Taittirīyopaniṣat 02.27 and 28
He who is in the person here and he who is in the sun there are one and the same. He who knows this, after departing from this world, attains the essence made of food, then the essence made of vital breath, then the essence made of mind, then the essence made of knowledge, and finally the essence made of bliss.
This verse declares: That knower of bliss of Brahman, from where words return along with the mind un-attained, does not fear from anything. Truly, such a one is not afflicted by thoughts like, 'Why did I not do good? Why did I do evil?'. He who knows thus touches both (good and evil) essentials; indeed, he alone touches both, who knows thus. Thus ends the Upanishad.
Om, may we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great energy. May our study be brilliant and fruitful. May we not hate each other. Om, peace, peace, peace.
Thus ends the Brahma-valli.
Taittirīya Bhāshya 02.27 and 28
The same Lord Viṣṇu dwells in all beings who is without distinction. He possesses all qualities, is the highest, and is complete and is real. He is beyond the reach of speech and mind because of his infinitude. The Vedas do not teach about what is unreal, nor do true followers meditate on the unreal. The Vedas do not teach about what is unreal, nor do true followers meditate on the unreal. Statement "He who is in the person and he who is in the sun" — is only trying to establish the distinction between individual being from the supreme Lord. Even the liberated are distinct from the Lord and possess qualities. For the liberated, desires, resolve, and bliss exist in gradation, all being inherent to their true nature; all are faultless and manifest as qualities. Perceiving the difference between various beings, the insentient, and the Lord is not difficult, since difference is the very nature. Even non-existence is not adharma; it only does not possess the property of existence. Even when arising from non-existence, the insentient Prakrti would exist, but not in the form of existence. The so-called existence of non-existence is indeed only of the form of non-existence. Therefore, the one whose nature is distinct from all is the supreme Lord alone. Whoever knows Him is truly the knower and is liberated.
"It is by Lord Viṣṇu's grace that Brahmā and others everywhere attain their true nature; that same Lord Viṣṇu dwells in all beings, among men and gods alike.
He who knows thus that, the one great yogi, who is without distinction and endowed with all qualities, is the highest and complete, is the supreme human.
He who knows thus, among men, should direct individual beings to their hierarchical positions and to the five-formed Lord Viṣṇu (pañcarūpiṇam viṣṇum). He does not associate Lord Viṣṇu with merit or demerit, nor with his misfortune at any time. The wise person remains even-minded in pleasant and unpleasant situations.
Having realized the Supreme Person, who is beyond the reach of speech and mind due to his infinitude, the liberated one will never have fear from any source."
- stated thus, and so on, in the Yajur Saṃhitā.
For the phrase "together with Brahman" (saha brahmaṇā) and similar expressions - No other meaning should be imagined, because they lack scriptural authority and are hypothetical.
There is no contradiction in taking different meanings to the word 'anna' is the phrases 'auṣadhībhyo'nnam' (2.3) i.e. "food from plants", and 'annarasamayaḥ' (2.4) i.e. "is the essence of food" because, in example phrases such as 'annasyānnam', 'madhyamaḥ prāṇaḥ', 'prāṇaḥ sthūṇā', etc. based on the adjectives and the context, word take different meanings.
[The word 'anna' in 2.3 refers to ordinary food, while in 2.4 the word in conjunction with 'rasa', i.e. essence, transforms it and makes it an attribute to the Lord.]
And for those beginning with annamaya, there is no evidence whatsoever for their non-Brahman nature.
"Those who worship food as Brahman", "those who worship life-breath as Brahman", "the one who knows the bliss of Brahman", "if one knows knowledge as Brahman", "if one knows that Brahman exists", "O venerable one, instruct me about Brahman", therefore he said this: food, life-breath, eye, ear, mind, and speech" - thus, because these are stated by the word Brahman.
And there is no state of being an eater of worldly food.
"Those who know otherwise, those other kings, they attain perishable worlds" — so says the scripture, due to non-existent worship and from the ascertainment of fault.
"Alas, the self-destroyers do not find joy through the worship of the unreal."
- it is stated thus, as well, in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.
"The Vedas do not teach about what is unreal, nor do true followers meditate on the unreal. All who contemplate the unreal fall into deep darkness. Therefore, always speak the true meaning of the Vedas. Whoever knows this is truly wise and knowledgeable; none else is so."
- stated thus in Vedārthaviveke, the discussion on the determination of the meaning of the Veda.
"He who is in the person and he who is in the sun" — thus, the distinction of the individual being from the supreme is established on the basis of their respective substrates.
"In this unseen, selfless, undefined, abode-less state, one finds fearlessness and foundation", "He attains the ātmān made of bliss", "He attains all desires together with the wise Brahman", "Having attained the ātmān made of bliss, moving through these worlds and desires in the form of desire" - thus, distinction (between the Lord) is still maintained even from the liberated.
"Now he becomes fearless" - thus it is said in the context of the proposal of liberation.
"This is the inquiry into bliss" - thus is the subject of Muktānanda's investigation.
"Of the learned in the Veda and of one not overcome by desire" — thus, everywhere, differentiated through special qualification.
For one who is not liberated, freedom from desire is not primary. Nor is being a śrotriya (Vedic scholar) primary.
"He whose knowledge of the Veda is complete is called a śrotriya. Such a person is truly liberated, untouched by desire; indeed, desires do not affect him.
He whose desires are true is not harmed by desires. Indeed, nowhere is anyone without desire seen or even heard of."
- stated thus in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.
The hundredfold bliss experienced by one aspiring for the state of Indra is not seen even in the proximity of one aspiring for the state of a deva. Then, there is the desire for the state of Prajāpati and others. But humans generally do not aspire to that. However, for universal monarchs, liberation is declared by the very word 'yuvan'. Therefore, this is the inquiry regarding liberation.
"When all desires which are situated in his heart are completely released" - here too, it is the release of only those desires residing in the internal organ (mind) that is stated, not of those which are of the nature of the Self.
"Whomever a person desires to reach, he attains that by his mere will" — thus, even among the liberated, desire is understood to be of their very nature.
"For the liberated, desires, resolve, and bliss exist in gradation, all being inherent to their true nature; all are faultless and manifest as qualities."
- stated thus, in the Padma Purāṇa.
"Only from will or intention (is creation), and so it is heard from that scriptural declaration" — thus is the aphorism (Br Su 4.4.8).
Because of the term "And because of the designation of difference" (Br Su 1.1.17), the Lord has also stated the difference between individual living being (jīva) and the Lord (īśvara). Moreover, perceiving difference is not difficult, since difference is the very nature. Indeed, the essential nature of everything, distinct from all, is experienced by all.
Otherwise, there may also be the doubt: "Was it I who was seen, or was it another?"
There is no means of validated knowledge by which difference is known afterwards. Indeed, for a person who has perceived an object, no doubt regarding its difference from another object is ever seen. Nor does it imply a fault of omniscience in all, to experience exclusion.
Generally, since everything is known by everyone, unless the specific distinction from everything else is known, the true nature itself is not specifically known. For, non-difference from a known object is never doubted by anyone.
When there is doubt, only what is excluded from something else is known. No one doubts whether all this exists or not. Therefore, exclusion alone is the true nature.
The state of being specified as distinct (bheda) is the particularity, just as 'one's own form' (svarūpa) is recognized as distinct.
Just as the present time is experienced together with the object, so too, another time, separated from the here, is also generally experienced together.
The existence of an object is not altered merely because it is experienced (or not experienced) with reference to the present time.
Even 'existence or being', due to its present participle nature, is experienced only in relation to time, just like 'standing'. In this way, what is excluded from something else, even when apprehended together with another, is not different from its own nature.
The nature of something is defined by its exclusion from another, and the nature of another is defined by its exclusion from this; thus, there is no single, unified nature (ekasvarūpa).
Even though there is essential identity, as in knowledge, bliss, and so on, a particular distinction arises in practical dealings because of distinct innate nature not lacking in the difference. Indeed, just as with knowledge and bliss (which are experienced differently by different entities). Because difference requires another as its counterpart, and indeed difference does not arise from itself.
"Distinction, however, is the innate, imperishable nature of all objects. Even of destroyed objects, distinction is not indeed destroyed. Even the own form of the unreal is only distinction and not otherwise. By the destruction of particular forms, mere distinction is ascertained.
Destruction is so declared by the wise. "Difference indeed does not perish" - some say this out of ignorance, but those with subtle insight speak otherwise. Truly, difference is the essential nature of things — there is no doubt about this. Therefore, when a thing is destroyed, that difference no longer exists.
Therefore, by its very nature, distinction exists for what is undestroyed. In this way, unlike existence, non-existence does not have a distinction that possesses the form of existence. From non-existence, the nature of that which has the form of existence is regarded as existence. Even when the distinction is destroyed, what remains is of the nature of non-existence and exists due to destruction.
But, due to the very nature of difference, no one has any doubt regarding difference. Since everything is commonly experienced by all, distinctness is experienced by all as distinct from everything else. However, the counter-positing of non-existence is also clearly recognized as non-existence.
Even non-existence is not adharma; it only does not possess the property of existence. The so-called existence of non-existence is indeed only of the form of non-existence.
Even when arising from non-existence, she (the insentient Prakrti) would exist, but not in the form of existence. Therefore, the one whose nature is distinct from all is the supreme Lord. Whoever knows Him is truly the knower and is liberated; there is no doubt about this."
- stated thus in Tattvanirṇaya, the determination of the truth.
Thus ends the bhashya on second creeper on Brahman.
