THEO 1432: The Religious Quest
🎵 Recording ⌨ Space / ←→

Katha Upaniṣad (1-3)

02/10/2026 · Tue/Thu 12:00-1:15 PM · Brad Bannon · Boston College

📄 Synopsis

This session focused on the Katha Upanishad, a keystone text that bridges early Vedic ritualism with the philosophical insights of the Bhagavad-Gita. The class explored the narrative of Naciketas, a young student who journeys to the abode of Yama (Death) after being 'sacrificed' by his father, Vajasravas. Central to the discussion was the distinction between shreya (the good or spiritually beneficial) and preya (the pleasant or transient), with students debating whether these categories are mutually exclusive or if the 'wise' find preya within shreya. The instructor emphasized Shankara’s view that the Veda functions not by providing new information, but by removing ignorance (avidya) to reveal the ever-present Atman. The session touched upon the three boons granted to Naciketas, relating them to the three debts (to parents, ancestors, and teachers), and briefly introduced the concept of the fire altar as a representation of time and the reconstruction of the primal person.

⚡ Key Takeaways

  • The Katha Upanishad serves as a keystone text that is frequently quoted and built upon by the Bhagavad-Gita.
  • Shreya represents the path of the good and permanent, while preya represents the path of the pleasant and transient.
  • Naciketas is considered an ideal student because of the strength and sincerity of his questions regarding the nature of existence after death.
  • Yama, the personification of Death, acts as a teacher who tests the student's resolve by offering material boons before revealing spiritual truths.
  • According to Shankara, the Veda does not teach new knowledge but removes the ignorance that prevents us from perceiving the Atman.
  • Adikara refers to the specific qualifications or requirements an individual must meet to perform a ritual or receive sacred knowledge.
  • The three boons requested by Naciketas correspond to the traditional three debts: to parents (his father's peace of mind), to ancestors (the fire ritual), and to teachers (knowledge of death).
  • Non-dualism (Advaita) suggests there is only one Knower, and individual distinctions are the result of ignoring this underlying unity.
  • The fire altar in the text is linked to the idea of 'remembering' or putting back together the primal person who was dismembered to create the universe.
  • The distinction between shreya and preya can be context-oriented, where the same action might be pleasant for one person but not for another.

🎤 Transcript Tap any timestamp to jump the audio player

0:01

Administrative Notes and Screen Policy Amendment

Brad
Let's get started before. Before we shift into the meditation. By popular request, I'm amending my usual rule of absolutely no screens in class to my usual rule. My default rule is no screens in class except accept on registration day. Because I understand what registration at Boston College is like. So if you have registration during this class at some time, you just let me know that day. Forgot to mention that before. I think it's on the solidus. But Yajnavalkya But I guess by popular request, I am also suspending it for today only just so that you can get in queue for no a con tickets. But split please. Don't let it be a distraction, especially for me. So that said, let's take a moment, please, to transition. Keep your bodies and your minds still. Just maybe focus on your breath and being fully present it. Let's take one breath together and breathe in and out. Word. Do we have jake, Jorah, Sophia? Okay, so we're missing Sophia, Joran and Jake. Yeah, everybody else is here. Anybody's name? I didn't call. I'm just kidding. Okay, no quiz today because this is a very.
Brad
Because the quizzes are in part to help you find focus on the most important things. But every freaking thing in this chapter is important. I have taught this class many times over the past decade plus, and some of those times I've used the Katha Upanishad And some of those times I have not. Every time I've not, I've regretted it. I think this is a really, really key text, kind of like a keystone text. You know what a keystone is, right? It's like without the keystone, everything kind of collapses. So everything in this unit for sure has built up in preparing you to read this text. And then this text for sure will help us to read the Bhagavad Gita. So the Bhagavad Gita quotes from this text a few times. And the Bhagavad Gita is very much a. It very much builds on this text. So this is a really critically important text for the semester overall. And yeah, typically I just give the text itself without any sort of introduction and that kind of stuff without the parts that I've written around it.
Brad
And there's a lot of benefits to that in terms of keeping the focus on the text itself. But this is a text that can be pretty confusing if you don't have any sort of context at all, especially volley one. So what I'd like to do is start in small groups. Smart with your teams and, you know, discussion leaders can kind of get everything flowing. Right. So prepare. The idea is that this will prepare you to share whatever you want to with the larger group. Yeah, we're. So we're going to kind of go pretty much all the way through the chapter. So if you could have something prepared to talk about on volume one, two and three, that would be. That would be ideal. All right. Take. Take a few minutes.
Student
It.
Brad
Like,
Student
Be.
Brad
Chapter 3 talks about.
Student
That.
9:02

Student-Led Discussion: Introduction to the Katha Upanishad

Brad
Party. Thank you. Okay. Our team leaders, when I. Discussion leaders, want to get us started. Yeah. Boris.
Student
I mean, talking about a lot of things. One of the things you mentioned is how the first chapter really went with that definition we got of destroying ignorance. Because the whole first chapter talks about how after getting sacrificed by his father, Naciketas uses his boons to try and learn more about the things he's taken of, especially off and the end, like the afterlife, which leads into the other two. Because that's like, the one thing Yama says I really like. I can't really give you that. Ask for something more material. And Nacho is very insistent Yajnavalkya, all of that's transient. Give me, like, knowledge of the afterlife. ⚠
Brad
Yeah, good. So, yeah, good. So, yeah, a few things there. So, yeah, so you've got the temporary versus the permanent. What's transient versus everlasting? The finite versus the infinite. And then. Yeah, also Shankara's gloss Yajnavalkya, yeah, looks.
Student
So we kind of took the question about, like, death to kind of say that, like, there's value to asking questions that can't be answered. Like, you know when you ask your dad, like, why does, like, this happen? Like, and they're like, oh, I don't know. Like, there's still, like, value to that. Like, that's how, like, good answers come out. That's how, like, I guess, like, understanding religion gets about.
Brad
Like, it's.
Student
By asking questions that aren't, like, black or white, you know?
12:36

Theological Distinction: Shreya (The Good) vs. Preya (The Pleasant)

Brad
Okay. Yeah. Good. Yeah. Elliot. We found the distinction between shreya and preya to be really interesting. Like, like everything that's shreya is inherently preya, because you're like, you're doing yourself a service in a way that, like, but you're not intending to, I guess. I mean, so not. I mean, almost. Right. So there is most things that are shreya, you could say are preya. Right. Because if you. If you're a good person and you're doing something good, then presumably you get some satisfaction out of that, which would be the preya. Can. Can we think of things? Let's clarify. Are there things that are Only preya. There's things that are only preya. Right. Can you give me an example of something that's only preya? Okay, all right. Yeah. Others. Yeah. So, I mean, let's think about actions. Right? So are there actions that are. That are only preya and actions that are only shreya? So what would be an action that's only drugs? Not an action.
Student
Oh, taking drugs.
Brad
Okay. All right. So if I'm snorting something fun, then it's affecting me, but not. Yeah. Not contributing to the greater good, presumably. Yeah.
Student
Like maybe fraud and praying.
Brad
Okay, all right. So again, those aren't actions, but like things that bring you pride or bring you fame only kind of affect you. Yeah. Others. Yeah, maybe like scamming someone. I like it. Right, so scamming something, I mean, you're. You're directly harming someone else in order to get a personal benefit. Right. So it's. It's explicitly not shreya. Right. But it is explicitly Priya. Yeah, I like that one. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Yeah, sure. If it. If it benefits you, if you're doing something lying to professor or something like that, that's something that sometimes happens, then like, you. Then it may benefit you. Right. But doesn't benefit. Doesn't benefit anybody else. Yeah.
Student
Aiden, I guess, like skipping, like a duty, you have like work or something for, like, more leisurely activities.
Brad
Sure, yeah. Especially if people are depending on you at work or something like that. Right? Yeah. Good.
Student
Yeah. Doing something without considering how it could affect other people.
Brad
Yeah. So if you're doing something and especially if it harms other people or something like that. Right. Or if it just doesn't help anybody, you know, can you think of things? And so Elliot's point is, like, obviously those things are there. Right. But if you're doing something that is beneficial for society or beneficial for others, is that always preya also? Or can you think of an example of something that might be beneficial for society but not enjoyable for you or not? Yeah, Nicholas. Depends on the person.
Student
But teaching certain subjects, like craftsmanship or like knowledge, I think that's like.
Brad
Okay, so you're teaching other people, but you're not getting a benefit of it.
Student
Yeah, it's like a more intense example.
Student
But I was like, with like, the
Brad
ideas of, like, martyrs, like. Yeah.
Student
Like sacrificing yourself for the good of,
Brad
like, humanity and other people. So if I'm. If I'm sac. If I'm giving up my own life. Right. Sacrificing myself. And if it. If that sacrifice benefits others, then that is definitely shreya, but it's definitely not preya. Yeah, I think that's a really good. A good example. Yeah, yeah.
Student
As an example of preya, we have the wealth or like seeking wealth kind of like bad way or like ego way for Australia we will have like shruti So like collecting money for some good goal.
Brad
So if I give away. So like I have a lot of money and then I give shruti give, you know, so then it's a question, right? Do I give some of my money? Do I give all of my money? Do I give part of my money? Do I hold a little bit back for myself so that I can survive and take care of my own? That kind of stuff. Right. If I, if I give away most of my money but I keep some so that I can survive, then that's both shreya and Priya. Right. But if I give away all of my money and then I don't, you know, can't support myself, then that would be shreya without preya. Yeah, yeah.
Student
I guess, like, just to understand the distinction, like is essentially preya like benefiting yourself and then like shreya benefiting society or is it because I know you see, like can do both.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
So I guess like could be both benefits to yourself in society. But like, if it's harming yourself, benefiting society, is that like strictly sure enough, I guess, like, what's the, like, what's the difference with like how it influences others versus does that make sense? ⚠
Brad
I think so, yeah. I mean, so, yeah, yeah.
Student
I might try to answer because I was about to say my like key takeaway from this concept of pray and shreya. And so they are not, they are not opposites. And when you understand the non duality, shreya becomes preya. And you're not choosing suffering over pleasure, you're choosing deeper pleasure over shallow pleasure.
Brad
Very well said. Yeah.
Student
I think one of my questions throughout the shreya and preya was like whether intention matters, like between shreya and Priya. Like what if you are doing something for the greater good?
Brad
Yeah.
Student
You benefit out of it. But the thing is you're benefiting out of it in like a cruel intention.
Brad
Yeah, I think selfish intention. Yeah, yeah. I mean, so at least on the surface of the text, the text doesn't seem to have much concern for your motivations or interests. Right. Seems to be like, are you doing something that is preya or shreya? Right. Something that's beneficial. And if it's beneficial, so it's more like the Peter Singer Consequentialism kind of thing. Right. So does it lead to greater good? If it leads to greater good, then it doesn't matter what your intentions are. But you could certainly. I mean, I don't think the text answers that question one way or the other. Right. I think you're right to ask it for sure. But following on that, what if we were to. Because the text does answer it with respect to Naciketas's father. Right. So his motivations are clear. Right? Right, Right. From the first verse. Yeah.
Student
How do you determine what the greater good is? Because some things that help. Is it like utilitarianism, what helps most people? Or what do Hindu theologians think about? How do you like constitute the actual greater good?
Brad
I mean, that's also a bigger question that I don't think is answered by the text. So in terms of just what is sh and means it benefits, it's beneficial for the whole, it's beneficial for society, it's beneficial for others. How exactly you taught that up and quantify it, you know, which would be a huge problem in like utilitarianism or something. That's. I mean, I don't think that's. I don't think that's solved here. I think it's still a problem here. Right? Yes. I don't think that's answered one way or the other here, but that's a good question for me.
Student
My final takeaway from like the reading was like once you understand like your true self and like I think that is kind of going back to that then. Cuz like you find pray and doing shreya action. So like you find good in teaching, like you enjoy teaching others. You find charitable actions like enjoyable. And I thought that was more like the connection. Not if it's good or bad, like you can find pleasure in doing something bad.
Brad
But yeah, just like in general, like
Student
everything that is part preya, getting them confused in order. But everything is everything in preya.
Brad
shreya or shreya. They don't. They don't. I mean they do overlap and they're not opposites. But. But I would. But one is not contained in the other. Right. So you can have things that are only shreya. Like sacrifice. Right. Like Olivia saying like that sort of. So like martyrdom. Right. But you can also have things that are. You can have things that are both and you can have things that are neither. That's the point. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Student
We talked about that a little bit about like net goods that can be beneficial to others, like lead to the same feeling as preya. Like the pleasant, like material goods and things like that. Like you can get that same feeling through things that are beneficial to others.
Brad
Okay. Yep. Good. And so some of those things are going to be very temporary. Like those material pleasures, material goods. I mean it's good for the moment. Feels good, happy, all this. Right. Artha and Kama are part of the Purusharthas, right? It's one of the first things we learn. But one of the things we learned from Ramachandra is those are not permanent. Right. So pursuing finite goals, as long as it's not adharmic, as long as it's not harming anybody, as long as it's not like lying and stealing and cheating and all those kind of things. Right. If it's not harming anybody, there's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't lead towards the ultimate. Right? Yeah, yeah. Aiden, I feel like in some part
Student
that like someone who like chases like
Student
just
Student
preya is like more like foolish while like someone who tries to achieve sh is more like more like wise
Student
and like they want to.
Student
They're more like noble in a way.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
Like my group was saying, like what if like someone in like a less form, unfortunate position, like maybe like financially or something, what wanted to chase preya, but then someone in like a more stable like secure situation wanting to chase shreya, would that make that more stable person like a wiser person in a way?
Brad
Okay, good question. So a couple of things there. One is on, on wisdom and I want to, I want to come back to that one in terms of the other point I think you're making is that whether or not something is shreya or preya can be very context oriented. Right. And so I think that's an important thing to recognize and that what action is considered shraya or preya? The same action may be priya for me, but not for you. Right. Or the same action may be. I think most actions that are shraya are going to be shreya regardless of who does them or. But one example that I like to give is like I think that nursing, nursing is nursing Estrella. Right. Nursing is beneficial. Nursing is a good thing. People are sick, people need caregiving and so somebody's going to give them care. Right. Me personally, I don't like sick people or old people or bad smelling people or bodily fluids, you know, or like hospitals or old people, any of that's. None of the things that go on with nursing are things that I enjoy being around. Right.
Brad
So none of those things are preya for me avoiding anything Related to that is preya to me, right? Teaching. I love teaching. Teaching is very praying for me, Right. And then I hope, I think is also shreya, depending on what I'm teaching. Right? So teaching can be shreya, and for me it's preya. Nursing is definitely shreya, but for me would not be preya, but for somebody else might be. Right? But on Aidan's point, right, let's say I'm walking through campus late at night or something like that, and I come across and there's nobody else around, and I come across a person who's like, you know, been attacked and bleeding and beaten and bloody and all that kind of stuff, right? And they're just laying on the ground moaning and nobody's around to help them. Right. In that particular case, I would get over myself, right. And do something to get over my nursing fears, right. And give that person care, right? Take care of that person, Give them the nursing care that they need. And I would feel good about that, Right. Kind of, to Elliot's point.
Brad
So then, so in that case, even that action in that context would be both shreya and preya. Right. But ordinarily, like, as my career, I'm not going to choose nursing. Yeah.
Student
This is like a very, like, what if situation. But like, if we ever lived in a world where, like, religion was forced on you, what if, like, someone was like, you have to become like, they're doing it because they believe. Believe so, like, much. Or they're like, so strong in their belief that they must. That, like, the people surrounding them must be like. Must become liberated. So they're like, like, what if they're like, trying to do it? They're trying to do shreya in the sense that of what they think is.
Brad
Right.
Student
But then is it really shreya because you're forcing a religion onto someone, but, like, they think it's like, you know.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
Does that make sense?
Brad
I think so, yeah. I mean, I think you. I mean, I think you kind of answered the question and the way you asked the question, right? Like, if I'm. If I'm forcing someone to do something, it doesn't seem very shreya to me. But I mean, I also hear you, like, if you're forcing them to do something that is good for them, I guess the answer would be like, is it actually good for them or is it just are you think it's good for them? Yeah. I don't know. Interesting question. Yeah. Do you have insights on it? Okay, fair enough. Yeah.
Student
So, like, what's kind of like the bedrock for, like, what is shreya? And what's like, is there like a outlining, like, argument or is it just kind of up to the rational person to decide if their actions are shreya or shreya? Like, because I feel like it'd be so easy for people to kind of lie to themselves and be like, well, you know, I'm like a pretty good. Like, what I just did was a good. But sure, maybe from an outside perspective, it's easy to kind of be like, well, no, you know, so, like, who, who, like, is there like a God that, you know, had like an outlining text of like, this is what shreya is and you need to do this. And, you know. ⚠
Brad
I do, yeah. The, I mean, the short answer is no, that it's not clear. The more complex answer is, yeah, it's back to the same basic problem of consequentialism or utilitarianism, which is like, anytime you try to turn ethics into a math equation, then it's going to be like, well, what's the boundaries of my set? Right. So then, like, what do I include and what do I exclude and how do I add up and those sort of things, right? So then, so then the equation, the answer to the equation always becomes. Is answered by the formation of the question, right? Or the equation. So, yeah, I think the short answer is. It is. Well, the correct answer in this context is you're not really going to know. Right. So maybe that does take us back to the question of motivations that, like, if your intention is to do something, shreya, and it turns out to not be so much right, then maybe it's because you haven't seen the bigger picture and your actions will turn out to be good in the long run. ⚠
Brad
Or maybe you just made a mistake or it could be a lot of things. Right. So I guess their intentions do kind of come into it as maybe a partial way to answer the question. But, yeah, you can't know the. You cannot know the consequences of your actions. Right. You can attempt to the best of your ability to predict the consequences of your actions, but, you know, reality is incalculable. Right. Or, yeah, what is Stephen Wolfram's. Stephen Wolfram has a answer to that. Quick. But yeah, go ahead. ⚠
Student
When I was reading the text, I tried to make some structure for myself as well, to understand it better, the separation between pray and shreya. And I went through two, like, true key, like, sides of that. The first one was duration. So preya is something Changeable, it's something that can like fluctuate. We can change like the amount, the intensity and all that stuff. While Australia, it's something permanent and consistent and it's gonna stay like that all the time because if you touch talking about like moral ethic, it's not going to change at all. And the second, the second like the area, the point of view was about the results of preya and shreya. When preya, the result of preya is seeking for more or it leaves the person want more, something of pleasure. Because as we know like from biochemistry level, we want more pleasure. So we need to do more actions to receive more pleasure because we kind of become addicted to it. ⚠
Brad
So that's already hedonistic treadmill. Yeah.
Student
And for the shreya, it's not about like seeking more, it's more about complete fulfillment. And if we feel that it is our shreya.
Brad
Yeah, I mean if you, if still though, I mean that sounds like preya to me, right? So like if it's, if it feels good to you, if it's benefit, you know, I mean like Elliot was saying, right? So like if I'm doing something that is benefiting others and not benefiting me, but I feel good about benefiting others and not me, then that in itself is its own reward. Right? So that is both priya and shreya. Right. But yeah, everything. Yeah, good points for sure. Others, I feel like we, yeah, I feel like we're giving short shrift to volley one, we're spending a lot on volley two, which is great. Volley two is important. But let's give a little bit more attention to volley one. So yeah, first thing, one thing I forgot to point out to the previous section, but should have this very first word at least in this translation of from verse one. What remember I talked about earlier, like what qualifications a person has to have a qualifications to perform a ritual, right? So in order to have. It's called adikaras, we'll come back to it when we get to the Gita. ⚠
Brad
But in order to have adikaras, you have to, you have to be the kind of person that is described in the scriptures, right? So like I posted a link to ritual, I'll make it more obvious. But that particular ritual that I posted, you have to be 60 years old. You have to be a 60 year old man to perform it, right? So you don't have adikaras until you're 60. But then once you turn 60, then you have an obligation to do it. But another requirement of the sacrifices is desire, right? So if you have a desire for this and you meet the other qualifications, then this is an obligation you're supposed to perform. Right. So he has this desire. Vita Shravas the father. Right. He has this desire for heaven, and then because he has that desire for heaven, he's supposed to perform this ritual. And the ritual involves what? Giving everything away. Right. Sacrificing everything. And what does Naciketas What's his objection here? Yeah. Yep. So that's part of it is you didn't give away everything because I'm part of your possessions. Right. And so you gotta. In fact, his most valuable possession. Yep.
32:14

The Story of Nachiketa and the Three Debts

Student
Usually all like the crappy stuff, like the cows that are kind of dead or dying, stuff like that.
Brad
So really giving everything away. So like, at the end of the week, you know, when I'm like, cleaning my kitchen and I take the trash out, I'm not sacrificing my trash. Right. I'm just taking the trash out. So bro's like, getting rid of his trash. Right. And that's not sacrifice. Right. And then so Naciketas is calling him out on it. Yeah.
Student
I think with this text, one of the questions was regarding, like, Nachi Katis being given away. Like, what kind of determines whether he is a position to be given away?
Student
What is.
Student
Is the difference between Nachi K and say, like, his. One of his father's, like, closest best friends or like his father's, like, sibling.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
Why give away one person? And like, let's say that he didn't go through this conversation with Yona and that he did, like, truly just die, like, at that point that he himself doesn't have a chance to do this ritual that his father is doing. Like, he doesn't get that opportunity to become. To want to desire heaven.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
So then it's like, like, what kind of determines whether he is a possession to be given away?
Brad
I mean, great question. I don't think we have any answer to that other than the text. Seem. I mean, he seems to think of himself as a possession. Right. And we don't need to typically think about kids that way. Although we do use that language. Right. My kids, your kids. So we use that possessive language, but we don't. But it's different. Right. I'm like, I own my kids and. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you.
Student
I wanted to go back to your question about. About what we given away. And here is in the text we have like the paragraph, which is 1.8, and it says, hopes, expectations, the fruits of holy association. satya word sacrifices, public work. Sons and cattle. All these are taken away from the foolish man.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
So it's kind of like all the list, what we give the babies, like, covering every part of our life. ⚠
Brad
Yeah. Okay, good. Yeah. Great. Yeah.
Student
Just going to say maybe the kid thing. Just like a time period, ideally.
Brad
So for time, he's possession.
Student
Like back when this was written. Or, like, thought about kids, who more thought of, like, your possession. Like your wife's like, your possession, your kids are your possession.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
Your other workmate's not your possession, but he's your good friend.
Brad
Yeah. I mean, I think the. I mean, yeah. Yep. I want to say it's not the most important part of the text, but. Yeah, I mean, that's right. I mean, it is seen as. Yeah. So. Yep. Good. Yeah.
Student
I just want to, like, summarize the Valid. First, it opens for us very, like a key concept of three rooms we have. And the first one, it's our relational, so it's our karmic duty that we need to do. And the second, the second wound is our ritual, which is. Which showed in Texas fire or our prosperity. And then for. For him, for, like, opens the third boom, which is liberation, and it's knowledge of death, like oblivion, collaboration. So it's kind of three wounds that we. Learning from the first volley. ⚠
Brad
Yeah. Good. And those three bones, they ring a bell at all or seem connected to anything that I thought. Yeah.
Student
I thought it was connected to, like,
Brad
the three deaths you talked about. The first one's like, your parents. Yeah. And then second one is like, the ritual, and he's like. Like teaching him about the ritual. Yeah. Like teachers.
Student
And then the last one was community.
Brad
Right. So the. The three debts. Anybody want to remind us? The three debts? So. Yes. Debt to parents, debt to ancestors. Yeah. And then debt to teachers. Yeah. So. So the. I mean, clearly the first one, as you pointed out, is, you know, parents, Right. He wants his daddy to be happy. Even though his daddy in one of my gurus. Yeah. He translates it, you know where he says, where Vajras Rava says, I give you to death. He translates that as, go to hell. You know, so, like, dad just said, go to hell. And then he's like, I just want my daddy to be happy. Like, I don't know. If you had three wishes, right? Somebody says, hey, you can have anything you want. I'm gonna give you three wishes. Right. I mean, you probably wish for no contact, I guess, but, like, what. What would you wish for actually? Would it be that your daddy would be happy? I feel like you Know I was in a fraternity in college. I mean the most of my college experience, I would say not academically but in every other way. And not you K this. ⚠
Brad
He would not have gotten a bid. I'm just saying. Yeah, he's not like, he's not the kid that you want like and Walsh at 3am on a Saturday night, right? He's gonna be like guys, I think we should turn the music down and I don't think you should smoke that in here, that sort of thing, right? So he's like, you can have three wishes. I just want my daddy to be happy. It's like bro, come on. Even Yama is like wish for something else man. Come on. Don't you want like hot women and you know, kingdom to rule over and like, you know, really super long life, you know, that's wish for normal things, right? Even death is like kind of mocking his wishes, right? But he's like, no, I want my daddy to be happy when I go back. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he's going to go back, you know, to his dad. And then so yeah, so the second one, so the fire sacrifice, it's not obvious I think, right, that this is relating to the ancestors, but it definitely is. ⚠
Brad
So the, this particular sacrifice that he's describing is a sacrifice for the ancestors. You're paying tribute to the ancestors. You're giving, you're paying tribute to the ancestors, right? Paying homage to the ancestors. So he wants to know how to perform this ritual so that he can honor his ancestors. Right. And then the third is he wants to know do I exist after I die or not. Right. I love it. Let's linger on the question for a second because I really like his, the phrasing of the question, right? Where's the question? Anybody have it? Three bones, verse 120. Anybody read 120 for me? Yeah, of course there's this doubt regarding
Student
a man who has died. Some say he exists and others say he does not exist. This I wish to know, being taught by you. This is a third of my dreams.
Brad
I just, I mean I love this question. One of the Enoch Ketus is often held up as one of the one of the greatest students ever. And as Shankara, I mean every other guru will say what makes a great student is the strength of their questions. Right. And so he really. We'll see this in the Bhagavad Gita too. You know, Arjuna asked some really good, straightforward, well formed questions, right. And so Naciketas I Mean, he's. He's got a really well formed question, right? Some say after, you know, a person who's died, does he exist or does he not exist? Tell me. Right? Super straightforward question. And Yama at first is like, bruh, don't ask that, man. Like, just ask for normal stuff, right? What do you want to ask that for? And Nachige is like, no, I want. Right. Everything else is temporary. I want to know what's permanent, right? And then so he seems to have a long complicated answer. Or some people will say he doesn't answer the question. But let's go with the assumption that he does answer the question and his answer is long and complicated. Yeah. What is that? ⚠
41:32

The Altar of Time: Ritual Sacrifice and Rebuilding the Universe

Brad
Long complicated question or answer? It's okay, we don't have to answer. That's not a short answer. It's long, complicated. Well, let's talk about the fire altar there. The Yajnavalkya So, yeah, yeah.
Student
Nicholas, wasn't it, like, about rebuilding. What's his name?
Brad
Bruce?
Student
Brusa Suka.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
Kind of putting it back together. I wrote down that we are kind of the alter ourselves.
Brad
Okay, good. Yeah. Sorry.
Student
Connecting ourselves. Like, is it the inner self or is that conversing Alter? That's my question.
Brad
Good question. Yeah. I mean, for. For now, let's just take the altar to be time, right? And. And there's a direct connection, as you're pointing out, right, between the Purusha Sukta. Sukta means him. So it's the him of the person. And so that person that you know, taught or becomes the many. Right? The one becomes the many. Because who wants to just be, right? You can't have knowledge or experience or happiness or sadness or anything, right. If there's only the. The One, the One can't even be a knower. Right. But then that's. Yeah. So then, yeah,
Student
this is kind of
Student
like going back to that idea we
Student
talked about a while ago about, like, how something is created only after something else is destroyed. But like, in Hinduism, like, I know that, like, when someone dies, like, the proper funeral writes, like the fire and they, like, burn the body. And like, it's that kind of the idea that, like, they're destroying, like, your physical body and, like, your matter. And that's like creating like, the ability for your, like, spirit to like, either like, be reborn or, like, continue on or do whatever happens afterwards.
Brad
Yeah. I mean, good questions. Yeah. So the body is burned on the funeral pyre, right? So then that matter is converted into energy. Right. And. And yeah, there's direct correlation there. I Think between the Purusha Sukta, or as I put it there, right? The primal person was dismembered to create the universe, and now the sacrificer remembers or puts back together the parts of that, and the bricks are seen. The bricks in the text are directly tied to the Purusha Sukta. So. So in the same way that this one became the mini. Even in this case, not just, you know, not just Nicholas and Max and Eduardo, but past, present, and future. Right, so like, every aspect in today and tomorrow and yesterday, Right? Yeah. Good. Yeah. Aiden,
Student
process is how we knit the fragmented universe back into a whole.
Brad
Yeah, I just wanted some clarification.
Student
Like, does that imply that, like, just by, like, default, like, the world and, like, human life is, like, fundamentally, like, split apart, scattered, kind of.
Brad
Great question. Different people would answer that different ways, I think. Some would say, yeah, I mean, world's broken, right? Look around. Others would say it's more of, like, a conceptual knitting together. But the. But the knitting. This is actually playing on a first passage from the Brihadaranyaka upanishads which is about weaving, right? So, like, if you're making a fabric on, like, a loom, right? So you kind of, like, weave the. Each strand through the other strands, and then you do the thing. You know what I'm talking about? Right? And then you weave it back and forth so you're not kind of connected to what Devin was saying. Like, you're not creating something new. Exactly. Right? You're weaving together what already exists. So you are creating a new form, but you're not creating matter. Like, you're not creating the threads. You're just reforming or transforming the threads that are already there, right? So you've still got the conservation of matter and energy, but changing how they interact. Right? Let's think about it. Like the. Yeah, go ahead, Will. ⚠
Student
Oh, sorry, No, I just had another question.
Brad
Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, shift. It's fine.
Student
I guess my question is. So is, like, the point here kind of that he realizes, like, death doesn't really have any power? And that's kind of like the answer. Like, death says that he will, like, invoke his power. And, like, that power is that, like, your physical body dies. But is the answer to the question kind of, like because he can't directly answer it? It's because he doesn't either, like, no. Or doesn't have enough power to, like, know the answer. And so, like, in a way, by realizing that, like, death doesn't know the answer, that you're, like, ahead of death. Because death has no effect on you, you know, like, because you're atman. Like, like there's like, more beyond just death. Like, it says that even the heavens are, like, not powerful because they, like, decay and wither away. And so in a similar vein, like, death isn't that powerful because, like, if heavens aren't that powerful, how could death be that powerful?
Brad
Okay. Yeah, I think so. So, I mean, we don't want to think of yama or death in this case, in too literal of. I mean, what it means is death, right? It doesn't. It's not like a person out there, right? Yeah, so. So the reality of death and the reality of death is very instructive, right? If you're, you know, if someone very close to you dies as, you know, parents or sibling or something, that changes how you think about yourself and your purpose and your relationship in the world, right? So when. When someone very close to you dies, I mean, that's where kind of philosophy and ethics begins, right? So then it's asking, what is this all for? What's the point of all of it? Right? So to think of death as the teacher, we wouldn't want to think of this as like, this isn't a history, right? This isn't something that happened. This is a myth that's telling us something about who we are right now and what our obligations are in the future. Right? So death is instructive in that way. Death is a teacher. Right. But not capital D death, just death.
Brad
Right? Just the reality of death. So. And yeah, it does relate very much to what's permanent and what's temporary. Right. So, yeah, can we go a little
Student
bit also on this topic? Because I was reflecting over the weekend, I went to retreat and I was reflecting also on the. On the question of, like, death, especially with something like, with someone close to you. And I thought, okay, if you understand that, like, death is not about departure, it's more about returning to something. Like, I found the analogy how rivers returns to return to ocean.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
And then. But the question to me was, does it help with grief? Does it help us with the grief? And what I found that, yeah, we can truly choose the side as, sorry, the name of Naciketas did the side of wisdom or the other side. And we can decide of Aquinas And we can witness our emotions, our senses, but it might help us breathe. But then what helps? Eventually the understanding, the consciousness. Understanding. Then there is not the burning or dying process. It just like it doesn't exist. It's beyond, beyond that Process.
Brad
Yeah. So I mean it exists on a certain level, a certain plane, right. But it's kind of like if you samhita, right? So I don't know, I. I just think of everything in sort of scientific terms. So like in terms of conservation of matter and energy, right. So then anything, right. To exist is to be in a constant state of change or transformation. But if you zoom out to look at the bigger system, right. Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, but are in a state of constant transformation. Right. So then should I be super sad that this particular form of the whole is not there anymore? You know, I mean, if it's my mom, then yeah. Right. But then maybe that is the instructive part of it then. Right? It's like, okay, I need to look at well the like going back to the sort of two bed sheets analogy, right. So then the purusha, the spirit of all beings, that was mom. I'm not uncomfortable talking about my mom actually. She's kind of not doing great these days. But she's still. Yajnavalkya if somebody we care very much about, right.
Brad
I mean, we all die, right? So the idea is that, that the matter that is this person is still here and the spirit that is that person is still in existent but it's no longer that person anymore. Right? So something real has been lost, right? And then so the question is, should that thing that's real, that's being lost, should it be mourned or not? Yeah, and that's a really important question that we're not going to answer today. But it's a really important question to throw out there to introduce today. Good. Other thoughts? Questions this. Yeah. So let's think about. Actually let's dig back to the text. Somebody else want to point us to something else from Valley 2 or should we move to Valley 3? Yeah.
Student
Isabelle, question like for context when we
Brad
talk about like gods.
Student
So I feel like throughout a lot
Student
of the like readings there's been mention like like a God or like Kim gods or like the goddess deaths for example. I guess the question is like for context, like is the view that there's like one central God? And then like with the paper fold analogy, like there's like all these like recensions of like that one God. Or is it the idea that this version has like multiple gods?
52:24

Theological Frameworks: Six Schools and the Nature of Gods

Brad
Yeah. Good. So. The way we're approaching this semester, right. So one thing, this is not a religion class, it's a theology class. We could do the same. If we were to focus on religion, we would actually be focusing on the same texts, right? But then. But it had more to do with beliefs and that sort of thing. The way we're approaching it this semester is we're going to follow the. There's Shaddarshana, there's six perspectives, right? Six differing. They're all orthodox. None of them is more Hindu than the other. They're all equally orthodox. They're all equally valid interpretations of the scripture, right? They're all equally ancient. So there's no not going to privilege Nyaya over Vaisheshika, over Sankhya or Yoga or vedanta. But same time we've got limited time in here, so we're going to focus more narrowly. And so our focus this semester more narrowly is on two different, well, two different ways of reading the scriptures. One being Mimamsa and the other being vedanta, right? Or poor Vay Mamsa and Uttaramamsa, those two sister schools, right? They're two of the. Now to answer your question more directly. ⚠
Brad
So the six schools would answer that question very differently. So from a Jnya Vaisheshika perspective, there's one God and that God is the author of the vedas. That God is superior to all the other gods, maybe other deities. They may be different sides or different faces or different aspects of the one God, right? In the same way that playing dye has differing faces, right? So then, so then, you know, we could look at the same dye and you know, one sees vishnu and another sees shiva, right? Another sees Devi or the Goddess. But there's still one God from differing faces, right? So that would be like a Vyseshika way of looking at it. Or we might, you know, look at it from Sankhya Yoga, which kind of doesn't even deal with gods at all. Or then from more Mimamsa, vedanta, which there's going to be huge exception later. But predominantly atheistic, right? So if we look at it from a predominantly atheistic perspective, there is no God, then certainly we couldn't interpret Yama as like a supreme being or a higher deity or like.
Brad
Let me give you one quick example, right, of how Mimamsas think about it. So from a Momsa perspective, if you do this particular ritual, you only have qualification to do it because you have this desire, right? So I have this desire. And because I have this desire and I meet the other qualifications, then I have to perform this ritual, right? And this ritual requires me to sing this hymn at this time. And this hymn is devoted to Indra, let's say, right? And so I'm Worshiping Indra. Indra is the deity to whom I am sacrificing. I'm calling Indra's name, I'm throwing things into the fire, I'm sacrificing to Indra. Main a cool, right? A really important aspect of mimamsa is that you can't sacrifice unless you're sacrificing to someone. And so the mimamsa say, in fact, shabda matram taught God is nothing but a word. The only important thing is that word is in the dative, so it's just grammatical. So I have to worship to God, I have to sacrifice to God. And God is just the object. It's just the word that I use in the dative case. ⚠
Brad
Then the question, so my mom says, we'll argue we owe for one another, does Indra actually exist? And they all agree, kind of remarkably, that it doesn't matter, right? Some of them say, yes, the deity, yes, Indra exists. Others say, no, Indra doesn't exist. But the ones that say he exists agree that it doesn't matter. And the reason that it doesn't matter is because if you sacrifice the Indra, if you perform this ritual, Veda says to do this ritual, you perform this ritual, you say it to Indra, then either Indra exists or doesn't exist. But in either case, Indra has no agency in the matter, right? So if Indra exists and you've sat done this ritual, then Indra has to do God's part, right? So God has no agency, God has to follow, right? It's just strict judge, right? So pure logic, pure reason, pure mechanistic. So then God either does it or doesn't do it. And then so the other ones say, well, it doesn't really matter if God exists or not, right? What matters is the ritual efficacious.
Brad
And the ritual is efficacious because you believe in the scriptures and the scripture says it's efficacious, right? So then we're back to our first principle, which is nastika which is, yes, the vedas are authoritative, right? So if the vedas are authoritative and it doesn't matter if Indra exists or not, it doesn't matter if the God exists or not, right? So we could. There's some, some that would say, yes, Yama is an existent God. And others would say, no, Yama is not an existent God. And then all of them would say, it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that Yama is the personification of death. All of us Experience death. And this is really about how to understand my individual self in relation to the all or the whole. Right. And so death is a transformation is it? It's the end of something. Right. I don't want to die. I'm already ready to die, you know, but. And I hope people be sad if I die but. But it's nevertheless instructive. Yeah, good, great question. Did I, I feel like that's a question a lot of folks have. Yeah. ⚠
Brad
Did I kind of answer you have any follow up questions on any of that? Cool, good. Yeah, yeah I guess this is kind of involved.
59:11

Epistemology: Ignorance, Knowledge, and the Non-Dual Knower

Student
I was just confused on this part where he says like or the text says like this self cannot be attained. Like they're talking about like the knowledgeable self.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
When they say this self cannot be attained by the study of the Betas, it was attained by whom it, who it chooses or whom it chooses.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
So then it's like, like why do people not, why do people study the vedas but like why like they spend their whole life, they memorize these data. They like go, they like look through them so thoroughly. But if it's saying like oh you can't get this knowledgeable self unless like it chooses you to be known.
Brad
Yeah, great question. So if we turn back to the beginning of the chapter where I have that, where Shankara glosses the word upanishads as you know, that which completely destroys ignorance of the self. So the important word in the passage you read is attains. Right. So to attain knowledge of the self. So it says right. What is the verse? Let's read it, let's get it right. 223. The self cannot be attained by the study of the vedas. Right. Nor by intelligence, nor by much hearing. It is attained by him who chooses so by whom it chooses. So yeah, so let's go back to Chakra is why I included this detail and why it's important to Shankara that the Veda does not give us knowledge, it doesn't teach us anything. Actually this is a significant thing. The Veda does not teach us anything. The Veda removes ignorance. Right. So we think of like knowledge and ignorance as I mean they are opposites. Right. But what, what does the word ignorance mean?
Student
Yeah, just means like you don't know something.
Brad
So yeah but even more literally I
Student
would say like do not accept knowing.
Brad
Yeah. Ignoring something. Right. So in order to, so ignorance means I'm ignoring. Right. So literally. So let's see if I'm, let's say I'm a scientist, right? I don't know, like thinking of science. So then let's say I'm a scientist and I'm in the lab, right? And I want to study microbiology or something, right? So I like put some. A sample on a little slide, right? And I put it underneath the microscope and then I'm kind of looking in there, right? And I'm going to ignore everything else, right? I'm going to focus my attention. Attention is a really important word there, right? But focus my attention on this thing and I'm going to block out other distractions, right? I'm going to ignore everything else, right? I'm not even going to pay attention to the Noah Kahn Q I'm just going to like rigidly focus my attention here and now, right? And so by that I promised myself I wouldn't talk about Immanuel Kant. But Immanuel Kant goes into great detail about this, what he calls the regulative idea, regardless, which is ignoring. ⚠
Brad
So in order to have any such thing as knowledge, if I want to know that table, I have to ignore everything that's not the table, right? I draw my attention to that and I'm ignoring everything else. So when Shankara says that the Veda doesn't give us knowledge but instead removes ignorance, what he's saying is like, okay, I'm going to focus on the table, but I'm going to stop ignoring everything else, right? And so this gradual progression of moving beyond the table. So it's not that I'm going to start ignoring the table, I'm just going to stop ignoring everything else, right? So it removes the ignorance of the self. So then I could say, you know, Brad is a knower. Brad is the knower, right? But then so is Tana. When I'm saying Brad is the knower, I'm ignoring the fact that Tana is the knower, right? And then so the upanishads doesn't tell me, hey, Tana is the knower, but. But instead removes the fact that I'm ignoring that Tana is a knower. Does that make sense? Now I can never know. I mean, I cannot know Tana. I cannot, right? Why?
Brad
At least I cannot know Tana as a knower. Why?
Student
Yeah, because the knower can't be an object of something else.
Brad
That's what it means to know, right? To know is to be a knower. And so the knower just grammatically, logically, everything else cannot be known, right? So I can know on a certain level that Eduardo is a knower. I can believe that's How Kant would say it, right. I can believe that Eduardo is a knower, and I can see evidence that Eduardo seems to know some shit. Right. But I can't know Eduardo as a knower. If I could know Eduardo as a knower, I would be Eduardo. Right. And you can't know me as a knower because if you were to know me as a knower, you'd be Brad. Right. So then, so with the what, at least according to Shankara, then liberation or moksha is this gradual progression of saying, all right, there's the I that is the knower and then there's everything else which is not I. Right. And then I'm going to ignore the. Or I am ignoring the fact that everything that is not I is also the knower. Right. The one knower. So not many knowers. That would be Vaisheshika. Right.
Brad
But for advaita, then there's one knower, and that knower is Max and that knower is Eduardo, and that knower is Samuel. Make sense? A little bit. Good. So yeah, from like the grammar standpoint,
Student
why does something, why can't something be a nowhere and no, like this table is a table, but I could also sit on it and then it would be a chair.
Brad
Sure, yeah.
Student
Why does. Just because something's a knower, how does that make it unknowable? Just some like the, like, I understand, like I can never know you as you know you. Yeah, but how does that check out, like mathematically, you know, like.
Brad
So I think there is a interesting question, but I think there's something like qualitatively different about being a sentient being. Right. So there's being sentient being a self aware, conscious entity, something that has a life. Right. I don't just mean humans, but like, you know, trees and anything that has a sense of survival, Right. That wants to survive, they know themselves as an entity that wants to survive. Right. I don't know, it's seems quite different. So there is something about being a knower, being sentient that is different than, you know, being purely functional. Right. So whether something is a chair or a table, both of those things are functional, right. And they are objects or they provide a function, they perform a function relative to a knower, right? Yeah.
Student
So what about take like a, like an infant baby, like they're not a knower of themselves. They, they don't have any thoughts. So wouldn't the parent know them more than they know themselves? So wouldn't that make the parent a knower of the. I guess they're not even knowers. The baby's not even knower. But, like, wouldn't that mean that the baby is known by the parents because, like, they've. They've seen more of their life and they know more of their life than the baby does.
Brad
Does that make sannyasa, it. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, from Edwetta's perspective, to be alive is to be a knower. And it doesn't really matter whether it's. I mean, certainly the. The way a baby knows is very different than the way you and I know. Right. But also the way that the tree knows is very different than the way you and I know. And the way that the grass and the insects know is very different. Right. So from Aetha in the beginning, it was this one person, and that person unfolded to become the many. And the fleas and the ticks and the grasses and the trees are no less the self than, you know, Wilkes or Isabella. Right. Does that make sense? So there is a difference between the baby and the baby crib, but not so much of a difference between me and the baby other than the, you know, the way I know and how I know and the things I know. But that's different than ontologically being a knower. Does that make sense? Good. Let's turn. We're running out of time here.
1:08:56

The Chariot Allegory: Body, Mind, and the Unmanifest Self

Brad
Let's turn to the quite important allegory of the shruti So volley three. Let's just make sure everybody gets a clear image of this in their head. Yeah. Anybody want to kind of lay it out for us or questions structure of this?
Student
So in the carotenology we have the carot which is our body or our sharira. It's not the destination. It just transport in our everything we experience over the time and time and space. Let's say then we have the horses. It's our senses. And the good song is don't kill your horses, just direct them.
Brad
Yeah.
Student
So for this we need the reins with is our mind manas and it must be. It must be firm but also gentle in some way. And the next level is our shruti How do you pronounce it?
Brad
Charioteer.
Student
Yeah, it's our intellectum, which actually directs the mind. And yeah, it's kind of our. Yeah, it's just our direction. And then we have the, the. The last level. We have the passenger. It's ourself. It's atman And this, as it was described in the text, is already a home. But we still need to kind of like make sure we transporting this atman to its home. Even though it has already.
Brad
Okay. Yeah. Good. So we've got the. We seem to have. Okay, yeah. Anybody else want to add to that or questions about it? Yeah.
Student
It also emphasizes the idea of, like, the reverse sacrifice working most of speech, mind, intellect, great self, and to the self of peace. I guess as you do each one, you kind of become more and more enlightened.
Brad
Okay, good. So we've got a sort of a mirror image of the Purusha Sukta. Right. So the Purusha Sukta is the one becoming many. And how we have. Have the many kind of merging into this one. Right. Or whether it's. Yeah. Literal or interior, you know, more epistemological, could be up for discussion. But yeah, that's. We've got a change in direction or. Yep. Which is good. Yeah. ⚠
Student
I also wanted to ask you, how do we separate those layers that we have? That includes after passenger, after ourselves. It includes as well the great self. It includes unmanifested and prusa and nothing which is beyond the prusa. And how do we separate our shruti analogy with all those five definite ones and all those, like, eight layers?
Brad
Those are big questions. Okay, so those are really big questions. Some of them might be a little too big, but let me try and. Let me try and answer them quickly. So in terms of the unmanifest, the avidya that words. That word in particular, the most literal meaning of aviakta, which is translated here as unmanifest, which is not wrong. But the most literal meaning is unfolded. Right. So. Or in this case, unmanifest would be not unfolded. Right. So it's not unfolded. So sort of the. At the end of the day. Right. Non duality is. I mean, you've got the duality in there. Right. So it's in large part about. You have to have a. Let's see. I'm gonna try this. You have to have a knower and a known. Right. A perceiver and a perceived. Right. Can't have a. You can't be a perceiver if there's nothing perceived. Right. And nothing can be perceived unless there's a perceiver. Yeah. Can't see anything unless there's something to see. And nothing can be seen unless there's a seer. Right. So seer and seen are relative terms. Right. You can't have one without the other. Right. ⚠
Brad
So this is the non duality part. Right. So then abiokta, the unmanifest. Let's just take it for simplicity's sake. Right. Meaning not unfolded. So there's no distinction yet between Perceiver and perceived, Right. It's only once the. The one becomes, well, not two, that there can be any distinction between the perceiver and the perceived right or knower and known. Right? But those things, as I just said, are inseparable. You can't have one without the other, right? So that's why I didn't tear the paper, right? Because there, it's an unfolding. So there's a distinction, right? So let's say there's one self, one self of all being the atman, right? That self in the beginning was this one person, as we saw in Rigveda 1090. Then that one self unfolded to become the many. And Yaroslava is. Is one of the many, right? And then so. And so is Brad. Right? And then so from our, our experience of being in the world, we have different bodies, we have different backgrounds, we have different experiences. We are different people, right? But the Veda is saying we are ignoring the fact that we are that one person, right? ⚠
Brad
And then, so we could kind of close on this, right? So there's a way of being functioning as a team. Let's use like an orchestra, right, as an example. So there's a way I could be playing my viola solo or I could be playing my viola as part of an orchestra. So in that sense, my individuality, my individual self, being a viola player is not separate from my being part of the orchestra. But what makes the orchestra, the orchestra is the unity of. Of many individual, right? So the one manifests in and through the way that the many functions together. Right? You could have the entire orchestra, they're playing the same piece of music, but they're like start one beat off or something. Oh, that would be horrible. Right. So then they're not in sannyasa, words. Cool. Good. See you on Thursday. As we shift away for the first time from the Hindu traditions, it. ⚠
Student
I'm also traveling for the. For the meet.
Brad
Okay.
Student
I'll not be in class on Thursday.
Brad
Okay, no worries. Yeah, I'll record it.

THEO 1432: The Religious Quest · Brad Bannon · Boston College

Generated by Mitra