Explaining Indra's declaration of being the supreme in the Kauṣītaki Upanisad

After explaining the meaning of prāna in the passage, Vyāsadeva now directly clarifies the speech of Indra, comparing his statement with the teachings of the sage Vāmadeva

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

Sūtra 1.1.30 - Indra’s declaration is in accordance with scripture

śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāma-devavat

śāstra: of the scripture; dṛṣṭyā: from the viewpoint; tu: but, however; upadeśaḥ: instruction, teaching; vāmadeva: the sage Vāmadeva; vat: like.

Indra’s declaration of identity with Brahman is in accordance with scripture, just as in the case of the sage Vāmadeva.

Commentary: After explaining the meaning of prāna in the passage, Vyāsadeva now directly clarifies the speech of Indra, comparing his statement with the teachings of the sage Vāmadeva:

tad vaitat paśyan nrşir vāmadevah pratipade aham manur abhavam sūryaś ca

“Seeing this truth, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment: ‘I became Manu. I became the sun-god.’”

The context of this passage is the description of creation in the 4th chapter of the first part of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. After explaining the process of creation, the Upaniṣad describes the Supreme Brahman as being behind everything, and the way the sage Vāmadeva realized it. The complete passage is:

brahma vā idam agre āsīt, tad ātmānam evāvet, aham brahmāsmīti, tasmāt tat sarvam abhavat, tad yo yo devānām pratyabudhyata sa eva tad abhavat, tatharṣīnām, tathā manuṣyāṇām, tad dhaitat paśyan ṛṣir vāmadevaḥ pratipede, ‘aham manur abhavam sūryaś ceti’, tad idam apy etarhi ya evam veda, ‘aham brahmāsmīti’, sa idam sarvam bhavati, tasya ha na devāścanābhūtyā īśate, ātmā hy eṣām sa bhavati, atha yo ’nyām devatām upāste, ‘anyo ’sāv, anyo ’ham asmīti’, na sa veda, yathā paśur evam sa devānām, yathā ha vai bahavaḥ paśavo manuṣyam bhuñjyuḥ, evam ekaikaḥ puruṣo devān bhunakti, ekasminn eva paśāv ādīyamāne ’priyam bhavati kim u bahuṣu, tasmād eṣām tan na priyam yad etan manuṣyā vidyuḥ.

“In the beginning, there was only Brahman, who knew Himself, saying: ‘I am Brahman.’ From this Brahman came everything that exists. Whomever among the devatās, the sages, or men realized this, also became that same Brahman.

Seeing this truth, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment: ‘I became Manu. I became the Sun-god.’

Even today, when anyone realizes, “I am Brahman”, he becomes Brahman, he becomes everything. Even the demigods can’t prevent that person’s liberation since becoming Brahman; he becomes the controller of the devatās.

However, one who worships another deity, thinking that “this devatā is different from Brahman, and I am different from Brahman”, this person doesn’t know. He is in ignorance of his very self. Such persons are like animals for the devatās. Just like many animals serve a man, many of such persons serve each demigod. Just as a man doesn’t like to lose some of his animals, the devatās prefer that men do not come to know Brahman [fearful of losing their devotees].” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad 1.4.10)

When there is an assembly of several people and they all agree on a certain point, it is not strange to say that “they are one”. This doesn’t mean they merged as individuals, but that they share the same opinion. Similarly, we refer to all cables, poles, electrical substations, individual outlets, etc., as the “electrical grid”, although it is formed by individual components.

In the same way, because the Supreme Brahman grants power to all living entities, including Manu, the sun-god, and Vāmadeva, it is not incorrect to say they are one since they are connected to the same source. This, however, should not be misinterpreted as meaning that they physically merged into a single entity.

In this passage, Vāmadeva speaks according to this principle. He identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because he identifies himself as one with the Supreme Brahman in quality and interest, and because he sees that the same Supreme Brahman empowers Manu, the sun-god, and Vāmadeva. They all receive their powers from the Supreme Brahman, who is the all-pervading Paramātmā.

In one sense, the Supreme Lord is one with everything, because everything is permeated by Him. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the source of both prāna and Indra, and therefore when Indra says “I am prāṇa, I’m intelligence, and I’m the Self. Meditate on me as life and immortality.”, It should be understood he is speaking about Paramātmā, who is present inside His heart, following the same logic as the sage Vāmadeva.

This is also supported by other passages from the scriptures. The first chapter of part five of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, for example, brings a discussion between the different senses of the body, where they conclude that prāna is the chief and the maintainer of all of them. The eye is thus prāna, the ear is prāna, and so on. Prāna is all of them, and all of them are prāna. They have no existence separated from prāna:

na vai vāco na cakṣūmṣi na śrotrāṇi an manāmsīty ācakṣate prāṇā ity ācakṣate prāṇo hy evaitāni sarvāṇi bhavati

“It is not proper to call the senses ‘voice’, ‘eye’, ‘ear’, or ‘mind’, because everything that exists is prāna. The proper name for all of them is prāna.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.1.15)

Just as people who don’t know the scriptures see the demigods as separate deities, when we are not situated in knowledge, we fail to comprehend that the Lord is everything and that everything is the Lord. Due to the lack of this comprehension, we fall into material duality, seeing things as separate from the Lord and thus subject to our enjoyment. This is the root cause of the continuation of our material life, and thus the Chāndogya Upaniṣad calls our attention to that.

This is also explained by Kṛṣṇa Himself on SB 2.9.34:

ṛte ’rtham yat pratīyeta, na pratīyeta cātmani
tad vidyād ātmano māyām, yathābhāso yathā tamaḥ

“O Brahmā, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as My illusory energy, that reflection which appears to be in darkness.”

However, even if we accept that Brahman is everything, how can we call everything by the same name? The Bhaviṣya Purāṇa explains:

yad adhīnā yasya sattā tat tad ity eva bhaṇyate

“That whose existence is dependent on another is called by that same name.”

Although in practical life we call the eye “eye”, and we call Indra “Indra”, ultimately, these are all manifestations of the Lord. What we call “Indra” (as a body or a position) is just a manifestation of the external potency of the Lord. However, a particular soul, under the influence of the illusory potency, identifies itself with this body and position and incorrectly claims to be Indra. In the passage, Indra intelligently acknowledges that his body and opulences are manifestations of the Supreme Lord and that the Lord performs many wonderful deeds through this body.

In this way, when Indra says “I am prāṇa”, he is just teaching his student that the functions performed by Indra’s body, as well as his power and opulence, are completely dependent on the Supreme Lord.

There are many other passages that reinforce this same point:

yo yam tvam tvamgato deva-sampum devatā-gaṇaḥ
sa tvam eva jagat-sraṣṭā yataḥ sarva-gato bhavān

The demigods who come before you are identical with you, since you pervade everything. You are the creator of the universe. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.9.69)

ananta-vīryāmita-vikramas tvam, sarvam samāpnoṣi tato ’si sarvaḥ

“O unbounded power, You are the master of limitless might! You are all-pervading, and thus You are everything!” (Bg 11.40)

Sūtra 1.1.31 - Prāṇa denotes Brahman alone

jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-lingān neti cen na upāsā-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt

jīva: of the individual soul; mukhya: the primary, chief; prāṇa: living force; lingāt: because of the indicatory marks (of being mentioned); na iti cet: if (one were to say), (it would be) not so; na: not; upāsya-taividhyāt: worship of three, contradictory objects (jīva, vital breath, and Brahman); āśritatvāt: because of taking shelter, depending upon; iha: here; tat-yogāt: being appropriate.

If one further claims that the word prāna means simultaneously the jīva, the vital breath, and Brahman, this too is not correct. If we accept that view, we end up with three different objects for meditation, which is illogical in the context of the scriptures. The Upaniṣads describe Brahman as the foundation and essence of both jīva and prāṇa, so they are not independent entities for separate worship. They are dependent on Brahman. Therefore, in this context, prāṇa must be understood to denote Brahman alone.

Commentary: Following the previous points, one could argue that the word “prāna” in these verses can be used in the sense of the vital air, the individual soul in the body of Indra, and also the Supreme Brahman. If this idea were to be accepted, it would lead to the conclusion that all three of them are worshipable. We would then end up with three different objects of worship, which contradicts the Upaniṣads’ teaching of non-duality and a single object of worship. Although the scriptures describe each soul as a separate individual and the different potencies of the Lord as distinct, still, they are not independent from the Supreme Lord, who is the foundation, maintainer, and destination of all, and the only object of worship.

Apart from that, when Indra says “Worship me as prāna”, he uses only one sentence, and the rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence must have only one correct interpretation.

The word prāna in this context can be interpreted in three ways, but only one is correct.

1) We can take all the passages, including the ones that directly mention Brahman, as meaning both the jīva and the vital air.

2) We can accept some of the passages as referring to the jīva and the vital air, and others to Brahman.

3) We can take all these passages as referring to the Supreme Brahman alone.

The first interpretation was already dismissed in the previous sūtras. Nor the jīva nor the vital airs have the qualities attributed to prāna in some of the passages. The second possibility is also illogical, leading to three separate objects of worship. In this case, the absolute truth would be not one, but three, and all scriptures would have to be rewritten. Vyāsadeva condemns this interpretation with the word “āśritatvād” in the sūtra. Āśrita means “dependent, resting upon, supported by” and -tva means “the state of being”. The suffix -t puts it in the ablative (because of). Both the jīva and the vital air are dependent on the Supreme Brahman, and therefore, they can’t be separate objects of worship. We must accept, thus, the third interpretation: all these passages refer to the Supreme Brahman alone, and only He is worshipable.

Therefore, Vyāsadeva concludes this section with the expression “tad-yogāt“, meaning that this is the appropriate conclusion.

To this conclusion, four objections could be raised, which are dismissed by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his commentary:

a) One could challenge: “Where is the explicit indication of this in the text?”

The answer is that at the beginning of the passage, Pratardana asks: “tvam eva me vṛṇīṣa yam tvam manuṣyāya hitatamam manyase iti” (Please choose for me the boom that is most beneficial for mankind). Indra answers, telling him to meditate on prāna. The only logical interpretation is that prāna is Brahman, as already discussed.

b) The passage says: “etāv asmiñ śarīre vasataḥ sahotkrāmataḥ” (Indeed, these two, prāṇa and prajñā, dwelling together in this body, depart together). One could argue about how this passage can apply to Brahman.

The answer is that the Supreme Brahman is present in the body as kriya-śakti (the potency of action), which is also known as prāna or vital air, and also as jñana-śakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as prajñā or intelligence. Both potencies are manifested from Brahman and remain in the body as long as it is alive, exiting together at the time of death. In one sense, they are Brahman, but in another not, as explained by Kṛṣṇa in the Gītā:

mayā tatam idam sarvam, jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni, na cāham teṣv avasthitaḥ
na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni, paśya me yogam aiśvaram
bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho, mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ

“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.”

There is thus no contradiction.

c) One could argue that many passages use the words prāna and jīva as adjectives, such as “prāṇaḥ puruṣaḥ” (the man endowed with life) and “jīvaḥ puruṣaḥ” (the living man). If both are adjectives, how can we try to qualify them as names, equating both to Brahman? One could argue that they must be taken as separated or as merely describing attributes of Brahman. If this argument is accepted, then the second interpretation (We can accept some of the passages as referring to the jīva and the vital air, and others to Brahman) can still be upheld, since some passages would describe prāna as an adjective to Brahman, and others describe prāna as a separate entity.

The answer is that in Sanskrit grammar, words can be simultaneously adjectives (viśeṣaṇa) and nouns (nāma). This is called viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-sāmānādhikaraṇya. For example, the word śukla can be used as both an adjective and a name, according to the context, as in “śuklaḥ paṭaḥ” (the white cloth) and “śuklaḥ gacchati” (the white one walks). Therefore, just because prāṇa and prajñā function as adjectives in some contexts, it does not mean they are always adjectives. They can function as nouns when the context demands. When Indra says “prāṇo ‘smi prajñātmā tam mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva” (I’m prāṇa, prajñā, and ātma), he uses these words as nouns.

In this way, the argument is dismissed. The words prāṇa, prajñā, ātmā, and Indra should be understood to refer to the Supreme Brahman.

d) One could question why this whole discussion is relevant, since prāna was already defined as Brahman on sūtra 1.1.23.

The answer is that the previous discussion was about the meaning of the word prāna, and the current discussion is about the proper object of meditation in the specific passage of the Kauṣītaki Upanisad, where it is related to other words, such as ānanda. Without this discussion, one could conclude that the passage teaches one to meditate on a jīva or on the vital air to attain transcendental bliss, which would be a fatal mistake. Thus, the session had to be discussed separately.

You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa