and, comes up with his own doctrine of ‘Interminacy’ (syavada, anekantavada),which, essentially, is a principle that encourages acceptance of multiple or plural views on a given subject]

[ Devadatta Kali (David Nelson) in the introduction to his very well written work Svetasvataropanisad: The Knowledge That Liberates, writes:

Although the Indian thinkers are not immune to disputation , by and large , their culture has valued the principle of accommodation and acceptance and acceptance…Throughout the centuries of Indian philosophical traditions , the differing views have often been seen as just that – as differing views of a single reality that lies beyond human power of articulation. The tendency has often been to harmonize opposing views as distinct parts of a larger whole whose fullness lies well beyond the reach of mere perception or reason. It needs to be stressed that the primary purpose of sacred literature is to impart spiritual knowledge, not to fuel intellectual or sectarian debate – or to create confusion.]

11.1. Sri Sankara refers to Upavarsha as the originator of Varna-vada, which contrasted with Sphota-vada of Bhartrhari. Sri Sankara agrees with Upavarsha and supports Varna- vada as against Sphota-vada (Sankara Bhashya on Brahma Sutra: 1.3.28). He does not approve the concept of Sphota-vada; and, says the meaning of a word can be known from its constituent letters, sounds and the context.  Here, he remarks: Bhagavad Upavarsha says ‘but, the words are none other than various letter-sounds (Varna)- varna eva tu sabddh id bhagavan upavarsah (BS: 1.3.28).

11.2. He then follows up with a debate on whether the words are letter-sounds of this kind or whether they are Sphota. And then built up his own arguments to oppose the Sphota vada, based on what he calls ‘the tradition of the Masters’- (Acharya –sampradayokti-purvakam siddantam aaha varna iti).

11.3. While he agrees that the word is nothing other than letter-sounds (Varna) Sri Sankara does not seem to be emphatic. On the question why a letter-sound (say, ’a’) should be heard differently according to its utterances, Sri Sankara explains that such differences are duo the conditions (Upadi) imposed externally or from elsewhere. Otherwise (Athava – meaning or) the differences could be due to intonation; and not necessarily due to the letter-sounds. And, therefore, he says, there is no weakness in our contention.  And, there is no need, he says, to bring in the concept of Sphota to decide upon the meaning of the word when it can be derived directly from the Varna-s that form the word.

The scholars believe, here, Sri Sankara, was not putting forth an original argument, but was merely condensing the previous refutations of the Sphota theory.

11.4. In his argument in favor of Varna Vada, Sri Sankara says: only the individual letters are perceived; and, they are combined through inference of the mind into word aggregate. Because the psychological process is one of inference and not of perception, there can be no degree of cognition. According to Sri Sankara, the inference Pramana is all –or-nothing process*. The error, if it is to be overcome, must be completely replaced all at once by a new inferential construction of mind or by a super-conscious intuition of Brahman.

[* According to almost all the Schools of Indian philosophy, the valid means of knowledge (Pramana) other than perception either reveal the object completely or do not reveal at all. However, Bhartrhari argues that perception need not always be an ‘all–or-nothing processes’. There could be vagueness initially; but, the perception could improve as one tries to gain clarity of an object (say as a distant tree or committing a stanza after repeated attempts).

According to Bhartrhari , each sound helps in understanding meaning bit by bit, at first vaguely, the next one little more clearly, and so on, until the last sound, aided by the preceding impressions, finally revea1.s the meaning with clarity and distinctness. The Sphota is revealed in stages by each succeeding sound, but by itself it is indivisible. It is comprehended in a process which begins with complete ignorance, passes through partial understanding, and ends in complete knowledge (dyana)

Bhartrhari asserts that it is the cognition of the Sphota in its entirety that is important in understanding meaning. That is not to say that we do not cognize the individual letters or sounds, but that they are secondary in relation to the Sphota, which is the real object of cognition.

This point is very important to Sphota theory in its contention that error due to vagueness of perception of initial letters can gradually and positively be overcome. It is also crucial for the Sphota theory in its contention that the existence of Sphota is not guesswork, as Mimamsaka-s maintain, but is a proved by direct and clear perception.]

11.5. The other Acharyas and commentators also toed the line of Bhagavan Upavarsha and Sri Sankara; and, supported Varna- vada as against Sphota-vada. Vacaspati Misra, who commented on Sri Sankara’s Vedanta Sutra Bhashya, also rejected the Sphota theory. He came up with his own theory of Abhihitanvaya-vada; and, said the understanding of the meaning of a whole sentence is reached by inferring to it, in a separate act of lakshana or implication, from the individual meanings of the constituent words.

12.1. Thus, the Vedic Vak as Sabda-Brahman became the object of philosophical debate during the later periods. The early Mimamsa School which championed Varna-vada argued that the individual word or the letter (Varna) as the prime substance of Vak. The School of the Grammarians, on the other hand, put forth Sphota-vada which developed the notion of Sphota to explain the mysterious manner by which meaning is conveyed in sentence. They explained Sphota as a process of cognition which culminates in the intuitive perception of the Absolute as Sabda –Brahman. These two are the main platforms for the discussion of the Indian philosophy of language.

12.2. Two principle Schools, Mimamsa and the School of Grammarians (Vaiyyakarani) have made huge contributions to the study of language and the philosophy of Grammar and of language. And, both were particularly interested in Sabda. Both believed that Sabda is eternal and manifests itself; and, is not created. They, however, differ on the view in regard to Sabda and the meaning (artha).

13.1. Bhagavan Upavarsha, whoever he might have been, was indeed an intellectual giant of his times. He was a worthy successor to the remarkable sage-scholars such as Badarayana and Jaimini. His contribution to the development of Indian thought is enormous.

13.2. Many however feel that Upavarsha   could have given little more thought to the Sphota theory instead of dismissing it off-hand. That perhaps could have leant a greater impetus to the growth of rational thinking within the Indian philosophical traditions.

[For more on Bhartrhari and the Sphota theory, please visit ]


Sources and References

  1. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2 by Prof. Hajime Nakamura
  2. The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 3: Advaita Vedanta Up to … edited by Karl H. Potter
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 20, 2015 in Bodhayana-Upavarsha


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who was Uddalaka Aruni? – Part One

This article is primarily about Uddalaka Aruni, a classic student, teacher and a philosopher of the Upanishad times. To me, he represents the true spirit of rational enquiry of the Upanishads. Before meeting him, let’s talk of a few other things of his times.


The age of the Samhitas and the age of the Upanishads

1.1. The Vedic cannon are generally classified into the scheme of the Samhitas   followed by the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and ending with the Upanishads.  The Upanishads are therefore usually described as the fourth and the last phase of the Vedic texts.

The Brahmanas are compendiums concerned mainly with the conduct of the Yajnas. They were composes over many centuries; but, their origin lies in distant antiquity.

Midway between the Brahmanas and the Upanishads are the transitional texts – Aranyakas.  Its texts are named after the ascetics (Arana) who retired to the seclusion of the forests (Aranya) to lead a life of contemplation. These Forest-treatises (Aranyakas) are more speculative than the Brahmanas, exploring the inner , spiritual significance of the Vedic rituals.

The Upanishads bring up the end (Anta) portions of the Vedic texts; and , are accordingly called Vedanta. They contain the teachings, discussions and debates of the ancient seers on the questions of identity of the Self (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman), as also on the means of liberation (Moksha) through knowledge.

That scheme might be valid for classifying the texts according to the nature of the subjects they discuss. But, it would be rather incorrect to treat such classification as the strict chronological sequence of the texts. Because,   the distinctions between each class are not always clear; there are several throwbacks and overlapping among the Brahmanas and the Upanishads; and, many of the early Upanishads are closely associated with or incorporated into the Brahmanas. For instance; The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which contains the discussions and teachings of the Sage Yajnavalkya form the final section of the Satapatha-brahmana.

The texts cannot, therefore, be arranged in a chronological order. They are classified more by their nature than the order of their composition

 [ Vedas are generally concerned with the primacy of ritual-action (Karman) the Upanishads that follow as their latter portion (Vedanta) are about philosophical speculations that are deep and intuitive.  While both the Vedas and Upanishads are classified under Sruti –revealed knowledge which is authoritative – the Vedas are regarded as Karma-kanda  (ritual-action segment) and the Upanishads that is the Vedanta are regarded as Jana-kanda (knowledge segment). The transition from the Vedas to Vedanta is not abrupt but is a smooth progression integrating the two with many overlaps.]

These make it difficult to say that the Upanishad period always followed that of the Brahmanas. The chronology in Vedic texts as in Indian History is still a major problem.

1.2.  About ten of the Upanishads are considered very ancient. But, all these do not belong to the same period.  Among the Ten, it can be said , without much doubt, that apart from the five ancient Upanishads (Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka, Aitareya, Kausitaki and Taittareya) the rest belong to a much later period than the Brahmanas.

Of these five,  the Chandogya and Brahadaranyaka which quote from earlier sources, texts, discussions and events drawn from older stock are  considered ancient and authoritative.

The other early Upanishads, such as the Taittiriya, Aitareya, Isa and kaushitiki are also closely connected with the older Vedic texts.

The Upanishads of the middle period, Kena , Katha, Svetasvatara  and Mundaka  Upanishads , share many common features;  and , anticipate the thoughts that figured in  the later schools of Indian philosophy.

The latest among  the principal Upanishads are the Prasna and Mandukya.

Further, the Rig Veda Samhita and the earliest of these principal Upanishads are separated by several centuries. And quite clearly the two sets of texts differ very substantially in terms of their thought, their concerns and their language as also their style of depiction. The prose of the Upanishads is distinct from the archaic language of the Rig Veda hymns. The charming prose style of the Upanishads is highly elliptical, speaking through symbolic metaphors and allegories.

1.3. It also true, Upanishads are in harmony with the Vedic setting; and, they inherit the inspired poetry, lyrical voice and complex layers of symbolisms of the Vedas. Their philosophical discussions too reflect an unbroken tradition of the Samhitas, especially the Rig Veda. Many of the philosophical Hymns of the Rig Veda are incorporated into some of the Upanishads. It also needs to be said; that such philosophical hymns in the Veda are not many in number; and, their philosophic ideas are scattered or not systematized. The significance of the Upanishads is that they attempt to understand the philosophy of the Rig-Veda, to develop those germ ideas, and to carry them forward.

The one significant trait that the Upanishads inherited from the Rig-Veda was that  of daring to ask questions. Unlike other religious or philosophical texts, the Rig-Veda asks questions, in awe and wonder of the phenomena; and, the beauty of nature. It does not make any excuses for not providing answers to the questions it poses. In fact, it opens up the whole arena; and, invites everyone  to come forth and express their interpretation of the world, its relation to god and man.

[Shri MP Pandit, a disciple of Sri Aurobondo writes: the Upanishads frequently invoke the authority of the Vedic seers in confirmation of what they say e.g. tad-etad-rikbhyuktam, (this is said by the Rik) or tad-uktam rsina bhuktyam (that is said by the Rishi) etc. or quote a whole Rik in clinching their pronouncement. Many of the ideas expounded by the Upanishads can be found present in germ form in the Vedas.]

Whatever might be these literary classifications, the ancient philosophers of India looked upon the Upanishads as of an entirely different type from the rest of the Vedic literature. By all accounts; the Upanishads stand on their own authority.

1.4. We also, at times, speak of Upanishads as a consistent body of knowledge as if they were chapters of a well edited book. But, in fact, each Upanishad is complete in itself; and is distinct from other Upanishads in content as also in spirit of enquiry. They are also separated in time and space.

1. 5. The cultures represented in two sets of texts – Samhitas and Upanishads – are far too diversified to be treated summarily as belonging to a single cultural unit. There are too many geographical, socio-economical, political, religious and philosophical variations to be ignored. Even the gods, the religious practices and the questions raised by the Samhitas differ from those of the Upanishads. It would therefore quite in order to treat the Samhitas and the Upanishads as representing distinct eras of Vedic culture.

Let’s briefly look at some of the dissimilar features of the two eras.

A. the world of the Upanishads


2.1. The geography of the Rig Veda is generally the land of seven-waters (saptha sindhavaha) which perhaps stretched from eastern Punjab to the present day Afghan-Pakistan regions. But, the geographical horizon of the Upanishads was much wider, stretching from the Gandharas in the west to the Videhas in the east and to the Vidharbha country to the south.

2.2. Apart from the Kuru – Panchala country which formed the hub of Vedic and Upanishad culture, several other new centres had sprung up during the times of Upanishads, such as: Madra, Kaikeya, Kasi, Kosala and the Videha which in particular had gained fame as a centre for performing the Yajnas as also for sponsoring philosophical debates.

2.3. The expanded geographical area and the increased number of centres of learning led to greater numbers of scholars, teachers and students participating in more debates. And with that, the range and the varieties of the subjects and the ideas discussed were also widened. With the heightened level of discussions, the concepts and concerns tended to get less hazy and a bit more focused. Uncertainty and vagueness were gradually giving place to clearer understanding.


3.1. As compared to the Vedic era, the period of the Upanishads enjoyed a more peaceful and settled pastoral life. The process of urbanization had brought in leisure and relative comfort. The people as also the kings could afford to set apart their time for contemplation and reflections. The kings of the Upanishad-age spent more time in performing Yajnas and in hosting philosophical debates than in waging wars. A king’s court or his Parishad was the meeting ground for the iterant philosophers, teachers and students. The King presided over and guided the debates concerning the nature of life, of time and of the substratum of all existence. The Kings such as Asvapathi Kaikeya, Ajatasatru Kashya, Janaka Videha, and Pravahana Jaivali of Panchala were regarded highly for their learning. Many philosophers and learned Brahmins went to them seeking instructions and explanations on spiritual matters.

[ It appears from the Chandogya-Upanishad (8-14-1; 5-11, 24; 1-8, 9; 1-9-3, 7-1-3, and 5-11); Brhadaranyaka-Upanishad (2-1-20, 2-3 -6); and Kausitiki Brahmana (2-1, 2; 10, 4.) that during the early Upanishad-period the Kshatriyas were adepts in Adhyatma-Vidya. For instance; king Ajatasatru of Kasi , in an assembly of the Kuru-Panchalas , consoles the Brahmin lad Svetaketu, son of Uddalaka Aruui of the Gautama Gotra that he need not be sorry for his inability to explain certain principles of Adhyatma-Vidya , because that has , so far, been the preserve of the Kshatriyas – tasmād u sarveṣu lokeṣu kṣatrasyaiva praśāsanam abhūd iti (Chandogya-Upanishad: 5-3).]

4.1. The kings too seemed to have benefitted from the discussions held in their Parishads as also by their own study and contemplation. The kings such as Ajatashatru Kasya, Pravahana Jaivali, Citra Gangyayani and Asvapathi Kaikeya were remarkably learned; and, each had developed his own theories on the nature of the individual and of the Universe.

4.2. For instance, the king Ajatasatru of Kasi put forward a theory that consciousness as prajnatma pervades the body and makes the senses alert; but during sleep, it absorbs the functions of the organs, and withdraws into the space within the heart:  ““As the spider moves along the thread it produces, or as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, even so from this Atman come forth all organs, all worlds, all gods, all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is “the Truth of truth- tasyopaniṣat satyasya satyam iti ” (Br. Up. 2.1.20 ;  kaush. Up. 4).

[sa yathorṇavābhis tantunoccared yathā agneḥ kṣudrā viṣphuliṅgā vyuccaranty evam evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti| tasyopaniṣat satyasya satyam iti | prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣām eṣa satyam || BrhUp_2,1.20 ||

sa yathā loka ūrṇanābhiḥ / ūrṇanābhirlūtākīṭa eka eva prasiddhaḥ sansvātmāpravibhaktena tantunoccaredudgacchet / na cāsti tasyodgamane svato ‘tiriktaṃ kārakāntaram  || BrhUp_2,1.20 || ]

These discussions here display a great interest in the states of consciousness in its various levels. They discuss the state of dreams and the state of dreamless – sleep as different layers of awareness. In the latter state, both body and mind are at rest; but the individual is not aware of that. In either case, there must be someone who is in know of things. Then, they ask: what is “known” in each and who is the knower? In the constantly changing stream of thought, they question: is there an observer who remains the same? Is there a thread of continuity? Another aspect of the discussion is the relative significance of each state. The trend of this argument is: All experience is real. When we wake up from a dream, we do not pass from unreality to reality; but, we pass from a lower level of reality to a higher one. It might, therefore, logically, be possible to move on to a higher level of reality, the one above this world of constantly changing sensory impressions.

4.3. Pratardana son of Divodasa the king of Kasi asserted that Prajnana, the right understanding, is the prime faculty which controls other faculties and senses (speech, breath, sight, limbs, mind etc). He spoke by employing the symbolisms of the Yajna; and explained self-control (samyama) as an inner sacrifice (antaram agnihotram). In that process, a person can withdraw from the senses as also the sensuous, exercise control over passions and emotions; and pour all that into Prana (vital breath) the nave of his being. Pratardana believed this to be a superior form of Yajna, as it did not aim at material or sensuous gains.  This was an idea that Pratardana carried forward from Kausitaki Upanishad, but enlarged it further. He argued; breathing is an essential activity of a living body; but, breathing is a symbol or an outward active manifestation of Life (prana). One can hold breath for some time, and still be alive; but one cannot be alive, even for an instant, without prana. ‘Death occurs when prana departs; and when it resumes life arises’.  The proof of one’s existence and living is, in fact, Prana which is the first principle. It is the first cause as also the final cause of all things (yo vai pranah sa prajna; ya va prajna sa pranah).  Pratardana also made an interesting observation that one cannot breathe and speak at the same time (‘when a man speaks he cannot breathe; and when he breaths he cannot speak’- kau.Up.2.5).

yavadvai purusho bhasate na tavat-pranitum shaknoti pranam …. yavadvai purushah praniti na tavat-bhashitum shaknoti vacam-kau.Up.2.5

Clearly, a man is unable to breathe while he is speaking. So, during that time his breath merges into his speech. A man is, likewise, unable to speak while he is breathing. So, during that time his speech merges into his breath. One offers these two endless and deathless offerings , into self, without interruption, whether one is awake or asleep.

4.4. And, King Aswapati Kaikeya had developed his own theory of vaishvanara-vidya, of Super-Soul which pervades all existence as Atma – vaisvanara (Ch. Up .5.11.18).Many Brahman scholars learnt this doctrine from Asvapati.  Vaisvanara is explained as ‘He who is the ruler of all human beings’ (visvesam naranam netara); and as’ He who is the soul of all’ (visvesam ayam narah). The Vaisvanara-vidya that king Aswapati taught is a highly mystical form of meditation in which one contemplates on the Universe as one’s body. It is a process that is centred on the identity of the individual with the Universal. According to its doctrine, there is nothing in the Cosmos which is outside   the body of individual. As Sri Swami Krishnananda explains  “When you see the vast world before you, you behold a part of your own body. When you look at the sun, you behold your own eye. When you look above into the heavens, you are seeing your own head. When you see all people moving about, you behold the various parts of your own personality. The vast wind is your breath. All your actions are cosmic movements. Anything that moves does so, on account of your movement. Your breath is the Cosmic Vital Force. Your consciousness is the cosmic consciousness. Your existence is Cosmic Existence. Your happiness is Cosmic Bliss”.

4.5. Another king, Pravahana Jaivali of Panchala (who was also well versed in Udgitha, recital of Sama) taught his theory concerning the path taken by the dead; and, how the departed soul fares on its way to rebirth, according to merits of its deeds (S.patha. Brh .; Ait. Brh. 8.36.2; 40.4). This was a departure from the faith of the earlier Brahmanas which did not specifically speculate on life after death, but generally believed that those who performed Yajnas were granted material gains in the present life and proximity to gods in the afterlife. Pravahana effectively negated the old beliefs; and introduced his theories of karma-phala, rebirth etc. He said only those who diligently practiced contemplation and meditation travel by the deva-yana and attain bliss, while the others travel the way of the manes (pitri – Yana) taking rebirth according to ones’ merits. It underlines the importance of moral conduct in life.

4.6. Jaiminiya Brahmana (1.22-25) mentions that Uddalaka Aruni along with four other Brahmins (Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya , Barku Varsna, Priya Anasruteya, and Budila Asvatarsvi Vaiyaghrapadya) approached King Janaka of Videha with a request to teach them about Agnihotra.

4.7. These scholarly kings were respected for their learning. And, often the Brahmans, the scholars and other seekers of knowledge came to them seeking guidance and instructions on their specialized subjects.



As a caterpillar, having come to the end of one blade of grass, draws itself together and reaches out for the next, so the Self, having come to the end of one life and shed all ignorance, gathers in its faculties and reaches out from the old body to a new(Brihadaranyaka 4.4.3)

ad yathā tṛṇajalāyukā tṛṇasyāntaṃ gatvānyam ākramam ākramyātmānam upasaṃharati|evam evāyam ātmedaṃ śarīraṃ nihatyāvidyāṃ gamayitvānyam ākramam ākramyātmānam upasaṃharati || BrhUp_4,4.3 ||



5.1. Vedic literature is full of references to gods, invoked individually and also collectively. In the early Rig Veda, most of the gods correspond  to the phenomenon in nature; such as, the sky and earth (Dyava-Prithvi), the dawn (Ushas), the Sun at its various positions in the sky (Savitar, Surya, Pushan, Ravi and Vivasvan), the rain clouds (Parjanya), the fire ( Agni ) and so on. Some of the major gods – say, Indra, Varuna or Aswin – who acquired individual traits and distinct personalities evolved into other beings, over a period of time. Some other minor gods (Vishnu and Rudra) developed and enlarged into super-gods.

In the Brahmanas, most of the Rig Vedic gods were  continued to be worshipped, but the Yajnas took precedence; and greater importance was accorded to Yajna than to gods.

5.2. As regards the Upanishads, they contain enough references to the religious life of people, their gods and their rituals. But by then; the concept of Devas, the gods, seemed to have changed significantly. While the Vedic hymns look outward in reverence and awe at the phenomena in nature, the Upanishads tend to look inward attempting to interpret the powers of nature as varied expressions human consciousness. The gods of the Upanishads are therefore rather ethereal; and, lack the human-like personalities as in the Rig Veda.  It suggests; gods prefer indirect references or symbolisms (paroksha priyaya vahi devahBhru. Up 4.2.2).Their personal attributes, powers, their likes / dislikes are not talked about in the Upanishads. The Devas of the Upanishads are also not shown performing astonishing feats.

5.3. Just as in the Samhitas, in the Upanishads too the gods did not evoke fear. They were approached with awe and reverence for gaining an understanding of the secrets of the Universe. The Rig Vedic gods that appear in the Upanishads play special roles. They become the sage- like counsellors or repositories of higher knowledge. They act as great teachers imparting instructions on the nature of Man and his Universe. For instance, Yama the god of death, initiated the boy Nachiketas into mysteries of life after death, and about the knowledge of the Soul (Katha Up.); the ancient god Varuna taught sage Bhrigu about the oneness of all life (Taiitt. Up.); and, the king of gods Indra preached Pratardana ‘the only knowledge that is worth knowing’. And, in a similar manner, Agni, Pushan and Uma were all respected as wise teachers; and, were invoked for True knowledge.

5.4. A peculiar trait of the Rig Veda hymns was that whichever god was being praised he was depicted as the highest, because he was seen as a representation or an aspect of the Supreme Being. These notions were to become the seeds of mono theistic tendencies which gradually led to the concept of a God of gods.  Most of the Upanishad thinkers seemed to be involved in long, curved and roundabout processes of enquiry in arriving at the concept of a   Supreme Being who was not merely the chief of the gods like Indra, not merely a creator like Prajapathi but was verily the very essence and the guiding principle behind all existence. He was not the creator from outside, but in the Self. The attention shifted from the objective to the subjective. Eventually, after long centuries of speculation and introspection, Brahman emerged as the highest principle, the Supreme Being. The concept of Brahman is the original contribution of the Upanishads; the term Brahman in that sense did not appear in the hymns of Rig Veda.


6.1. The Upanishads continued to believe in the efficacy of the Yajnas; in many passages you find the glorification of the Yajna. The two streams of ritual and knowledge progressed without coming into conflict. But, evidently there was a shift away from rituals; the emphasis shifted from routine performance to the understanding of its significance with knowledge and faith. The Upanishads sages came to be regarded highly   more for their learning and their authority in debates, discussions and teaching, than for their ritual-skills.

The idea of the Yajna underwent a sea change. Even the need to offer oblations was debated. Many asserted that there is a Reality which the Yajnas cannot reach. The questions such as ‘To which god shall we offer the oblation’ (kasmaey devaya havisha vidhema) were no longer asked. The Yajnas were no longer performed merely to attain a certain human – desire (ishti); nor was Yajna deemed the best of deeds. Yet, the Upanishad thinkers were not totally against either the concept of Yajna or performing Yajnas. A quiet transformation was gradually taking place.

6.2. Instead of the ritual-details, the Upanishads talk in symbolisms. And, Instead of describing the offering of oblations into fire, they speak of speech or breathe offered as oblations into ones inner self. For instance, the objects of smell, taste, sound, colour and touch as also that which is to be thought and that which is to be understood were symbolized as the seven kinds of fuel (offerings). These seven offerings (the perceived information) were poured into seven fires (organs of perception). It was said, the act of restraining ones senses and the mind, and pouring (offering) the objects of those senses and the mind (as libations) into the fire of the Soul within the body, was itself a Yajna.

6.3. Every aspect of life, even sex, was viewed through the symbolism of Yajna (as per sage Kumara Harita: Brh.Up.6.4.4: which suggests that sex-desire, like everything else, is partly physical; it is a powerful personal energy. It needs neither to be suppressed nor repressed, but to reconnect to its power-source. There is another elaborate symbolism at 6.4.3 of Brhu.Up drawing a comparison between sex organ of woman with Yajna – altar) – atha ya idam avidvān adhopahāsaṃ caraty āsya striyaḥ sukṛtaṃ vṛñjate .  Similarly, the issues relating to outward worship, rituals, oblations etc all came to be discussed. Philosophical doctrines were projected to explain the symbolisms associated with the Yajna.

6.4. Many times, the gatherings at a Yajna served as a forum for debates or discussions on philosophical issues. The king as the Yajamana, the performing priests, the invited scholars and iterant seekers, all participated in the debates that followed.

The Upanishads record in details the proceedings at such discussions.

Debates and discussions

Jaimuni questions Markandeya, Garwhal c 1785, 17.8x24.7cm

7.1. The bulk of the Upanishad teachings have come down to us in the form of discussions or debates, which took place in verities of contexts. Apart from intimate sessions where an illumined teacher imparts instructions to an aspirant , there are instances of varied kind, say, as when : a wife is curious  to learn from her husband  the secrets of immortality; a teenage boy approaches Death itself to learn the truth of life and death; a king seeks instruction from an recluse sage who speaks from his experience ; Brahmans advanced in age and wisdom sit at the feet of a Kshatriya prince seeking instructions as also inspiration ; and , when sometimes the sages are women who are approached by kings .There are other sorts of dialogues , say, when Jabala is taught by bulls and birds (Ch. Up 4.4-9) , Upakosala by the sacred fires (Ch.Up. 4.10-15), and Baka is by a dog (Ch.Up 1.12).

7.2. Most of the participants are just names, as very little or nothing is known about them. Some of them come alive because of their thoughts or the schools they represent. The more human and tangible persons among them include Janaka Videha, Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya, Uddalaka Aruni with his son Svetaketu, Satyakama Jabala, Ushasthi Chakrayana, Gargi Vachaknavi and a few others.

7.3. Many times , the debates came up spontaneously , say, when an aggressive questioner stormed into a Yajna and pelted questions at all those present there; as when Ushasthi Chakrayana walked into a Yajna being performed for the King of Kuru and demanded answers to his most perplexing questions on the divinities associated with each phase of the Yajna.

7.4. Some other times, certain topics arose in informal discussions as in the case of Prahavana Jaivali, Silaka Salavatya and Caikitayana Dalbhya (Ch.Up.1.8-9; Br.Up.4.1); and also as when   the much travelled scholar Gargya Balaki offered to teach King Ajatashatru of Kasi the knowledge of Brahman, the latter negated all of Gargya’s theories and, instead, put forward his own views glorifying Prana as the highest principle (Brh.Up.2.1.1; Kaush.Up.4.1). The scholarly Yajnavalkya often talked to King Janaka Videha on the nature of Brahman (Brhu. Up).

7.5. Many times, a king would go up to a sage and seek instructions. For instance, the king Janasruti Putrayana approached the famed recluse Raikva Sayugvan for true knowledge; and the latter preached his doctrine of Samvarga-Vidya ‘absorbing’ (Chan. Up. 4.2.5).  It speaks of air (Vayu) in the Universe and the vital breath (prana) in the individual as two fundamental elements. It believes that everything in the Universe emerges from these two and eventually dissolves back into them. Raikva said: “There are two ultimate elements which absorb everything; inwardly, it is prana into which all senses and mind merge; and outwardly it is Vayu the sutratman, the controller which absorbs all. Everything rises from it; and everything goes back into it“.  The two are said to be identical. His doctrine elaborately narrates how fire, the sun, the moon and water each successively subsides into the next; and finally into air. And, similarly, when a person sleeps, the speech, sight, hearing and mind – all these – are absorbed into his vital breath.

[This process perhaps could be understood as interiorization, as Mr. MN Nagler explains: reaching back to the centre of one’s core.]

7.6. There are also instances where a group of earnest scholars went to a well informed person and sought from him, explanations on certain specific issues. For instance, a   group of six Brahmans travelled from Madhya-Desha in the Ganga –Yamuna doab to the far off Kaikeya country in the west to learn about the concept of Atma-Vaisvanara as evolved by King Asvapathi (Ch.Up.5.3-10; Brh.Up.6.2; Katha Up.1.1).

Similarly, on another occasion, another set of six scholars Sukesa Bharadvaja, Saivya Satyakama, Sauryayani Gargya, Kausalya Asvalayana, Bhargava Vaidarbhi and Kabandhi Katyayana– went to sage Pippalada and stayed with him for over a year in order to learn his doctrine. He then answered their six questions concerning the nature of Reality and a range of other subjects- such as the origin of the world, its sustenance; and similar questions about the human being , how does Prana –life breath enter the body etc .

Pippalada names Prana and Rayi (equivalent to consciousness and matter) as the cause of all life on earth. Prana is the highest principle, that which fuels evolution and powers all forms of life. It gives rise to nama-rupa, to all conditioned reality. At the same time, Prana is understood here both as the vital breath – the life of the Man and also as the life of the Universe. Prana is the abiding element –the core faculty – that which gathers up all other faculties when they become dormant (Prashna Up.1.4.8). Just as senses and mind are withdrawn progressively into prana when a man sleeps, similarly all existence is eventually drawn into the ultimate source. In answer to the sixth question, Pippalada taught the seekers that Prana is the first and the foremost of the sixteen successive phases or sixteen parts  that comprise Man (shodasha kalaa  purusha)-: the sixteen parts are Prana (life) , desire, space, air, fire, water, earth, senses, mind, food, virility, discipline, mantra (scriptures),yajna (karma), world, and nama-rupa (conditioned existence). ‘The Purusha is the hub of the wheel of life; and the sixteen forms are only the spokes. Purusha is the paramount goal of life. Attain this goal and go beyond death ‘- (Prashna.Up.6.6)

arā iva rathanābhau kalā yasmin pratiṣṭhitāḥ / taṃ vedyaṃ puruṣaṃ veda yathā mā vo mṛtyuḥ parivyathā iti // PrUp_6.6 //

[This set of sixteen mentioned by Pippalada varies from the sixteen enumerated in Samkhya: manas (mind); five buddhindriyas (organs of sense); five karmendriyas (organs of action) and five maha-bhutas (gross elements)]

7.7. At other times, formal debates were held in stately halls; as in the court of King Janaka of Videha where the winner was awarded a very substantial prize. In one of those debates, it was Yajnavalkya who impressed the King Janaka with his erudite scholarship and sharp intellect. And, Yajnavalkya, walked away with the prize of thousand cows even before the debate was formally concluded. When those assembled protested furiously, shouting “how presumptuous of you…!” Yajnavalkya, with a wry smile said “I salute to the wisest among you; but, I just want those cows”. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad dwells on these debates in as many as nine chapters covering almost the entire span of Upanishad learning.

7.8. There was also a practice of holding ‘Brahmodya’ – a competition of solving riddles or a sort of quiz contest  – in the intervals during an Asvamedha or the Dasaratra- Brahma-vadya ( a ten-day long Satra) , in which the the eager , the needy as also the learned scholars participated enthusiastically. The winners were hounoured with the titles such as Kavi or Vipra (the learned sage) and such others. The most famous  of such Brahmodya was that which was held at the court of Janaka of Videha, as detailed in the Brhadlranyaka Upanishad

Such  bouts which  carried prize money, as expected, tended to be aggressive. But, an unsavoury feature of such debates was the trading of challenges and threats. Quite often, one would threaten the opponent that his head would fall off or his limbs would be harmed or his bones would be carried away by robbers if he did not answer (rightly) – (Ch.Up.1.8.6-8; 1.10.9-11; 5.12-17; Brh.Up.3.9.26)

Dialogues between students and teachers

8.1. Nothing in the Upanishads is more vital than the relationship between a student and his guide. The Chandogya Upanishad has more dialogues between teachers and pupils than any other Upanishad, including the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The teacher talks, out his experience, about his ideas of the nature of the world, of truth etc or about particular array of phenomena visualized through mental images that stay etched in memory; and the student questions him further, in earnestness. The teacher finally encourages and urges the student to think, to contemplate and to find out for himself the answers to his questions. A student needs humility, persistence, and honesty of purpose to go further.

8.2. An Upanishad-teacher does not teach everything that his student needs to know. But, he ignites in the heart of the boy a spark that sets ablaze his desire to learn and to know the central principles which make sense of the world we live in. The guide inflames the sense of challenge, the urge to reach beyond the boy’s grasp and to know the unknown.The Brihadaranyaka calls upon:

‘You are what your deep, driving desire is; as your desire is, so is your will (sa yathā-kāmo bhavati tat-kratur-bhavati); As your will is; So is your deed (yat-kratur-bhavati tat-karma kurute) ; As your deed is, so is your destiny (yat-karma kurute tad-abhi-sapadyate”- (Brhu. Up. 4.4.5).  

sa yathākāmo bhavati tatkratur bhavati | yatkratur bhavati tat karma kurute |
yat karma kurute tad abhisaṃpadyate || BrhUp_4,4.5 ||

As the Katha Upanishad says, ‘only a few hear the truth; of those who hear, only a few understand; and of those only a handful attain the goal’. In the end, all achievement is fuelled by burning desire.

śravaṇā̍yāpi ba̱hubhi̍r yo na labhyaḥ śṛ̱ṇvanto̍’pi ba̱havo̍ yaṁ na vidyuḥ | āśca̍ryo vaktā ku̱śalo’sya labdhā āśca̍ryo jñātā ku̱śalā̍nu-śiṣṭaḥ || 7 ||

9.1. As mentioned, the core of the Upanishad teachings is recorded in the discussions or dialogues between a learned teacher and his ardent student who approached respectfully. Those were not formal bouts; but were intimate sessions where the teacher guided, in confidence,   the student seated close to him. The Upanishads abound in such student – teacher dialogues.

Let me just mention a couple of the more famous ones that took place between:

:-  Varuna and Bhrigu [Varuna teaches Bhrigu said to be his son about Brahman as being food / matter (anna), life (prana), mind (mana), intelligence (vijnana) and bliss (ananda)- (Taitt.Up.3.1-6)].

: – Sanath kumara and Narada [Sanath kumara teaches Narada about the various theories about Brahman that were prevalent at the time; and then leads Narada to the Understanding of Brahman, through progressive  stages  of name, speech, mind , will etc leading up to infinite and Self – adhīhi bhagava iti hopasasāda sanatkumāraṃ nāradaḥ (Ch.up.7.1-26)].

:- Ghora Angirasa and Devaki-putra Krishna [ Ghora Angirasa teaches that all of a person’s life is indeed a Yajna; his every act constitutes a ritual and death is the final offering; and, at the time of death one should believe he is indestructible and is the very essence of life – antavelāyām etat trayaṃ pratipadyetākṣitam asy acyutam asi prāṇasaṃśitam asīti(Ch.Up. 3.17.6)]

: – Yama and Nachiketas [Yama teaches the truth about life and death]. The Katha Upanishad is held up as a lesson in asking the right question to the right person. The boy Nachiketas puts a simple-worded question to none-other -than Death: “When a person dies there arises this doubt: ‘He still exists’ some say; ‘No, he does not’ say some others. I want you to teach me the truth” – (katha Up. 1.1.20). The dialogue also covers the steep choices one has to make in life between what is implicitly good (shreya) and what is merely pleasant (preya). The message of the Katha Upanishad, which echoes throughout the Upanishads, is to dare like a teenager: to reach for the highest you can conceive with everything you have, and never be distracted.

: – And, another is the series of discussions between Uddalaka Aruni and his son/disciple Svetaketu. It covers almost the entire range of Upanishad learning (we shall talk more about this dialogue in the next part).

9.2. The discussion between Maitreyi and her husband Yajnavalkya could also be treated as of similar class. When Maitreyi desired to share her husband’s wisdom, Yajnavalkya imparts her instructions about the true nature of the soul, the world and the Brahman (Brh.Up.2,4.1; 4.5).He presents the Self as the pure subject, the knower, which cannot be described through any known array of terms or attributes. He explains to her “Know that, whenever we love we are responding to the Self within that person. Therefore if we can discover that Self there would be no parting and no sorrow between us. … As long as there is separateness one sees the other as separate.  But, when Self is realized as the indivisible unity of life, there is no more sorrow”.

The spirit of enquiry

10.1. A remarkable feature of these discussions is the spirit of enquiry. Here, no teacher claims that he has discovered the ultimate truth, nor does he declare that his views are beyond dispute and should be obeyed implicitly, by all. None of the teachers or scholars is fully satisfied with the knowledge he has attained. All, the teachers and students alike, are eager to probe further and uncover more of the unknown. Even the aged wise teachers travel long distances and sit at the feet of the learned, who might be younger to them in age, and seek  instructions on subjects they are not well versed.

Philosophy in Upanishads

11.1. The discussions featured in the Upanishads record the opinions or views on various philosophical issues of that era. The participants came from all walks of life; there were sages, priests, women, teachers, kings, charioteers and common folk. The answers to the questions discussed in the texts varied from teacher to teacher and from region to region. All the doctrines presented in them do not stand out equally prominent. Some are merely flashes of thought, others are only slightly developed and still others are but survivals from the older period. Many ideas are put forward, discussed or even withdrawn according to their strengths and weaknesses.

11.2. As regards the Upanishads’ philosophy, although the Upanishads are often called philosophical treaties, they do not propound a single system of thought or philosophy. They do not explain or develop a line of argument. Instead, entire range or shades and hues of philosophical opinions are scattered across the texts.

For instance, The Upanishads have no permanent point of view in regard to such questions as how the One Principle or Thing was conceived, or what its relations are to the visible Universe. They are tentative and experimental, not fixed and final. They appear to be philosophy in the making. They never assert that they have found the ultimate truth.

Even the doctrine of transmigration, which is said to have found its full form in the Upanishads, leaves several questions unanswered. It was stated that the departed Soul proceeds along a certain path into the other world before it returns to earth for its next life. At the same time, it was also mentioned that at the moment of death the departed Soul instantly takes another body. The Upanishads do not specify the nature of the being that transmigrates. The question of transmigration was left open-ended. Similarly,  on the  subject to the law of Karma  there is not much discussion on the  scope for  free-will which gives man some sort of control  over his actions  or whether God’s grace and such other factors also come in deciding human fate. These problems were are left unanswered; and if some answer were given, they are merely hinted at.

Speaking of the Upanishads, Bloomfield says that they captivate, not because they are finished products, but because they show   the human mind engaged in the most plucky and earnest search after truth. And the, Upanishads represent the earnest efforts of the profound thinkers of early India to solve the problems of the origin, the nature, and the destiny of man and of the universe; the meaning and value of knowing and being.

In other words, the Upanishads provided a platform for displaying various shades of thoughts and opinions that were actively churned in those times.  Thus the widely divergent philosophers and varied Schools of thought coexist in the Upanishads without contradiction. And that is the reason why anyone is now able to quote some Upanishad passage or the other and claim authenticity for his interpretation or for his train of thought.

11.3. For instance, the Upanishads speak of Brahman as the substratum of all existence from which everything emerges and into which everything merges. These speculations gave rise to the Advaita philosophy of the later ages. At the same time the other notions which assert that the individual soul (Atman) and the Brahman are parted but unite into one, gave the Dvaita philosophy its authenticity. Thirdly, there is also a current of theism which looks upon Brahman as the Lord controlling the Universe. All such views find place in the Upanishads without a sense of contradiction.  But, it was the later commentaries, glosses etc that created further discrepancies and contradictions.

The Questions that arose

12.1. The Vedic line of thoughts found its culmination in the Upanishads. The Samhitas and the Brahmanas did raise many doubts and questions; but, these were merely hinted. The ‘doubt’ in this context, it is explained, is not suspicion (smashaya); it is neither a doubt as of a sceptic, nor it is suspended-belief as of an agnostic. The doubt here is indeed with wisdom and faith. For instance, Nasadiya Sukta (the creation hymn) in the tenth Book of the Rig Veda ends with the classic doubt: “Whether this creation has arisen by itself or whether it did not , only He knows ; or perhaps He also does not know.”

Those speculations were further developed in the Upanishads, which attempted to answer all those questions in a rational way.   A great variety of views were expounded in the Upanishads   more systematically, and providing starting points for various schools of philosophies.

12.2. The elaborate discussions spread out in the Upanishads address and debate on various philosophical questions; and, much of that is subtle, sophisticated and intellectually challenging, such as: “What happens at death? What makes my hand move, my eyes see, my mind think? Does life has a purpose, or is it governed by chance?”. Yet, no single opinion or theory was held up as the undisputable truth; and, everything was left in a flux. It is because of its creative thinking and its open-mindedness that Upanishads continue to be an ever-fresh source of inspiration for people of all times and regions delving into it seeking answers to their questions.

12.3. But, the main concern of the Upanishads was the search for the central essence of Man; as also the essence of the Universe. The two independent streams of thought – one driven by the desire to realize the true nature of man and the other, to understand the objective world – became fused. It represented an effort to express the world in terms of the individual; an attempt at rising from the known particular to the knowledge of the unknown universal. The blending of the two apparently dissimilar concerns led to the discovery of their essential unity.

12.4. The basic questions posed by the Upanishads in that regard were: ’Who am I?’ and ‘Who is He?’ Centuries later, the Buddha, commenting on the Upanishads, remarked that the main concern of that period was: ’How shall I unite with Him?’ (Te-Vijja sutta – Dhiga Nikaya 1.13)

Brahman and Atman

13.1 The Rig-Veda is not a philosophical work. Questions which  came up much later , such as – the nature of Atman, the whence, how and whither of the Atman; the Supreme Self and its  relation to  the external world; and the mutual relations of  Atmans and Isvara  – were  not  dealt with in the text of the Rig-Veda. But, there was awareness of a permanent factor in man’s life and its continuity even after the body perishes. There were also speculations about some essential unity among the individuals through some Supreme Being that is not conditioned by the limitations of a body and of worldly existence.

These and similar other questions were carried forward by the Upanishads.

13.2. The Upanishads are truly the continued saga of a prolonged search for understanding Man and his Universe. Its sages keep on pursuing their exploration, looking for a theory that would explain everything. Each of its philosophers identifies and argues about a particular aspect of life and existence as ‘the highest principle’ – as could be seen from the instances cited earlier in this article. Although all these teachers, as well as others, have varied understandings of Atman, they all present knowledge of self as a new way of thinking.

As many as about forty concepts such as prana, vayu, aph, purusha, aditya, agni , atma, akasha, manas, skamba, vac etc are alluded as the ‘highest principle’ and as ‘the primary cause of the Universe which bursts forth spontaneously as nature’ If we collect all the terms employed in the Upanishads to describe ‘the basis and the cause for the universe ‘, it would read like a glossary of philosophical terms.

Eventually, all those terms, principles or powers that the Upanishad scholars believed to be the basis of the world and make the world explicable merged into the meaning of Brahman. And yet, it would be incorrect to assume that apart from Brahman and Atman all other terms in the Upanishads meant to signify the ‘highest principle’ fade into negligence.

13.3. Thus, the notion of Brahman in the Upanishads was arrived neither easily nor at once. It took centuries of thorough introspection, discussions and debates to reach at an acceptable concept. In the process, several notions, ideas and explanations were put forth, each more satisfying the previous one, to account for the relation between the individual and the universe. At some stage in the evolution of its thought, the Upanishads named Brahman as the primal source of the universe; and Atman as the individual’s inmost essence. The two terms- Brahman and Atman- are now   ‘the two pillars on which rest nearly the whole edifice of Indian philosophy’. But, the concept and explanations of Brahman and Atman was not in the context of any religion or sect. The Upanishads, therefore, belong not just to Hinduism but to all mankind. They are India’s most precious gift to humanity.

13.4. The essential oneness of the individual and the universal was hinted at even before the Upanishads. But, the concept of Brahman – understood as that from which everything emerged and into which everything merged or like the web of the spider or a spark of fire (vispu lingaha) – was for the first time stated clearly in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Yajnavalkya came closest by describing it as ‘ the imperishable is the unseen seer, Gargi, though unseen; the hearer though unheard; the thinker, though un-thought; the known though unknown. Other than this there is no seer; other than this there is no hearer; other than this there is no thinker; other than this there is no hearer; other than this there is no thinker; other than this there is no knower. It is on this imperishable (akshara), Gargi, that space (akasha) is woven, as warp and woof (ota – prota)’ – tad vā etad akṣaraṃ gārgy adṛṣṭaṃ draṣṭraśrutaṃ śrotramataṃ mantravijñātaṃ vijñātṛ |(Brhu.Up.3.8.11)

It was expanded upon in the Katha and the Manduka Upanishads. Brahman was referred to as the universal soul; and, Atman as a spark of the bigger fire, framed within the individual (Katha Up. 1.3.1). Here, the terms Brahman and Atman refer to the same principle. The later Upanishads  lent it  an another imagery through an allegory of a pair of birds perched upon the branch of a tree: Two bright-feathered bosom friends; Flit around one and the same tree; One of them tastes the sweet berries,  the other without eating merely gazes down (Sveta.Up.4.6; Mun.Up.3.1.1).  In a way, Brahman was an open concept in the Upanishads.

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā samānaṃ vṛkṣaṃ pariṣasvajāte /
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṃ svādv atty anaśnann anyo abhicākaśīti // SvetUp_4.6 //

[In the Brahma Sutra of Sri Badarayana and the commentaries of Sri Shankara, the concept of Brahman crystallized as the only unconditioned reality existing eternally beyond our relative, conventional understanding.]

13.5. Brahman was thus the last in the series of the solutions that the sages were seeking; and it became a symbol for ‘the ultimate essence of being, the final basis of reality’.  The term was meant to assert the truth that the individual and the Universe are verily the manifestation of the same reality. The individual, the nature or God are in essence not distinct. The realization of the identity of Self and Brahman became the objective of the Upanishad seekers. It was valued as the true knowledge that liberates; by knowing which everything becomes known (Para vidya).

13.6. The ideal of the Upanishads is to live in the world in full awareness of life’s unity; giving and enjoying, participating in others’ sorrows and joys, but never unaware even for a moment that the world comes from That and returns to That.

As a tethered bird flies this way and that, And comes to rest at last on its own perch, so the mind, tired of wandering about…settles down in Self. (Chandogya Up.6.8.2)

sa yathā śakuniḥ sūtreṇa prabaddho diśaṃ diśaṃ patitvānyatrāyatanam alabdhvā bandhanam evopaśrayate | evam eva khalu somya tan mano diśaṃ diśaṃ patitvānyatrāyatanam alabdhvā prāṇam evopaśrayate | prāṇabandhanaṃ hi somya mana iti || ChUp_6,8.2 ||

The Rishi of the Rig-Veda and philosopher of the Upanishads

14.1. There is a marked difference between the Rishi of the Rig-Veda and the philosopher of the Upanishads. In the early Rig Veda, the Rishi is referred to as Kavi.  A Kavi in Rig Veda is an inspired Rishi who can see the unseen. He is the sublime poet who envisioned the mantras (mantra drastaraha); and who conceived the self-evident knowledge (svatah pramana) by intuition. A Kavi is also ‘the hearer of the Truth’ (kavayah satya- srurtah).That is the reason the Vedas are regarded as Srutis, revealed scriptures; and thus Apaurusheya, not authored by any agency.

14.2. By the time of the later Vedic age the Kavis and Rishis had become mythical figures; and, their deeds were narrated along with the deeds of the gods. Those seers include the sapta-rishis enumerated in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: Gautama, Bharadwaja, Vashista, Vishwamitra, Jamadagni, Kashyapa and Atri. And the Rishis like Vamadeva and Narayana indeed merged with the gods of their mantra; and are now regarded as Gods.

14.3. As regards philosophy, scholars like Dr. Benimadhab Barua opine that the Rig Veda in its early stages did not seem to have a specific term to denote what we now call ‘philosophy’, though its Kavis and Rishis were sublime philosophers. The hymns of the Rig Veda (uktha) and its recitation (udgitha) itself meant philosophizing. That was perhaps because they did not regard ‘knowing’ (vid) as separate from other aspects of’ ‘being’. These terms continued to stand for ’philosophy’ until other epithets such as Darshana or Brahma-vidya etc came into use.

14.4. But, by the time of the Upanishads, ‘philosophy’ was a well recognized branch of study. Most of philosophers and thinkers of the Upanishads were scholars in the traditional mould; and, a majority had to work and earn a living. Many were scholars, teachers of great repute, advisers to kings, and priests under the patronage of a king; but, most were householders with families, tending cows and the lands. Those keen on pursuing the path of knowledge, studied for long years under the guidance of a teacher. Thereafter, each followed his individual pursuit; some followed the way of Brahmacharins devoted to studies and later settled down as householders; some left the comfort of home and wandered about in forests or led a life of contemplation. Some of them became iterant seekers and recluse. Many of them were teachers of great repute.

14.5. It is estimated that the five oldest Upanishads feature about one hundred of such philosophers, spread over five generations. A good many of those philosophers appear in the Brahmanas also .This supports the view that there was overlapping; and the two trends of thought coexisted for a considerable time.

14.6. The earliest of the teachers who appear in the Upanishads were mystics or interpreters of the symbolism of rituals and esoteric meaning of the hymns. For instance, the colourful-hero Yajnavalkya bursts forth into sparkling series of poetic intuitions, picturesque analogies, and mystical imageries bewildering the questioner. His brilliant exposition is expansive, highly impressive and breathtaking; but is neither systematic nor very logical. He carried away the debate by the sheer power and dazzle of his intellect.

14.7. In contrast, Uddalaka son of Aruna of Gautama gotra was systematic and cogent in his approach. He put forward rational explanations on the nature of Man and nature of Universe without employing the terms Brahman or God. And, without bluntly rejecting the earlier mythological beliefs and religious injunctions, Uddalaka Aruni tacitly set aside all those in favour of a rational explanation for the ultimate cause of everything in nature. Uddalaka is therefore regarded the greatest of thinkers and perhaps the first real philosopher. He retained till the end, an open mind and a keen desire to learn. He remained a student all his life; yet, he was the best of the teachers. Uddalaka’s power of exposition shines forth in the Chandogya Upanishad.

For these reasons; Uddalaka Aruni is recognized among all the Upanishad sages and teachers as the true representative of the Upanishad age and its spirit of enquiry.

Let’s talk a bit more of Uddalaka Aruni and his teachings in the next part.

 [ The search  for Ultimate Reality and essence that underlies all existence is the specific quest of the Upanishadic thoughts … Some of the most ancient Upanishads represent earliest attempts of mankind to provide philosophical explanation of the Universe , of the Ultimate Reality , of the nature of Self  and the purpose of the human kind….

The importance of Upanishads in the development of ‘Hinduism’ is enormous; for, it contains most of the developing concepts that we associate with ‘Hinduism’ today, such as: Brahman the Absolute principle, Atman (true self), Moksha (liberation) , Dharma ( what indeed is right), Samsara (re-birth)  etc. These are some of the fundamental concepts that are accepted by all the Indian traditions. Bhagavad-Gita the sacred text of ‘Hinduism’ relies heavily on the teachings of the Upanishads… author of the Bhagavad-Gita included the words of a number of Upanishads very frequently.

Jeaneane D. Fowler (The Bhagavad Gita: A Text and Commentary for Students – Introduction) ]




Continued in Part Two

Sources and References

 Life in the Upanishads by Dr. Shubhra Sharma; Abhinav Publications, 1985

The History of Pre-Bhuddhistic Indian Philosophy by Dr .Benimadhab Barua; Motilal Banarsidass, 1921

The Upanishads by Ekanath Easwaran and Michael N Nagler; Nilgiri Press, 2007.

A Course in Indian Philosophy by AK Warder, Motilal Banarsidass, 2009

Indian Philosophy before the Greeks by David J Melling

Atman in pre-upanisadic Vedic literature By H G. Narahari; published by Adyar Library 1944.

What the Upanishads teach

The Chandogya Upanishad by Swami Krishnananada

All images are from Internet


Posted by on October 12, 2012 in Upanishads


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,