The Hidden Lives of Brahman: Sankara's Vedanta through His Upanisad Commentaries, in Light of Contemporary Practice

Chapter 4

 Envisioning vEda First-Person Declarations in Śaṅkara’s Upāniṣad Commentaries Given the wide-ranging influence of the upāsana rituals described in the previous two chapters, which involve engagement with phenomena (vedic recitation, yajña and more condensed brāhmaṇa rituals) encompassed by ancient uses of the term “brahman,” it is not surprising to find Śaṅkara using upāsana-like declarations, designed to inspire contemplation of the deities and symbols they name, at key points throughout his upāniṣad commentaries. In both the TUbh and BUbh, Śaṅkara composes declarations like those observed in upāsana practice to make sense of the sources on which he comments, implicitly recommending that practice as an important means of attaining mastery over the mind and senses. Expanding on the arguments of Ramachandran (1969, 34–43), Marcaurelle (2000, 107–24), and Suthren Hirst (2005, 83–85) regarding the important place of upāsana in Śaṅkara’s teaching, in this chapter I point out the widely overlooked fact that the TUbh and BUbh explicitly prescribe firstperson declarations strikingly similar to those uttered by the sāman chanter of TU 3.10.6. In these commentaries Śaṅkara often uses terms other than “upāsana” to refer to envisioning sacred things, yet his use of declarations clearly echoes the features of upāsana outlined in chapter 2 and illustrated in diagram 1 of the appendix. The statements Śaṅkara composes, first of all, (1) explicitly articulate, always in first-person form, a hypothetical attendant’s intention to “think-of-himself-as” some divine or supernatural entity. The rich connotations of the words he chooses for those declarations, moreover, suggest (2) the “weaving together of similar notions” in which the attendant might engage, strengthening mental focus. Śaṅkara’s declarations also deepen mastery of the senses by serving as reflective pauses at climactic points in the commentary, much as they might if one were using them in a ritual context. Chapter 4 the hidden lives of brahman 76 Several of Śaṅkara’s first-person declarations, furthermore, (3a) allude to fire-offering ceremonies, whose details could reinforce the reflection inspired by such declarations. Śaṅkara stresses that the envisioning suggested by his declarations need not be accompanied by actual performance of the yajñas from which they are derived; yet those declarations assume the ability to visualize at least the most important details of such rituals. Śaṅkara’s word choice in composing declarations, while rooted in analysis of the upāniṣad’s terminology, also reflects heightened awareness of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic engagement with concrete rituals, which naturally strengthens the ability to focus the senses. I stressed in chapter 2 that such engagement is the foundation of upāsana for most brāhmaṇas, at least today, and most likely in the past as well. Śaṅkara’s declarations, finally, (3b) draw together in condensed form key details found distributed throughout the upāniṣad under consideration—the general “talk about the aim of upāsana” that Śaṅkara stresses in BUbh 1.3.9 should be the source for upāsana reflection. In doing so, such declarations identify the primary focus of the upāniṣad on which they depend, study of which would then in turn reinforce the reflection inspired by those declarations, once again helping to focus the mind. Admittedly, like the food sāman that concludes the TU, Śaṅkara’s declarations focus on entities clearly distinct from those described in contemporary rites at twilight and meals and in parallel upāniṣadic references to sun and food, as reviewed in chapters 2 and 3. Even Śaṅkara’s terminology suggests a broader focus than the upāsana rituals examined there: in describing envisioning inspired by upāniṣadic passages that do not explicitly prescribe “upāsana,” he refers more broadly to darśana (“viewing”), dṛṣṭi (“vision,” “gaze”), vijñāna (“awareness”) and nididhyāsana (“intensive concentration”).1 This difference in the focus of Śaṅkara’s declarations is in large part due to the fact that, as noted in chapter 2, the communal yajña rites that frame the envisioning suggested by the TU and BU are considerably more complex than upāsana practices observed in contemporary settings.2 Nevertheless, when presenting his declarations, Śaṅkara seems at least to be mimicking, if not actually prescribing a replacement for, the mental and sensory focus of a keenly alert brāhmaṇa attending to...