KaushItakI Upanishad 3.3

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

In KaushItakI Upanishad 3.3 (KaushItakiBrAhmaNopanishad 4.19), the mantra says - 

‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति चक्षुः सर्वै रूपैः सहाप्येति श्रोत्रं सर्वैः शब्दैः सहाप्येति मनः सर्वैर्ध्यानैः सहाप्येति स यदा प्रतिबुध्यते यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’

Here, the Shruti says that during sushupti:

1. VAk, along with all names, becomes one with It.

2. Chakshu, along with all forms, becomes one with It.

3. ShrOtra, along with all shabda, becomes one with It.

4. Mind, along with all thoughts, becomes one with It.

Again when one wakes up, everything is born from AtmA, just as sparks are born from fire.

Here, the following questions arise:

1. Do "all names", "all forms" merge during "my" sushupti? Does, the Himalayas, the White House merge? 

2. Do "all shabda" merge during "my" sushupti?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

My first post was blocked. Hence posting again. 

subbu

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [advaitin] KaushItakI Upanishad 3.3
To: <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>

The Anubhuti Prakasha of Swami Vidyaranya has two chapters on this Upanishad. One is the Atmavidya Conversation between Indra and Pratardana and the other is between Ajatashatru and Baalaaki.  In the latter chapter there are some verses that deal with the questions you ask:

A summary:  There is the commonly popular Srishti: From Brahman akasha, etc. emerge.  The other is the srishti laya that happens at the individual jiva level. When the jiva wakes up, the AhankAra (bhokta) emerges. The sense organs emerge, along with their presiding devatas. And the observed/contacted world also emerges.  Swami Vidyaranya says: Ajatashatru taught this DSV in preference to SDV (Brahman > akasha, etc.) as the former is more quickly yielding the fruit of moksha jnanam compared to the latter which is a little 'convoluted.'   Whether it is MahA srishti or alpa srishti, it is maayika, he says. The purpose of delineating srishti is only to teach the Advaita tattva, he says.

You can read those verses in the book, readily available here:

https://centreforbrahmavidya.org/acharyas/sri-bharathi-theertha-and-sri-vidyaranya/anubhuti-prakasha-with-gloss.html?v=2.3#

Chapter: 9.  Verses: 35 onwards.

regards

subbu

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA6i2Dub%3DJ8k8sY2szczdym7jQ4ZyPwRQZTWiQ%2B-DbKCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Respected Subbu ji.

Many thanks for the reference.

Shri स्मार्त राहुल जी had shared with me the reference to this KaushItakI mantra in BSB 1.3.30. There, RatnaprabhA has held that this KaushItakI mantra explains DSV.

I checked anubhUti prakAsha and VidyAraNya SwAmI clearly says - 

तस्मात् इह अजातशत्रुः बालाकेः अविलम्बतः प्रत्यक्-ब्रह्मत्व-बोधार्थं दृष्टिसृष्टिम् अवोचत. (verse 48)

Some other beautiful verses here are as under:

सर्वसाधारण: सर्ग एक: प्रातिस्विकोऽपरः । आकाशादिक्रमादाद्यः प्राणादिक्रमतोऽपरः । । ४० ॥  

सर्वेषां प्राणिनां कर्मक्षये स्यात् प्रलयो महान् । पुनः कर्मोद्भवे तेषां स्याद् महासृष्टिरीश्वरात् ।। ४१ ॥

एकस्य कर्मणः क्षीणे प्रलयः सुप्तिनामभृत् । पुनः कर्मोद्भवे तस्य सृष्टिः स्याज्जागराभिधा ।। ४२ ।।

अद्वैततत्त्वबोधाय सृष्टिः सर्वत्र कथ्यते । अल्पा वा महती वाऽस्तु सदद्वैतं विबुध्यते ।। ४३ ।  

प्रौढस्य राजगेहस्य द्वारं स्यात् पुरतो महत् । पृष्ठतोऽन्तःपुरद्वारं चोरद्वाराख्यमल्पकम् ।। ४४ ।। 

महाद्वारेण सहसा दुर्लभं राजदर्शनम् । जनसम्मर्दबाहुल्याद् द्वाराणां च बहुत्वतः ।। ४५ ।। 

अल्पद्वारे स्वामिभक्तो हठाद् राजानमीक्षते । दृष्टिसृष्ट्याऽनुभूत्यर्थी वेत्त्यात्मानं तथा हठात् ।। ४६ ।।  

महासृष्ट्या तत्पदार्थमादौ ज्ञात्वा ततः पुनः । त्वंपदार्थं शोधयित्वा वाक्याद् बोधो विलम्बते । । ४७ ।।  

The sum and substance of these verses is as under:

advaita-tattva can be understood through two types of srishTi namely drishTi-srishTi and srishTi-drishTi. DSV is like short-cut to the advaita-tattva where elaborate prakriyA are not necessary. SDV is like entering a palace through main gate by which one would not be able to see the king immediately, it will take time. But DSV is like secret entrance, which is reserved for loyal servants of king, through which he can see the king immediately.

The conclusion of anubhUti prakAsha is thus in consonance with RatnaprabhA and that is - this KaushItakI mantra propounds drishTi-srishTi here in order to explain, without any delay, the Brahman-hood of pratyak-AtmA.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2XXzfpKS-FV1%3Dtd0J4eH5R_-vS4kugTsOmqLqkieQ1Ww%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

Very nicely summarized. Swami Vidyaranya's lines:

सेयं प्रातीतिकी सृष्टिस्तस्माज्जाता ततः स्व्यं

जगत्कर्ता परात्मेति क्षणात् बालोऽपि बुध्यते (54)

Meaning: This is the 'cognition-is-creation'. By this even a novice (bAla) in a moment realizes that he is verily the Creator of the universe, the supreme Lord. 

What a brilliant statement!!  Look at his audacity🙏

A similar idea is contained in this Advaita Makaranada verse:

मय्येवोदेति चिद्व्योम्नि जगद्गन्धर्वपत्तनम् । अतोऽहं न कथं ब्रह्म सर्वज्ञं सर्वकारणम् ॥ ३॥ 

warm regards

subbu    

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB6K9gON44tM9TcN9bXOurHHt9kd3QvDkXN4jyEca5A_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

I will try to identify the positive avidya in your responses and distinguish them from abhavarupa adhyasa avidya. In the interests of time and attention, I'll break up my responses and follow up today or tomorrow with the latter half of your email in a new thread. 

//  if x appears in y and yet x is ever non-existent in y, then x is stated to be mithyA.  //

If it is non-existent it can't appear, like hare's horn.  So that isn't a proper definition. If you mean it appears like rope/snake then what is snake? Is the perception of snake separate and independent from the conception of snake? Therein lies mulavidya mithya and abhavarupa avidya. MVM considers the conception to be subject to falsification while the perceptions are not. Hence mAyA continues to appear despite the fall of avidya. That is mulAvidya mithya, no? 

//That (adhyasa) is within the domain of illusion. //

You are saying, illusion is something other than adhyasa or namarupa/thoughts/ and perceptions. That's what HH SSSS calls bhavarupa avidya. Instead, words/perceptions ARE the illusion within the domain of Brahman. 

//So, artha-adhyAsa (snake) is a straightforward illusion. JnAna-adhyAsa (snake-jnAna) is not immediately evident as to how it is illusory. We can discuss.//

Artha adhyasa then is a positive something relative to sublatable jnana-adhyAsa. Instead, the distinction itself is adhyasa. 

//MithyAtva (illusion) can be defined as: ... //

I have not seen these 4 definitions before but obviously Navya Nyaya logical attempts to define something called nothing. It's existence is logical not experiential. 
 
//kArya-adhyAsa and kAraNa-adhyAsa// 

kArya and kAraNa imply there is something prior to adhyAsa. Instead, kArya/kAraNa are themselves adhyAsa. 

//That which is neither bhAva nor abhAva, which is sublated by jnAna and which is beginningless is avidyA.//

--Ramanuja there is nothing in experience that isYneither bhAva nor abhAva

--Yes, 'sublated by jnana' is Sankara's definition. 

--Beginningless - Though not stated here, I believe you consider anadi to be a temporal term. Instead, anadi can be taken as 'not in time'. 

//अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते । तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते //

Does this indicate bhavarupa avidya or can it be understood as beginningless error? 

I will stop here and continue with your response in a fresh thread. O

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2iXZZeCg8S4B9CYpcSC6i9N%2BkB3VsbcvLXiX%2Bj6vpkZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

If it is non-existent it can't appear, like hare's horn.  So that isn't a proper definition.

A non-existent snake appears. Appearance is not contradictory to non-existence. So, the definition is valid.

Non-existence along with non-appearance is called asat. Non-existence (in the substratum) along with appearance is called mithyA (illusion).

 

If you mean it appears like rope/snake then what is snake? Is the perception of snake separate and independent from the conception of snake? Therein lies mulavidya mithya and abhavarupa avidya. MVM considers the conception to be subject to falsification while the perceptions are not. Hence mAyA continues to appear despite the fall of avidya. That is mulAvidya mithya, no? 

Words like perception and conception are being used by you without much clarity as to what they mean.

Please keep things simple. Whether it is mUlAvidyA or the kArya of mUlAvidyA, they are all mithyA. That means, they are ever non-existent despite their appearance.

 

//That (adhyasa) is within the domain of illusion. //

You are saying, illusion is something other than adhyasa or namarupa/thoughts/ and perceptions. That's what HH SSSS calls bhavarupa avidya. Instead, words/perceptions ARE the illusion within the domain of Brahman. 

I am saying that the words "adhyAsa" and "mithyA" have different connotations. It turns out that whatever is mithyA is also adhyasta (superimposed). And whatever is adhyasta, is mithyA. But the words have different connotations.

Let us understand it like this. Whatever is changeable, is illusory. However, the word "changeable" and "mithyA" have different connotations. Through logic, we prove that if x is mithyA, then x is changeable and vice versa.

//So, artha-adhyAsa (snake) is a straightforward illusion. JnAna-adhyAsa (snake-jnAna) is not immediately evident as to how it is illusory. We can discuss.//

Artha adhyasa then is a positive something relative to sublatable jnana-adhyAsa. Instead, the distinction itself is adhyasa. 

No. artha-adhyAsa comes within the domain of bhAva. However, since it is mithyA, it is ever non-existent in the substratum of its appearance. So, it is not a positive something. A positive something cannot be non-existent in three periods of time. However, a mithyA bhAva padArtha is non-existent in its substratum in all three periods of time.

//MithyAtva (illusion) can be defined as: ... //

I have not seen these 4 definitions before but obviously Navya Nyaya logical attempts to define something called nothing. It's existence is logical not experiential. 

You experience an illusory snake, don't you? You experience avidyA, don't you? So, the appearance of avidyA and avidyA-kArya, which are both mithyA, is very much experiential.

 //kArya-adhyAsa and kAraNa-adhyAsa// 

kArya and kAraNa imply there is something prior to adhyAsa. Instead, kArya/kAraNa are themselves adhyAsa. 

avidyA, like bheda, is swa-para-nirvAhaka. This has been discussed.

Further, since causation itself is illusory, the linkage between avidyA and avidyA-kArya is itself a non-existent appearance. There is not and there cannot be any causality between any two x and y. Period.

//That which is neither bhAva nor abhAva, which is sublated by jnAna and which is beginningless is avidyA.//

--Ramanuja there is nothing in experience that isYneither bhAva nor abhAva.

Ramanuja needs to apply mind on sAmAnyatah sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "अहमज्ञः", visheshatah sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "त्वदुक्तमर्थं न जानामि" and saushupta sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "एतावन्तं कालं न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्, सुखमहमस्वाप्सम्". On account of these experiences, the claim of Ramanuja has no tenability.

--Yes, 'sublated by jnana' is Sankara's definition. 

--Beginningless - Though not stated here, I believe you consider anadi to be a temporal term. Instead, anadi can be taken as 'not in time'. 

When we say anAdi, we are speaking within a temporal frame. Time is defined as avidyA-chit-sambandha.

 

//अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते । तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते //

Does this indicate bhavarupa avidya or can it be understood as beginningless error? 

Yes, it states the lakshaNa of bhAvarUpa avidyA. avidyA-adhyAsa can be stated as beginningless error. There is no harm.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.