Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c9.s2: Meditation by means of Om, the way to Realisation

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c9.s2

Language
English

Contents

Meditation by means of Om, the way to Realisation

c9.s2.1

word is the Supreme Brahman; that word is the Supreme Symbol; that word is the Supreme Support” (S. 8. a). In these terms does the Kaṭhopanishad identify the means of meditation with the goal to be reached by it; the symbol, in short, stands for both the means and the end of spiritual life. The Chhāndogya Upanishad declares that all speech is interwoven on this symbol Om, in the same manner as the leaves of a tree are woven together on a stalk (S. 8. b). The Muṇḍakopanishad tells us by the help of a very happy simile that “we should take into our hand the bow of the Upanishads, and put upon it the arrow of the Soul, sharpened by devotion. We should next stretch it with concentrated attention, and penetrate the mark which is the Supreme Brahman. The mystic symbol Om is the bow; the arrow is the Soul; and Brahman is the mark to be pierced. We should penetrate it with undistracted attention, so that the arrow may become one with the mark” (S. 9). We are told here how devotion is necessary for the whetting of the point of the arrow, how concentrated attention and undistracted effort are necessary for making the arrow of the Soul pierce the target of Brahman, how, finally, the arrow is to become so absorbed in the target that it ceases to exist as a separate entity. If unitive life is to be expressed by any metaphor,—and all verbal expressions, it must be remembered, fall short of the experience of reality,—the metaphor of the arrow and the target invented by the Muṇḍakopanishad must be considered a very happy one, as most fittingly characterising the communion of the lower and the higher selves so as to involve the utter destruction of the separate individuality of the lower self. Further, the Om has not merely an individual, but a cosmic efficacy as well. It not merely serves to help the meditation of the individual person, but the Sun himself, we are told, travels the universe, singing the symbol Om (S. 10). Finally, the moral efficacy of meditation by means of Om is brought out in the Praśnopanishad where Satyakāma inquires of his teacher as to what happens to a man by his continuing to meditate by means of that symbol till the hour of his death, and the answer is given that " just as a snake is relieved of its slough, similarly is the man who meditates on Om relieved of his sins, and, by the power of his chants, is lifted to the highest world where he beholds the Person who informs the body, and who stands supreme above any living complex whatsoever " (S. 11).

c9.s2.2

8. The Māṇḍukya Upanishad supplies us with a unique exaltation of Om and its spiritual significance. We are told there that Om consists not merely of the three moræ A U M, which it might easily be seen to contain, but that it contains also a fourth mora-less part. The reason for this four-fold division of Om lies manifestly in the author's intention of bringing into correspondence with the parts of Om the states of consciousness on the one hand, and the kinds of soul on the other. The Om is supposed to represent in miniature the various states of consciousness, as well as the various kinds of soul. Thus, on the one hand, it stands for the state of wakefulness, the state of dream, and the state of deep-sleep, as well as the supreme self-conscious state which is called the Turyā. On the other hand, it stands for the different kinds of soul, namely the Vaiśvānara, the Taijasa, the Prājña, as well as the fourth, namely the Ātman. The mora-less part of Om has correspondence with the fourth dimension of psychology, namely the Turyā.

c9.s2.3

as well as with the fourth dimension of metaphysics, namely the Ātman. The Vaiśvānara is the enjoyer of gross things, as the Taijasa is the enjoyer of the subtle. The Prājña is described as the equivalent of what philosophy calls God, “the Lord of all, the all-knowing, the inner controller of all, the origin and end of all beings.” Contrasted with these stands the Ātman, which is the Māṇḍukyan equivalent of what philosophy calls the Absolute. It is described as “neither inwardly nor outwardly cognitive, nor yet on both sides together. It is not a cognition-mass, and is neither knower nor not-knower. It is invisible, impractiable, incomprehensible, indescribable, unthinkable, and unpointable. Its essence is the knowledge of its own self. It negates the whole expanse of the universe, and is tranquil and blissful and without a second” (S. 12). The spiritual significance of the psycho-metaphysical correspondence of the parts of Om lies in the great help that is supposed to be given by meditation on it in intuiting the Ātman in the Turyā state of consciousness after a negation of the other kinds of Soul in the other states of consciousness. Nowhere else as in the Māṇḍukya Upanishad do we find such an exaltation of Om, and the great value for spiritual life of meditation by means of that symbol.

c9.s2.4

9. The aim of the Upanishads is a practical one, and we find scattered throughout the Upanishads certain hints for the practical realisation of the Godhead by means of Yoga. In the Śvetāśvataropanishad we are told that our body should be regarded as the lower stick and meditation on Praṇava as the upper one, and that by rubbing together these two sticks, we have to churn out the fire of God that is hidden in us (S. 13. a). The reference to the body and the Praṇava as the lower and the upper sticks in the process of spiritual churning which we meet with in this passage of the Śvetāśvataropanishad is a remarkable one, as it enables us to interpret correctly another passage from the Kaṭhopanishad, where a reference to the sticks is to be met with again, and where we are told that just as the earthly fire is ensconced within the two churning sticks like a fœtus in the womb of a pregnant woman, and just as this fire is to be worshipped with offerings day after day by people who keep awake for that purpose, similarly in between the two sticks in the practice of Yoga,—namely, as we can now interpret the expression by reference to the Śvetāśvatara, the body and the Praṇava,—between these sticks is ensconced the spiritual fire, which we have to worship day after day by keeping ourselves awake, and giving it the offerings of the psychical tendencies in us (S. 13. b). This passage in the Kaṭhopanishad can also be interpreted in another way, as we find a little later on in the same Upanishad that the two sticks in the process of Yoga may also be regarded as the upper breath and the lower breath, the Prāṇa and the Apāna, and that between the two is seated the beautiful God whom all our senses worship (S. 14. a). Instead of regarding the two Araṇis as the body and the Praṇava as in the Śvetāśvataropanishad, we might as well take them to mean the upper and the lower breaths, in between which is seated the beautiful Ātman; and a reference from the Muṇḍakopanishad is also not wanting, where we are told that the mind for its purification is dependent upon the Prāṇas, and that it is only when the mind is purified after an initial control of the Prāṇas that the Ātman reveals himself (S. 14. b).

c9.s2.5

10. The Yoga doctrine in the Śvetāśvataropanishad is a more developed one than in the other Upanishads, and we have in the second chapter of that Upanishad a classic and almost systematic description of the practices and effects of Yoga, which may be said to carry the Upanishad quite near to the time when the Yoga doctrine came to be systematised in a new school of philosophy. We are told that " we should hold our body with its three erect parts quite even, and that we should pen our mind, along with our senses, in the heart. We should concentrate upon Brahman, and, with the help of that boat cross all the fearful streams that bar our spiritual progress. Controlling our breath and with our actions quite measured, we should throw out by the nose our Prāṇa when it becomes quite exhausted in the process of inspiration, and we should regulate our mind which is like a chariot to which are yoked very evil horses. We should sit for the practice of Yoga on an even and pure piece of ground which is free from pebbles, fire, and sand, and which is also free from sounds and watery resorts. The place where we sit for practice should be delightful to the mind, and not jarring to the eye; and we should choose for practice a place in the still recesses of a cave" (S. 15. a). The Śvetāśvataropanishad also lets us into the mystery of the physiological effects achieved by this practice of Yoga. "When the five-fold result of Yoga arising from the different elements, namely, earth, water, fire, air, and ether comes well to operate, the practiser of Yoga knows neither disease, nor old age, nor death, for verily his body has become full of the fire of Yoga. His body now becomes very light, the pulse of health beats within him, he becomes free from desires, his

c9.s2.6

complexion becomes clear, and his pronunciation very pleasing. He emits a smell which is holy, and his excretions become very slight; it is by these marks that one should know that the novice in Yoga is being well established in his practice" (S. 15. b). The spiritual effects of the practice of Yoga which are given in the Śvetāśvataropanishad will be discussed somewhat later in this chapter, our present concern being only the details of the manner of Yoga-practice, and its physiological effects.

c9.s2.7.1

11. The end of the practice of Yoga is evidently the realisation of God. But before we discuss the nature of God-realisation, we must answer a previous question—By what Faculty is it that a mystic is able to realise God? Is it Sense, or is it Thought, or is it any super-sensuous and super-intellectual faculty of Intuition, by means of which one is able to realise God? The Kaṭhopanishad tells us that the form of God does not fall within the ken of our vision. "Never has any man been able to visualise God by means of sight, nor is it possible for one to realise Him either by the heart, or by the imagination, or by the mind. It is only those who know this sublime truth that become immortal" (S. 16. a). Later writers have translated the above passage in a different way. They tell us that even though it may not be possible for us to "visualise" the form of God, still it "may be possible for us to realise Him by means of the heart, or by the imagination, or by the mind." It is true that the grammatical construction of the above passage does not come in the way of this interpretation also. But it must be remembered that the verse from the Kaṭhopanishad which comes almost immediately after it makes it quite clear that it is "not possible to realise God either by word of mouth, or by the mind, or by the eye. It is only those who know that God is, to them alone, and to none else, is God revealed" (S. 16. b).

c9.s2.7.2

We are here told that it is not possible at all to realise God by means of the mind, which makes it quite clear that we have to "understand" in the earlier verse from the Kaṭhopanishad the negative adverb in the second part, which would then imply that it is never by means of the mind that one can realise God. It is also noteworthy from the later verse from the Kaṭhopanishad that the nature of God-realisation is like that of a "fact." You can never question it. You can never argue about it. You can never think about it. If you only know that God is, then alone is God realised by you. The value of a fact can never be disturbed by any probings into its *pros* and *cons*, by logical manipulation about its nature, or by any imaginative or highly-strung intellectual solutions. It thus becomes clear that neither Sense nor Thought enables us to realise God. But a further question arises—if God can be realised at all, has man got any Faculty by means of which he can so realise Him? To that question, another verse from the Kaṭhopanishad supplies an answer. "This Ātman who is hidden in all beings is not patent to the eyes of all. It is only the subtle seers who can look with the one-pointed and piercing faculty of Intuition (Buddhi) that are able to realise God" (S. 16. c). Opinions differ as to whether even this Buddhi can lead us to the vision of God. In one passage of the Bhagavadgītā (VI. 21) we are told that the happiness of God-realisation can be apprehended by means of Buddhi;

c9.s2.7.3

on the other hand, we are told in another passage of that same work (III. 42), that just as God is beyond all senses and mind, similarly He is beyond even this faculty of Buddhi or Intuition. But when words fail to exactly describe the nature of the Faculty of God-realisation, it may become serviceable psychologically to "invent" a term, to call it either Buddhi or Intuition, and then to make it responsible for the vision of God. The Upanishads, however, take yet another turn, and look at the question of God-realisation not from the psychological but from the moral point of view. The Muṇḍakopanishad tells us that "it is only when a perfect katharsis of the whole moral being takes place by the clearness of illumination, that one is able to realise the immaculate God after meditation ; for He can be attained neither by sight, nor by word of mouth, nor by any other sense, nor by penance, nor by any actions whatsoever" (S. 17. a). Of like import is that other passage from the Kaṭhopanishad which tells us that "it is only when the whole moral being is purged of evil that one is able to realise the greatness of God" (S. 17. b). We prefer to understand the reading "Dhātuprasāda" instead of "Dhātuḥprasāda" in the above passage, for to our mind the idea of Dhātṛi or Creator is absolutely irrelevant to the passage and can only be illegitimately smuggled into it, the purification of the moral being yielding quite a necessary and legitimate sense.

c9.s2.8

12. Time and oft we are told in the Upanishads, as in the passage above quoted from the Kaṭhopanishad, that the mystic is able to "see" God. Another passage from the same Upanishad tells us that "we ought to extract the Ātman courageously from our body, as one extracts a blade of grass from its sheath. When the Ātman is thus drawn out, let a man know that he is the lustrous Immortal Being—yea, the lustrous Immortal Being" (S. 18. a). The process of.

Linked texts (1)