This Upanis̩ad belongs to Tānd̩ya Brāhman̩a of the Sāmaveda. It consists of eight chapters with each chapter divided into several sections. First five chapters, excluding fourteenth section of the third chapter which includes Śānd̩ilya Vidyā, are devoted to the superiority and effects of various forms of ‘Upāsanās’ and ‘Homas’. Upāsanās and Homas constitute rituals. The prominence enjoyed by these forms of rituals clearly indicate that (sections numbering around one hundred and ten are devoted to the description of these forms) the chapters and sections dealing with this aspect must have been appended to the Upanis̩ad. Even though the Upanis̩ad denounced all forms of rituals, they did not lose the ground instantaneously. The statement ‘ahimsan sarvāni bhūtani anyatra tīrthebhyaha’ means that elsewhere non-violence is a virtue, but during the performance of Yajña animal sacrifice is mandatory. Even in those sections, which are devoted to glorifying rituals, there is no homogeneity because these sections were appended to the Chāndogya at different times. So the Upanis̩ad which is available to us in the present form contains extraneous matter in a large quantity. This Upanis̩ad not only describes in detail various rituals, it also contains glorification of various aspects of the Sāmaveda. For example, the very beginning of the Upanis̩ad is marked by hailing the importance of ‘Udgītha’ (this Veda is designed mainly to uphold the importance of Udgītha) which stretches to several sections followed by the descriptions of Prastava, Pratihara, Stobha and so on. Salutations to ‘Soma’ occupy nearly the whole of the second chapter. While there is diversity in this part of the Upanis̩ad, the Upanis̩ad proper is restricted to a discussion of Ātman and Brahman. One possible reason for glorifying the non philosophical part is the emphasis upon the concept of Moks̩a. In those days people might have thought that ‘brahma sāks̩ātkāra’ was possible only through rituals in conjunction with knowledge.
Like any other Upanis̩ad, the Chāndogya is also full of anecdotes of several fictitious persons. Even the philosophical part of the text is not free from this approach. Hence in our study of the Upanis̩ad, we must first segregate philosophy from myth. In order to achieve this, we have to concentrate only on some sections of the last three chapters of the Upanis̩ ad and as an exception in this case, we shall consider the twelfth section of the third chapter of the Upanis̩ad.
The Way of Knowing Brahman
The particular section with which we are dealing presently is known as Gāyatrī brahma. This section regards vāk or speech as Gāyatrī and it is through Gāyatrī that Brahman can be understood. Brahma or Brahman is what manifests in speech. This may be the reason for regarding speech as the means of knowing Brahman. For our purpose, ‘Gāyatrī’ can be taken to mean a form of prayer. According to Yājñavalkya’s interpretation, there cannot be any positive description of Brahman. Since it is very difficult to understand Brahman with only negative interpretation, Chāndogya chooses an alternative method. There is no need to know what prayer consists of. The Mantras numbering seventh, eighth and ninth describe Brahman as Ākāśa. In this case Ākāśa can be taken to mean something like ether or space or some eternal substance, and all pervasive. These three mantras first identify Brahman with Ākāśa which is external to Purus̩a and far superior to prayer. It further says that the very same Ākāśa is also internal to Purus̩a. It points to two possibilities. One is that the very distinction of Ākāśa into external or internal itself is without foundation. The second possibility is that the internal self, which is Ātman, is the essence of the individual whereas the external Ākāśa is the essence of the external world. When what is internal is identified with what is external, the individual self is identified with the external world. Hereby the equation of Brahman and Ātman is established. This is the main theme of the Upanis̩ads.
In Ākāśa, which is internal to man there are actually two divisions, Ākāśa inside the body and Ākāśa inside the heart. It means that there are three strata of Ākāśa. According to one interpretation, these three strata of Ākāśa correspond to the first three states of mind, jāgrat (waking state), swapna (dream state) and sus̩upti (deep sleep). While the first two states cause misery, the last one does not. Ākāśa is associated with these states and also the experience. This particular interpretation poses some difficulties. Waking state does not bring only miserable experiences. It also brings other experiences. There is no reason why they should be omitted. Secondly, if Ākāśa has three ‘prakāras’ or three kinds, then, we have to discern qualitative differences in which case it is difficult to accept that there is one Ākāśa only.
The seventh Mantra of the thirteenth section in the same chapter identifies Brahma with light. Again, light is both external and internal to Purus̩a just as Ākāśa is. The most unusual aspect of this mantra is that this light has to be experienced to know. It involves three sense organs, eyes, ears and skin. Obviously, the Upanis̩ ad must have meant that these three organs are not physical but some sort of metaphysical counterparts.
The Philosophical Implications of Tajjalāniti
This section deals with a particular concept of Brahman known as sagun̩a brahma which forms a part of Tajjalān. It means that there are attributes of Brahman and only through these attributes is it possible to explain Brahman. Tajjalān states that the world emerged from and much later it is reabsorbed by Brahman. So the physical world has both beginning and end. But Brahman, which is the source of the universe, has neither beginning nor end. If, for the time being, we ignore the idealistic theory which pervades the Upanis̩ads, the description of Brahman correlates to the indestructibility of matter. Matter is not only indestructible, it cannot be created either. Physics speaks about the origin of the universe but not matter. Suppose we hypothesize the origin of matter. It results in posing, say, pre-matter. If matter has its origin in pre-matter, then we can further hypothesize the origin of pre-matter in pre-pre-matter. Obviously, it results in infinite regress. So we have to stop at some stage while we are doing science. The position of philosophy is no different from that of science. The selection of points from which we start may or may not be random. While the Nāsadīya Sūkta was skeptical of the origin of the universe, the Upanis̩ads were definite. While going back in time, the Upanis̩ads stopped at Brahman. The termination of search for the primitive source is not a random termination because the Upanis̩ads maintain, not just believe that it is the source. The manner in which ‘Brahman’ is analyzed testifies to this comment.
The next Mantra mentions the attributes of Brahman. It is ‘manomaya’ (spiritual), prān̩a śarīra (consciousness), bhārūpa (bhā = light), satyasaṅkalpa (positive purpose), ākāśatma (form of Ākāśa), sarvakarma (maker of all), sarvakāma (flawless desire), sarvagandha (substratum of all pleasant odour), sarvam idam abhyatta (enveloping all), avākya (silent), anādara (unenthusiastic). It must be noted that all attributes in one way or another have human touch. Brahman is manomaya because it is through Brahman that manana or reflection of what one has listened is possible. By considering Brahman as conscious, the Upanis̩ad could bring in other attributes. In addition to consciousness, Brahman is regarded as light. Hence Brahman stands for knowledge and it is para, the highest. Since Brahman is characterized by positive purpose the results also are positive. Since it is the maker of all the positive results are the results of its actions. In spite of so many attributes with human touch Brahman remained nirākāra (formless) because it is ākāśatma. This one attribute is enough to accept the view that Brahman is impersonal. To say that Brahman is speechless is to admit that silence is supreme. It is not possible to discern the basis for regarding silence as supreme. But one Upanis̩ad, which is now extinct, says, ‘upashantoyam ātmā’ (for this statement, the available source is Śaṁkara’s commentary on Vedānta Sutra.) It is remarkable that there is an equivalent Austrian adage which proclaims ‘speech is silver; silence is golden.’ Equally, it is paradoxical that Brahman should be characterized by silence while one of the supposed root meanings of Brahman itself is ‘prayer that manifests itself in audible speech.’ But, then, paradox is a paradox because there is no solution to it. ‘Unenthusiastic’ should be taken to mean, again, calm and composed. What is important is ‘enveloping all’. It ought to be, if this particular attribute is quantified. In terms of quality cause and effect should remain the same. Similarly, in the case of quantity, cause should at least equal the effect because from ‘less’ it is impossible to derive ‘more’. Second law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from higher end to lower end but not the other way round. If this law is extended to this particular attribute, then Brahman ought to be more than the universe. This attribute derives support from the Purus̩a sūkta also. It states, ‘sabhūmim vishwatovr̩ ttvā as̩ t̩atis̩ tasya dashāṅgulam’ which means ‘after enveloping the universe the Purus̩a outstripped it by ten inches. This Upanis̩ad replaced Purus̩a by Brahman and the result remains the same.
If we consider the etymological meaning of Brahman, which is equivalent to ‘burst forth’, then Brahman can be regarded as energy. The universe is pervaded by two types of energy; stellar energy and nuclear energy. While stellar energy is external, in one sense, in the same sense nuclear energy is internal. But the nature of energy remained the same. Now Brahman can be understood as equivalent to nuclear energy when it is regarded as subatomic and equivalent to stellar energy when it is regarded as transcending deep space. In the former state Brahman has to be understood as Ātman. If Brahman is regarded as a packet of energy, then the universe, before it was evolved, can be said to be latent in Brahman; a position very much similar to the Sāṅkhya. It is potential and when it evolves it becomes actual. If the third Mantra is understood in this spirit, then it becomes much simpler.
The Potential Nature of the Universe
The nineteenth section of the third chapter begins with the Mantra according to which Āditya is Brahman. These two are equated because the sun is the principal means of knowing the external world. This Mantra says that in the beginning there was asat (non-being); and then it became sat. Later we will come to know that the Upanis̩ad refutes this particular possibility. Evidently, the Upanis̩ad could not have made a statement earlier only to deny it later. Therefore the first statement of the Mantra stands in need of clarification. One possible interpretation is that Asat is interpreted as avyākr̩t (not expressed), i.e., potential. When the universe is in an unexpressed state, it is in its potential form. At that stage, nāma rūpa bheda (name and form distinction) does not exist. In this restricted sense only it can be regarded as asat. Then it became ‘sat’, i.e., name and form distinction appeared. The Upanis̩ad is very clear about the origin of Sat. On this crucial point the Upanis̩ad says so; ‘asat eva idam agra āsīt tat sat āsīt tat samabhavat tat ān̩ d̩ am’ (this was earlier asat; that was Sat, it was born, it was egg). Evidently, the interpretation given above is not very helpful. The interpretation assumes that ‘Asat’ means the absence of name and form differentiation whereas ‘Sat’ means the presence of the same. However, what we can understand from the text is altogether different. Accordingly, the existence of Sat preceded differentiation in terms of name and form. The first and second Mantras very clearly state that after the Sat came into existence it became egg. Its gestation period was one year. Later, it hatched from which Pr̩thivī (silver), Dyu (gold), etc. originated. The third Mantra suggests that Āditya originated from the egg. The formation of these bodies designates the differentiation in terms of name and form as for as the interpretation is concerned. Thus, this particular interpretation puts the cart in front of the horse.
Apart from the Asat-Sat controversy, the origin of Āditya also poses a problem. If we suppose that Āditya is Brahman, how can it evolve from egg when egg is a successor to Asat? If, in accordance with Brahma-Parin̩āmaVāda, cause and effect are treated as real, and effect is only a manifestation of cause, then, it means that Brahman came out of itself. This is not a comfortable position. Evidently, it has to be treated as Asat only because there was no differentiation. But it is doubtful whether any Upanis̩ad would ever concede this suggestion.
Return to the Nature of Brahman
In the seventh chapter, fresh attempts are made to describe Brahman. After having said that Brahman is avāk (silent), now the Upanis̩ad designates it as vāg brahma (vāk + brahma = vāgbrahma). Before doing so, Brahman was called nāma brahma. Not only Brahman is Naama, all Vedas are names. However, it is so only at an inferior level. In a phased manner, the Upanis̩ad provides the supposed perfect description. Vak is said to be superior to name. The question is how can Vak be a better description of Brahman when, earlier, it was said that Brahman is silent. It is true that the description ‘Upaśantoyam Ātma’ applies to self. But there is no difference between Brahman and Ātman. So, whatever predicates are applicable to Ātman, are at the same time applicable to Brahman and vice versa. So, it shows that in its attempt to describe Sagun̩a Brahman, the Upanis̩ ad is contradicting itself. Failure of affirmative description, perhaps, is not inherent in the concept. But it may be due to contributions from several thinkers at different times.
Mano Brahman is said to be superior to Vāgbrahman. But it is not clear why the Upanis̩ad has identified Manas with Brahman twice. Only difference is that earlier the function of Manas was restricted to reflection only. But in the seventh chapter there is a shift in its function. Desire becomes the function of Manas. From Manas it passes on to will or determination (Saṅkalpa). In this manner, the Upanis̩ ad considers in all twelve predicates, the highest being ‘prān̩a’. It may be noted that Ākāśa is a repetition. Here, the status is decided based on the supposition of dependence, the principle on most of the occasions is dependence. First let us list various predicates in the order of their position. Determination is followed by chitta (to know), dhyāna (meditation), vijñāna (higher knowledge), bala (force or might), anna (food), ap (water), tejas (heat), smara (memory), aśa (desire) and prān̩a (life). However, it is not necessary to consider this chain in detail. It is sufficient to consider the end point of the chain. It is more than obvious that Prān̩a is the substratum of whatever was earlier mentioned. Accordingly, Brahman is life just as Ātman is. Life pervades the whole universe and it outstretches the same. This argument is close to the ancient Greek thought which considered the whole world as animated. By considering the world as animated by the Greek thought that they could solve the problem of change. And the Upanis̩ads knowingly or unknowingly solved the problem of origin of life.
Finally, by regarding Brahman as Prān̩a, the Upanis̩ad established the identity of Brahman and Ātman more effectively.
Uddālaka’s Refutation of Vedic Sūktas: His Cosmology
If we understand cosmology in the modern sense, then we can claim that Uddālaka’s theory is the first ever attempt to grapple with the problem of the origin and the structure of the Universe. It is interesting to note that all preliminary approaches ended up in monism. In the western tradition also, philosophy began on monistic note only. The only difference is that ancient Greek philosophers, who are called if the physical world emerged from Brahman only to be reabsorbed later, then can we not conclude that the physical world is real? If so, how can Uddālaka be regarded as an idealist? It is very important to address this objection.
There are two distinct ways of analyzing the origin of the external world and life. They are quantitative and qualitative analyses. In any speculative science only the latter is possible. However, in this respect Uddālaka is an exception.
Uddālaka’s arguments begin with his refutation of a sūkta from the R̩gveda. The sūkta says: ‘devānām purve uge asataha sat ajāyata’ (before the (birth of) gods only Asat, i.e., non-existence was from which Sat, i.e., existence emerged). In addition to this Sūkta, the uncertainty of Nāsadīya Sūkta further strengthened Uddālaka’s argument. The Sūkta says that ‘na asat aseenno sat aseetta daneem’ (Neither Sat nor Asat was). Uddālaka counters both these statements from the R̩ k Veda. He asks ‘katham asataha sat jayeta’ (how can ‘Sat’ come out of ‘Asat’?). The absence of ‘Sat’ does not mean (according to the R̩gveda) the presence of ‘Asat’. To that extent the Sūkta is correct. When neither of them is present how can ‘Tat Ekam’ breathe? To wriggle out of this maze Uddālaka refutes both the Suktas. Before the formation of objects only ‘Sat’ was and nothing else. This is the meaning of ‘ekamevādvitīya’ (second to none). Brahman is this ‘Sat’. How did the formation of objects or the birth of objects become possible? If we can assume that where there is spirit there is activity, then we can conclude that Brahman is the seat of activity because Brahman is spiritual. This activity manifests in Brahman in the form of production of this world. For the manifestation of activity no cause may be required. Uddālaka traces the path of production which is bound by sort of reasonableness, the ‘one’ became many, i.e., Brahman became many. First to be produced is Tejas, and from Tejas, Ap and from Ap, Anna (food or solid). Uddālaka explains this scheme in this manner. Water (sweat) is generated when there is heat (Tejas). So it means that water is born from Tejas. Uddālaka’s explanation can be supplemented easily. Rainfall (water) is always preceded by heat (Tejas). If Uddālaka’s theory can be regarded as scientific, it is not because of what he said but because why he said so. He provided ‘evidence’ to justify his theory. Surely, evidence need not be accepted. They can be shown to be inadequate or irrelevant. This possibility is sufficient to classify his theory as a scientific theory.
According to Uddālaka ‘Tejas, Ap and Anna’ are the elements. To this group the Taittiriya adds Vayu and Ākāśa. Once these elements are born the classification of name (nāma) and form (rūpa) takes place. When ‘one’ becomes many, each one becomes finite. What is finite has definite form. Name is necessary to distinguish one from the other. In this way, name and form determine this world. In the same part, the fourth Mantra states that all these three elements undergo the process of further division. So we have nine divisions together. These divisions apply to matters in gross state. Tejas does have other elements. But the proportion of other elements in Tejas is much less. The same explanation ought to hold good for other elements. It also means that these elements are not really elements. However, that apart the reference to proportion of elements at any given level, evidently, marks a revolutionary idea. Quantitative aspect which distinguishes one element from another essentially belongs to science. Uddālaka also correlates colour to Tejas, white of Ap and black that of Pr̩thivī. This correlation later gave rise to substance-attribute relation.
The next stage of triple division is very significant. It contains discussion of manas or mind. One Mantra asserts that the mind emerged from the subtle part of Anna, i.e., solid. It means that the mind is not qualitatively different from solid or matter. Mind is, perhaps, a microscopic or subatomic part of matter. There are two ways of interpreting the relation; any aspect of mind can be explained through matter. This method of explanation is accepted by epiphenomenalism; a theory in modern western philosophy. Not only mind, even Prān̩a has its origin in matter. ‘Apam… pīya mānānām ya animā sa urdhvaha samudīśati sa pranobhavati, (When water is consumed, the subtle part of it rises upwards and becomes Prān̩a). So, not only Manas, even Prān̩a has its origin in the so-called matter. If this is the conclusion, then it runs counter to the general spirit of Indian Philosophy. To circumvent this situation, Uddālaka, perhaps, regards not only Brahman but also the off-shoot, viz., Tejas, Ap and Anna as gods, and gods in the Upanis̩ads do not mean the same as gods in the Vedas. Here gods can be taken to mean ‘Spiritual’ as distinct from matter. If so, then whatever exists must be spiritual. Uddālaka chose this path. This is how ‘sarvam khalvidam Brahma’ can be understood.
Uddālaka demonstrates the composition of Manas and Prān̩a in an extraordinary way. Given the tenor of the Upanis̩ads and also the age to which the Upanis̩ads belonged, what Uddālaka did is, surely, extraordinary. Warder goes to the extent of calling it an experiment. According to the Br̩hadāran̩yaka, Prajāpati is made up of sixteen aspects. Of them fifteen aspects constitute Manas and the remaining aspect Prān̩a. Manas has too many aspects because it is too complex. To drive home this point, Uddālaka asks his son to go on fast for fifteen days. As a result he goes into Amnesia. It shows that mind (after all, memory is a function of mind) depends upon matter. This is what Warder calls quantitative analysis only because there is obvious reference to ratio and composition, which cannot be understood without numbers.
Is there any difficulty in accepting that whatever exists is spiritual? If Manas and Prān̩a together have sixteen aspects then ‘spirit’ or Caitanya also must have sixteen aspects. How can, what is not physical, possess different aspects? Secondly, if Manas, Prān̩ a, etc. are spiritual, are bone, flesh, etc., which have originated from Brahman also spiritual? This may or may not be the case. But Uddālaka is silent on this issue.
Tat tvam asi (that is you) occurs in Uddālaka’s exposition on seven occasions. It means that you are the very same Ātman, which being the most subtle and true, is also the primal source of the universe. In other words, I should feel my identity with the universe. How is this achieved? Uddālaka gives two analogies; rivers flowing from different directions to merge in sea and production of honey. In this particular case we should discover the essential characteristic of Indian philosophy. This kind of realisation of being one with Ātman-Brahman, which transcends all reason and experience, is the essence of the Chāndogya. This is essentially a state of mind.
A passing reference to the evolution of life is sufficient. Uddālaka considers three classes only; An̩d̩aja (born from the egg), Jīvaja (born from the animal) and Udbhijja (plants). Aitareya adds one more; Swedaja (born from sweat). It is sufficient to remark that this kind of classification is the primitive form of taxonomy.
In the beginning of the sixth chapter, Uddālaka introduces an important issue. Effect is only name. But cause is fundamental. For example, chain is the effect. But gold, from which chain is made, is its material cause. Brahman is the material cause whereas the world is its effect. Goldsmith makes chains. So he is the efficient cause. Brahman is not only the material cause, but also he is the efficient cause because he (or it) has made this universe. This theory of causation, which is called Brahma Parin̩āmavāda, is the earliest theory of causation. Last element, which deserves to be mentioned, is his reference to generalization. If I can show the properties of any one object made from iron, then I can as well know the properties of all objects made from iron. This is an important topic in logic.
The Meaning of Swapiti and Its Relation to Dream State
At the outset, two aspects should be made clear; one, the meaning of ‘Swapiti’ and the other, meaning of dream state. Uddālaka defines ‘Swapiti’ as the association of an individual with his true nature, i.e., Sat. The association of individuals with Sat becomes possible when Sat comes to be associated with Manas. Instead of Sat, we can also say self or Ātman. It means that at empirical level, all activities like, seeing, hearing, etc. owe their possibility to this association. Therefore the true nature of Sat is obliterated. This is what can be termed as bondage. Freedom from bondage consists in complete dissociation. In other words, Swapiti is realised when Sat is dissociated from Manas. The nature of Swapiti is better understood when we understand the nature of ‘Sus̩upti’! The Upanis̩ ad does not use this particular word. Instead, it uses another word ‘swapanāntam’ (end of dream state). The word Sus̩upti is used by commentators. To understand the process of dissociation, it is necessary to refer to other states of Manas. In the waking state not only the nervous system is active, but also the individual is conscious of this activity. Hence waking state is characterized by conscious activity. In this state, the association with Manas is complete. In a dream state, consciousness is absent, but motor organs function. This is one difference between waking and dream states. Secondly, though motor organs function, there is a vast difference in degree. It means that the nervous system is active, but less active. Therefore even in a dream state, sat remains at empirical level. While one end of the dream state is marked by a waking state characterized by full-blooded association with the external world, the other end of the spectrum is characterized by the total withdrawal of sat from the external world. This is possible only in deep sleep. Deep sleep must have been used as an analogy by Uddālaka because deep sleep is only momentary. But when Sat is dissociated from the external world it is permanent. In this context sat is regarded as Ātman which is at the same time Brahman.
A simpler way of understanding Swapiti is to regard it as Swa-Rūpa (one’s own or true nature). When Sat regains its Swa-Rūpa, it goes beyond good and evil because good and evil are associated only with the external world. It shows that the bond, which connects Sat with Manas and through Manas the external world is not necessary but contingent. According to the Upanis̩ads, the goal is to break this bond. Hence, whatever intellectual exercise that can be discerned in the Upanis̩ad is propelled by this goal. Thus, the means is intellectual but the end is not. This, exactly, is the essential nature of the Upanis̩ads.
The Bonds of Sat
In the previous section a reference was made to bondage and liberation from bondage. Hence it is necessary to know the nature of bondage in detail. Uddālaka recognizes six elements involved in bondage and so calls them ‘s̩ ad̩ āyatana’ (six places). It is easy to trace the link. Manas is held captive by Prān̩ a, Prān̩ a by Anna, Anna by Ap and Ap by Tejas. Sat is connected through Manas in this manner with remaining elements. If Sat can break its link with Manas, then, naturally, the bondage collapses. Uddālaka clearly states how one element is bound by the other. This is quite illuminating. Food is necessary for life. Hence Prān̩ a depends upon Anna. It is not sufficient if I eat food. It has to be converted to a liquid state and then mixes up with juice (rasa). Only then it is digested. Uddālaka is merely describing the metabolic process here. Water (Ap) is required to convert food into energy. Hence food depends upon water. The process of digestion is known as internal combustion. Directly or indirectly, internal combustion can be equated with Tejas or heat.
The bondage can be understood in this way also. Sat is the source of Tejas; Tejas is the source of Ap and so on. Everything else depends upon Sat but Sat itself does not depend upon anything else. This is the nature of bondage. Liberation from bondage does not really mean death. What happens after liberation is different from what happens after death. When Sat is liberated from bondage it is not affected by the external world because its link with Manas has snapped. But this is only in one direction, i.e. Manas and Prān̩a continue to have relations with Sat for their existence. At the time of death one will merge in another; speech in Manas, Manas in Prān̩a, Prān̩a in Tejas and Tejas in Sat. And this Sat is pure or pure Being.
Atman and the Source of the Universe: Brahman
Uddālaka defines the truth as the equation of ātman with the subtle essence of the world. To express this equation, Uddālaka uses what is known as ‘mahāvākya’ (cardinal statement); tat tvam asi (that thou art). Put in simple language it only means ‘That is you’. He uses analogies, when bees collect juice from different sources (here called trees), they are not preserved separately. The juices collected from different sources lose their identity when they merge in one place. But thereby they do not lose existence. Therefore identity and existence are not one and the same. In case of an individual, this awareness is lost; realisation consists not in maintaining identity but in identifying with Sat. Loss in one place is compensated by gain in another place.
Another analogy is the ‘river-sea’ analogy. When rivers enter the sea they become parts of the sea. It is impossible to differentiate water of one river from water of some other river. Rivers lose their identity only because they become identical with the sea. But (assuming that they are conscious), they are not aware of what they have lost and what they have gained.
Uddālaka uses several analogies in his long discourse. It is not necessary to mention all of them. The essence is that ignorance is the cause of seeing difference when there is none. Acquisition of knowledge is conditioned by three factors, proper guidance, ability and desire to learn. In the absence of any one of them the identity, which is under investigation cannot be realised. Acquisition of knowledge leads to liberation. Truth liberates whereas falsehood curtails freedom. Knowledge is knowing what truth is.
The Supreme Knowledge (Bhūmā Vidyā)
Discussion of knowledge and truth takes us to the nature of supreme knowledge. Seventh chapter of the Upanis̩ad begins with the assertion ‘one’ who knows, speaks the truth’ and ‘one who does not know, does not speak the truth’. How does one acquire knowledge? Act of knowing demands reflection and truth, reflection demands dedication and commitment. There are in truth, links to happiness. That which provides happiness is supreme knowledge. The Mantra says; “yo vai bhūmā tat sukham na alpe sukham asti”. It means happiness consists in achieving the highest or supreme. What is inferior does not bring in happiness. When we reach the peak there is nothing else to see, nor to hear, nor to know, where something else can be seen, etc. then, there is alpa (inferior). Obviously, this statement is the basis of reflection on Advaita. While what is inferior needs the support of something else, the ‘Supreme’ does not require any support because that itself is the base for all. This ‘Supreme’ is Ātman.
Let Us Sum Up
The Chāndogya is one of the earliest Upanis̩ads. Hence there is a lot of discussion on Vedic rituals. This Upanis̩ad forms a part of Sāmaveda tradition. Hence, the rituals mentioned here derive support mainly from Sāmaveda. Upanis̩ads are against rituals because during transition time people still believed that the ritual is one of the means of knowing or realising Brahman. Gāyatrī is one Mantra through which Brahman can be known. There are three strata of Ākāśa; each correlated to three states of mind. Brahman also is equated with light. Tajjalān has very significant Philosophical implications. Cosmology has its roots in this principle. Uddālaka’s Cosmology is not only scientific but also it is in opposition to the Vedic account of the origin of the universe. Brahman is described in various ways, Prān̩a being regarded as the best description. Ātman is not only the source of the universe, but also the essence of man. Knowledge of one’s own self is the highest knowledge.
Related Articles: