Sankaracharya And Taittiriyopanishad - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Sankaracharya and the Taittiriyopanishad" by Vijay Pandya, focusing on its key arguments:

This article by Vijay Pandya explores the philosophical position of Adi Shankaracharya concerning the Taittiriyopanishad (T.U.) and specifically his interpretations of the "Anandamaya" (blissful self) section within it, as evidenced in his commentaries.

The Significance of the Taittiriyopanishad:

The T.U. is a highly influential Upanishad, forming the core of the present Brahmasutra, with several sutras directly based on its passages.
A prime example is the visayavakya (subject text) for the second sutra (1.1.2), which is from the T.U. The entire Anandamayadhikarana (1.1.12-19) in the Brahmasutra is based on the T.U.'s discussion of "Anandamimamsa" (inquiry into bliss).
It's also theorized that various Brahmasutras existed for different Upanishads, with the T.U. likely being one of them.

Shankaracharya's Engagement with the T.U.:

Shankaracharya recognized the immense philosophical importance of the T.U., quoting it 142 times in his Brahmasutra Shankara Bhashya (B.S.S.B.). He also wrote a dedicated commentary on the T.U.
The author assumes the authenticity of both the B.S.S.B. and the T.U. Bhashya, acknowledging that some scholars have questioned certain interpretations, like the second interpretation of the Anandamayadhikarana in the B.S.S.B. and the T.U. Bhashya itself. However, the author notes that the second interpretation of the Anandamayadhikarana aligns with the T.U. Bhashya.

Shankaracharya's Two Interpretations of Anandamaya:

The core of the discussion revolves around Shankaracharya's two interpretations of the "Anandamaya" self, which is a crucial point in both the Brahmasutra and the T.U.
- First Interpretation: In the B.S.S.B., Shankaracharya initially presents the view that Anandamaya is Brahman.
- Second Interpretation: He then offers a second interpretation, which some scholars consider an interpolation. In this view, Anandamaya is not Brahman but rather one of the five sheaths (koshas) that need to be transcended to realize Brahman. The scripture, according to this view, introduces these sheaths from the "annamaya" (food-self) to the "anandamaya" (bliss-self) to illustrate the process of reaching Brahman by eliminating ignorance-created sheaths.

Shankaracharya's Preference for the Second Interpretation in the T.U. Bhashya:

The author highlights that the T.U. Bhashya strongly supports and elaborates on the second interpretation, where Anandamaya is a sheath. The first interpretation (Anandamaya as Brahman) is notably absent in the T.U. Bhashya.
Shankaracharya's T.U. Bhashya offers subtler points not found in his B.S.S.B. commentary. One such point is the concept of "Samkramaņa" (attaining), where the text speaks of "attaining the self made of bliss." Shankaracharya argues that since the blissful self is an object of attainment, it cannot be the ultimate, unconditioned Self (Brahman) itself, as the Self cannot attain itself due to the absence of duality within. This strengthens his argument that Anandamaya is not Brahman.
The author suggests that Shankaracharya might have felt bound by tradition to present the first interpretation in the B.S.S.B. but was more original and free in his T.U. Bhashya, aligning with his consistent pursuit of absolute non-dualism.
Daniel Ingalls' observation that Shankaracharya breaks with tradition more in his Upanishad commentaries than in his Brahmasutra commentary is seen as applicable here.

Shankaracharya's Aversion to the Term "Ananda":

The author posits that Shankaracharya likely avoided the term "ānanda" as an epithet for Brahman and also shunned the phrase "Saccidānanda." While "sat," "cit," and "ānanda" individually appear, the combined phrase is conspicuously absent in his extensive literature.
This aversion stems from the author's analysis of how "ānanda" is frequently used in Upanishadic contexts with sexual or erotic connotations. Examples are provided from the Brihadaranyakopanishad, Prashnopanishad, Kausitaki Upanishad, and Chandogyopanishad, where "ānanda" is explicitly linked to the generative organ (upastha), pleasure, procreation, and sensual enjoyment.
The author believes that Shankaracharya, in his rigorous pursuit of absolute monism, found the word "ānanda" to be potentially "profane" or polluting due to these associations. He feared it would dilute his concept of Brahman and the uncompromising non-dualism he advocated.
Even in contexts where the sexual connotation is not direct, the author argues there are allusions that might have reinforced his aversion.

Conclusion:

Vijay Pandya concludes that Shankaracharya's preference for the second interpretation of Anandamaya in the T.U. Bhashya, his neglect of the first interpretation, and his avoidance of the phrase "Saccidānanda" are all indicative of his strong philosophical stance against diluting his concept of Brahman with terms that carried potentially undesirable or dualistic connotations, particularly the word "ānanda" due to its frequent sexual associations in classical literature. Shankaracharya aimed to maintain a pure, unalloyed, and rigorously monistic understanding of Brahman.