‘PRANAVA’ AS SAGUNA BRAHMAN

‘Pranava’ as Saguna Brahman

In the Upanishads the status of Pranava (Omkara, Om syllable) as a means to attain liberation is quite popular.  Shankara summarizes those references in his commentary to the Bh.G. 8.12 introduction: स यो ह वै तद्भगवन्मनुष्येषु प्रायणान्तमोङ्कारमभिध्यायीत कतमम् वाव स तेन लोकं जयतीति । ’ (प्र. उ. ५ । १)‘तस्मै स होवाच एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोङ्कारः’ (प्र. उ. ५ । २)इत्युपक्रम्य ‘यः पुनरेतं त्रिमात्रेणोमित्येतेनैवाक्षरेण परं पुरुषमभिध्यायीत — स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकम्’ (प्र. उ. ५ । ५) इत्यादिना वचनेन, ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मात्’ (क. उ. १ । २ । १४) इति चउपक्रम्य ‘सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति । तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति । यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्यं चरन्ति तत्ते पदं सङ्ग्रहेण ब्रवीम्योमित्येतत्’ (क. उ. १ । २ ।   १५) इत्यादिभिश्च वचनैः परस्य ब्रह्मणो वाचकरूपेण, प्रतिमावत् प्रतीकरूपेण वा, परब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिसाधनत्वेन मन्दमध्यमबुद्धीनां विवक्षितस्य ओङ्कारस्य उपासनं कालान्तरे मुक्तिफलम् उक्तं यत् , तदेव इहापि ‘कविं पुराणमनुशासितारम्’ (भ. गी. ८ । ९)‘यदक्षरं वेदविदो वदन्ति’ (भ. गी. ८ । ११) इति च उपन्यस्तस्य परस्य ब्रह्मणः पूर्वोक्तरूपेण प्रतिपत्त्युपायभूतस्य ओङ्कारस्य कालान्तरमुक्तिफलम् उपासनं योगधारणासहितं वक्तव्यम् , प्रसक्तानुप्रसक्तंच यत्किञ्चित् , इत्येवमर्थः उत्तरो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते —

The Prashnopanishat 5.1, 25, the Kathopanishat 1.2.14,15 teach that the Omkara is upasya for krama mukti. This is applied in the Bh.G.8.9, 11, etc. Anandagiri says here:

तच्च उपासनं ब्रह्मदृष्ट्या श्रुतिभिरुपदिष्टम् , इत्यर्थः । तस्य क्रममुक्तिफलत्वात् अनुष्ठेयत्वं सूचयति – कालान्तरेति ।

This upasana, with the idea that ‘Omkara is Brahman’ leads to liberation through the process of krama mukti and therefore prescribed.

Shankara, at the end of the chapter 8.23 introduces the verse thus:  प्रकृतानां योगिनां प्रणवावेशितब्रह्मबुद्धीनां कालान्तरमुक्तिभाजां ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तये  [the yogins spoken of here who have infused the brahma buddhi in the pranava, who intend to get liberated through the krama mukti proces…  ] Anandagiri says here:  सगुणशरणानां तदुपदेशो अर्थवान्  [the specification of the maarga, path, of these saguna brahma upasakas is quite in order…]

From the above it is very clear that Omkara is a prateeka, symbol, for Brahman. And it is considered a form of Saguna Brahman. This is definitely not a deity like Vishnu, Shiva, etc. It is a separate category by itself. Deities such as Vishnu, Ishwara (Shiva), Indra, Prana as upasya with Brahma drishti has been admitted by Shankara in the Kenopanishat 1.5 bhashya:  तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, while refuting the idea that jiva (upasaka) cannot be brahman (upasya). Shankara also admits images, saligrama, of deities such as Vishnu, etc. as symbols/pratimaa for this purpose. Thus Shankara nowhere restricts the upaya to one deity alone. He offers an extremely broad variety for the aspirant to choose from, depending on his inclination. This idea of ‘inclination’ has been stressed by the commentators to the Narayaneeyam.

This very concept of deploying the saguna brahman as a means, upaya, for nirguna brahma realization is summarized by the famous verse of Amalananda in the Kalpataru:

निर्विशेषं परं ब्रह्म साक्षात्कर्तुमनीश्वराः ।
ये मन्दास्तेऽनुकम्प्यन्ते सविशेषनिरूपणैः ।

वशीकृते मनस्तेषां सगुणब्रह्मशीलनात् ।
तदेवाविर्भवेत्साक्षादपेतोपाधिकल्पनम् ॥

 

The scripture, out of compassion, prescribes saguṇa brahma upāsana for those who are ‘manda‘, incapable of realizing the nirguna brahman. When they have tamed their mind by saguna brahma worship, etc. then the realization of nirguna brahman is only a matter of happening.

This idea of saguna brahma upasana is for manda adhikarins is endorsed by Anandagiri in his gloss for the BGB 8.12 introduction cited above:  परब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिसाधनत्वेन मन्दमध्यमबुद्धीनां विवक्षितस्य ओङ्कारस्य उपासनं कालान्तरे मुक्तिफलम्

Thus, in Advaita taught by Shankara there is no compulsion/imposition that a deity (Vishnu) alone can be saguna brahman. Any deity, a symbol, can play the role of saguna brahman. In fact Swami Vidyaranya, in the Panchadashi has discoursed at length on this concept and has said even a blade of grass, the ashwattha tree, a bamboo tree, local deities, etc. can all qualify for meditation, upasana, as Ishwara. Non-advaitins who have not studied the Shankara bhashya thoroughly have erroneously concluded that ‘Shankara admitted Vishnu alone as saguna brahman’ thereby making Advaita also a deity-centered system no different from theirs. This laughable, completely un-shaankaran, idea they even propagate nonchalantly to their gullible readers. A vishishtdvaitin scholar Sri Krishnaswamy Iyengar’s Tamil book ‘Sankararum Vainavamum’ is an example for this sad situation.

Om Tat Sat