Introduction

In Śaṅkara’s commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad (BĀU) there is a number of passages where Śaṅkara introduces Upaniṣadic interpretations different from his. These most probably originate from older, now lost works. These opinions Śaṅkara in almost all cases treats as objections which he criticizes. However, Śaṅkara did not specify on whose views he refers.

One of such passages where Śaṅkara explains an opinion of some other is to be found in Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad-Bhāṣya (from now on BĀUBh) 3.8.12 where eight states of Brahman are mentioned. It seems that the teaching of eight states of Brahman is not directly connected to the exegesis of some particular BĀU passage. It probably belongs to the tenets of someone’s philosophical (or theological) view criticized by Śaṅkara. In Ānandagiri’s sub-commentary (Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya-Ṭīkā, from now on BĀUBhṬ) on Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh 3.8.12 nothing is said about the author of this view. However, the eight states of Brahman are discussed in Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya-Vārttika (from now on BĀUBhV), Sureśvara’s[2] versed sub-commentary on Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh, and in Ānandagiri’s commentary on Sureśvara’s BĀUBhV called Śāstraprakāśikākhya-Ṭīkā (from now on ŚPṬ). It is important to note that Ānandagiri’s commentaries on Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh and on Sureśvara’s BĀUBhV are different works.[3] Besides Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh 3.8.12 and Ānandagiri’s BĀUBhṬ 3.8.12, the teaching of eight states is also mentioned in Sureśvara’s BĀUBhV 1.4.487 and in Ānandagiri’s ŚPṬ ad BĀUBhV 1.3.314 and 1.4.1043. Only in ŚPṬ ad BĀUBhV 1.4.1043 the teaching of eight states of Brahman is attributed to Bhartṛprapañca.

This article will try to examine these passages and its context in some detail in order to shed some light on the teaching of the eight states of Brahman[4] and the context in which its critique appears in Śaṅkara’s text.

Bhartrprapañca Rau (1960:295) identified 30 passages in Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh where he mentions other views considering them as remnants of older scholia on BĀU[5]. Rau (ibid.) marked twenty such passages as referring to Bhartṛprapañca’s lost commentary on BĀU according to Ānandagiri’s notes in his sub-commentary on Śaṅkara’s commentary. At least four centuries earlier than Ānandagiri, Sureśvara wrote his own sub-commentary on Śaṅkara’s commentary that not only expounds Śaṅkara’s passages on rival views but sometimes also introduces other opinions on BĀU, not previously mentioned by Śaṅkara. However, it seems that Sureśvara mentioned Bhartṛprapañca’s name for only four times[6], so we have to rely on Ānandagiri’s commentary (ŚPṬ) where these passages are precisely marked to identify where Sureśvara speaks about Bhartṛprapañca.

Bhartṛprapañca must have been an important exponent of early Vedānta philosophy and an early commentator of the Upaniṣads. Although none of his work is anymore available, fragmentary records, possible text fragments and paraphrases of his commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad are preserved in Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh, Sureśvara’s BĀUBhV and Ānandagiri’s BĀUBhṬ and ŚPṬ.

From all this accounts it is possible to establish a pretty accurate picture of Bhartṛprapañca’s main philosophical views that are different from Śaṅkara’s illusionistic monism. For him, the essence of Brahman is in the same time dual and non-dual. In one aspect Brahman is non-differentiated while in other it is differentiated. Both aspects are real in opposition to Śaṅkara’s Advaita where differentiated aspect is unreal. According to Śaṅkara, Bhartṛprapañca explains that unity and plurality of ātman is the same as with “the cow” which possesses unity as substance (cowness as universality) on one side and individual properties on the other side that differentiate a particular cow[7]. Brahman evolves into phenomenal world through eight gradual states that will be described in this paper. Liberation is achieved through combined path of knowledge and action (jñānakarmasamuccaya) that encompasses combination of religious rites and knowledge.[8] As Śaṅkara holds that action cannot produce knowledge, Śaṅkara criticizes such a view throughout his works and teaches that liberation is to be achieved through knowledge alone, and not through religious rites.

Besides his religious and philosophical views, the only thing we know for sure about Bhartṛprapañca is that he must have lived before Śaṅkara and that he authored a commentary (bhāṣya) on Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad[9]. Ānandagiri (ĀnSS 15, p. 2) reports that Bhartṛprapañca composed his commentary on the Mādhyaṃdina recension of BĀU and that his commentary was larger in extent than Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Kāṇva recension[10].

Nakamura (2004:131) reports that according to Gopala Yogin’s (17th century) sub-commentary on Śaṅkara’s Kaṭhopaniṣad-Bhāṣya, Bhartṛprapañca also wrote a commentary on Kaṭha-Upaniṣad. Śaṅkara, however, in his own commentary on Kaṭha-Upaniṣad never mentioned or criticized such a commentary as he did in BĀUBh; having also in mind how late Gopala Yogin is, we can seriously doubt his claims[11]. According to Nakamura (2004:131), from a statement made by Ānandagiri in his sub-commentary on Sureśvara’sBĀUBhV 1.4.1717[12]it can be inferred that Bhartṛprapañca authored a commentary on Īśā-Upaniṣad.[13] However, as opposed to fragments of Bhartṛprapañca’s commentary on BĀU that are extensively paraphrased and cited by Śaṅkara, Sureśvara and Ānandagiri[14], I am not aware of any reference to Bhartṛprapañca’s supposed commentary on IU in Śaṅkara’s works or in works of other authors.

Regarding his date, Nakamura (2004:131) tentatively dates Bhartṛprapañca around 550 A.D.

Sureśvara lays out an interesting claim in BĀUBhV 1.4.490 where he claims that only from a boon from Vaiśvānara (Agni, fire God), and not from authoritative sources can one claim that the supreme Self has means for knowing because, according to Sureśvara, the Self knows itself. The claim that Bhartṛprapañca did not gain his knowledge from scriptural authority but from the boon of some form of Agni, the fire God, is laid out many times in BĀUBhV. In this particular case Agni appears in the form of Vaiśvānara, understood as the fire common to all men. Ānandagiri commented that Sureśvara is mocking (prahasati) Bhartṛprapañca with this claim.

Eight states of Brahman in Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh and Ānandagiri’s BĀUBhṬ

In his commentary on BĀU 3.8.12 Śaṅkara presents a following remark:

tatra kecid ācakṣate | parasya mahāsamudrasthānīyasya brahmaṇo 'kṣarasyāpracalitatvarūpasyeṣatpracalitāvasthāntaryāmī | atyantapracalitāvasthā kṣetrajño yastaṃ na vedāntaryāmiṇam | tathānyāḥ pañcāvasthāḥ parikalpayanti | tathāṣṭāvasthā brahmaṇo bhavantīti vadanti | (BĀUBh 3.8.12, ĀnSS 15, pp. 467-468)

“Therein some declare - Inner ruler (antaryāmin) is a slightly agitated state of the imperishable Brahman of an immovable nature corresponding to the great ocean. Excessively agitated state (of the imperishable Brahman) is a Knower of the field (kṣetrajña) who does not know the Inner ruler; in such a manner they postulate another five states - thus there are eight states of Brahman, they say.”

Ānandagiri in his commentary on this particular passage enumerates five other states mentioned, but not enumerated by Śaṅkara: piṇḍa (“individual”), jāti (“class”), virāj (“a wide-ruling one” or “a wide-shinning one”), sūtra (“string”) and daiva (“divine, divinity”). With avyākṛta (“unevolved”, “unexpounded”), sākṣin (“witness”) and kṣetrajña (“knower of the field”) these are eight states of Brahman according to Ānandagiri (ĀnSS 15, p. 468). Instead of Ānandagiri’s kṣetrajña, sākṣin and avyākṛta as the first three states, Śaṅkara mentions akṣara (parasya … brahmaṇaḥ), antaryāmin and kṣetrajña as the first three. The problem in Ānandagiri’s account is kṣetrajña on the first place because Śaṅkara clearly said that kṣetrajña is excessively agitated state of the highest imperishable Brahman and thus cannot be placed at the top of the list. It is possible that his list should be read from behind and that avyākṛta is the topmost category; antaryāmin in that case corresponds to sākṣin while kṣetrajña is the lowest one. Little bit further Śaṅkara mentions some of other eight states mentioned by Ānandagiri:

Tathā hiraṇyagarbhāvyākṛtadevatājātipiṇḍamanuṣyatiryakpretādikārya-karaṇopādhibhir viśiṣṭas tadākhyas tadrūpo bhavati | (BĀUBh 3.8.12, ĀnSS 15, p. 469).

“In this manner, distinguished by limiting adjunct of the body and organs[15] of hiraṇyagarbha, avyākṛta, devatā, jāti, piṇḍa, men, animals, spirits etc., one becomes of such a name and of such a form”.

In this list most probably the first five belong to the eight states of Brahman while other three (men, animals and spirits) represent a further gradual development depending on the progressive amounting of limiting adjuncts (See Table 1).

Table 1

List of Śaṅkara’s two accounts and the account of Ānandagiri

Terminological inconsistency is here striking: hiraṇyagarbha (“golden embryo”), a lower Brahman[16], that stands at the beginning of Brahman’s evolution poses no problem as for Śaṅkara the states of Brahman are not a real transformation of Brahman but illusory appearance that depends on progressive amounting of limiting adjuncts. The problem is that it is not sure for what entity hiraṇyagarbha stands on this place. For Śaṅkara, the highest Brahman stands beyond the eight states, while for someone like Bhartṛprapañca, who accepts a real transformation of Brahman, the first state is most probably the highest Brahman.

Eight states of Brahman in Sureśvara’s BĀUBhV and Ānandagiri’s ŚPṬ

At BĀUBhV 1.4.487 Sureśvara criticizes the theory that the inner Self (pratyagātman) appears as īśvara (“Lord”), avyākṛta (“unevolved”), prāṇa (“breath”), virāj (“a wide-rulling one” or “a wide-shinning one”), bhūta (“elements”), indriya (“sense-organs”) etc. without being projected by ignorance:

īśvarāvyākṛtaprāṇavirāḍbhūtendriyādikam |

nāvidyopāśrayaṃ muktvā saṃbhāvyaṃ pratyagātmani || 487 ||

It is not possible to entertain (that there exists) in the inner self (the group of what are called eight states, viz.) Īśvara, Unmanifest, Prāṇa, Virāj, element(s), sense-organs etc. without (having the support of) ignorance. (Tr. Hino & Jog 1993:161)

In his commentary on this śloka Ānandagiri did not attribute the idea that the inner Self transforms into eight states to Bhartṛprapañca. The term īśvara encompasses both antaryāmin and sākṣin, elements (bhūta) are individuals (vyaktayaḥ) as opposed to ādi (etc.) that refers to class (jāti) while organs (indriya) means divinities (devatā) according to Ānandagiri (ĀnSS 16, vol. II, p. 532). In such an enumeration eight states would be: antaryāmin, sākṣin, avyākṛta, prāṇa, virāj, vyakti, devatā and jāti. If vyakti (“individual” or “particular”) is the same as piṇḍa (“material object”, “body”) and prāṇa (“breath”) as sūtra (“string”), the list is the same as in ŚPṬ 1.3.314 and 1.4.1043[17]. The problem is here that, if Ānandagiri is right and indriya means devatā and prāṇa is sūtra, the states are not enumerated in their order, besides a striking terminological inconsistency. If Sureśvara had Bhartṛprapañca’s commentary on BĀU (where we expect a systematic account) at his hand, why would he make such a mess out of these eight states? First possible answer might be that Sureśvara composed his text loosely paraphrasing Bhartṛprapañca out of remembrance without relaying on the manuscript at hand; second explanation might be that a literal enumeration would not fit the meter because Sureśvara composed his text in a śloka verse of a pāthya form and a literal enumeration we supposedly find in Ānandagiri would not fit in the pāthya scheme where a long syllable is expected on fifth syllable followed with two short syllables.

In BĀUBhV 1.4.1043 Sureśvara criticizes the teaching of eight states of the inner Self (without enumeration) and Ānandagiri in his commentary on this particular verse finally attributes this teaching to Bhartṛprapañca (ĀsSS 16, vol. II, p. 634).

yasya tv aṣṭāsv avasthāsu pratyaktvaṃ samamiṣyate |

tasyāntaratama iti durghaṭaṃ vacanaṃ bhavet || 1043 ||

But, in the case of him who holds that the nature of the inner self is the same in all of its eight states, the word (lit. expression) antaratamaḥ would be very difficult (to explain or understand). (Tr. Hino & Jog 1993:327)

According to Sureśvara, Bhartṛprapañca claimed that the inner Self gets modified or undergoes a modification in eight states but stays unchanged in the process of transformation. From Sureśvara’s claim it looks like the word antaratamaḥ (one who resides deep inside) comes from BĀU because Sureśvara wants to say that the claim about the inner Self that undergoes a modification clashes with the word antaratama. Question is where this word appears as in BĀU we do not find it. BĀUBhV 1.4.1042 actually helps us to find the Upaniṣadic passage on which Sureśvara refers because it says that the passage starts with vācaknavī and finishes with akṣara; this means that the passages BĀU 3.6-8 have to be examined. In BĀU 3.8.3-4, 6-7 the word antarā appears. However in Śaṅkara’s commentary on BĀU 3.7.1 we can find even antaratama[18]. Most probably Sureśvara here did not allude to a specific word in BĀU but to the concept of being at the deepest place in the interior that is discussed in BĀU 3.6-8.

It is important to note that Sureśvara in BĀUBhV 1.4.1178 has an expression “avyākṛta and other (states) ending with piṇḍa” (avyākṛtādipiṇḍāntam) indicating that avyākṛta should be placed at the head of the eight states (piṇḍa is the last in all accounts) (See Table 2).

Table 2

This is a list of all enumeration of the eight states of Brahman in our four works:

An account in Aitareyopaniṣad-Bhāṣya (AiUBh) 3.3 should be added that mentions four categories that resemble the list of eight states of Brahman. In this passage Śaṅkara describes how Brahman is gradually diversified by different limiting adjuncts. First is the highest Brahman freed from any distinction, without stain, taint and action, quiescent, one without second, to be known as “not-, not-” (neti, neti [BAU 2.3.6, 3.9.26, 4.2.4, 4.5.15 etc.]) by the elimination of attributes and beyond words and thought[19]. Next is antaryāmin connected with the pure limiting adjuncts of discrimination (prajñā)[20]. After antaryāmin comes hiraṇyabarbha who is the seed of the manifest world, next is virāj or prajāpati (“lord of creatures”) with his limiting adjuncts and the deity (devatā) after virāj/prajāpati[21]. Here we have a description of how Brahman gets its name and forms from the highest one to a clump of grass in accordance to what limiting adjunct he is connected with. It should be noted that virāj is identified with prajāpati and both of whom are placed below hiraṇyagarbha.

a) Piṇḍa and jāti

Piṇḍa (“material object”, “body”) and jāti (“class[22]”) are the lowest of all states; in Sureśvara’s account piṇḍa is called bhūta while Ānandagiri calls it vyakti (“individual” or “particular”). The term vyakti actually helps to shed some light on the possible function of this category in the eight-fold system as the terms vyakti and jāti are characteristic for Grammar, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika and Mīmāṃsā[23]. Jāti appears already in Pāṇini 4.1.63 and Patañjali cites two verses to explain the nature of jāti mentioned in the Pāṇini’s sūtra[24]. In Nyāya-Sūtra (NS) 2.2.67 vyakti is defined as substratum of specific qualities (vyaktir guṇaviśeṣāśrayo mūrtiḥ) while jāti is the term used for universals in NS. Vaiśeṣika-Sūtras and Padārthadharma-Saṃgrāha seem to prefer the word sāmānya for universals. According to Halbfass (1992:120-122) jāti, a term used for “specific universal” (sāmānyaviśeṣa) in NSBh[25], corresponds to lower or nonultimate universal (aparaṃ sāmānyam) in Padārthadharma-Saṃgrāha. Halbfass (ibid.) also showed that later Vaiśeṣika authors[26] used the term jāti to denote “real” universals. This terminological distinction is important for our small examination because the term piṇḍa denotes concrete individuals in Mīmāṃsā (see for instance Kumārila, Ākṛtivāda, vs. 25).

Piṇḍa means “lump” and than “solid mass”, “material object”, “body”. In BSBh it seems that Śaṅkara does not use the word except for 1.1.13 where it means gross body; in BĀUBh the word piṇḍa is sometimes used as “lump” as in compound māṃsapiṇḍa “lump of flesh” but it is also used quite frequently in the meaning “body”[27].

From all this it seems that the categories piṇḍa and jāti in the system of eight states mean “concrete individual” and “real universal” or “class of real individuals”. Jāti in this more specific sense might be taken from later Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika systems, not from earlier systems where jāti is still not distinguished from sāmānya.

b) Virāj

The term virāj (“a wide-rulling one” or “a wide-shinning one”) denotes in BĀU 4.2.3 the wife of Indhu cryptically called Indra who resides in the left eye[28], in ChU 1.13.2 it denotes speech (vāc) and in ChU 4.3.8 virāj denotes ten, the highest throw of the dice, eater of the food who has sunk his teeth in the whole world[29]. In the Vedic context, virāj is a meter consisting of four pādas of ten syllables each; in ṚS 10.130.5 this meter is connected to Mitra and Varuṇa, in Puruṣa-Sūkta (ṚS 10.90.5) virāj is born from puruṣa and puruṣa is born from virāj[30]; in AiBr 1.4 virāj is, like in ChU, regarded as food. In AV, a hymn 8.9 extolls the virāj meter, in 8.10 virāj is female, she was this Universere in the beginning. In post Vedic literature virāj becomes a sort od secondary creator, in Manu 1.32-33 the One divides itself into two, male and female and out of the female virāj was born, who brought forth Manu himself[31]. In Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh the term virāj appears quite often; in BĀUBh 1.2.2 virāj is first-born and identified with agni and prajāpati[32]. At his introduction to BĀUBh 2.1.1 Śaṅkara describes virāj as conditioned Brahman who has one common external body, Sun and other are his parts. In BĀUBh 3.3.2 the world where people reap the fruits of actions is described as the body of virāj[33]. The body of virāj is again mentioned in BĀUBh 1.3.7 where the ancient patron of sacrifice (pūrvayajamāna) identifies himself with the body of virāj, the present state of prajāpati[34]. In BĀUBh 2.1.1 prāṇa is one god whose external body is designated by words virāj, vaiśvānara (“fire common to all men”), the Self of a human form (ātmā puruṣavidhaḥ), prajāpati, ka, hiraṇyagarbha[35]. In BĀUBh 1.4 Śaṅkara uses these terms prajāpati and virāj interchangeably to denote a lower Brahman. In BĀUBh 1.4.3 virāj created a body, a man and woman without changing himself. In BĀUBh 3.6.1 again the word prajāpatiloka from BĀU 3.6.1 is interpreted as elements composing the body of virāj[36]. These accounts are in accordance with AiUBh 3.3, mentioned before, where virāj is identified with prajāpati. In BSBh the term virāj does not appear, but in Upad 1.17.64 virāj is an external ātman as opposed to prajāpati who remembers within[37]. This account is in a way different than BĀUBh 2.1.1 where prajāpati denotes an external body (bāhyaḥ piṇḍaḥ) and other accounts where virāj and prajāpati are understood as the same categories

c) Sūtra

Sūtra (“thread”) is a category that appears in all Ānandagiri’s accounts while in Sureśvara’s account appears as prāṇa (Ānandagiri glosses prāṇa as sūtra). Sūtra is most probably for Bhartṛprapañca a threadlike cosmic all-pervading category. The term sūtra appears in BĀU 3.7.1-2 where sūtra by which this life, the next life, and all beings are held together is designated as wind (vāyu). Śaṅkara designates sūtra as the innermost of the world of Brahman[38]. Earth, gods and Vedas, are held together by the sūtra and controlled by the inner ruler (antaryāmin). Śaṅkara in BĀUBh 5.5.1 has an account of creation where Brahman as truth (satyabrahman) is the first-born from the Waters. His birth is the birth of sūtrātman or hiraṇyagarbha, or manifestation of avyākṛta (undifferentiated universe)[39]. Further on, this satyabrahman (sūtrātman, hiraṇyagarbha) produced virāj or prajāpati. This account is interesting because virāj is again the same as prajāpati and belongs to a lower step on the cosmological ladder than sūtrātman which is the same as hiraṇyagarbha similar to AiUBh 3.3. This hierarchy is the same as in most of the lists of eight states of Brahman where virāj comes after sūtra.

d) Daiva/devatā

Higher than sūtra is a category named daiva (“divine”, “celestial”) or devatā (“divinity”). Sureśvara calls it indriya (“what belongs to Indra”, “organ of sense”)[40]. In Upaniṣads often the term refers to various vital functions of the body. In BĀU 1.3.2-9 devatās are speech (vāc), breath (prāṇa), sight (cakṣus), hearing (śrotra), mind (manas) [41]. The other term used in older Upaniṣads for this five faculties is prāṇa[42]. Vital functions are called devatā in Upaniṣads because to them analogous deities are attached[43]. For instance, in BĀU 3.2.13 when man dies, speech returns to fire (agni), breath to wind (vāta), sight to the Sun (āditya), hearing to quarters (diś), mind to the Moon (candra) etc. AiU 1.4 has a tripartite analogy: from the mouth sprang speech, and from speech, fire (agni), from the nostrils sprang breath (prāṇa), and from breath, the wind (vāyu) etc[44]. In AiU 2.1 these elements are called deities (devatā).

e) Avyākṛta

The category avyākṛta (“unevolved”) appears in almost all accounts of aṣṭāvasthā except for Śaṅkara’s first account in BĀUBh 3.8.12. The term appears in BĀU 1.4.7[45] where the world before any distinctions brought by name and form is described. Sureśvara in BĀUBhV 1.4.1646 calls the evolution of the world “manifestation of the unevolved” (avyākṛtavyākaraṇa) and Ānandagiri in his gloss on this verse[46] attributes this idea to Bhartṛprapañca. Because of this, Nakamura (2004:141) thinks that avyākṛta should be placed at the head of the five states of Brahman. This can be justified by Sureśvara’s claim in BĀUBhV 1.4.1178 “avyākṛta and others (states) with piṇḍa on the end” (avyākṛtādipiṇḍāntam). It is however curious that in BĀUBhV 1.4.487 Sureśvara places īśvara at the head and avyākṛta on the second place. This terminological inconsistency is striking and might be attributed to metrical reasons. But than it would be hard to explain why Ānandagiri in his other lists placed sākṣin on the first place, and not avyākṛta if he had access to Bhartṛprapañca’s Bhāṣya on BĀU where a systematic exposition of Brahman’s evolution is expected. This might be explained as Sureśvara’s terminological carelessness because to him the process of Brahman’s evolution is not important as it belongs to the relative sphere of illusory existence. In this case avyākṛta was not on the head of the eight states and Ānandagiri’s accounts should be trusted. Second possibility is that they did not have access to the integral text but to some fragmentary records from secondary sources or to some oral tradition. As there are good reasons to believe that Ānandagiri sometimes quotes Bhartṛprapañca’s Bhāṣya[47], we can ask ourselves about the state of his text in the times of Śaṅkara and Sureśvara who have greatest terminological inconsistencies.

f) Antaryāmin, sākṣin and kṣetrajña

Antaryāmin, the Inner Ruler, is described in BĀU 3.7, and this Upaniṣadic passage is discussed in BS 1.2.18 - 20. Antaryāmin is described in BĀU 3.7.3-23 as a Self (ātman) who is present within, but is different from the earth, waters, fire, intermediate region, wind, sky, sun, quarters, moon, space etc. and who controls all these elements from within. At the end (BĀU 3.7.23) it is said that antaryāmin sees but he can't be seen, he hears, but he can't be heard, he thinks, but he can't be thought of; he perceives, but he can't be perceived. Besides him, there is no one who sees, no one who hears, no one who thinks, and no one who perceives[48]. It is obvious that antaryāmin is an epistemological and metaphysical category and not a cosmological category like sūtra, devatā, virāj and avyākṛta. In his commentary on BĀU 3.8.12, Śaṅkara says that highest Brahman limited with adjuncts of the power of unsurpassed and eternal knowledge (nityaniratiśayajñānaśaktyupādhi) is called antaryāmin or īśvara[49]. At the beginning of the paper AiUBh 3.3 is mentioned where antaryāmin is also understood as īśvara endowed with limiting adjunct of prajñā.

The term sākṣin (“witness”) does not appear in BĀU or other ancient prose Upaniṣads[50], but it appears in ŚvU 6.11 as a god hidden in all beings, pervading the universe, the inner Self of all beings devoid of all qualities[51]. Sākṣin appears in BhG 9.18 where Kṛṣṇa says for himself that he is sākṣin[52] and in Maitrāyaṇīya-Upaniṣad 6.16. Śaṅkara does not mention often the term sākṣin in BĀUBh; however, BĀUBh 4.4.12 should be mentioned where the supreme Self is a witness (sākṣin) of the cognition of all beings[53].

The term kṣetrajña (“knower of the field”) appears in ŚvU 6.16, MaiU 2.5[54] and many times in MBh (especially in Mokṣadharma-parvan) where kṣetra- (field) was synonymous for prakṛti.[55] In MBh kṣetrajña is the highest spiritual principle higher than buddhi[56] and in MBh 12.187.12 and 12.239.15 kṣetrajña is called sākṣin (“witness”). In the number of passages[57], kṣetrajña as a spiritual principle is a counterpart to sattva, which van Buitenen (1988:88) designates as sum-total of world creation. It also appears in Manu 8.96 and most famously in BhG 13.1-2, 26. The term appears always in the context of Sāṃkhya philosophy and Frauwallner (2003:188) considers it to be a term for the soul (Seele) in early Sāṃkhya[58]. In BhG 13.2 Kṛṣṇa is kṣetrajña while in 13.26 it appears that kṣetrajña is individual puruṣa who constitutes a being when he is connected with kṣetra (prakṛti)[59].

The term is used by Śaṅkara in the context of the eight states of Brahman and once by Ānandagiri together with sākṣin and avyākṛta on the place where the term antaryāmin is more usual. In Śaṅkara’s terminology kṣetrajña is usually understood as the lower Self or individual soul[60].

Antaryāmin (“inner ruler”) and sākṣin (“witness”) are on the top of Ānandagiri’s lists and if Ānandagiri had access to Bhartṛprapañca’s text and these categories really were the first ones, than the eight states should not be interpreted in a cosmological sense. Sākṣin as an epistemological category most probably means a witness or subject of cognition and the subject of cognition is regarded as the highest ātman in BĀU[61]. Such a category is expected to be on the top of the list before a cosmological account of differentiation of the universe starting with avyākṛta. It is however not clear what might be the exact difference between sākṣin and antaryāmin in Bhartṛprapañca’s scheme.

Concluding remarks

If the notion that Bhartṛprapañca’s teaching of the eight states of Brahman starts with non-cosmological categories sākṣin and antaryāmin is correct, than it can be supposed, with a grain of salt, that Bhartṛprapañca’s list of the eight states of Brahman are literary delivered by Ānandagiri in both of his commentaries. In that case Śaṅkara and Sureśvara loosely paraphrased Bhartṛprapañca with a striking terminological inconsistency. If this is true, Bhartṛprapañca’s scheme starts with the epistemological category of witness (of cognition?) as the highest state of Brahman, than the evolution proceeds with antaryāmin, a metaphysical category, who is present in everything and rules everything from within. These terms are most probably in different accounts of Śaṅkara and Sureśvara paraphrased with terms kṣetrajña (“knower of the field”), īśvara (“Lord”) and hiraṇyagarbha (“golden embryo”). After these two topmost categories, cosmological account starts with unevolved principle which evolves gradually first into divinities (Gods, planets) on macrocosmical level corresponding to the vital functions of the body on the microcosmical level. Than comes the all-pervading sūtra and virāj who represents the one body of the universe. After virāj comes the class (generic property) and at the end individual beings. Six upper states of Ānandagiri’s list come from BĀU with the exception of the term sākṣin which does not appear in BĀU although the concept is present in the concepts of draṣṭṛ (seer), śrotṛ (hearer), mantṛ (thinker), vijñātṛ (cognizer); the term sākṣin probably stands for these terms. The last two categories do not appear in BĀU neither as terms, neither conceptually: they are most probably borrowed from late Nyāya/Vaiśeṣika (where jāti is a concrete type of sāmānya). Because of this it might be supposed that Bhartṛprapañca’s teaching of the eight states was formulated as a result of the exegesis of these particular terms and concepts from BĀU where the ancient interpreter had to order these different accounts of Brahman in a systematic fashion.

References

ĀnSS 16, (1892) Vol 1: ānandāśramasaṃkṛtagranthāvaliḥ / granthāṅkaḥ 16 / bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhṣyavārtikam / ānandagirikṛtaśāstraprakāśikākhyaṭīkāsaṃvalitam / (tatra saṃbandhavārtikam) etat pustakaṃ ve. śā. rā. rā. kāśinātha śāstrī āgāśe ity etaiḥ saṃśodhitam / tac ca mahādeva cimaṇājī āpaṭe ity anena punyākhyapattane ānandāśramamudraṇālaye āyasākṣarair mudrayitvā prakāśitam / śālivāhanaśakābdāḥ 1814 / Khristābdāḥ 1892.

ĀnSS 16, (1893) Vol 2: … (tatra prathamādhyāyadvitīyādhyāyarūpo dvitīyo bhāgaḥ) … śālivāhanaśakābdāḥ 1815 / Khristābdāḥ 1893.

ĀnSS 16, (1893) Vol 3: … (tatra tṛtīyādhyāyadārabhya ṣaṣṭhāntatṛtīyo ’ntyo bhāgaḥ)… śālivāhanaśakābdāḥ 1815 / Khristābdāḥ 1893.

ĀnSS 15, (1891) ānandāśramasaṃkṛtagranthāvaliḥ / granthāṅkaḥ 15 / bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat / ānandagirikṛtaṭīkāsaṃvalitaśāṃkarabhāṣyasametā / etat pustakaṃ ve. śā. rā. rā. kāśinātha śāstrī āgāśe ity etaiḥ saṃśodhitam / tac ca ṃahādeva cimaṇāji āpaṭe ity anena punyākhyapattane ānandāśramamudraṇālaye āyasākṣarair mudrayitvā prakāśitam / śālivāhanaśakābdāḥ 1813 / khristābdāḥ 1891.

ĀnSS 34, (1897) Shrīmat Bhagavadgīta with the Bhāshya by Śrīmat Śankarāchārya, the Commentary by Analagiri on the Same. Ed. Pandit Kāsīnātha Śāstrī Āgāse. Poone: Ānandāśrama Press.

Brahmasūtra with Śaṅkarabhāṣya, Works of Śaṅkarācārya in original Sanskrt, vol. III., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (1965, reprint 2007).

Ten Principal Upaniṣads with Śaṅkarabhāṣya, Works of Śaṅkarācārya in original Sanskrt, vol. 1, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (1964, reprint 2007).

Andrijanić, I. (2015). Quotations and (lost) commentaries in Advaita Vedānta. Some philological notes on Bhartṛprapañca’s 'fragments’. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 43, 257-276.

Dasgupta, S. (1922). A History of Indian Philosophy I-V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deussen, P. (1899). Die Philosophie der Upanishad’s, Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, I. 2. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.

Frauwallner, E. (2003). Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, I. Band. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.

Halbfass, W. (1992). On Being and What There Is, Classical Vaiśeṣika and the History of Indian Onthology. Albany: State University of New York.

Harimoto, K. (2006). The Date of Śaṅkara: Between the Cāḷukyas and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, Journal of Indological Studies, 18, 86-111.

Hino, S., & Jog K. P. (Eds.). (1993). Sureśvara’s vārtika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Hiriyanna, M. (1924a). Bhartrprapañca, an old Vedāntin, Indian Antiquary. Mysore: Kavyalaya Publishers.

Hiriyanna, M. (1924b). Fragments of Bhartrprapanca. Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference 3, 439-450.

Ježić, M. (1999). Ṛgvedske upaniṣadi. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Jha, G. (1942). Purva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources. Varanasi: the Banaras Hindu University.

Keith, A. B. (1925). The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads. MA: Harvard University Press.

Mayeda, S. (2006). Śaṅkara's Upadeśasāhasrī Vols I & II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Nakamura, H. (2004). A History of Early Vedānta philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Olivelle, P. (Ed.). (1998). The Early Upaniṣads. NY: Oxford University Press.

Olivelle, P. (2005). Manu’s Code of Law, A Critical Edition and Translation of Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford Univerisity Press.

Rau, W. (1960.). Bemerkungen zu Śaṅkaras Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya, Paideuma 7, 115-121.

Scharf, P. M. (1996). The Denotation of Generic terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy: Grammar, Nyāya, and Mīmāṃsā. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Satchidānandendra, S. S. (1989). The Method of Vedānta: A critical Account of the Advaita Tradition, London: Kegan Paul Internat, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1981). Bhagavadgītā in the Mahābhārata. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1988). Studies in Indian Literature and Philosophy, Collected Articles of J.A.B. van Buitenen. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Notes