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

Chāndogya Upaniṣad (VI.1, VI.8-16)

02/17/2026 · Tue/Thu 10:30-11:45 AM · Brad Bannon · Boston College

📄 Synopsis

This session focused on Chapter 6 of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, specifically the dialogue between the sage Uddālaka Āruṇi and his son Śvetaketu. The class explored the relationship between the 'one' and the 'many' through various metaphors provided in the text, such as clay, rivers merging into the ocean, salt dissolving in water, and the invisible essence within a seed. Students utilized Play-Doh as a tactile metaphor to discuss how diverse forms—names and shapes—are merely modifications of a single underlying reality. A significant portion of the lecture and discussion was dedicated to the mahāvākya (great sentence) 'Tat Tvam Asi' ('That thou art'), examining the linguistic nuances of the 'thou' as an intimate address and the ontological identity between the individual self (Ātman) and the ultimate reality (Sat or Brahman). Professor Bannon also discussed the concept of 'shat-darshana' (six perspectives) as a tool for reading the text from a diversity of viewpoints, particularly regarding how individuality relates to the universal self.

⚡ Key Takeaways

  • The dialogue between Uddālaka and Śvetaketu emphasizes that while the world appears diverse, its fundamental essence is a single, unified reality.
  • The metaphor of clay illustrates that objects differ only in name and form (speech), while their true nature remains the underlying substance.
  • Arrogance is identified as a primary obstacle to spiritual learning, as seen in Śvetaketu’s return from twelve years of study without knowing the 'one thing' that makes the unknown known.
  • The mahāvākya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (That thou art) posits a direct identity between the individual seeker and the subtle, universal essence of all existence.
  • The use of the word 'thou' in the Upaniṣads reflects an intimate, familiar, and personal relationship between the teacher and the student.
  • The 'rivers and ocean' metaphor suggests that upon reaching pure being, individual names and distinctions are lost in the totality of the whole.
  • The 'salt in water' metaphor explains that the ultimate reality (Sat) is present everywhere even if it cannot be perceived by the physical senses.
  • The class discussed how 'zooming out' from the individual perspective causes differences to fade, raising questions about whether individuality is merely a modification of the core essence.
  • The Upaniṣadic teaching suggests that one can exist within 'pure being' (such as in deep sleep) without consciously realizing it until ignorance is removed.
  • The 'heated axe' metaphor is used to discuss the protective power of truth and the existential consequences of living in falsehood.

🎤 Transcript Tap any timestamp to jump the audio player

0:00

Opening Breath and Transition

0:01

Student-Led Seminar: Chandogya Upanishad and Ultimate Reality

Brad
Howdy. Wait, let's take a moment to reset and transition as usual. Let's take a breath together. Go ahead and breathe in and out. Word? Start out with the fun stuff. Yo, I forgot to give the quiz to my second section last Thursday. What should I even do? Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, wrap up. Christine here? Manny? Ally? Logan? I don't know why. Katie? All right, Ferguson, Katie, Allie, Manning, Christine. Right, good. Remember your number. All right, pass, um, why don't you pass them that way, I guess. Who are— huh? Where'd you see him? Boston Calling. Boston Calling? You don't know about Boston Calling? ⚠
0:03

Comparative Analysis: Mimamsa, Vedanta, and Samkhya Yoga

Student
No.
Brad
Brah, it's not happening this year, unfortunately.
Student
Yeah.
Brad
What is that? Boston Calling's a big music festival. Now it's at the Harvard athletic fields. And yeah, I mean, it's like— hundreds of performers, hundreds of artists, and very, very good value for sure. There's a lot of tension between the current administration and Harvard University. Let's circle up. As you're circling up, I'd like you to grab one of these. So go ahead and move the chairs. And you can leave the tables at the end of class. There is more than one for everybody. There's at least one for everybody. But, um, come grab a plate of, or Grab some for your group, whatever. ⚠
Student
One per person?
Brad
There's at least one per person. Yeah, if everybody takes one, there should be a few extra. I got a green.
Student
Okay.
Brad
Oh my God. Yeah. Um, we're going to do something a little different today. Um, let's go in small groups until 10 till. Is that enough time? That's enough time, I think. Usually, if I give much longer, people start to meander into differing topics unrelated to the course. So take until, you know, about 10 till. And then after that, I think maybe from 10 till until, I don't know, quarter after, 20 after or so, I'm not going to speak. Cool. And so it'll be up to our group discussion leaders to lead the group discussion. Yeah? And I would love to hear from more than just our group discussion leaders. But we'll start with them. Yeah? Start with them. Word? And then, I don't know, do you want to do— I like to have a little competition or kind of thing, you know, like, 'cause I've learned over the past decade that Boston College students are sometimes wee bit on the competitive side. So I don't know, we could do something like that, make some cool shit or something with your Play-Doh. And the problem is I do not like judge anybody ever about anything. ⚠
Brad
I'm like not a very judgmental person really, so I don't want to judge the winner. I don't know if you guys can come up with a way to judge winners without me having to be the judge of the winners. But anyway, we'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I've talked for like 4 minutes, so why don't we take until 5 till, yeah? Take it till 5 till, and then at 5 till, the discussion leaders should transition and take over and lead the discussion until about 20 after. Yep. Go for it. ⚠
Student
Talk about metaphors, as we said. This is clay. If you shape it into a ball, it is not a ball, it's still clay. ⚠
Student
And you don't know everything about clay, but you could weigh it and it would be a square. ⚠
Student
It could be, but at the end of the day, it's clay.
Brad
Square, yeah.
Student
Arrogant son, not cool, thinks he knows his stuff, he does not. Doesn't know about the Ātman. Brahman's interesting, there's a lot of talk about it. It's like the universal reality. I think the deep sleep talk was interesting, how when you go to sleep, you're not yourself. You're not yourself. And that connects to the bird on the string thing. ⚠
Student
Right.
Brad
Was that the one where it said it's the deepest sleep? Right? ⚠
Student
Flesh is like offshoot of the tree. That's okay. ⚠
Brad
So it's kind of like every—
Student
kind of goes back to that, like, I forget, like, the idea of, like, atom thing. ⚠
Brad
So what's the difference between that seed and the seed that— yeah, the notion is like fundamental composition is one word. ⚠
Student
One of them is like I wasn't sure on the last trip.
Student
Liberation from truth. If you have a repeated act where you choose like a metaphor, it's like kind of messed up, but like if you're both pulling a repeated act, the person who's like— the person who's lying will like give in first because like they're not shielded by the truth. ⚠
Student
But the one who knows they're telling the truth, like, there's no reason to lie.
Student
Yeah.
Student
So they said something like, uh, explains that the one who covers himself with— ⚠
Student
and even the part where he's like, he's all at the top, no longer bound by the law.
Student
Something about like rebirth or the burn of horses. Worldly suffering. When you think you are only your body, you suffer when your body suffers. But you got to move past your body. ⚠
Brad
Okay, that's fair.
Student
If you don't know your Brahman, the heat of that— I like the heat of that. ⚠
Brad
Open up with my banger of individualized self, your soul, with the Ātman. ⚠
Student
It's not separate from the universal law of the cosmos.
Student
That's what I mean.
Student
Uh, well then I'll go into one of my, uh, Veda videos. Anyone else have any cool insights? Which you can as well, because it's not just me. If you want to say something. ⚠
Brad
What's up?
Student
If we all join forces, clearly she has some creativity.
Student
Why do we choose for the pure vegan? ⚠
Brad
I feel like we've been calling it like the Brahman or the All right, can I get a quick hand up? Who are our leaders? Scott and Logan. Iona again. Sorry. So Scott, Iona, Logan, Danny, and Aiden. And Kaylin and Anna. Anybody else? That's everybody. No, wait, sorry. Yeah, Eva. That's everybody. All right, cool. Yeah, all right. I'm going to shut my mouth until— yeah, for the next half hour. My mouth is closed. ⚠
Student
Okay, I can start us off. I really enjoyed this reading, actually. And so from all the different examples that the chapter provided, I found that a common connection throughout all of them is that Uddalaka teaches that the diverse world is only a modification of one reality. So like through the different forms, though they appear separate, their essence is one. So for example, all the rivers merging into the ocean and the rivers not knowing their names anymore, and then the salt dissolving into water and you can still taste the salt but you can't see the salt. So I connected this back to the Plato that Brad Bannon gave us. And like right now I'm making petals for the different petals of my flower, and so they seem separate but the essence is still like part of it. ⚠
Student
We were talking about the clay example, and we made the connection, like, that's the Plato too. And just how even if it's just like changes, like the fact that it just changes in name, like the essence of it stays the same and you still know the nature of it. And even if it were to be something else, it's still at its core like clay or Play-Doh or whatever it is. The only difference is in its name, it's just a speech difference, which I thought was like, it was a really like interesting way to explain it. ⚠
Student
Yeah, and I think something that goes along with that is like, if form and name is just irrelevant, what does that mean for individuality? Like, are we actually individuals? Are we actually unique? Or are we all just part of the same stuff?
Student
Going off of that, just a quote while reading, Just as, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made is known, the modification being only a name arising from speech, while the truth is that all is clay. And kind of running off of that, like, names, titles, bodies, they're just modifications from speech. Then like, as human beings, like, are we all clay? Like, if we like are malleable, like maybe it's like our personalities or whatnot. Like, at the end of the day, are we all just the same? Does it not matter? Because because we're all part of this universal reality? I'm kind of curious. ⚠
Student
Going off of that, I kind of understood this as if you understand yourself, you understand this ultimate reality and the underlying being that we all share. So they kind of erase everyone's individuality and stating if you understand self, then you have knowledge of the whole, and you understand this ultimate reality of everyone, even if it's like the name doesn't necessarily matter, like you still understand like their underlying being as well. ⚠
Student
Yeah, and it kind of like for me, I was able to connect it back to the one and the many and how like if we all have kind of the same essence, that's like the one, and then us being the many is like our names and like us kind of as individuals, but we're all still we all share in that one. ⚠
Student
Yeah, I agree with that. When I was reading it, I thought a lot about— in another one of my theology classes, we talked about like theology and climate change, and I was kind of thinking a lot about that, is how like it's not just about humans but like nature as well, and how like knowing that we all are in one like makes you more compassionate for like the world around us. ⚠
Student
Absolutely.
Student
I could see how it would be whole, one, and all the same, but also it doesn't get rid of our individuality because we're all different forms of the same one whole. So there's a lot of different malleability, like with clay, where everyone has their own strengths, their own differences. But again, you look around and it's like we're all kind of the same human being, but slightly different. ⚠
Student
Going back to what you said earlier about nature and compassion, it sort of reminded me of the last part of the video where even if you attain this knowledge about the universe and whatever, and that everything is the same essence, it doesn't really change how you view yourself or your relationship with the universe. It just moves us to be more generous and loving way of being. I thought that was a really interesting point in the video. ⚠
Student
Kind of circling back to the idea of humanity, 6:10, one of the important points that I took away was that the differentiation between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom was our ability to recognize our origination from pure being, from the divine, which I thought that that was interesting as far as speaking as what it views as what it defines as human. It would be curious to see if chimpanzees or somebody started worshipping some sort of idol or some sort of preformed religion, if that would be defined as also a human characteristic or a differentiating characteristic as well. ⚠
Student
Yeah, flowing from like the one scenario that we've been talking about. I really liked, like, in the 6.211, but the relation with fire, water, and earth, like the idea that, like, it's kind of like a flow. Like, if you think of it, like, I don't know, like, as like a binary tree, like you have like a parent node of like, oh, you have like the Sat, like the being alone, and then like you think of, oh, fire, and then like from fire goes water, and like, oh, like You need water because of the sweat or whatnot. And then from water, you're like, oh, you need earth and water for food. So it's like all these current and child nodes are all connecting together, but they all go to the root of the universal being by itself, which I think is interesting. ⚠
Student
Yeah, and I think that that point with everything going back to the root was really solidified in chapter 7 with the tree and how, um, like if you were to like cut a branch off of the tree, it's still like the tree because it's like the roots are still there and like it still has its essence. And then with like the breaking up of the seed, even like if you keep breaking it down to like a point where your eye can't actually see it anymore, just because it's invisible to you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Like in the video, he talked about how the universe is made up of essentially invisible things and like connected it back to like atoms and how even though we can't really see atoms, they're still there. And that's like the root and the source of everything that is visible to us. ⚠
Student
Um, I found this like reading a little bit different than the ones that we've previously read because they were more like, um, like this father-son relationship, but like a father sacrificing his son or some sort of sacrifice, whereas this one's like a teaching and like a learning curve and like much more of like a dynamic relationship between the two. And like the— I think the repeated passage, like, just bringing some emphasis towards that, like, it was very like present and important throughout the reading. And I think the repetition is for like not only to implement this teaching strategy of repeating something to bring up its importance, but also the idea that there's always more to learn. And the son is learning from his father even after going through 12 years of school with this teacher. He still is yearning for more knowledge and learning more. It's just important to remember that you can't always— you can't have this utmost arrogance even after 12 years of studying the Veda. There was still so much more that he didn't understand. ⚠
Student
Yeah, and something for me about the reading was that it really felt like a culmination of what we've been talking about in reading for the last couple of weeks. They talk a lot about deep sleep and how it's when you're unified with Satya. And that kind of reminded me of the nature of the Ātman, where we talked a lot about sleep and the different stages. So that's something that resonated with me. ⚠
Student
One quote from the video that I really liked was he said, "The fundamental obstacle of learning is not ignorance but arrogance." And that's something I hadn't really thought about before, but I thought was like very well stated, specifically with like, with how he treats his son still with compassion when he comes comes back, it's not— he like still treats him very lovingly even though his like attitude is not the best. ⚠
Student
Yeah, it's like he's not trying to like berate his son for his arrogance. He's more so just trying to like shine a light on the fact that like his learning like isn't complete and like his understanding is limited and to kind of have a recognition of that and he's being very like compassionate about the way he's going about like showing this to his son instead of just like berating him for it.
Student
I think also similarly to that point, like the son is very accepting of everything his father has to say, and like he isn't— like he comes back a little arrogant, but then he keeps like asking for more, and he refers to his, um, his dad as a like an honorable sir, which is like someone who like they think they owe like deep respect and honor to. So I thought that like word choice was important to know. ⚠
Student
Yeah, going off of that, it also reminded me of the three debts that we previously talked about. So debt to parents, and then also teachers in this case, because I guess he's also teaching his son while being a father figure. I think this is important because the son was treating him with respect respect, knowing that like he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart and wanting to teach him more. And so I think by the son like not being arrogant back to the dad, trying to teach him more, it's in a way— I maybe it's his way of repaying the debt. ⚠
Student
Just a pivot because I love metaphors and I thought the chariot from a few classes ago, it was like my favorite thing ever. But in the last section, liberation for the knower of Brahman, this was talking about the heated axe metaphor. And they used it like the father explains that one who covers himself with truth, identifies with the self, is no longer bound by the laws of the burning. And this is reference to, oh, you have innocent and you have guilty. And the one who's guilty, like holding the heated axe, like he will give in first because of his worldly sufferings and he's not bound by truth. But the one who knows the truth will resist. And that's interesting. And there's a quote that says, false-minded, he covers himself with falsehood, grasps the heated axe and is burnt, then he is killed. Aren't truthful to yourself, then you'll face the wrath of the axe. I'm a little confused by it, but I thought it was worth bringing up. ⚠
Student
Yeah, that kind of reminded me as well of our previous reading of Sahadeva, where it was like he was liberated by speaking out and speaking towards the gods and his truths. ⚠
Student
And the same scenario is like, you're only going to truly be liberated once you've kind of understood what's going on and being able to speak the truth. Yeah, I also thought it was interesting that this— we've kind of been talking about texts that have been more focused on the shruti aspect of liberation, about the moksha using shruti. But this using, I think, spoke to more emphasis of the shruti, of how you have to use the word as well as the text. In order to get a full grasp of that, that there's not necessarily one way just to liberation, but that there's many, and that it's important to evaluate different paths and use them in tandem. ⚠
Student
Yeah, and I feel like this one kind of focuses on removing the ignorance from yourself. So like, Shvetaketu kind of came back from school with a bunch of ignorance and very felt like he knew everything but obviously didn't. And so by his father and his grandfather kind of removing that ignorance, he probably gets closer to like seeing in the self. ⚠
Student
I just like the idea of like this ignorance and like we don't always know everything is like important. And it reminds me of like moksha, where like the only like you only are truly liberated after you've given everything up, and in many cases, after death. And it makes me think of the passage where it says, all these creatures, though they reach pure being, do not know that they've reached pure being. So even if you have reached it through all this learning from teachers or from your parents, you still don't know that you know. So like, I think it's like that there's always ignorance. ⚠
Student
And kind of going off of that, at the very beginning when the father says, "For there is none belonging to our family who is a Brahman only by birth," I feel like that kind of connects back to like the ignorance and it also brings like the caste system in and how just because you know, he was born a Brahman, that doesn't mean he's like automatically like has the knowledge and like that a Brahman does without studying the Vedas. And like, so even though he's born into that caste, he still has like ignorance and still has more to learn. ⚠
Student
I feel like that idea of like how ignorance is sort of like ever-present, like It sort of reminded me of one of our readings when it said even the gods don't know how the universe sort of existed. And I feel like that sort of emphasizes the importance of humility and acknowledging one's limits of knowledge and stuff. Because that can facilitate cultural liberation. I think the theme of Dharma It also kind of parallels throughout the whole text. ⚠
Student
I think at the start of the text when he talks about how you need to understand what you hear when there's things that cannot be heard, and then you know things that cannot be known. And I think that really parallels with what you kind of talked about at the end with how one was known, thus that is not born again. So once you kind of know those things, things that can't be known, that's when you are finally liberated. ⚠
Student
To what extent do you think you could— like the things that can't be known, is there ever a way to discover them? I'm guessing, like I thought of it asking you, but I'm not really asking anyone. In what way is like every day I feel like we discover something new. So to what degree, if we keep discovering new things, are we going to be able to know what we previously didn't know? And do we even know what can't be known? ⚠
Student
In my personal interpretation, it was more of like a spiritual knowledge and like kind of more of an understanding rather than like an actual knowledge of everything and how everything works. I don't know what other people thought though.
Student
Going on with ignorance, I kind of thought back to the parable of the 10th person and how the 10th person didn't count themselves, the individual, as that 10th. And the carpenter kind of removed that blindfold for him. It goes back to what we were talking about, how I think it's like what the seeker sought was like themselves and how like they wanted— what they wanted to seek was actually them. So maybe like knowing the truth kind of goes back to reflecting on you. That's just kind of how I interpreted the two. ⚠
Student
Same here. And how it's like, I think that this also spoke to that no matter which path that you take, whether that be through, you know, through the word or through living actions, that it still relies on you. Like, even if you do decide to pursue studying the texts and becoming really well-versed in them, it still doesn't guarantee you liberation. The end deciding factor is you at the end of the day. And that just by building up that arrogance and self-excellence, it will only hinder you. When in reality, you think that you're getting closer to that ultimate goal. ⚠
Student
Yeah, I agree with that. Something that I thought was interesting was, I think they said this in the video, that the tradition of knowledge is only passed on by request. The student has to be the one to go out and find the teacher and seek the knowledge, which I thought was very interesting. The responsibility is on them, it's not on their parents or anything, and I thought that is a way to get past ignorance and arrogance as well. ⚠
Student
Yeah, going off of that, it's like you're not— if you want the knowledge, you have to seek it yourself. Nobody will just give it to you unprompted. And so obviously he got sent to teachers for 12 years, and then he came back to his father, and then once his father started explaining to him, he like kept asking and like prompting his father to tell him more. And like, if he didn't do that and he wasn't trying to pursue that knowledge, his father would have stopped after the first thing he said he wouldn't have kept going because he wouldn't have been receptive enough to ask for more. ⚠
Student
I think also the context can be applicable to our situation. All of us are in college, probably graduating in the next couple of years. So even when we become When we come out of college, we probably don't expect to be fully formed in the full person that we're going to be. So we just have to keep that in mind that we should also not be ignorant or arrogant, even if we, you know, study whatever we're studying. We still have to keep in mind that our life journey isn't just relying on what we've learned here, but it's about— ⚠
Student
Kind of going off of that, the like little story about how like someone might like cover your eyes and lead you somewhere, and then you have to like rely on another person to like lead you back to where you came from. Like, this is kind of— at least for me, I interpret this as like you can't just trust everyone, and like some people might lead you astray, and it's like up to you to like rely on other people or like yourself to find your way back. And like you have to like trust everyone, but also like take things with a grain of salt. Like, some things— some people Some people might be there to help you and some people might be there to hurt you, so it's like important to like always keep your mind open to like everyone, but also like internally know, like, like have a little like gut feeling about people and like what they're telling you. You can't always just trust like everything you read or say. ⚠
Student
I feel like that idea of like ownership and like being accountable for like your education, like to not be arrogant and to like be like is like really interesting because I feel like that sort of like came up in like other readings we had. Like I remember in like the story, like in Sunahsepa's story, like his like fate was like sealed or whatever, but like by praying to the gods and like taking that initiative, like he was able to sort of like achieve moksha. And like I thought that was just like interesting. ⚠
Student
Yeah, there's like a sense of agency agency within like all of this, and like within like your own knowledge, like you have a sense of agency to seek it out. And with Sunashepa, like he used his agency to like speak his words to free him and achieve moksha. And like you can use your agency for knowledge to achieve moksha. ⚠
Brad
I'm gonna bend my rule just slightly. I'm just gonna hop in for one second. So there's a line that is repeated numerous times through this reading, like a mantra, you might say, just repeated over and over again, which is the— we call the mahavakya, right? So we first encountered that word, I guess, in my list of vocab, but then it also came up in Ramanuja's reading about the four mahavakyas. And so this whole unit, Unit 3, is we're just looking at the mahavakyas, maha meaning great and vakya meaning sentence or utterance or saying. So the great sentences, of which there are four. And so Yeah, maybe you guys are doing great, but I'd love to hear, you know, from leaders and from non-leaders, anybody, but, you know, chime in on that maybe the most famous line from any upanishad, maybe the most famous line from the shruti, actually. So, yeah, take a few minutes and talk about That great line. Are we clear about which one it is? Technically, it's the first instance of it, but, um, I labeled it, um, 687. So it's too much pressure, right? Let's take a little pressure off. ⚠
Brad
Why don't you take 5 minutes in your teams and talk about those, um, just the mahavakya. So 6, 8, 7. I'll read it, right? So 6, 8, 7. Now that which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has itself. That is the true, that is the self. And technically the mahavakya is only the next sentence. That thou art, Shvetaketu, which in Sanskrit is tat tvam asi, Shvetaketu. Please, venerable sir, give me further instructions, said the son. So be it, my dear, the father replied. But so the famous sentence, this, the mahavakya there is tat tvam asi. And yeah, so what do you think of the repetition of that line? And what do you think, why do you think that's What is the most famous line from the upanishads, perhaps? ⚠
Student
All right.
Brad
I heard some discussion about the word thou. I think that's a good— that's a reasonable place to start. That's not a common word, right? Thou. What do we, uh, anybody know what that word means? Why, do you know anything about that word yet, Logan? ⚠
Student
If I recall correctly from like my high school English classes when we were reading Shakespeare, I think it would mean something like that which you will or that which you do, essentially.
Brad
Not quite. It's just another name for you, but I was gonna say It just means you. Yeah, but it does. So what's the difference between you and thou? We don't use the word that anymore, right? I mean, it's an old English word. We don't use it anymore. But there is a difference between you and thou. ⚠
Student
Yeah.
Brad
It's kind of like you are, maybe? I don't know. No, not quite.
Student
Yeah. I feel like it's kind of used more to decree.
Brad
So you mean more formally, right? So I mean, we tend to think of it that way because we only hear it in more formal language and stuff. But it actually is the opposite. So those of you that know French, there's like vous and tu, right? Or in German, ihr and du. Right? What's the difference between those, like "du" and "du"? "Ir" and "du"? ⚠
Student
So like in German, "du" is like you, one, like I'd be talking to you specifically, but if I use "ir," I'd be talking to you all, like everyone in this room. ⚠
Brad
So one's singular and one's plural, right? And there's another aspect of it too, right? Sometimes you'll use it in the singular. Yeah, for friends, "du" is is like more formal, you'd address like your professor or like someone more senior to you using "you" instead of "you." Right, so one is very personal, very intimate, very casual kind of thing you'd use between friends and family, right? And so, so actually that's the word "thou." "Thou" is the friendly, familiar, informal one. So already interesting a little bit that in English the familiar intimate one has dropped out of use and we only use the— right, so you, Y-O-U, can be both singular and plural just like vu or yer, right? So yeah, I think that's— well, that is significant and that's part of why it's translated this way because it is— that is the word that's being used here. Intimates between father and son, right? And he calls him dear, and he's— it's a very sweet, you know, intimate conversation. Others? Other things came out of your discussion? ⚠
Student
Oh, like with that translation, like we kind of took it as like it goes to the truth self to like you, and it's like you are like this all-encompassing term. And it's like, like once you kind of understand that you are like the self and you are like truth, then it's like you almost have like this knowledge of everything. But it doesn't mean that like you're done learning and like it's time to be done. Like now you have to go on and teach this to other people. And like as this father is teaching his son, like that's [Speaker] Good. ⚠
Brad
Really good observation, right? So there's a progression there between Satya, which is pretty, pretty big, right? And then the self, which we could take as meaning, you know, a little bit less all-encompassing, or seems less all-encompassing. And then the you, which is very, you know, very personal, very you, right? So there's an identity being posited between these three that sound very different, right? The word Sat and satyam. So in Sanskrit, Sat is being. And Satya, I'm going to put a hyphen here. They don't have a hyphen, but Satya is the word for truth. Some of you might know the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella. Sattva, it's the same word, Satya, satyam, just two grammatically different. One is nominative, one is accusative, but same word, Sat, Satya, satyam. Whoops. And this ending -yam also could be taken as like an abstract noun, so like -ness, right, in English, like beingness or truthness or the— it's an abstract noun, right, ending. It can also be used as -ing, so being Sat, right, like we kind of preserve that in English. Technically, I guess Sat would be be, right, being, But English is funny with that particular word. ⚠
Brad
Yeah, good. It's a really important observation that Anna's making there. Other questions, anything? Brad's talking now, so we can do questions or other things. Yeah. ⚠
Student
Is the like that it's referring to like the being like the subtle aspect? ⚠
Brad
So, so that is a really, really important question too, and there's not a clear answer to that, right? And so, um, one of the things I'm trying to do is, you know, teach you to read the text as it is, right? And also give you the tools to read it kind of the way that the shat-darshana, um, which is more than one, right, the six perspectives, um, so trying to read it from a diversity of perspectives, um, but you can see here right now if everybody considers the text shruti, if everybody considers it scripture, then that question, what, you know, what's the referent, right, of that indexical pronoun. So the indexical pronoun that, right, indexical means it points, right, points somewhere. So I can't just say, hand me that. Everybody would be like, what? Right? But if I say, hand me that, then you know what I'm talking about, right? So when I'm pointing with my finger, I'm indicating what the referent of the indexical pronoun is. But in this case, is it entirely clear what that is pointing to? ⚠
Brad
Or maybe even— so you could argue that that is consistently pointing towards the true and the self, right? Could you argue that that is a little bit different in each one of the instances throughout the upanishad? Say more. Look, have a look at it. Well, I guess what are the other possibilities, right? Could refer to that is the true, that is the self, that thou art, but then that. So the question is, does that thou art, does the that point to the self and to the true? And if that's the case, then what is the that that's being referred to in the first instance, right? So do all of the that's point to each other, or do all of the that's point to something else? Is it the subtlest essence? Yeah, what is it? Yeah. ⚠
Student
When I was reading it, I was kind of interpreting it as pointing towards like the subtle essence and kind of being, especially because that and like all the metaphors, that's kind of the main, like that's what's being talked about and trying to be eliminated by the metaphors is like that being and like the subtle essence, and that like even if you can't perceive it, it's still there, and that's like the root of everything. ⚠
Brad
Okay, good. Yeah, Logan?
Student
I kind of like that. I think it's pointing to the pure being in everyone's self. As you said, like there's pure being in everything or everybody, as like there's salt in the water, but you can't perceive it. ⚠
Brad
Okay.
Student
So I think that in this sense it's pointing towards is that pure being, or you as far as— when we talk about the different classifications of person, like the hand is an extension of me, but it is not me. And just like how this— maybe like the soul in a sense could be an extension of you, but it's not you at the same time. But this is referring to you as just as a whole being, including the hand, but not including it, but also including the entire pure being spirit, or Good, good. ⚠
Brad
Others?
Student
More questions or thoughts?
Brad
Yeah, Kali.
Student
I agree.
Student
I think it pulls off the highest being from the ending of the previous paragraph where it says his prana in heat, fire, and the heat in the highest being. I think he did the Beginning of it is, "Now that which is the soul essence." I think that modifies that being, and then I'll just pull off that. We're saying that you are part of, or you are this highest being, you just haven't fully realized it yet. We're just kind of expanding upon 6.9, where all creatures, though they reach pure being, do not know that they have reached pure being. ⚠
Brad
Go ahead. So there's a relationship between knowing and being, and so you can be something and not know it. That's, I think, a theme that we've seen come up a few times in a few different ways. Others? I want to highlight a few things that you guys said in the discussion. So going back to actually Aiden's question, I think I kind of paraphrased what you said, but are we actually unique individuals, right? Something about uniqueness, right? So that, that so far we've been interpreting as that eternal self, that, that is the salt in the water, right? That, that is underlying reality, right? What about— but then does that erase all individuality then? ⚠
Student
I don't think it actually erases individuality. My question was more like— I guess that's kind of the question, does it? Like, you can argue that we are all individuals, that we all have our own personalities, we all have our own interests, what we like, what we dislike, but Based off the reading, like, if I read this and believed every word that I read, then I feel like the argument would be no. At the end of the day, we're all the same people, and that's like when you go into that deep sleep, you kind of reach that liberation. That's why I brought up later like the nature of the Ātman, which we read earlier this semester, and how it talks about how in this reading one is unified with pure being, which is that. So it's like, it's kind of saying that when you're awake, you're that individual, but when you truly go to rest and you truly like kind of let go, you become that pure being, you become that one. ⚠
Brad
So that individuality kind of fades away, right? Okay, yeah, good insight. Others have different perspective?
Student
Yeah, go ahead.
Student
I agree.
Student
I think it's like once you zoom out, then there's really no individuality. Individual, like it's easy to see everyone's differences and similarities in this room, but then like take the scope of Boston College or Boston, then you start to get put in these larger and larger categories and you look at a crowd, a crowd is really easily manipulable because at the end of the day, people have very consistent tendencies throughout one person to another. And so I think as you just take a wider lens then you're not really going to see any difference between one person versus another. ⚠
Brad
So the more you zoom out, the more the individuality and differences kind of fade into the background. Certainly true. Yeah, Anna?
Student
I think another thing is like when he's like talking about like the ultimate liberation, he says like, do you know me? And then he said like he only knows like you only know someone as long as like you were speaking, and then it's like once you're not speaking and you're like, your thoughts go to your mind and then your mind finally goes to rest, like you do not know the person at all. So, and then like they also said that speaking is just moderation. So I think that in that way, like we only know each other through speaking, which is just a moderation of something else. So I think like at the deep core is like that prana or like that being for everyone. So I think in that sense, we kind of lose individuality. ⚠
Brad
Okay, I think the word modification is what you're saying, right? Yeah, modification. Yeah, good. Others? Yeah, Eva?
Student
It's kind of the thing of like the two sheets metaphor that we were talking about earlier and how like the body is connected to the spirit and how like I kind of view this as like two different things, like the body kind of gives you the individuality, but like with your spirit, it's like all one. ⚠
Brad
So if— yeah, great. So then if— I mean, if we are in different bodies, right? So if we're saying that that refers to the self that is the same in all, that doesn't change the fact that Eva and Brad have different bodies. Right? And so that's— so then what is the— what do we do with that? How do we account for those differences? How do we account for that individuality? Right? Are we saying, so the individuality doesn't really matter at the end of the day, we're all the same, we're all the same, we're all the self. Right? Which could lead to, yeah, this sort of good Ecology. Who brought up ecology? I have it down here somewhere. But it could bring up those good ecological aspects, right? Then we have an ecological responsibility to, you know, to the world. But then don't we lose that individuality? Doesn't it still ask the question, right, then, are, is there a difference between the self that is the one and the many that are different bodies, right? And do the differences matter? Yeah, Kayla? ⚠
Student
I feel like it kind of goes back to, I can't remember who said it, but what someone said about the zooming out and how the more you zoom in, the more it's individualized. And like one person just kind of seems like one, but then when you like, as you just like zoom out, like the one blur into the many, or like the many like disguises the one almost. ⚠
Brad
Okay, good. So if we were to like look at, you know, I don't know, a hockey team, right? Then we kind of zoom out and we see them, they all dress the same, they all wear the same They all wear the same uniform, they all, you know, that kind of stuff. But then if we were to zoom in, then maybe we see, you know, the forward playing a different role than the goalie or something like that, right? So then how do we account for the differences? Yeah, Pierre. ⚠
Student
I was just going to say, it kind of reminds me a lot about just like that essence, where it's all the same. ⚠
Brad
Yeah.
Student
Analogy to a tree where like the life force leaves a branch, like the branch dies. But yeah, if it's like leaves the tree, the tree dies, but life force isn't dead. So I think it's like, I see that similar to this scenario where like each of us have an essence within us. Like, you know, each of us might die, but like, or will die, but our essence, like that essence that lives within each of us, like what talks with the Brahman, is still always there. And that's what I guess keeps us from being solely individual. ⚠
Brad
Okay, so following that line of thinking, right, so we've got the two fundamental essences. One thing that all of the astika traditions emphasize, right, is that there's sort of two aspects to being, at least two, right, maybe more, but at least two that everybody agrees on, which is sort of, you know, spirit and matter, right? Or in Sanskrit, purusha and prakriti. And so the question is, how do these two things relate to each other, right? So can we all agree that like, I mean, I brought my body with me, right? My body is here today. My body is talking right now, right? And my body is talking right now because I'm alive. If I were to drop dead right now, you would have no idea how this lesson ends, right? You'd be like, "Oh, I'm so confused." No, but like if I were to die right now, my body would still be here. My material substance would still be here, right? That's not— that's still here. You'd have to— somebody would have to move it out of the room or something so that the next class can— be, you know, continue uninterrupted. ⚠
Brad
They wouldn't have to like walk around my dead body or something like that, right? So that's the matter, but then, so are we saying that the spirit, right? So then, I just want to go through the śād-darśana super quickly, right? Because I think there's a little bit of confusion about this. So there's the 6 systems, right? And There's nyaya, vaisheshika. We're just going to treat them as pairs, vaisheshika. And then there's sankhya, yoga, right? And then there's what we're talking about for the rest of the semester, right? What are the ones that we're talking about for the rest of the semester? ⚠
Student
Mimamsa.
Brad
Mimamsa, yep. And Vedanta. I also called them pura mimamsa and uttara mimamsa just to kind of really emphasize that they're closely aligned in a lot of different ways, right? The people, yeah, they're all, they're very closely aligned. So the bed sheets example comes from samkhya yoga. Not "yogo," but "yoga." Right? And so for all of the 6 schools agree that a human person is at least these 2 different things and these 2 things are not the same. Right? So then for samkhya and yoga, there's only one spirit, spirit of all beings, one purusha, right? And that's the animating principle of matter. And then there's the material universe, which is all one thing, right? Everything is matter. And then so to be a human person is like two bed sheets, right? So when the spirit comes into contact with a little bit of matter, right, you get a joining, right? And so that joining is temporary. And then so you get wherever the spirit touches the matter, that's for a short period of time, right? Maybe 80, 100 years if you're lucky, right? ⚠
Brad
And wherever one of those joinings are, we give that form a different name, right? Like maybe we call it cat, or maybe we call it Grace, or maybe we call it Danny, okay? That's yoga, that's sankhya yoga, right? So that's just one way of looking at the relationship between these two things. Another way of looking at these two things might be, you know, to say that no matter how far you divide reality, right, every bit of material reality, no matter how small, is always going to contain an aspect of both of these things, right? Both matter and spirit, right? So there is no— there is no one. You can't have one without the other, right? And no matter how far you divide, the smaller you get, you get to some indivisible atom, right? Some indivisible thing, indivisible quantity, whatever, however tiny it is. And that atom, that tiny bit of thing, has both spirit and matter in it, right? So then if we take a whole bunch of atoms, right, in order to be a Georgia, you have to take more than one atom, right? ⚠
Brad
So then we take a whole bunch of atoms, all of those atoms have matter or are matter and are spirit, right? And then so you take a whole bunch of those atoms and you kind of merge them together, right? Like pushing clay together, and then you get a Georgia, right? Or Sophia, right? And so it makes sense that Sophia and Georgia are different because they're literally different collections of matter and energy, matter and spirit, right? And so why are their bodies different? Well, because they're different atoms, right? They're composed of different atoms. And the atoms that compose their bodies now are different than the atoms that composed your body when you were, you know, 4 minutes old, right? Or 800, whatever, 85 years old. So, and the matter and energy, matter and spirit, they're both there, right? So then the same way that like, you know, Colin changes over time, right? Then you change over time, not just your body, but also how you think, also how you— your preferences, your spirit, who you are as an individual. That changes over time because your atoms are changing over time. Right? ⚠
Brad
You get how that's very different than samkhya yoga? Yeah? So, you got the clear difference between— these are very different. They're very fundamentally different. Extremely different.
Student
Right?
Brad
Then now we're trying to get Vedanta's understanding of how the two fit together. And it's going to be very different from the other ones. Right? They're fundamentally different. But how is it different? You know, that one's a little bit more difficult to get there. Right? So these are really clearly easy to explain. Yeah, okay, leave the tables where they are for Thursday. We're doing the Aitareya Upanishad. I wrote a little chapter for that one to help you get your head around the mahavakyas. And yeah, where? Oh my goodness, can I take a picture? Yeah. ⚠

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

Generated by Mitra