The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2.t8: 8. Five different Âtmans
The Philosophy of the Upanishads c9.s2.t8
- Language
- English
8. Five different Âtmans
c9.s2.t8.1
As in the passage from the Chândogya discussed above three âtmans are distinguished, the corporeal individual and supreme, so a paragraph in Taitt. 2, which occupies a more advanced and developed position, assumes five âtmans (or purushas) by further division of the intermediate individual âtman into the principles of life, of will, and of knowledge. Thus are constituted the *âtmans annamaya, prâṇamaya, manomaya, vijñâna-maya,* and *ânandamaya*, which are manifested alike in mankind and in nature as a whole. The first four of these, like sheaths or husks (termed later *kos'as*), surround the fifth as the true kernel. Stripping off these sheaths one by one, and gradually penetrating deeper, we finally reach the inmost essential being of a man and of nature. (1) The *annamaya âtman*, “the self dependent on food,”
c9.s2.t8.2
is the incarnation of the âtman in the human body and in material nature; the bodily organs are its constituent parts. (2) Within this is contained the prâṇamaya âtman, “the self dependent on the vital breath,” the âtman as the principle of natural life. Its constituent parts are the vital breaths in man (inhalation, inter-halation, exhalation), but also in a cosmical sense the whole of space is its body, the earth its foundation. By stripping off this âtman also as a sheath we reach (3) the manomaya âtman, “the âtman dependent on manas” (volition), whose constituent parts are stated to be the four Vedas with the Brâhmaṇas (âdeśa). According to this definition we are to understand by it the principle of the will (manas) embodied both in men and in gods, i.e. of purpose directed to selfish ends. For it is this that on the human side is expressed in the Vedic sacrificial ritual.
c9.s2.t8.3
(4) Deeper still is found the vijñânamaya âtman, “the self dependent on knowledge,” which, as the accompanying verse declares, offers knowledge in place of sacrifice and works, while recognising and worshipping the deity as a separate and independent being. This position also we must abandon like a sheath, in order finally to penetrate (5) to the ânandamaya âtman, “the self dependent on bliss,” as the innermost kernel of man and of nature as a whole. This âtman dependent on bliss, “before whom words and thought recoil, not finding him,” is no longer an object of knowledge. It is, in contrast with the reality of experience, that which lies beyond on the other side, unutterable, unfathomable, an unconsciousness, a not-reality. “For it is he who creates bliss. For when a man finds resting-place and peace in that invisible, unreal, unfathomable one, then has he attained to peace. When, however, a man assumes therein an interval, a separation (between himself as subject and the âtman as object), then his unrest is prolonged. Moreover, it is the unrest of one who deems himself wise (while making Brahman an object of knowledge).”¹
c9.s2.t8.4
¹ Taitt. 2. 7.
Cites (1)
- Taittirīyopaniṣad — Sanskrit