The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

by Swami Krishnananda

Chapter V

Fifth Brahmana: The Real Explained

Among the various methods of meditation, a popular one is what is known as the resolution of the effect into the cause. This is a very popular method prescribed in many other scriptures. It is easy to understand too and stands to reason. A suggestion that this method can be adopted in meditation is made in the following section. The method is a contemplation on the process of retracing the steps that are taken in the process of evolution. Evolution is how things come from causes and shape themselves into effects. We have to understand the theory of evolution, creation, manifestation and how the one becomes the many, gradually, by stages. The same stages have to be now contemplated backward. The grossest appearance of manifestation is this earth plane. We individuals inhabit this earth. We have all come from certain substances emanating from the earth. We can thus be resolved back into the earth. The body, for instance, which is constituted of the essence of food, is resolvable into the earth element because the substance of food is the substance of the earth. Thus, anything that is in the body, physically, is subject to return to its cause, namely, the earth, as actually happens when the body is cast off at the time of death. The physical constituents return to their original abode, which is the earth. The earth has come from water, water from fire, fire from air, and air from ether. And ether is itself an effect; it is not an ultimate cause. It is the first manifestation of Hiraṇyagarbha, Virāt and Īshvara. They are the causes of even this space. The gods, the fourteen worlds, the different levels of existence, all stages of being are manifested in the Virāt. And all this manifestation which is tripartite, Īshvara Hiraṇyagarbha, Virāt, is also in turn resolvable into the Supreme Brahman. That alone is. Hence, even these effects are nothing but the cause appearing in some form. The perception or the effect is not in any way a bar to the contemplation of its relation to the cause which is the true essence, or the contemplation of the existence of the cause in the effect. One of the methods of weaning the senses from the objects of perception is by resolving the very tendency of the senses to move towards objects. The objects are converted into the characteristics of their causes, and these causes are also the causes of the body, the individuality and the senses themselves. Whatever is the cause of our own personality is the cause of the world outside. When one thing is resolved into that cause, the other thing also goes. So, when we contemplate the resolution of the effect into that particular cause, the senses for the time being get cooled down, calmed down, and it becomes possible for the mind, then, to pay attention to the nature of that cause, alone, of which both the object outside and the subject inside are manifestations. Some such thing is stated in this section of the Upaniṣhad.

1. āpa evadaṁ agra āsuḥ, tā āpaḥ satyam aṣrjanta, satyam brahma, brahma prajāpatim, prajāpatir devān. te devāḥ satyam evopāsate, tad etat try-akṣaram: sa ity ekam akṣaram; ti ity ekam akṣaram, yam it ekam akṣaram: prathama uttame akṣare satyam, madhyato’nṛtam; tad etad anṛtam ubhayataḥ satyena parigṛhītaṁ satyabhūyam eva bhavati. naivaṁ vidvāṁsam amṛtaṁ hinasti.

In the beginning, what was there? There was an undifferentiated, unmanifested, indistinguishable something. āsīt idam tamo bhūtam aprajātam alakṣanam apradartyam avijyān prabhūtam sarvogata: It was as if there was a Cosmic sleep. It looked as if it was darkness. It was of the characteristic of darkness because there was no light of sense perception. There was no one to see anything. That which was to see and that which was to be seen, both were resolved into that which is now designated here as apparent darkness. How can you designate it except as absence of light, because we always define light as the instrument of perception and perception does not exist there. There were no objects because there was no world. There was not this manifestation. It was like a Cosmic ocean. It was like water spread out everywhere, not the waters that we drink, but a symbolic term applied to designate the undifferentiated condition of matter, the potential state of Being, Mula-Prakriti in its essentiality where the Trigunas-Satva, Tamas, Rajas—are in a harmonised state. There is Gunatamya Avastha; there is a harmonisation of the three Gunas, so that you do not know what is there. Everything is there and yet nothing appears to be there. Such a condition of homogeneity of potential being is usually called, in philosophical symbology, 'Cosmic Waters'. They are called Nāraḥ in Sanskrit, and one who is sporting cosmically in these Universal Waters is called Narayanaya. So Īshvara Himself is called Nārayanaya. Nārayanaya is that Being who sleeps, as it were, in the Cosmic Waters of the potentiality of being. Such was the state of affairs originally. āpa evadaṁ agra āsuḥ: So, in all these cosmic, cosmical and cosmogonical descriptions in the scriptures of different religions we are told that in the beginning there was a universal state of liquidity, as it were, a symbolic way of putting into language the condition of homogeneity of the Ultimate Cause of the universe.

Tā āpaḥ satyam aṣrjanta, satyam brahma, brahma prajāpatim: That condition becomes the precedent to the manifestation of something which we call the Creator of the universe. The Creator of the universe, or the Divine Will which projects this whole universe, is a blend of this universal potentiality and the great Absolute. That particular state where the Absolute appears as a Will to create or manifest is, for all practical purposes, the original creative condition. That is called Satyam because there the true state of affairs can be seen. The original condition of all those things that are to be manifested are to be found there in their originality, in their archetypal being. It is something like the ideas present in the mind of a painter. The baby has not been projected yet on the canvas, but what will appear on the canvas or a cloth outside is already present in his mind. That ideation which is to project itself externally in the shape of visible objects—that is Īshvara; that is truth for all practical purposes; that is Brahman itself. It is called Saguna Brahman, or Kārya Brahman. It is the manifested form of Brahman—satyam brahma. That creates Prajāpati, Hiraṇyagarbha, the subtle form of things which as an outline of the future universe to be manifested is visible. In the beginning it is only in a form of thought; only an idea in the Cosmic Mind. Now it is appearing outside as a bare outline, like the drawing with a pencil which the painter sketches on the canvas before the actual painting is started. The idea of the painter is visible now in the form of outlines in pencil. They have been projected into a grosser form, yet they have not taken a complete form. That Hiraṇyagarbha becomes Virāt, the projected universe. The whole painted picture of the universe in its completed form is what is called Virāt.

From that Being, all the gods come—devāḥ satyam evopāsate. What are these gods doing? They are contemplating their own origin. The first manifestation in individual form are the celestials. The celestials are supposed to contemplate a Universal Sacrifice. This Universal Sacrifice contemplated in the minds of the gods is the subject of the Puruṣha—Sūkta of the Veda. It is a Universal Sacrifice, a sacrifice performed without any kind of external materials. All the materials necessary for the sacrifice were present in the minds of the gods, says the Sūkta. The gods performed the sacrifice through the materials culled from the body of the Puruṣha Himself, who is the Supreme Sacrifice. 'So the Devas performed this Upāsana in the form of meditation on their own cause, the Virāt, by attuning themselves to its Being. They contemplate the Satya, or the truth which has manifested itself as Īshvara Hiraṇyagarbha, and Virāt'—devāḥ satyam evopāsate.

Truth is an object of meditation. Here in this Upaniṣhad we have got a very strange suggestion given for contemplation on truth. Just as we were asked to meditate on the literal connotation of the letters of the word Hridaya, or heart, apart from the meditation on the essence of the heart which is a higher form of meditation, here we are asked to meditate on the letters of the word Satya, or truth, not the meaning, not the implication of the word Satya which is a different subject altogether, but on the grammatical implication of the letters of the word itself.

Satya is a word in Sanskrit which means truth. How is this word formed? The Upaniṣhad has its own etymological description of this word. Tad etat try-akṣaram: 'This word Satya is constituted of three letters, of three syllables into which it can be resolved. Sa ity ekam akṣaram: The first letter is Sa. The second letter is Ti—ti ity ekam aksaram. The third letter is Ya—yam iti ekam akṣaram. Sa, ti, ya—these are the three letters which form the word Satya.' Now, symbolic is the interpretation of the meaning of these three syllables. The Upaniṣhad tells us that truth envelopes everything and there is that particular character about truth which is encompassing everything. It is present everywhere, in every part of this world, and what you call untruth is a meagre frail existence in the middle of this all-consuming, all-enveloping Being which is truth. Or to put it in more plain language, the phenomenon that we call this creation, which is sometimes called the unreal or the relative, is enveloped by the real or the noumenon. The noumenon is real; the phenomenon is the unreal. But the phenomenon is enveloped by the noumenon. Reality encompasses the whole of existence. It is present everywhere, it covers untruth from all sides as if to swallow it and to give it only the character of an appearance. Even what you call appearance or phenomenon has an element of reality in it. So the Upaniṣhad says that truth is present even in untruth. The Absolute is present even in the relative; the noumenon is present even in the phenomenon; reality is in the appearance also. If reality were not to be in the appearance, there cannot be any appearance at all because appearance must also appear. If the reality element were not to be present in appearance, appearance will not appear even. Then there would be no such thing as appearance. The relative reality that we attribute or conceive to what we call appearance is due to the presence of a degree of reality in it. So, reality is present everywhere. It covers unreality from both sides, from every side. Likewise, is the import of the syllables of this word Satya. Sa is reality; Ya is reality; the middle one, Ti, is unreality. It is a purely etymological derivation and so we must be able to enter into the mind of the teacher of this Upaniṣhad to understand why he conceives the meaning of the word Satya in this manner.

The commentators tell us that the middle syllable, Ti, is called phenomenal, a form of death or unreality, because this letter Ti occurs in such words as Mṛtyu, Anitya and such other words which denote unreality or phenomenality. So the Upaniṣhad apparently suggests that those who cannot conceive the magnificence of truth, as it is in itself, may do well to contemplate at least the etymological significance of the word, just as those who do not understand what the heart is and cannot meditate on the essence or the meaning of the heart may at least do well to contemplate the etymological meaning of the word Hṛdya, as was suggested earlier.

Prathama uttame akṣare satyam: The first and the last letters of the word Satya may be contemplated as the periphery of this universal manifestation of truth; the circumference as it were; the aspect of reality which covers unreality from both sides, within as well as without. Satya, or truth, is inside as well as outside. It is only in the middle that it does not appear to be. But even this appearance is made possible only on account of the preponderance of an element of Satya in it, says the Upaniṣhad. Prathama uttameakṣare satyam.Madhyato'nṛtam: 'Only in the middle there is an apparent unreality.' Tad etad anṛtam ubhayataḥ satyena parigṛhītaṁ: 'From both sides untruth is covered by truth' as it were, overwhelmed by truth and flooded by truth. So even where you see impermanence, there is permanence hiddenly present. Even where you see transciency, there is eternity manifested. Even in temporality, there is the presence of Absolute Being because even the conception, the sensation, the perception, etc. of what is not real is made possible only because of the presence of the real. So, on either side there is truth and in the middle only there is a phenomenal experience which is regarded by us as untruth.

Satyabhūyameva bhavati: After all, truth is supreme. The whole of creation is inundated with truth. So, in the worst of things and in the least of things; even in the lowest category of existence which we dub as untruth wholly, truth is present. And the Upaniṣhad tells us in conclusion that 'it is abounding in truth'. You cannot have a spot in space or a nook or a corner in creation or even an atomic element in creation where this truth is not present.

Naivaṁvidvāṁsam amṛṭaṁ hinasti: If you can know this fact that truth is supreme and that the ultimate cause is present even in the least of its effects; that the Supreme Absolute is present entirely even in the lowest degree of its manifestation, even in the grossest of its forms and in the most external self of objects; if you can be in a position to contemplate the presence of truth in this manner, untruth cannot harass you. There cannot be trouble to that person from untruth, which means to say that 'the world cannot cause any pain to that person, any sorrow to that person, any kind of grief to that person who is able to feel or visualise the presence of truth in those things which otherwise are usually called untruth or unreality'.

This is a meditation on the abundance of truth in all creation, the presence of God in all things, the "practice of the presence of God", in the words of Brother Lawrence. This is one of the symbols, one of the methods prescribed for meditation. Very abstract it is to conceive. We require to stretch our imagination to be able to conceive the presence of reality even in the appearances which are philosophically called unreal. Thus you may meditate, and you will find that by deep contemplation and meditation in this manner, you will be able to visualise the presence of God in creation, of truth in objects and of the principle of Mokṣha or liberation, even in this world of Samsāra or bondage.

2. tad yat tat satyam asau sa ādityaḥ. ya eṣa etasmin maṇdale puruṣo yaś cāyaṁ dakṣiṇe’kṣan puruṣaḥ. tāv etāv anyo’nyasmin pratiṣṭhitau; raśmibhir eṣo’smin pratiṣṭhitaḥ prāṇair ayam amuṣmin, sa yadotkramiṣyan bhavati. śuddham evaitan maṇḍalam paśyati. nainam ete raśmayaḥ pratyāyanti.

So, we have completed the description of one type of meditation. Now we are told of another kind. How do you see an object? With the help of sunlight. There is thus a connection between the sun and the eye. The light outside and the eye within are connected in a mutually correlative manner. That truth which is in the sun is present also as truth in the eye that perceives. There is a coordinating element between the sun and the eye. The deity of the eye which is the sun, presiding over the eye, has an internal as well as an external connection with the eye. 'The Puruṣha in the sun is also the Puruṣha in the eye. The truth in the sun is also the truth in the eye.' Sa ādityaḥ. ya eṣa etasmin maṇdale puruṣo yaś cāyaṁ dakṣiṇe'kṣan puruṣaḥ. tāv etāv anyo'nyasmin pratiṣṭhitau: The sun connects itself with the eye by the rays that he projects. The rays emanate from the sun and impinge on the retina of the eye. Then the eyes begin to see the brilliance of the light of the sun, and the same light when it falls on an object of sense becomes responsible for the perception of that object through the eye. But, it is not merely the light of the sun that is responsible for this perception of the object outside. There is something inside us without which perception would be impossible. The conscious element within us that peeps through the eyes and receives the impressions of light emanating from outside brings about connection with the form of light outside. It may appear for all precise purposes that light is inert and unconscious and that we are conscious; that the perceiving individual is conscious and that the light that is responsible for the perception of an object is inert, physical. The Upaniṣhad, at least, does not believe in an ultimate physicality of things. Even the so-called physical objects are ultimately spiritual in their nature, because logic and ratiocination compel us to accept that dissimilars cannot come together and coincide. Consciousness cannot come in contact with that which is dissimilar in its character. Light and consciousness cannot come in contact with each other if consciousness were something different in nature from the light through which perception is made possible. If light is wholly material, unspiritual, or non-spiritual, bereft of the element of consciousness, consciousness cannot come in contact with it. Then there would be no such thing as the perception of an object. So the Upaniṣhad says that the idea that light outside is physical, and not endowed with consciousness, is erroneous. There is a Puruṣha in the sun as well as in the eye. The consciousness that is responsible for the action of the eye in the perception of an object, the consciousness which actually becomes aware of the presence of an object, is connected with the Puruṣha, or the consciousness in that which emanates the light, or projects the light. 'The Puruṣha in the sun is the Puruṣha within you.' Dakṣiṇe'kṣan puruṣaḥ tāv etāv: That which is within him, that which is within me, that which is within you and that which is within the sun—they are one. If the two are not one, there would be no connection between light and eye. The connection between the light and the eye and the correlativity of the action of light and the action of the eye implies that there is a similarity of structure, similarity of being, similarity of essence and reality between the sun and the eye. 'So the sun influences the eye through his rays, and the individual that perceives objects connects himself or herself with the sun through the sense-organs, particularly the eye.'

Raśmibhir eṣo'smin pratiṣṭhitaḥ prāṇair ayam amuṣmin: The connection between the sun and the eye is explained, and this connection is supposed to be through the rays of the sun. Here in this context, the Upaniṣhad makes a remark. When one is about to die he will not be able to see the sun. The rays will not impinge upon the eye and the eye will not receive the light of the sun. Yadotkramiṣyan bhavati. śuddham evaitan maṇḍalam paśyati: 'The orb of the sun will appear not to emanate any ray at all at the time of the departure of the soul from this body.' That is the absence of perception. One will not be able to see things when the light rays do not fall on the retina of the eye. What actually happens is something like a mystery. The sun is continuing to emanate the rays even at the time of the death of a person. He does not withdraw his rays, but the eyes cannot receive these rays. The eyes will not be able to contact the rays of the sun and there would be no such correlative activity between the Puruṣha within and the Puruṣha without. When a person is unable to see the rays of the sun, then they say he is about to die. It is an indication of impending death. 'I cannot see'—that means death is coming.

Now, certain interpretators of this passage say that this is a description of ordinary death where anyone will be in this condition, whatever be the spiritual state of that person at the time of death. But others are of the opinion that this is a description of those people who are to pass through the passage of the sun in the process of gradual liberation, or Krama-Mukti, when the sun is to embrace you, when sun is to give you passage. This interpretation seems to be the correct one as it is corroborated and substantiated by certain passages that follow. The sun will give you passage. There are about fourteen stages mentioned in the Upaniṣhad along which the soul has to pass. One of these stages is the sun, and the sun is therefore regarded as a very important halting place of the journeying soul on the path to liberation by Krama-Mukti. So, at the time of the departure of the soul of that person who has already been meditating in this manner, meditating on the identity of the Puruṣha in the sun with the Puruṣha within; who has been performing Surya-Upāsanā in a spiritual sense, looking on the sun as the gateway to Moksha, he will be given an indication of the time of the departure from the body by the sun himself, who will be luminously present before the mind's eye, but his rays will be withdrawn. You have a similar passage in the Īshvara Upaniṣhad, towards its end, where it is expressed in the form of a prayer offered by the dying soul to the Supreme Puruṣha in the sun. "Withdraw thy rays. Let me see thy true being, O Supreme Puruṣha in the sun," says the dying man in this prayer of the Īshvara Upaniṣhad. So, here again we are given to understand some such situation taking place at the time of the departure of the soul when it is to be liberated and not reborn. What happens at that time? The orb of the sun is seen to glow without any kind of emanation, which is supposed to be a hint from the sun that he is ready to receive you—'Yes, you can come.' Śuddham evaitan maṇḍalam paśyati. nainam ete raśmayaḥ pratyāyanti: 'There will be only a luminosity without any kind of projection of rays' to that person who is to depart and achieve liberation.

This is an explanation by the way. The point made out in this section is that to meditate on the sun is not gazing at the sun physically, but a contemplation on the spiritual essence of the sun as the glorious energiser, sustainer and the producer of all living creatures on earth, an emblem of God Himself. Sūrya prakaksh devata: Sūrya, or the sun, is regarded as the emblem of God in this world, because none can be so glorious as he, none so indispensable as he, so resplendent as he, and so complete in every respect as he. This is spiritual Sūrya-Upāsana.

3. ya eṣa etasmin maṇḍale puruṣaḥ, tasya bhūr iti śiraḥ; ekaṁ śiraḥ, ekam etad akṣaram; bhuva iti bāhū; dvau ete akṣare; svar iti pratiṣṭhā; dve pratiṣṭhe dve ete akṣare. tasyopaniṣad ahar iti; hanti pāpmānaṁ jahāti ca, ya evaṁ veda.

Ya eṣa etasmin maṇḍale puruṣaḥ, tasya bhūr iti śiraḥ: You can expand this meditation on the sun by certain further elucidations thereof. This verse that follows gives some more details of the same meditation. The sun is supposed to be the deity of the Gāyatrī, Mantra, which is the principal Mantra of the Vedas. And the essence of the Gāyatrī, is what is known as the Vyahriti. Bhūr, Bhuvah Svah—these three symbols, letters or words are regarded as the quintessence of the Gāyatrī, Mantra. Now, one can contemplate on the literal meaning of these Vyahritis, not necessarily their philosophical or spiritual meaning. The literal meaning of the Vyāhṛtis, Bhūr, Bhuva, Svah, the essence of the Gāyatrī Mantra, is also indicative of a meditation on the Puruṣha in the sun. What sort of Puruṣha is this in the sun? You can imagine the Puruṣha in the sun in this manner through the Vyāhṛtis. Puruṣaḥ, tasya bhūr iti śiraḥ; ekaṁ śiraḥ: The word Bhūr is representative of all physical creation. You can imagine that the whole of physical creation is comprehended in the symbol Bhūr. 'This is the head of the Puruṣha or the being in the sun.' You can contemplate in this manner. Bhur is one letter, and head also is single—ekam sirah. Ekam etad akṣaram: 'The letter is one and the head also is one.' That is the similarity between the two. Bhuva iti bāhū: Bhuva is the astral or the atmospheric region which is above the earth. This word Bhuva consists of two letters, Bhu and Va. They can be identified with the two arms of this Puruṣha. 'The arms are two and the letters of the word Bhuva are also two.' That is the similarity between the two, the Puruṣha and the letters of the word—bhuva iti bāhū; dvau ete akṣare. Now, you have the third word of the Gāyatrī, Svah. Svar iti pratistha; dve pratisthe: You can imagine Svah as the legs of the Puruṣha on which his whole body is supported. 'Two are the legs; two are the letters of the word, Svah—sv, ah.' That is the similarity between the letters of the word and the legs of the Puruṣha. So, the head, the hands and the feet may be imagined in meditation as representing or as represented by the meaning of the three words in the Vyahritis of the Gāyatrī Mantra, Bhūr, Bhuva and Svah—dve pratisthe dve ete aksare.

Tasyopaniṣad ahar iti: Upaniṣhad means the 'secret meaning'. What is the secret meaning of this Mantra—Vyāhṛti. Its secret is also the secret of the Gāyatrī Mantra. There is one word in the Gāyatrī Mantra which is supposed to be indicative of the destruction of all things. Bharga is the word. There is a word called Bharga in the Gāyatrī which means the destroyer of all things; and the character, the capacity, the function of the sun is to destroy all things. Day that is the effect of the rise of the sun is also indicated by a word which is suggestive of destruction of sins—Ahar. In Sanskrit, Ahar means daylight, and daylight emanates from the sun himself. Now 'Ahar is a word that is derived from the root, Hri which suggests the destruction, of sins.' So the sun is the destroyer of sins, even as the Vyāhṛtis, which are the essence of the Gāyatrī Mantra, are capable of the same effect. So, how do you contemplate the sun? As a Supreme Puruṣha, or a divine being, who is the deity of the Mantra of the Veda of the Gāyatrī, of the three Vyāhṛtis and as the supreme destroyer of sins. He who contemplates on the Puruṣha in the sun as the destroyer of sins, destroys all sins. No sin can touch him. Hanti pāpmānaṁ jahāti ca, ya evaṁ veda: 'One who knows this becomes pure like the sun and free from sins in every respect.'

Passage four is identical with three, except for the word 'Aham', which replaces the word 'Ahar'.

The present theme is an attempt on the part of the meditator to unify the objective side with the subjective side. A symbol that is used in this way of meditation is the correspondence or the coordination between the sun and the eye; between the Puruṣha in the sun and the Puruṣha within; between the God above and the soul inside. These two are en rapport; they are coordinated and they represent the universal or the cosmic side and the individual side respectively. One of the points specially mentioned in this particular method of meditation is that while the sense of selfhood or 'I'ness is the main characteristic of the conscious subject, that characteristic is absent in the object. We cannot feel a sense of selfhood in the sun, or for the matter of that, in anything outside us. The sense of 'I' is identified only with the conscious subject, the AHAM or what is regarded as the perceiving individual. It does not occur to any individual at any time that this sense of 'I'ness or the sense of selfhood can be present in others also. Though it may be accepted as a logical conclusion and a tenable position in philosophy, it is not directly cognised in daily activity. The selfhood in others is never recognised. It is not recognised even in God Himself. He is held as an object of contemplation, a kind of form cosmically conceived, fit to be meditated upon by a conscious subject. The 'I', or the self, refuses to be externalised. And so, taking this stand, the Upaniṣhad tells us that the conscious subject, or the Puruṣha within, is characterised by the feeling of 'Aham' or 'I', whereas the attributes which are superimposed on the sun are anything and everything except the sense of selfhood. So, the term used here is tasyopanisad ahar iti. The secret name that we give to the Puruṣha in the sun is Ahar, the destroyer of sins, the magnificent Puruṣha, the radiant being and so on and so forth, but never do we say that it is the self, because the self can only be one. You cannot have two selves. The difficulty of recognising the selfhood in others is that we cannot accept the presence of two selves. It is repugnant to the sense of 'I' that there be another 'I'. So, instinctively we refuse to recognise the presence of 'I', or self, in other people and other things, notwithstanding the fact that we can philosophically accept that there is intelligence in others, that there is selfhood in others and that there is a status each one maintains for one's own self, not in any way inferior to the one that is attributed to one's own self. This is a philosophical, rational conclusion, but instinct speaks a different language. The instinct says that the 'I' is the conscious being, that which perceives, that which understands. But that which is understood, that which is thought of, that which is cognised or perceived, that which is ahead of me, in front of me as an object, it has a different name altogether. That which I see with my eyes is not a subject—it is an object; how can I attribute the term 'I' to it? This meditation tries to overcome this difficulty by establishing an inward coordination between the external Puruṣha—the Puruṣha in the sun, and the Puruṣha within, which means to say that the universality of the Puruṣha in the sun should be capable of being identified with the selfhood of the Puruṣha within. This is the secret of this meditation—anam iti tasyopaniṣhad. The selfhood that we attribute to our own self should be identified with all the realities that we see in external things. Now, this point is elucidated further on in a very important meditation that is hinted at in the following Mantra.