Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Ch.1.3 Lecture 18 on 22 March 2026
Full Transcript (Not Corrected)
Opening Invocation
OM PŪRṆAMADAḤ PŪRṆAMIDAM PŪRṆĀT PŪRṆAMUDACYATE PŪRṆASYA PŪRṆAMĀDĀYA PŪRṆAMEVA VAŚIṢYATE OM ŚĀNTI ŚĀNTI ŚĀNTIH
OM
That Brahman is infinite, and this universe is also infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. Taking the infinitude of the infinite universe, it remains as the infinite Brahman alone.
OM Peace, Peace, Peace be unto all.
Recap: The Essence of the Third Section
We have been studying the third section of the first chapter of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. In our last class, we have given the essence of it.
The essence of this third section is: we have all come from God, and our destiny is to go back to God. But we are somehow caught in the net of ignorance. Ignorance means that we think we are not Brahman, that we are not from Brahman, that we are separate from Brahman. But every evidence proves that we are nothing but individual manifestations of Brahman — in the form of his manifestations called presiding deities: Ākāśa, Vāyu, Agni, Āpaḥ, and Pṛthvī.
The Presiding Deities and the Individual
What is the difference between a presiding deity and each one of our individualities? Every part of our body and mind is a manifestation, individually, of these presiding deities. For example:
- The mind is the manifestation of the moon.
- The ears are the manifestation of space, or Ākāśa.
- The sense organ of touch is the manifestation of Vāyu.
- The heat in our body, called Prāṇa, is the manifestation of Agni.
- The watery part of our body belongs to the Jala Devatā.
- The physical body is the part of the Pṛthvī Devatā.
The mind also contains all these five parts, but they are called Tanmātras — very subtle, so subtle that we cannot feel them. We can experience them only through these physical sense organs.
The Longing to Return
The individual body and mind ever longs to go back to its origin. Every effect longs to go back to its origin, and that is called evolution. The third section tells this in the form of a small allegory — that there are two types of people: selfish and unselfish.
What keeps us as individuals bound in this net of ignorance called Māyā is selfishness. What is selfishness? "I am different from everything else." What is unselfishness? "I am one with everything." When any one of us succeeds in getting rid of this selfishness — which means we become unselfish, which means we identify ourselves with everything else, which means there is no "me" and "everything else," but it is all but one — when we slowly progress towards that identity:
- First we become Virāṭ.
- Then we become Hiraṇyagarbha.
- Then we become Mahat.
- Then we become Īśvara.
- Finally, we also become one with Brahman, to declare: Ahaṃ Brahmāsmi.
And if this body-mind still persists as individuality, then that individual person knows not only "I am Brahman," but also: there is nothing else excepting Brahman — everything is nothing but Brahman.
The Nature of a Jīvanmukta
That is how a Jīvanmukta — one liberated while still having a body and mind — understands reality. He knows that others call him a Jīvanmukta, but a Jīvanmukta never calls himself, "I am a Jīvanmukta."
Our concept of a Jīvanmukta is this: previously this person was ignorant; he did some spiritual practice, obtained guidance from the right Guru, and through practice slowly came to know he is Brahman — as if we had lost our Brahmanhood, our true nature, and through some great merit came across a teacher, obtained his instruction, followed the path shown by him, and came to realise, "I am Brahman." This is our concept of what a Jīvanmukta is.
But once a person truly understands, thereafter — if the body-mind remains — such a person whom we call a Jīvanmukta never feels that way. He never feels, "At one time I was Brahman, then I forgot I was Brahman, then I remembered I am Brahman, and ever since I am living with the knowledge I am Brahman." These are not his thoughts. For him, time does not exist, limitations do not exist, mind does not exist, Māyā does not exist. He never thinks, "Somehow I fell into something called Saṃsāra, and somehow by the grace of God and Guru I came out." That would not be the thoughts of a Jīvanmukta. This is the distinction we have to know.
The Path: Manifesting Our Divinity
So what is the essence of the third section? We have to manifest our divinity. And how do we manifest it? By practising certain spiritual disciplines called Yogas. How do they help us? By getting rid of our selfishness — which is, in other words, "I am separate from you."
Gradually, as we progress: "No, I am not separate from you. I am part of you. You are part of me." That is a higher step. And then the last step: "There is no I and you. Everything is God alone. God alone. There is nothing else."
If you analyse any type of Sādhanā — whether it is Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other — their opinions about God might differ, and what happens after death might differ. But in Sādhanā there is no difference. Progress in spirituality means progress in getting rid of — in reducing — selfishness. Reducing selfishness means reducing the distinction between me and the others. That is the essence. Such a person, in course of time, will become a Jīvanmukta.
The Graduated Path of Symbols
Since every one of us has to start somewhere, the Upaniṣads tell us: first you take a very gross symbol, called a horse. Then you take another symbol that is even better — that is called Agni, or fire. Then take an even better symbol, which is the very personification of unselfishness, called Prāṇa. And in the end, when I become identified with Prāṇa, I become Prāṇadevatā, which is called Virāṭ. Virāṭ realises, "I am Hiraṇyagarbha." And Hiraṇyagarbha realises, "I am none other than Īśvara." And Īśvara knows, "I am none other than Brahman." This is the process.
Śaṅkarācārya's Intellectual Refutation: The Pot Analogy
Then Śaṅkarācārya gives us an intellectual exercise — a refutation. Remember, earlier he refuted through a commentary called the pot commentary (Ghaṭavākya) that in the beginning Brahman alone was, and the whole creation came from Brahman like a pot has come from clay. The pot is absolutely one with clay. A pot has no special separate existence. But because of our concept that it is small, that it is square, etc., we give a particular form for a particular purpose, give it a name, and think it is separate from clay. Through analysis, however, Brahman alone is manifesting as this entire universe — like the waker manifests as the entire dream world, which is a very common experience for all of us.
The conclusion is: I am the waker. The dream world is nothing but me, idly and uselessly dreaming that I have become separate from myself. When I wake up, I realise that everything I thought I created is none other than me. I am the intelligent cause. I am the material cause. I am the instrumental cause.
Then Śaṅkarācārya wants to refute another Pūrvapakṣa — a prior objection. As I said, this discussion may or may not directly help in spiritual life, but we have to cultivate our intellect, for the simple reason that God has already provided us with the capacity to understand. Whatever God has given, we have to use that faculty to manifest our divinity. That is the purpose, and that is what we need to do.
Two Types of Knowledge
So, wherefrom are we getting knowledge? Whatever knowledge we are getting is divided into two parts:
- What we are experiencing.
- What we hope — such as: "There must be a God. He must have created the entire universe and me also. And he who created me is my father and mother. And whenever I am suffering, I have to pray to him to help me stop this suffering."
And we are also not happy with the happiness we have at present — we want to increase it to the optimum, maximum level. These are the struggles.
The Three Unconscious Prayers — The Abhyāroha Mantras
That will be discussed at the end of the very last mantra — the 28th mantra — called the Abhyāroha Mantra. The three unconscious prayers of every living creature are:
- Asato mā sadgamaya — Let me not have death; lead me from the unreal to the real.
- Tamaso mā jyotirgamaya — Let me never be ignorant of anything; lead me from darkness to light. Ignorance is death; ignorance is suffering.
- Mṛtyormā amṛtaṃgamaya — Let me never have any interruption or break in my happiness.
So: I am Ānanda Svarūpa — Sat, Cit, Ānanda Svarūpa — expressed through these three prayers called the Abhyāroha Mantras, which happen to come in the last mantra of this third section, and which we will discuss later.
The Schools of Philosophy: Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Uttara Mīmāṃsā
There are several schools of philosophy, and some among them have very peculiar positions. They say there is no God, there are no Gods — but the Veda is a Pramāṇa, a valid means of knowledge. And what does the Veda give us? Science gives us correct, uncontradictable knowledge about this world; when it is right knowledge, it is called scientific knowledge. But we are not happy with this alone. We want to know whether there is a God, whether there is a higher state of happiness, whether there is another world where there are no wars.
Whatever happiness I attain, I am never satisfied. I want higher and still higher happiness, until I become one with pure happiness, which is called Ānanda. So that subject we will discuss later on.
What Is Vedānta?
Now, "Vedānta philosophy" is a common word. There is Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Uttara Mīmāṃsā — both are schools of Vedānta. Why do we call them Vedānta? Because the teachings of the Vedas are accepted by both.
Who Is a Believer in Hinduism?
According to Hinduism, who is a believer? If you ask a Christian — one who believes in Christ, God, and the Bible — he is a Christian. The same goes for Islam and many other religions. But according to Hinduism, a person who believes in the Vedas — that is, who holds the Veda to be the ultimate scripture, not created by human beings (pauruṣeya), but divine (apauruṣeya) — is a believer.
There are three types of believers:
- Those who say, "I believe in God, but I do not believe in the scriptures."
- Those who say, "I believe in the scriptures only; I do not believe in God."
- Those who believe both in God as well as in the scriptures.
Most of us belong to this third group. According to Hinduism, one need not accept that God exists. It is more than enough if a person accepts, "I am divine." That is the real teaching. For if I think I am not divine, I am bound — and I can be freed by action. The indications for how I can be freed through certain actions are provided by the scriptures, and for me those indications are absolute authority.
So a Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka says: "I believe in some parts of the Veda — those parts only which indicate that life is meant for rituals, Karma Pradhāna, Karma Codhanā. I do not believe in the other statements." Because such a person says he believes in the Veda, Hinduism accepts him as a believer, unlike many other religions. That is the distinction.
Śaṅkarācārya's Refutation of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā
Now, Śaṅkarācārya wants to correct this wrong and irrational thinking.
The Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Position
If you ask the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas what is the use of believing in only one part of the Veda, their clipped answer would be: "We are all free people; we are Ātman. And to know that I am the Ātman or Brahman and become free forever — that is the goal of life. The Vedas distinctly provide a pathway for that, and that pathway lies through the performance of rituals."
So, every sentence which does not connect us with some action — with some ritual — is merely a vain word, a meaningless word, a useless word. Every word, directly or indirectly, must connect us with some action, some ritual. This is the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā's main view.
As mentioned, because they believe in the Vedas — and the teachings of the Veda are called Vedānta — they are also called Vedāntins. But they are Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Vedāntins, believing only in the Karmakāṇḍa part of the Veda.
As opposed to them — like Śaṅkara, Buddha, Rāmakṛṣṇa, and others — we believe in the second part. What is the role of the first part, the rituals? It is to purify us, gradually to make the body and mind fit instruments — to prepare us to become Adhikārīs, fit persons, by endowing us with the fourfold qualities called Sādhana Catuṣṭaya Saṃpatti. Then an experienced teacher will come. Whether we want it or not, as soon as I am ready, God himself will come in the form of a Guru.
All Gods and Goddesses are true according to our view — not according to the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā's view. Then the Guru will teach:
- Śravaṇa — "This is your path; do this."
- Manana — If any doubts are there, they must be completely destroyed until we know it is one hundred percent truth.
- Nididhyāsana — How to make our life one with our faith — in other words, to transform our life into pure unselfishness.
This is the view of the Uttara Mīmāṃsakas. Pūrva Mīmāṃsā specialises in the ritual portions of the Veda, called Karmakāṇḍa. And we who stand in the other part — Uttara Mīmāṃsā, which is Vedānta — deal with the Jñānakāṇḍa, the knowledge portions of the Veda. Advaitins like Gauḍapāda, Govinda Bhagavatpāda, Śaṅkarācārya, Totāpurī, Rāmakṛṣṇa, and Swami Vivekananda — we all belong to this Uttara Mīmāṃsā school.
The Core Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Argument
So let us take up, very briefly but with crystal clear understanding, the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā position.
The Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka says: only rituals matter. Everything else is completely unimportant. Every sentence which does not prescribe or connect us to some action or ritual is just merely a vain, meaningless, useless word. One gets rid of ignorance only through rituals and actions. That is why it is called Veda Kārya Paraḥ — the Veda is nothing but centred in prescribing and making all of us do rituals or actions.
There was a person called Jaimini — a very disciple of Vedavyāsa — who propagated this philosophy and summed up the entire Pūrva Mīmāṃsā theory in this one verse:
Āmnāyasya kriyārthatva anarthakya atatarthanaḥ.
Āmnāya means the Veda. The entire purport of the Veda is kriyārtha — for the sake of making us undertake some action. Action here means ritual, not any ordinary action such as "I am walking" or "I am breathing." Only actions performed to ensure my evolution through some ritual deserve the name "action."
Vidhi and Arthavāda: The Two Types of Vedic Statements
Based on this belief, the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas divide the entire statements of the Vedas into two types: Vidhi and Arthavāda.
- Vidhi means commandments or injunctions that prescribe rituals. These alone are valid, these alone are authoritative, and these alone constitute the real teaching of the Veda.
- Arthavādaḥ — all other statements, such as descriptions of gods, other worlds, many stories, praising passages, and cosmological accounts — are all considered secondary, irrelevant, non-factual, and invalid.
In their framework, the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas note that there are statements at every step in the rituals — even in their own ritualistic portions — such as: Indrāyasvāhā, Varuṇāyasvāhā, Agnayesvāhā — "I offer this to Indra, I offer this to Varuṇa, I offer this to Agni" (as we also do in Pūjā and Homa time). When questioned, they say these are just imaginary, decorative, and useful only to motivate a person to perform a ritual. The gods, they say, do not exist. The ritual — the Karma alone — is the giver of the fruit.
So a Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka does not believe in the very existence of gods, not to speak of God. And yet he believes in Mokṣa — that is, that one can become completely free from all suffering through actions alone. If you ask them how a ritual produces its result — for example, when you offer something saying Indrāyasvāhā — they say: the action itself, the Karma itself, is so powerful that it gives the result.
In fact, we also believe this — every Karma brings its own result. That is one of the fundamental pillars of Hinduism, the Karma Siddhānta: we are all what we are because of where we were born; however our fates are already determined by the actions we have done in our past lives. So Karma itself is capable of giving its own result — no need for gods and goddesses.
The Role of Arthavāda: An Example
So all other things — other than what prescribes actions — are Arthavādas: secondary, merely praising, or irrelevant, unless they are connected with a ritual. For example: suppose we hear, Brahma Lokah asti — "There is a world called Brahmaloka." If you put this sentence to a Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka, he says it is Arthavāda. But does it not serve any purpose? Yes, not directly but indirectly. It is like saying there is a restaurant where the food is very tasty — that is Arthavāda. But when you want to enjoy something, you remember it, and it makes you go to that restaurant. You have to carry some money to pay, and then you will be served.
So similarly: "There is a Brahmaloka; there the highest enjoyment is available." That goads us: "Oh, it is a wonderful place — the finest of all, and I would like to go there." But to go there, we have to pay a very high price, and that price can be obtained only through rituals. So Arthavāda indirectly goads one toward ritual action. This they accept.
Epistemology: The Science of Right Knowledge
The Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas also state an epistemological argument. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy which deals with: what is knowledge, what is right knowledge, what is wrong knowledge, how to obtain right knowledge. It is the science of right knowledge.
So when Śaṅkarācārya wants to establish that the whole Veda — every single word written in it — is a Pramāṇa, an authority, and absolutely true, he has to address this. Not as the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas think — that only the rituals are true and the givers of results — but that every sentence in the Veda is absolute truth.
How Do We Obtain Knowledge?
How do we get our ordinary knowledge? You see a tree you have never seen before. You ask somebody what that object is, and the person knows. He says, "It is called a tree; it belongs to the species called plants and yields beautiful fruits which are most desirable. It gives fruits only at a particular season. In summer, it is called a mango tree." Now you have heard: "This is a mango tree." The next time you see that or a similar tree, you say, "This is a mango tree." Slowly you go on getting more knowledge — "This is a neem tree, this is an apple tree, this is a berry plant, this is a lemon plant" — and so on. You are accumulating millions of pieces of knowledge. Every word indicates a particular object.
Words, Sentences, and the Role of the Verb
Now the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas tell us something important. Suppose you know: "Rāma" is one word, "Lakṣmaṇa" is another word, "Sītā" is another word. Individually, if someone says to you, "Rāma, Sītā, Lakṣmaṇa" — what do you understand? Because these have not become a sentence; they remain as meaningless words. The meanings are there, but they do not make any sense together.
But: "Rāma is walking along with Lakṣmaṇa and Sītā in a forest called Daṇḍakāraṇya." Now that is a sentence. Every word in the sentence must be connected. And what is it that connects? The verb. That is why there must be a subject, there must be an object, and there must be that which connects both of them — the verb. That is called Kartā, Karma, and Kriyā.
In this example: "Rāma is walking with Lakṣmaṇa and Sītā" — that makes sense. "Kṛṣṇa and Gopīs" — if you hear those two words, you know the meaning of Kṛṣṇa and the meaning of Gopīs, but together they make no sense. But: "Kṛṣṇa is dancing with the Gopīs" — now the Kriyā, the verb, "is dancing," connects everything and makes it a sentence.
So a sentence is a Pramāṇa. Every sentence connects all the words, and what connects all the words in a sentence is the verb. Every verb indicates an action. A verb without fail always must be there; without that, words are meaningless. And the verb's purpose — its utility — lies in connecting the subject and object through the action. These are called Kārakas or Vibhaktis.
So Śaṅkarācārya is trying to analyse and say: "These sentences make meaning." The Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas make this absolutely crystal clear: a word is not a Pramāṇa — not an authority — because without a verb it remains meaningless. But a sentence is an authority. And what does the sentence do? Every sentence reveals the relationship among the objects denoted by its words.
An Extended Example: The Kārakas
Consider: "Rāma killed Rāvaṇāsura with arrows with the help of a bow." Here, Rāma becomes the subject (nominative), Rāvaṇa becomes the object (objective), and Rāvaṇāsura is destroyed — but with the help of bow and arrows (instrumental case). And through that action, Rāma removed the evil that brought suffering to so many people.
The grammar divides it thus: nominative case, objective case, instrumental case, dative case, locative case, and so forth. "Where did Rāma kill?" — In Laṅkā. That is the location. These sentences, which contain verbs and reveal their relationships — that alone is Pramāṇa, according to the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas. Everything else is completely meaningless.
Pramāṇa: The Right Means of Knowledge
A Pramāṇa means the right means of knowledge. If you want to see very minute things, you require an instrument called a microscope. If you want to see objects at a very long distance, you require another instrument called a telescope. These instruments only extend the range of my eye, making it capable of seeing both the very small and the very distant. Therefore, the instruments are required — for what purpose? To get knowledge about small living creatures like bacteria, or long-distance stars, which even the human eye can never see. That is how science is progressing.
Therefore the Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas believe that through the seven Kārakas (called "cases" in English grammar) and the structure of meaningful sentences, the Vedas teach us. They describe precisely: you gather some firewood from a particular tree, place it at a particular spot, sit facing the east, perform certain rituals, offer certain things — and then you are sure to obtain the result, because it is Karmakāṇḍa Prāmāṇya. But all other things — "Indra is great, Candra is great, Brahman is great, Īśvara is great" — are all Arthavādas, because they do not directly or indirectly goad a person to do some ritual action.
The Two Conditions for Vedic Authority
So what is a Pramāṇa? What is the right means of knowledge? For this, two conditions are put:
- The knowledge obtained through a particular instrument should not have been available before through any other instrument.
- It should not contradict what has already been known.
For example: if my eyes can see that the sun rises in the east, I don't need the Veda. My ordinary eyes — everybody's eyes — can see the sun early in the morning; we gave the name "eastern direction" to that. For that, the Veda need not come and tell me. I am eating a sweet — the Veda need not come and say, "This is a sweet dish and it will give you pleasure." I can experience that through my sense organs.
So if the Veda has to give us right knowledge, it must fulfil these two conditions: it should not give us knowledge already obtained through other means (our five sense organs, mind, etc.), and it should never contradict what we already know. If the Veda says, "The sun rises in the west," simply throw it out, because it contradicts what we already know.
Naturally, these two conditions lead to a third conclusion: the knowledge that the Veda gives is never available through any other means, and it never contradicts what we already know. And what is the type of knowledge this is? That you are divine — that you are coming from Brahman (or rather, not really "coming," you are Brahman, you will always be Brahman alone) — and this knowledge, no science can give. Science can neither prove God nor disprove God. Why? Because that is not its field. The instruments used through science are nothing but our five sense organs and mind.
Therefore, the Veda gives very specific knowledge which is not available through any other means. Therefore it cannot be contradicted. So the Veda is a Pramāṇa.
The Central Dispute: Arthavāda vs. Absolute Vedic Authority
But what is the crux of the problem? The Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas say only one part of the Veda is real; everything else is Arthavāda or Bhūtārthavāda. The Pūrva Mīmāṃsakas say all sentences in the Veda which do not directly or indirectly lead to some form of action are called Arthavādas — secondary knowledge, not necessary unless they are connected with a ritual.
For that, one of the clinching arguments that Śaṅkarācārya will give — which we have to discuss in our next class — is this:
Wherefrom has this universe come, which consists of you — the Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka — and me, the Uttara Mīmāṃsaka — and which gave you your body and mind? It has come from a cause. Whether you choose to call that cause Brahman or nature is a different issue. But you are in effect; you must have come from a particular cause. And what is the nature of that cause? You don't know. Like the pot does not know, "I am from clay; I am of the nature of clay; I am never different from clay."
So if our final cause is Brahman, what is the nature of Brahman? It is described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, second chapter, as: Satyaṃ Jñānam Anantaṃ Brahma. And every Upaniṣad tells us it is Sat, Cit, Ānanda. You have no death. You have no ignorance. You are all-knowing. You are all-powerful, because knowledge is power. And your very nature is Ānanda.
Now, what are you doing? You are trying to get Ānanda through some object — either a small object or a higher, bigger one — going through Svargaloka, heavenly worlds, and so on. But that is not the point. The point is: you are not merely seeking happiness, you are of the nature of happiness itself — and you are trying to squeeze happiness from some other object. Whereas Vedānta — Uttara Mīmāṃsā — tells us: you are coming from Brahman. The nature of Brahman is Sat, Cit, Ānanda. You are of the nature of eternal existence, infinite knowledge, and unbreakable bliss. That is your very nature.
Now, is this description of Brahman a Brāhmaṇa — a valid Vedic statement — or not? The Pūrva Mīmāṃsaka says: No, it is not a Brāhmaṇa; it is an Arthavāda — because by knowing Brahman exists, what action does it prescribe? By knowing "I am free," what action is it prescribing? It is not prescribing any action.
Śaṅkarācārya answers: Yes, it is prescribing action — because if I am coming from Brahman, and my nature is pure existence, knowledge, and bliss, then I have forgotten this, and I have to do something to get back that memory. Getting back that memory through particular means is called Sādhanā. So it is indeed leading to action. And furthermore, it is telling me something very high. So you cannot even call it Arthavāda — mere secondary or meaningless sentences. In fact, that is the real goal of even you who are trying to go to higher Lokas — to get higher Ānanda. And how do you attain it? Through Yajñas, Yāgas, and other rituals.
Words, Sentences, and Vedic Authority: Summary
So this beautiful discussion will be ongoing. Words give us knowledge, but they do not guide us to understand the relationship between individual words unless they are connected by a verb. When words are connected with a verb, they are called sentences. And these sentences must point out to some action for us to understand — and then alone are they called Veda Pramāṇa, not otherwise.
It is a marvellous subject, which we will continue in our next class.
Closing Prayer
Om Jānānāṃ Śāradāṃ Devīṃ Rāmakṛṣṇaṃ Jagadgurum
Pada Padme Tayo Śṛtvā Praṇamāmi Muhur Muhuh
May Sri Ramakrishna, Holy Mother, and Swami Vivekananda bless us all with bhakti.
Jai Ramakrishna!