Vedanta Tattva - Vedantic Truth

The taittiriya upanishad goes from the gross body to the innermost Self through one of the finest explanations in the form of discourses between Bhrigu and his father. This Upanishad has been held in high esteem by Sankara himself as he has written an elaborate commentary on it and asked Sureshwaracharya to write a Vartika on the same. In this chapter Vidyaranya explains in brief the analysis of the pancha kosha. Kosha means sheath or covering of the Self. Even as a sword is covered by a sheath, the Self is covered by five sheaths. The Self which is devoid of any parts cannot have any association with anything and hence cannot be really covered. Thus this covering is not a real one but an illusory covering caused by ignorance which in turn superimposes the reality into illusory things. When we know the various sheaths that seemingly cover the Self, we will be able to slowly negate each of those sheaths. Once these sheaths are negated as not-Self, what will remain behind will be the Self. Then assertion of the Self by its nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda will give us paroksha anubhava. Anusandhaanam or nidhidhyaasana will then lead us to aparoksha anubhava of our nature of Self.

That Brahman which is situated in the heart-cave and is known through analysis and discrimination of pancha koshas, thereby the pancha koshas are being explained here.
Brahman is proclaimed to be situated in the heart-cave in all beings. This heart-cave is called a cave because it is subtle and innermost. This Brahman can be known when the pancha koshas are discriminated from it by negation. Hence this analysis of pancha koshas is undertaken. In order to discriminate the non-visible Self from the visible pancha koshas, we have to first know the pancha koshas and then negate them. This chapter is undertaken to first explain the pancha koshas and then negate it from the Self not merely through logic alone but through scriptural injunction as well.
The prana is subtler than the body. Inner than the prana is the mind. Inner than the mind is the kartha or doer of intellect. Inner than the kartha is the bhoktha or enjoyer. This is the set of koshas that seemingly cover the Self.
The pancha koshas are annamaya (body), pranamaya (prana), manomaya (mind), vijnaanamaya (intellect) and anandamaya (blissful ignorance). The intellect is said to be the kartha here as the Self reflected in intellect (Reflected Consciousness) is the jeeva or ego or ahamkaara which is attributed the doership of all actions. The anandamaya kosha is said to be the bhoktha as it is this sheath that enjoys things and gives us the sense of enjoyment (whether it is temporary happiness or temporary bliss as in the state of deep sleep).
That which is born out of the seed of father got out of eating food or annam and grows with the help of anna, that body is the annamaya kosha. The annamaya kosha is not the Atman or Self as it is absent before birth and after death.
Vidyaranya gives here two logic to prove the annamaya or body to be not the Self. One is that the body is not present before birth and after death -- thus it is temporary unlike the Self which is ever present (at the time of birth, at the time of death, before birth and after death as well). Second is an anumaana in this form - body is not the Self, as it is an effect, like a pot. Any effect is temporary as it stays for some time and then vanishes into its cause. The pot that we see is temporary and not eternal as it stays for sometime then merges into its cause of mud. Also any effect is objectified whereas the Self or "I" is never objectified and objectification is not possible for the Self.
If previous birth is not there, then how come this birth is attained. If next birth is not there, then sanchita karma is not fully enjoyed or used up.
Here Vidyaranya raises a purvapaksha that why can't the body be the Self and answers it by giving two reasons. The two reasons are kritha naasha and akritha abhyaagama prasanga or if the body is the Self, then it will lead to destruction of whatever is done (fruits not being enjoyed of all actions done) and enjoyment of fruits for which actions haven't been done. If body is the Self, then there is no next birth - the Self dies when the body dies. Also this means that there is no previous birth as the birth of the body is birth of the Self. We do many actions in this birth for which we don't yet get the fruit within the death of the body. If there is no next birth, then this means we do actions for which we don't get any fruit and these actions-fruits are destroyed at the time of death - this is kritha haani which is illogical and hence cannot be accepted. We do enjoy things from the start of this birth itself - these fruits are enjoyed without we doing any actions in this birth. If there is no previous birth, then we enjoy fruits for which we haven't done any action at all -- this is akritha abhyaagama which is also illogical and hence cannot be accepted. Due to these two reasons of kritha haani prasanga and akritha abhyaagama prasanga, the body is not the Self (as we have to accept previous and next birth which means the Self goes from birth to birth).
That which is present throughout the body and making the eyes etc. active, that vayu which is pranamaya is not the Self because it is devoid of sentiency (Consciousness).
Here the pranamaya kosha is explained and negated from the Self. Pranamaya kosha consists of the prana or vayu which runs throughout the body and activates the eyes etc. This prana though one is split as five according to the action it does as prana, apana, vyaana, samaana and udaana. Prana is not the Self because it is insentient like a pot. Prana is not there if there is no Consciousness. If Consciousness is there, Prana is there. This clearly shows that Prana is dependent on Consciousness but is not Consciousness as it is objectified like a pot.
That which is the cause of notion of ego about the body, "mine" about house etc. and gets deluded into notions of desire etc. that Manomaya kosha is not the Self.
Manomaya kosha consists of the mind and the five senses of perception. Mind causes the notions of "I" and "mine" as well as it deludes a person into the six qualities of the mind which are kaama (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), moha (delusion), madha (pride) and matsarya (jealousy). This is not the Self because it is changing like the pot (as it changes into the notions of kaama, krodha etc.) whereas the Self is changeless "I".
That which merges when a person is sleeping, after waking up pervades the entire body from nail to hair and contains the reflection of the Self (Consciousness) in it that Vijnaanamaya kosha is not the Self.
Vijnaanamaya kosha consists of the intellect and the five organs of perception. The intellect is not the Self because it undergoes merging and awakening when the seeker goes to the state of sushupthi or deep sleep and wakes up respectively.
The inner organs of mind and intellect becomes the Kartha (doer) and Karana (instruments) respectively amongst themselves as one is internal and the other is external.
Here Vidyaranya anticipates an objection that since both intellect and mind are antah karana why is the need for two koshas for them and answers it. The intellect becomes the Kartha or doer whereas the Karana at that time is the mind (though mind is a kartha with respect to the bahih karana or sense organs) - thus intellect is internal and mind is external when there is an activity between both. In order to show this difference between both, we need to have two koshas for both.
Some internal vritti or modification is the reflection of the Ananda or bliss of the Self. This is experienced when enjoyment of punya is done and this vritti merges into the Self in the form of deep sleep when there is nothing to enjoy.
Here the anandamaya kosha is explained. Anandamaya kosha is the vritti which is not ananda but a reflection of ananda of the Self. It is not ananda because it is limited and temporary. But it is a reflection of the bliss of the Self as it leads to enjoyment of happiness - happiness is possible only from the Self. Since this is a reflection, it is a small quantity of the bliss of the Self. When things are enjoyed, it is this kosha that is active. When things aren't enjoyed, it merges into the Self and becomes the experience of deep sleep where we experience this reflected bliss. The bliss in deep sleep is reflection of bliss of Self as this is temporary once a person wakes up from deep sleep. In the next sloka, Vidyaranya negates the Self from this reflected bliss of anandamaya kosha.
Anandamaya kosha is also not the Self because it is limited and temporary. That which is the bimba (the original that is reflected as anandamaya kosha) is the Self as it is ever-present.
Anandamaya is not the Self as it is temporary. But the bimba or the original bliss which is reflected and experienced as the anandamaya kosha is the Self as this bimba is always present as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss absolute.
Objection: Starting with the body and till anandamaya is the experience of each and every person. But the Atman is not experienced by ay as different from these five.
Here the objection is that Atman is not experienced as distinct from the pancha koshas and hence such a deduction of the Atman as distinct from the pancha koshas is illogical and impossible. Anubhava or experience is the ultimate proof of anything and everything. Anubhava is also termed as pratyaksha or perception which gets the highest priority amongst pramaanas or proofs because what we experience is not wrong (though there are illusory experiences which are negated but still experience is strong enough to ignore). Thus Advaita's view of atman being distinct from pancha koshas is attacked and said to be wrong as it is not a matter of experience.
All the pancha koshas including nidra or sleep (which is anandamaya kosha) is experienced by one and all as you say. But why do you fail to accept the experiencer of these koshas who is quite different from the experiences?
Here Vidyaranya counters the objection in the previous sloka by a counter question. The objection itself proved that the pancha koshas are experienced by one and all. If it is so, the experiencer or Subject who experiences the pancha koshas has to be quite distinct from the experiences. The Subject of teacher is different from the experience of teaching; the Subject of driver is different from the experience of driving. Thus the Experiencer is different from the experience - it is this experiencer who is termed as the Atman and is distinct from the experiences of pancha koshas. Thus it is proved that the Atman distinct from the pancha koshas does exist and is experienced by one and all.
The Atman is the Subject of all experiences and exists of its own (self-luminous). There is no experience of the Atman as the object (of experience) not because the Atman doesn't exist but because there is no other Subject to experience the Atman.
Vidyaranya anticipates a counter question that if the Atman as distinct from experiences is a matter of experience, then why don't we experience such an Atman? We dont experience such an Atman as we are the experiencer of Atman. The subject of Atman never is subjected to objectification. Hence the Atman can never be objectified but still exists as the Subject of all objects.
a
a
16

Panchadashi

Panchadashi mp3 discussions