If that is true, this original, bigger TU is presently unavailable and we do not know what the missing verses contained. The TU comes with an index that indicates it was originally a much bigger text than what was available to Shankara. Note that the TU itself does not explicitly discuss Koshas (or an equivalent) and so if you attempt to look up Koshas in the Taittiriya text, you will not find it. The Kosha concept comes from Shankara’s commentary on the second section (Ananda or Brahmananda valli) of the Taittiriya Upanishad (TU). (That is whole, this is whole, this whole arises from that whole, removing the whole from that whole, what remains is still the whole)īoth pointing to the unity of all things in the universe. "Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnam udachyate purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate." (O gentle one, just as by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all distortions being only in naming, but the truth is that all that is clay.)Ĭhandogya Upanishad (Sage Uddalaka Aruni instructing his son Satyaketu to complete his education) "Yatha saumya, ekena mrit-pindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrittikety eva satyam." Two of my favorites which I regularly quote are: You are right in saying that in whichever kosha a thing \ person may be, it still is Brahman and no less - 'what exists is one without a second' - 'Ekam eva Dwiteeyo nasti' (not necessarily a God). Yeah, Upanishads are beautiful, but their teaching has to be understood according to present day science.
0 kommentar(er)
